Burnaby Updates - Page 281

chowhou · #**5601** Posted **Jun 28, 2024, 7:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redtruck

Good, go Hurley!

Literally cheering on a politican who thinks they're above the law...

mcj · #**5602** Posted **Jun 28, 2024, 7:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chowhou

Literally cheering on a politican who thinks they're above the law...

We've got half of the USA doing that right now, it's in vogue.

Redtruck · #**5603** Posted **Jun 28, 2024, 7:38 PM**

[QUOTE=Spr0ckets;10235490]No, the problem is not immigration - that's just a convenient red herring scapegoat that people love to pull out and blame to avoid addressing real issues because it hues to their favourite pickaboos to whine about.

How is immigration a scapegoat? You must be blind. Where are these people coming from, please tell me? Immigration is the main reason why housing costs are so high. Our birth rate is low and unsustainable because the cost of housing is so high, and people do not see a future raising their children in a shoebox. This influx of people at such a fast rate drives up housing costs and is spreading throughout BC to smaller communities as people look to move out of the big city. It only looks to get worse as our population is set to double by 2073, due to immigration, mostly from India and China. Not against immigration but it has gotten out of hand and their needs to be more diversification and caps. Until then the housing problem will not get better.

Migrant_Coconut · #**5604** Posted **Jun 28, 2024, 7:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redtruck

- snip -

Close the borders and the economy/population will shrink. It's not a cost-of-living thing, it's a first world thing: BC, Canada and most developed nations aren't making enough babies to keep themselves afloat, let alone grow. Immigration may be part of the problem, but the leading cause is that we've been underbuilding since the mid-Nineties... and now all of the province needs to catch up on three decades' worth of housing all at once.

Burnaby may be tall, but it's not actually dense; as a whole, it only has slightly more people/sq km than Point Grey. That's the Grand Bargain in effect: City Hall gets to rake in condo development money on the mall/warehouse/car dealership sites, and the NIMBYs get to keep development far away from their detached homes in Royal Oak and stifle any actual change.

Such a model is no longer sustainable - the suburbs have got to go. Even rezoning for basement suites and laneways (which the province has already done for Hurley) will double and triple Burnaby's density.

Vin · #**5605** Posted **Jun 28, 2024, 8:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

They can't do that.
As was already established with the Brentwood group that was seeking an exemption from these bylaws, if they gave Burnaby a reprieve based on whatever rationalization you want to use, then what's to stop other municipalities, areas, cities and "special interest groups" from coming up with their own "valid" rationalizations for why they should be exempted from following the new legislation?

At which point, what then is even the point of having any legislation if anyone can opt out, just as long as they make a "good enough" argument to not have to follow them?

The point of having the cities write the bylaws themselves rather than have the province step in, is to allow them to customize and tailor their own respective bylaws as much as possible to their particular localities' individual concerns and then have them comply with the provincial bylaw.

Skytrain stations in other Lower Mainland districts aren't isolated like some along the Millennial Line ones. Hence those stations already in populated areas should all follow the Province's directive as these are higher priority stations that need to densify first, and fast. That is what I am trying to say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Building more homes near Lake City Way or Production Way stations would actually be highly beneficial as those new homes would be in close proximity to a high concentration of existing / new jobs.

Burnaby is already re-planning Royal Oak.

You only succeed in taking away more industrial lands and green corridors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chowhou

Literally cheering on a politican who thinks they're above the law...

Not really. One has the right to voice out about concerns even though one could still be on the side of densification.

Migrant_Coconut · #**5606** Posted **Jun 28, 2024, 8:04 PM**

The "Millennial" Line connects to downtown, Lonsdale and Richmond/YVR (and eventually, Broadway) on one end, and the Tri-Cities on the other. That's the opposite of isolated.

Sheba · #**5607** Posted **Jun 28, 2024, 8:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

What it does mean though is that you may start to see some gradual densification of single family neighbourhoods near stations through midrises and small towers (but not anything remotely close to what is currently being built in Burnaby TCs), which should have been done a long time ago anyways. If anything, the amount of land this opens up will take pressure off the TCs to cram as much density into every property as possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Burnaby may be tall, but it's not actually dense; as a whole, it only has slightly more people/sq km than Point Grey. That's the Grand Bargain in effect: City Hall gets to rake in condo development money on the mall/warehouse/car dealership sites, and the NIMBYs get to keep development far away from their detached homes in Royal Oak and stifle any actual change.

Such a model is no longer sustainable - the suburbs have got to go. Even rezoning for basement suites and laneways (which the province has already done for Hurley) will double and triple Burnaby's density.

I live in Burnaby and I'm all for this. I've been rolling my eyes over the major lack of density around plenty of Skytrain stations (and not just in Burnaby) for a loooong time. Or why do main drags like Willingdon have SFH facing them instead of low rise buildings? It's insane how it's been pretty much illegal to build anything other than a SFH in so many areas.

Vin · #**5608** Posted **Jun 28, 2024, 8:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The "Millennial" Line connects to downtown, Lonsdale and Richmond/YVR (and eventually, Broadway) on one end, and the Tri-Cities on the other. That's the opposite of isolated.

Might as well densify the vast corridors of Canada from Vancouver to Toronto since both sides are "opposite of isolated".

Migrant_Coconut · #**5609** Posted **Jun 28, 2024, 8:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

Might as well densify the vast corridors of Canada from Vancouver to Toronto since both sides are "opposite of isolated".

Then you should find a new definition for the word. Almost all SkyTrain stations are surrounded by residential and commercial/industrial sites that can be redeveloped the same way they did for Brentwood, Gilmore and Holdom - in fact, Burnaby's already planning several.

The only "isolated" stations on the network are Sea Island and Templeton - one's surrounded by YVR facilities, the other by highways and parking, and to get back home to either would require waiting 12 minutes for a train past peak hours. Burnaby's stations have none of those issues.

Migrant_Coconut · #**5610** Posted **Jun 28, 2024, 8:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheba

I live in Burnaby and I'm all for this. I've been rolling my eyes over the major lack of density around plenty of Skytrain stations (and not just in Burnaby) for a loooong time. Or why do main drags like Willingdon have SFH facing them instead of low rise buildings? It's insane how it's been pretty much illegal to build anything other than a SFH in so many areas.

Burnaby's arterials are kind of a joke in general - if this were Vancouver, half of them would be mostly townhomes by now. At least they're getting to work on their portion of Hastings.

FarmerHaight · #**5611** Posted **Jun 28, 2024, 8:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Burnaby's arterials are kind of a joke in general - if this were Vancouver, half of them would be mostly townhomes by now.

Willingdon is treated almost like a laneway between Metrotown and the TCH, with most of the houses addressing the back lane instead of the street.

I get why those houses have generous setbacks given the noise of the street, but as a pedestrian it is uncomfortable walking down a very narrow sidewalk which is pockmarked with telephone polls and signs, with blistering traffic on one side and weed filled back yards on the other. Not at all pleasant.

Migrant_Coconut · #**5612** Posted **Jun 28, 2024, 8:31 PM**

Grandview serves much the same purpose on the other side of Boundary, and even that's slightly more pleasant.

seamusmcduff · #**5613** Posted **Jun 29, 2024, 1:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redtruck

How is immigration a scapegoat? You must be blind. Where are these people coming from, please tell me? Immigration is the main reason why housing costs are so high. Our birth rate is low and unsustainable because the cost of housing is so high, and people do not see a future raising their children in a shoebox.

1) Our birthrate has been below replacement levels since 1973, and has been on a steady decline since then (1.97 in 1973, 1.69 in 1993, 1.6 in 2013, 1.48 in 2024).

2) Our housing prices began to disconnect from inflation in the early 2000s.

3) Our immigration rates have been fairly steady until around 2018/19.

Given the above, it is a huge stretch to say that our birth rate and housing prices are because of immigration. There are legitimate arguments to suggest that they've made these issues worse, but they weren't created by immigration, and immigration is the only thing that has prevented our economy and population from collapsing for the last 40 odd years. It's worrisome that you're attributing issues that have been around for decades purely to immigration. Just because something seems like the obvious and easy answer, doesn't mean that it is.

ecbin · #**5614** Posted **Jun 29, 2024, 4:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redtruck

Good, go Hurley! The majority of people who live in Burnaby think the density is already enough before the TOD policy. It's not about the towers overshadowing people's houses; it's about creating a livable, sustainable Burnaby. The proposed TOD density is too much, too fast!

This is such a bullshit baldfaced lie. Report after report from the city planning staff shows that the vast majority of residents support more density in Burnaby - page 29 of the 2019 task force report (https://www.burnaby.ca/sites/default...ousing.PDF.pdf) is just one example. 65% of survey residents said they strongly support more density and nearly another 20% somewhat support it. More recent reports around the laneway and secondary suites in duplexes program show the same or higher support.

Stop lying about what Burnaby residents want.

ecbin · #**5615** Posted **Jun 29, 2024, 4:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Willingdon is treated almost like a laneway between Metrotown and the TCH, with most of the houses addressing the back lane instead of the street.

I get why those houses have generous setbacks given the noise of the street, but as a pedestrian it is uncomfortable walking down a very narrow sidewalk which is pockmarked with telephone polls and signs, with blistering traffic on one side and weed filled back yards on the other. Not at all pleasant.

Burnaby's sidewalks (and pedestrian infrastructure), if they even exist, are laughable compared to Vancouver. In Vancouver you can expect the sidewalk to be setback at least a few feet from the street with trees to provide shade and at each intersection there'd be a letdown for accessibility. Most of Burnaby can't conceive of any of that yet their residents call the city well run.

NetMapel · #**5616** Posted **Jun 29, 2024, 4:47 AM**

I am going to be posting these same photos in every thread related to housing haha…
BEHOLD the density. Just feast your eyes on the sea of single family houses.

madog222 · #**5617** Posted **Jun 29, 2024, 5:27 AM**

Reminder to properly credit all images posted, even if you are just spamming…

And no, that is not permission to spam.

Redtruck · #**5618** Posted **Jun 29, 2024, 5:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecbin

This is such a bullshit baldfaced lie. Report after report from the city planning staff shows that the vast majority of residents support more density in Burnaby - page 29 of the 2019 task force report (https://www.burnaby.ca/sites/default...ousing.PDF.pdf) is just one example. 65% of survey residents said they strongly support more density and nearly another 20% somewhat support it. More recent reports around the laneway and secondary suites in duplexes program show the same or higher support.

Stop lying about what Burnaby residents want.

Why show a report from 2019? this is not relevant now... new policies have been added that further increase density from what was originally planned and this is what people are pissed off about.

jollyburger · #**5619** Posted **Jun 29, 2024, 5:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redtruck

Why show a report from 2019? this is not relevant now... new policies have been added that further increase density from what was originally planned and this is what people are pissed off about.

Burnaby 2050 OCP engagement has new data

https://yourvoice.burnaby.ca/burnaby...-city-together

jollyburger · #**5620** Posted **Jun 29, 2024, 5:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

These concerns seem like a fundamental misunderstanding of the density and planning situation in Burnaby. Burnaby made a compromise decades ago to not touch single family neighbourhoods with any density whatsoever, and the cost was massive towers crammed into a small amount of land near the stations. Burnaby building "too much too fast" is an illusion brought on by their own unwillingness to introduce even gentle density anywhere outside the small designated areas. Provincial requirements don't require anywhere close to the heights and densities already being proposed in areas like Brentwood and metrotown, what is currently being built has higher FARs than the legislation requires.

I think the tower developments were also about getting a bunch of cash from developers for their pet projects. Honestly SFH NIMBYs will be more upset about duplex/multiplex/townhouse density than anything around Brentwood/Metrotown because it will directly impact them.