Burnaby Updates

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

There is no way you can do a Smith Station if you keep Patterson I assume? And even 2500 units isn't going to be enough to justify a station even with Wall's project next door.

Burnaby didn't like the compromise option. They went with Patterson to help the development of Metrotown and high density housing east of the park.

https://urbanshift.ca/wp-content/upl...in-Burnaby.pdf

Thanks for this background - the rationale for Patterson over Smith made sense back then (to help the Metrotown development) though I'd now say that Metrotown station serves the Patterson area just fine and that Smith, today, seems like the slightly better spot to have a station between Joyce and Metrotown.

That ship has sailed though and I can't imagine a Smith station showing up in the next 20 years - only if density really goes through the roof in that area (which is possible). With the rezoning for transit area developments adding stations becomes a lot more interesting as they automatically will get density built around it so the financials for everyone makes more sense - I'd imagine over time that we'll see a few more stations added b/c of that (like at 57th and 33rd on the Canada Line, maybe between Main/Commercial on Expo line though not much residential there).

[FarmerHaight]

The stations would be quite close together - four stations over 2.5 kilometres, or on average about 600m apart - but that's similar to the spacing in DT Vancouver. Also - and this illustrates how frustrating the low density around these stations is - Nanimo and 29th Ave are about 800m apart while Joyce-Collingwood to Smith St is 1km while Smith St to Paterson is 700m.

I think three factors influence whether Translink would (or should) consider adding an infill station:
1. The willingness of H&R and Burnaby to fund a significant portion (or all) of the construction costs.
2. Burnaby's willingness to extend the Metrotown plan or create a new high density neighbourhood plan around the station (bye bye Garden Village SFHs).
3. Whether Swangard gets a major reno and sees significantly more, and more attended, events in the future.

Number two above may not matter much, because at least with the Province's rapid transit station guidelines we would see a lot of density here outside of the Boot development automatically.

A 10,000 seat stadium could drive significant ridership during events (although what events, and what permanent tenant, would come to an expanded Swangard and max out the capacity?). Another point is the swimming pool, picnic area, playground, and horseshoe pitch would all be marginally better served by a station closer to the west side of the park.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by ecbin

... maybe between Main/Commercial on Expo line though not much residential there).

I highly doubt you'll get a VCC-Clark connection. To make it more useful than transferring at Commercial, they'd have to put it on the west side of Clark... and that means a years-long shutdown and track realignment.

[jollyburger]

The only other reason I could see a Smith option is if you had enough density around Patterson that would require expanding the station. Instead of upgrading the central platform you just build a new station to the west of it.

Maybe for added density they throw in some of the park land on the NE corner of Central Park. It would be about 1/2 the size of Amazing Brentwood

[djmk]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

The only other reason I could see a Smith option is if you had enough density around Patterson that would require expanding the station. Instead of upgrading the central platform you just build a new station to the west of it.

Maybe for added density they throw in some of the park land on the NE corner of Central Park. It would be about 1/2 the size of Amazing Brentwood

why put it on Smith when you can have it on Vanness @ Boundary? It's really dense there

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by ecbin

Thanks for this background - the rationale for Patterson over Smith made sense back then (to help the Metrotown development) though I'd now say that Metrotown station serves the Patterson area just fine and that Smith, today, seems like the slightly better spot to have a station between Joyce and Metrotown.

That ship has sailed though and I can't imagine a Smith station showing up in the next 20 years - only if density really goes through the roof in that area (which is possible). With the rezoning for transit area developments adding stations becomes a lot more interesting as they automatically will get density built around it so the financials for everyone makes more sense - I'd imagine over time that we'll see a few more stations added b/c of that (like at 57th and 33rd on the Canada Line, maybe between Main/Commercial on Expo line though not much residential there).

A Smith station would have made more sense then - now that ship has definitely sailed. I suspect when Burnaby council discovers that building a station there means risking their only viewcone they'll suddenly lose interest.

Originally Posted by jollyburger

The only other reason I could see a Smith option is if you had enough density around Patterson that would require expanding the station. Instead of upgrading the central platform you just build a new station to the west of it.

Maybe for added density they throw in some of the park land on the NE corner of Central Park. It would be about 1/2 the size of Amazing Brentwood

I'm not sure if the idea of losing any of Central Park to residential development is zero or in the negative numbers. These housing policies are for areas zoned for residential - not for industrial or existing parks to be converted to residential.

Central Park basically covers half of the Patterson station 'bubble' and a station at Smith Ave would be the same (plus the viewcone there). The area won't have enough density to support a new station. Plus it's not like there isn't a FTN bus route on Kingsway...

Here's the basic map that was posted in the other thread.

Originally Posted by djmk

why put it on Smith when you can have it on Vanness @ Boundary? It's really dense there

...because The Boot redevelopment is pondering it. Plus putting a station there puts it really close to Joyce station (which people can take a bus to if they can't walk 650m).

[djmk]

Originally Posted by Sheba

...because The Boot redevelopment is pondering it. Plus putting a station there puts it really close to Joyce station (which people can take a bus to if they can't walk 650m).

vanness is just on the other side of the boot. Yes its closer to Joyce but further from Patterson. It's actually closer to being in the middle

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I highly doubt you'll get a VCC-Clark connection. To make it more useful than transferring at Commercial, they'd have to put it on the west side of Clark... and that means a years-long shutdown and track realignment.

My recollection (think it's been mentioned several times on Daily Hive) is that there is a provision for a station around where it passes by the Home Depot on Terminal. I'm not sure where that is as it seems the track is still too high off the ground at that point.

In that spot I'd be skeptical of the value of it with the surrounding area considering it's all light industrial but if that are ever got rezoned to allow a residential development then it could make a lot of sense.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I'm not sure if the idea of losing any of Central Park to residential development is zero or in the negative numbers. These housing policies are for areas zoned for residential - not for industrial or existing parks to be converted to residential.

Or if they built a new stadium on that corner lot and then redeveloped the existing site of Swangard. Agreed there's a close to zero chance of it happening..

[madog222]

Originally Posted by ecbin

My recollection (think it's been mentioned several times on Daily Hive) is that there is a provision for a station around where it passes by the Home Depot on Terminal. I'm not sure where that is as it seems the track is still too high off the ground at that point.

In that spot I'd be skeptical of the value of it with the surrounding area considering it's all light industrial but if that are ever got rezoned to allow a residential development then it could make a lot of sense.

No, not down on Terminal. The only possible location for a future station in the area without completely rebuilding the guideway is immediately east of Clark.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by ecbin

... In that spot I'd be skeptical of the value of it with the surrounding area considering it's all light industrial but if that are ever got rezoned to allow a residential development then it could make a lot of sense.

Indeed. It would also be in the middle of nowhere, ridership-wise; at least east of Clark you've got a college, a tech hub and access to the 22 and M-Line...

Originally Posted by madog222

No, not down on Terminal. The only possible location for a future station in the area without completely rebuilding the guideway is immediately east of Clark.

... That said, it's not a very good M-Line transfer either. A connection to VCC-Clark means either a complicated pedestrian underpass, or a level street crossing that makes it preferable to just switch trains at Commercial.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That said, it's not a very good M-Line transfer either. A connection to VCC-Clark means either a complicated pedestrian underpass, or a level street crossing that makes it preferable to just switch trains at Commercial.

Yup, never going to happen now that there is VCC-Clark.

[officedweller]

A transfer station at VCC Clark wouldn't be that difficult to connect to each other.
If the Expo Line track is banked there, the station could be farther east and walkways next to the guideway could cross Clark.
...but unlikely with Commercial-Broadway next door.
The only reason would be if there was an high speed rail station below on BNSF track.

i.e. using Giallo's pic.

[ecbin]

Browsing the Expo line's Wikipedia page and a mention is made about the station by Smith:

In the planning of the original line, a proposed future station at Boundary Road and Kingsway, or "Boundary station" was to be included to serve employees of BCTel. However, the proposal was scrapped largely due to a fear of the station attracting crime to the neighbourhood and noise-level concerns

It's says a citation is needed for this so could be 100% made up but I find the concerns funny.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by ecbin

Browsing the Expo line's Wikipedia page and a mention is made about the station by Smith:



It's says a citation is needed for this so could be 100% made up but I find the concerns funny.

Probably getting off topic to continue talking about this here but one last PDF if you are curious:

https://search.heritageburnaby.ca/vi...t&phrase=false

There's a bunch of PDFs on that site if you want to know more about the planning.

[officedweller]

Pics of the proposed towers next to the Telus Boot from Burnaby Now:


https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...toreys-7957610


https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...toreys-7957610

and that LRT diagram (also in the link posted by Jollyburger):


https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...toreys-7957610

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

im sad how much they overshadow the telus boot; always liked that building.

but man that makes the buildings on the CoV side look tiny. wonder if they were scaled down?

[logan5]

Interesting fact from a Daily Hive article on this project -

The existing towers on the Vancouver side were intentionally designed to match the height of the Boot, in accordance to the City of Vancouver’s urban design preferences.

I wonder if that design preference actually accomplished anything.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by logan5

Interesting fact from a Daily Hive article on this project -



I wonder if that design preference actually accomplished anything.

It was a point of amusement not that long ago on these forums.
The idea that Vancouver set a height limit for tower proposals in that area based on a tower that was not even within their municipal boundaries - even while Burnaby, where the Boot sits, has no such height limitations in the immediate vicinity of it (as shown by this project)* and would happily welcome 50, 60 storey towers.


(*the caveat of course being that the Boot sits right next to Burnaby's lone viewcone protecting the view to Central Park from Northern Burnaby.
But as these towers sit just outside that viewcone along with the Boot, they're under no viewcone height restriction.)

And since they also happen to sit within the designated Metrotown "Downtown" core allowing for density, it means you could have a cluster of very tall towers straddling Central Park on one side of the boundary, while on the Vancouver side you have pockets of much shorter towers that are height restricted by a tower that's not even visible anymore since it's dwarfed by all the neighbouring (Burnaby) towers.

It's truly bizarre.
....and sort of funny.

[officedweller]

It's along the same lines as designing for the existing character of a neighbourhood,
which is pretty short-sighted if the neighbourhood is going to undergo any form of change or densification.

All those mid-rises along arterials that step down to the single-family houses with townhouses out back will end up backig onto taller buildings with densification trends.