Burnaby Updates

[logan5]

Originally Posted by ecbin

That particular policy doesn't apply to Vancouver - the province is letting them off the hook b/c Vancouver rolled out their multiplex policy before the province did. I'm not sure why they're doing that as the provincial policy isn't THAT different - it's just higher FSR (1-1.2 vs 1.5 in most cases) for the most part.

Also, why bother with a frequent transit policy for 6 plexes if Vancouver is exempt? The vast majority of frequent transit routes are in the CoV.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by logan5

Also, why bother with a frequent transit policy for 6 plexes if Vancouver is exempt? The vast majority of frequent transit routes are in the CoV.

I'm pretty sure the 6 Plex is a floor that even CoV would be required to have even if they got grandfathered because of their other changes to SFH zoning.

[Changing City]

There's a dedicated thread for the provincial policy changes, and how they're being introduced. So far, as was noted, the SSMUH 4-plex and 6-plex policy has not been legislated, while some of the TOA (transit oriented areas) locations have been.

So for now, there's no requirement for municipalities to allow those higher density types of housing, but there are statements that suggest some legislative change will be introduced.

As this is the Burnaby thread, and the question that started this off was whether the houses on the Vancouver side of Boundary would be redeveloped, maybe we should move the conversation? The answer for now seems to be that there's no current policy that would allow that, but there may be in future. It depends on how the SSMUH policy is legislated.

As it applies in Vancouver, the policy statement says municipalities who had already allowed more density in single family areas wouldn't have to change, although if they want to, they can adopt the provincial suggested guidelines. It specifically identified Vancouver as a municipality that already changed their zoning, but Burnaby isn't mentioned, and will have to amend their OCP.

[jollyburger]

Burnaby Receives $43M From Federal Housing Accelerator Fund After DCC Standoff

On Tuesday, the Government of Canada announced that it has reached an agreement with the City of Burnaby regarding their Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF) application, which will see British Columbia's third-largest city receive $43M towards new housing.

The $43M is expected to fast track 1,290 housing units over the next three years and 11,340 homes over the next 10 years.

HAF money is released in installments. After an initial installment, municipal governments must fulfill the requirements as outlined in their agreements — amending policy or approving new policy, as two examples — before further installments are released.

https://storeys.com/burnaby-housing-...-announcement/

[Lexus]

2023-12-30

Riviera

Untitled by Lexus LX600, on Flickr

[Sheba]

That development by Royal Oak Station (REZ #20-27, 6877 - 6945 Palm Avenue, new mid-rise mixed-use development with non-market housing, offices, café / commissary and child care facility) the site has been cleared so I'm guessing it'll start construction soon.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Taller =/= better. Wake me up fifty years from now when they get around to adding more transit, any amenities, or any kind of density north of the SkyTrain tracks; until then, this is a bedroom community for drivers, which Vancouver should avoid doing.

Bedroom community for drivers? Looks like you are referring to Vancouver outside downtown. *Chuckle chuckle*

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Bedroom community for drivers? Looks like you are referring to Vancouver outside downtown. *Chuckle chuckle*

Suburban Vancouver's getting better. Burnaby's doubling down instead. Only one of them's going to see any kind of vibrancy come 2050, and it's not Burnaby.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by Vin

Burnaby is just flexing its muscles to show Vancouver how they can do it so much better. It's all good because Vancouver will get inspired, albeit slowly.

Burnaby is no hellhole but I scoff at anyone who says Burnaby is doing it better than Vancouver. No city in the GVRD has squandered more opportunity to build a great city than Burnaby - next to Vancouver they have the best infrastructure (minus sidewalks, streetlights, and crosswalks) and are right next to the bulk of the jobs and yet it's run like some suburb an hour away from Vancouver.

The lack of leadership and vision in the Mayor's office leads directly to failed initiatives like the new City Hall (probably reasonably needed), the waste recycling plant (a terrible idea with bad financials), and the NIMBY-ism that's hollowing the city of its middle and working class residents. The province should just force Burnaby to amalgamate with Vancouver so we can finally get around to building a great city out of Burnaby.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by Sheba

That development by Royal Oak Station (REZ #20-27, 6877 - 6945 Palm Avenue, new mid-rise mixed-use development with non-market housing, offices, café / commissary and child care facility) the site has been cleared so I'm guessing it'll start construction soon.

I guess this is what you're talking about?




Glad to see it moving forward.

I took a "walk" around the site in google streetview and it's almost entirely surrounded by industrial buildings and devoid of sidewalks.
There's not even a paved path under the guideway connecting to the skytrain station. Not sure what Burnaby's plans are for the immediate area but with this development they should at least look at building a sidewalk along the entire length of Palm north to Imperial as well as establishing a paved link to the skytrain station.

[logan5]

Still waiting for phase 2 of the Royal Oak Plan, but this project would indicate that the large industrial area will become eligible for highrise towers.

With no giant mall and a tight street grid, Royal Oak will be a lot more pedestrian friendly than Metrotown or Brentwood. Industrial lands get developed far faster than residential lands, so this area will come together quite quickly.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by ecbin

Burnaby is no hellhole but I scoff at anyone who says Burnaby is doing it better than Vancouver. No city in the GVRD has squandered more opportunity to build a great city than Burnaby - next to Vancouver they have the best infrastructure (minus sidewalks, streetlights, and crosswalks) and are right next to the bulk of the jobs and yet it's run like some suburb an hour away from Vancouver.

The lack of leadership and vision in the Mayor's office leads directly to failed initiatives like the new City Hall (probably reasonably needed), the waste recycling plant (a terrible idea with bad financials), and the NIMBY-ism that's hollowing the city of its middle and working class residents. The province should just force Burnaby to amalgamate with Vancouver so we can finally get around to building a great city out of Burnaby.

If Burnaby were amalgamated with Vancouver two decades ago, today it would become a picket fence Vancouver-Special suburb, with city-planning strictly adhering to Viewcones, Human Scale and Shadowing policies. Expect the Burnaby Heritage Village to be shut and Deer Lake fenced off due to a lack of funds from Parks Board. Coquitlam and New Westminster will see even more skycrapers and big projects due to developers moving further inland to build.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by Vin

If Burnaby were amalgamated with Vancouver two decades ago, today it would become a picket fence Vancouver-Special suburb, with city-planning strictly adhering to Viewcones, Human Scale and Shadowing policies.

So 95% of Burnaby currently?

Height does not equal density, so Burnaby might have taller towers now than would have been allowed by Vancouver, but density would have undoubtedly been allowed in more of the City than Burnaby ever has.

Who knows if that would have resulted in more housing overall, but Burnaby also isn't the forward thinking pro housing City you keep trying to make it out to be.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by Vin

If Burnaby were amalgamated with Vancouver two decades ago, today it would become a picket fence Vancouver-Special suburb, with city-planning strictly adhering to Viewcones, Human Scale and Shadowing policies. Expect the Burnaby Heritage Village to be shut and Deer Lake fenced off due to a lack of funds from Parks Board. Coquitlam and New Westminster will see even more skycrapers and big projects due to developers moving further inland to build.

So you mean Burnaby would have actually done something meaningful in the last 20 years to address the housing crisis by densifying SFH communities? They would have encouraged more duplexes, smaller lots, laneways, and secondary suites far sooner than real life Burnaby? They'd likely have a population density that is perhaps 70% of Vancouver's versus 40% (about 200k more people, likely 100-120k more housing units).

[Migrant_Coconut]

Burnaby only got around to allowing basement suites and laneways last year, and only because the province forced their hand. Doesn't matter how tall the luxury condos get - in terms of actual density and housing, the City of Vancouver is twenty years ahead of them.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Burnaby only got around to allowing basement suites and laneways last year, and only because the province forced their hand. Doesn't matter how tall the luxury condos get - in terms of actual density and housing, the City of Vancouver is twenty years ahead of them.

By population density it's even worse - Vancouver had more density than Burnaby back in the 1951 census. While Vancouver and Surrey (and New West) got busy with building homes (relatively speaking), Burnaby sat on their asses for the past 70 years.

IMO, no GVRD city should get more blame for the housing crisis than Burnaby - they had nearly as many resources to support housing as Vancouver did and wasted it and it's not like they built an alternative (like say a home for the super rich or something or a tourist destination) - it's little more than a city people drive through to get to Vancouver. Pathetic leadership for the past 50+ years.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

So 95% of Burnaby currently?

Height does not equal density, so Burnaby might have taller towers now than would have been allowed by Vancouver, but density would have undoubtedly been allowed in more of the City than Burnaby ever has.

Who knows if that would have resulted in more housing overall, but Burnaby also isn't the forward thinking pro housing City you keep trying to make it out to be.

Where did you get the 95% from BTW?

This is the direction Burnaby town centres are heading, which will ultimately make it the clear winner when it comes to creating more dense neighbourhoods in recent times.

Originally Posted by gaviscon

https://faulknerbrowns.com/featured-...ugheed-highway

Dec 4, '23: "Permit construction of a high-density mixed-tenure
residential development atop a commercial/retail podium
and underground parking. "

https://www.burnaby.ca/sites/default...t-Projects.pdf

Definitely won't be seeing anything like this if Burnaby were part of Vancouver now.

Only gullible folks will believe that "laneway housing" can create more density than what Burnaby is doing now. You're just kidding yourself.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Doesn't matter how tall the luxury condos get - in terms of actual density and housing, the City of Vancouver is twenty years ahead of them.

Joke of the year.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by ecbin

By population density it's even worse - Vancouver had more density than Burnaby back in the 1951 census. While Vancouver and Surrey (and New West) got busy with building homes (relatively speaking), Burnaby sat on their asses for the past 70 years.

IMO, no GVRD city should get more blame for the housing crisis than Burnaby - they had nearly as many resources to support housing as Vancouver did and wasted it and it's not like they built an alternative (like say a home for the super rich or something or a tourist destination) - it's little more than a city people drive through to get to Vancouver. Pathetic leadership for the past 50+ years.

Comparing Burnaby and Vancouver's official densities isn't that useful because Burnaby has massive parks, and some farmland, that Vancouver simply does not have. If you remove the forest along the inlet, Burnaby Mountain parkland (but keeping the developed area at SFU), Deer and Burnaby Lake parks, and the farmland/business parks at Big Bend, Burnaby has an area of about 60 sqkm as opposed to 98. This gives Burnaby a density of 4200/sqkm. Still less than Vancouver's 5700, but a big difference from the official 2500. That being said Burnaby still could have done more for housing.

[jollyburger]

Seems a bit naive to complain about the suburbs of a major city not being dense enough. Sure there are zoning/development differences but it has as much to do with land values/development cycles.

Do the population densities exclude cemeteries/parks/farms/industrial etc? Or is it on a pure boundary area measurement?

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Vin

Where did you get the 95% from BTW?

This is the direction Burnaby town centres are heading, which will ultimately make it the clear winner when it comes to creating more dense neighbourhoods in recent times.



Definitely won't be seeing anything like this if Burnaby were part of Vancouver now.

Only gullible folks will believe that "laneway housing" can create more density than what Burnaby is doing now. You're just kidding yourself.




Joke of the year.

Agree. It's more like 40 years ahead.

There are so many more dense nodes in Vancouver, and a lot more to come, compared to Burnaby. Vancouver is going to pull even further ahead of Burnaby. Metrotown is awful. It has density but is not vibrant or walkable at all.