Quote:
Originally Posted by BaddieB
This is just a wrong statement. Gilmore is the edge of the neighbourhood. To the south is one block of mid-rise apartments, then Still Creek, then industrial and Hwy 1. To the west is more industrial/office park land and a massive substation. There are some apartments to the north, but there is also a massive cemetery. I doubt Burnaby plans on upzoning that land too.
Brentwood on the other hand is surrounded on all sides with massive developments, and lots that will become massive developments. Not to mention a developing mall, which will rival Metrotown Mall.
Brentwood absolutely eclipses Gilmore.
|
I'm not wrong, you're just extremely inconsistent. Everything you're saying can be applied to both potential stations. Brentwood is also limited by a cemetery, swaths of SFHs which will be upzoned by the provincial TOD requirements but likely won't be seeing highrises this generation, low rise (not mid rise) apartments to the east and southeast, and the Still Creek industrial lands. You also should not be so closed-minded to rigidly think that having a Gilmore Station connection won't give Burnaby a chance to consider development opportunities west of Gilmore. Substations can be buried if the economics make sense, and office parks can become office builds/mixed office residential. Cemeteries are bit harder to work with but the cemetery isn't even within 400m of the Skytrain Station.
Gilmore also has "massive developments, and lots that will become massive developments" surrounding it as well, or are you not up to speed with the Gilmore Place and Buchanan West plans? Quite frankly, the area immediately surrounding Gilmore Station is poised to be significantly denser than Brentwood in the coming years.
As I've mentioned previously, it's undeniable that Brentwood has a bit more ridership potential than Gilmore but to pretend that it eclipses Gilmore the way that Metrotown eclipses Patterson is unreasonable and pretty ridiculous.
Quote:
Consider why that is the case. Burquitlam to Moody is a very steep area that is also presently low density with zero commercial, unlike Burnaby Heights. Burnaby Heights is a destination, not the slopes in between Burquitlam and Moody. There was no destination they missed in-between the two stations. (I would say an infill station at Douglas St would be worth exploring in the future though)
For your SLS reference, that would be because it is going through farmland. Come on.
Another disadvantage of Option 1, going along Hwy 1, is there are so many curves. There would be about 4, whereas Option 2 has much more gentle curves, the sharpest being going west of Willingdon towards the Second Narrows.
|
Oh come on. It doesn't matter what is in between stations once a line is completed. It's extremely inconsistent of you to say that it makes sense for Burquitlam to Port Moody to not have stations because "it's low density with zero commercial", yet advocate for a Parker station because "it should be designed for future infill." You can't have it both ways. Either it makes sense for Burquitlam to Port Moody to bypass a relatively uninteresting area for 4km the same way it makes sense for the Purple line to bypass a relatively uninteresting area for 2km, or it doesn't. Same for the SLS reference. Don't try to condescend when your points don't make sense.
And curves are not an issue whatsoever as long as they're gentle enough between stations to allow for making the turn at speed. You'll find that the Expo Line entering downtown and entering New West is extremely curvy. It's curvy because it follows existing RoWs to avoid tunnelling. That's what the Purple Line likely will do.
Threaded Mode