Burnaby Updates

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Looks better than a previous design with "steps" in the design.

Yeah this design feels like it would just feel dated right away.



https://storeys.com/burnaby-telus-bo...-park-commons/

[BaddieB]

That development is too big and crowded for that area. A bit too far from each station and just simply a bit overbearing. This is the kind of development that should be going up in the industrial area of SE False Creek, not a 15 minute walk from the Skytrain.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

That development is too big and crowded for that area. A bit too far from each station and just simply a bit overbearing. This is the kind of development that should be going up in the industrial area of SE False Creek, not a 15 minute walk from the Skytrain.

Agree that it seems too crowded but it's not that far from Patterson, an 800m walk from the farthest corner and 650m from the closest point.

In my dreams we'd relocate Patterson station over to this development as the Patterson area is already well served by Metrotown and putting a station here opens up a lot of low density land for TOD density.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by ecbin

Agree that it seems too crowded but it's not that far from Patterson, an 800m walk from the farthest corner and 650m from the closest point.

In my dreams we'd relocate Patterson station over to this development as the Patterson area is already well served by Metrotown and putting a station here opens up a lot of low density land for TOD density.

Um...no, it likely won't.

The reason they're able to propose a development that tall and that dense there is because that pocket of land where the Boot sits, occupies the sliver between the border with Vancouver and Burnaby's only existing viewcone protecting Central Park views to Brentwood.

Any other lot in the area to the east would likely be considerably height restricted by said viewcone and is the reason why you don't see a lot of tall buildings south of Kingsway and the baseball fields before you get to Patterson.

There's already a lot of density in Patterson area and there's going to be considerably even much more in the coming years with a lot of the proposed developments now going through the application cycle at the city - and in addition to the 5 or so towers currently either under construction or in some stage of site-clearing preparing to go into construction in the immediate vicinity of the Skytrain station.

Even with the full buildout of this project with a couple of 60 storey towers I doubt very much you'll have much more or comparable density and potential future skytrain traffic there than you''re likely to have in the Patterson area - even as it remains the 'quieter side' of Metrotown.

That's on the Burnaby side.

It's probably a different story on the Vancouver side, but they still have the comical scenario that towers in the Joyce Collingwood and Boundary neighbourhoods are still height restricted in Vancouver to the Telus Boot height - which itself is going to be more than dwarved by its new neighbours when this development gets built out.

It's probably the reason why the developers of this project were (are...still?) proposing the addition of a new skytrain stop at their site that they would partially help fund the construction for.
But they would have to make the case to Translink and the city that there would be the density to justify such an addition even before you consider the logistical and technical issues of creating a stop there.

It's not an unreasonable proposal in my opinion - a lot of people feel it's too close to either Patterson or Joyce-Collingwood stops to justify adding a stop there, but there are other stops on the line that have even shorter distances between them (admittedly mostly in Downtown Vancouver).

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

That development is too big and crowded for that area. A bit too far from each station and just simply a bit overbearing. This is the kind of development that should be going up in the industrial area of SE False Creek, not a 15 minute walk from the Skytrain.

I mean,...part of the reason it feels "too big" for that area is because of the artifically imposed restriction that had limited developments on the Vancouver side to the height of the Telus Boot on the one hand, and the existence of the Central Park and it's protecting Viewcone that itself limited heights of any potential developments on the Burnaby side before getting to Patterson, on the other hand/side.

This site sits on the one sliver that's unhampered by either restriction.
It's just outside the viewcone on the Burnaby side (While still considered part of the 'Metrotown Downtown Core' in the OCP), and since Burnaby doesn't care about the Telus Boot as a height restricting landmark building, it's not constrained by that height restriction like its Vancouver-side neighbours are.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

^ There's rumors of the City of Burnaby buying that site to move their City Hall. Just only rumors.

....

I thought the City Hall relocation plans died not that long ago when Hurley and his cohorts in the council were scared off of the proposal to relocate it to the Library and Civic Square site by the usual nimby brigade, and they instead decided to rebuild at the current Deer Lake location.

Would they really be willing to risk the wrath of those folks again by reviving those plans and trying to relocate it to this site instead?

I don't really see what changes (in terms of the arguments that were made against moving it) other than not tearing down the library and taking over Civic square.
This site wasn't even one of the options they had proposed (but then again it wasn't up for sale then).

It would be interesting to see how they swing this, if there's anything to those rumors.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Um...no, it likely won't.

The reason they're able to propose a development that tall and that dense there is because that pocket of land where the Boot sits, occupies the sliver between the border with Vancouver and Burnaby's only existing viewcone protecting Central Park views to Brentwood.

I can't find my prior post on this topic but I have looked into this view cone and it's not really view cone like a Vancouver view cone. There is no height restriction documented and there's no specifics on what exactly the view is that needs to be maintained. It only said something to the effect that preservation of the views between Brentwood and Swangard should be considered - it was a single sentence in the planning doc. It took me quite a bit of digging to track it down so I don't want to go do it again but it's not a real view cone in the Vancouver sense unless there's some behind the scenes, unpublished documentation on this that I can't get access to.

That said, I suspect there would be lower height limits between Brentwood and Swangard but we're still talking 10-12 story buildings versus the 70 story stuff Burnaby likes to approve. 10-12 stories scattered all the way up to Burke is a LOT of density.

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

It's not an unreasonable proposal in my opinion - a lot of people feel it's too close to either Patterson or Joyce-Collingwood stops to justify adding a stop there, but there are other stops on the line that have even shorter distances between them (admittedly mostly in Downtown Vancouver).

AIUI the provision for a station is right at Boundary which would put the station about 800m from Patterson and about 1100m from Joyce - not an unreasonable distance between stations.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

I thought the City Hall relocation plans died not that long ago when Hurley and his cohorts in the council were scared off of the proposal to relocate it to the Library and Civic Square site by the usual nimby brigade, and they instead decided to rebuild at the current Deer Lake location.

I was someone you could call a part of that NIMBY brigade. I would love a Metrotown City Hall, the problem was the city thought it would be a good idea to build it on park land. They chose Bonsor or Civic Square as locations, which is just a bad idea. Metrotown is going to be a dense place and needs as much park space as it can get. Central Park is nice and big, but only services one side. Parks should be spread out and within less than 5 minute walks, and the ones that do exist should stay as parks.

I'm hoping they can finesse a deal with Ivanhoe to build a new City Hall on a section of where the mall is now, but I doubt that will happen.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by ecbin

I can't find my prior post on this topic but I have looked into this view cone and it's not really view cone like a Vancouver view cone. There is no height restriction documented and there's no specifics on what exactly the view is that needs to be maintained. It only said something to the effect that preservation of the views between Brentwood and Swangard should be considered - it was a single sentence in the planning doc. It took me quite a bit of digging to track it down so I don't want to go do it again but it's not a real view cone in the Vancouver sense unless there's some behind the scenes, unpublished documentation on this that I can't get access to.

That said, I suspect there would be lower height limits between Brentwood and Swangard but we're still talking 10-12 story buildings versus the 70 story stuff Burnaby likes to approve. 10-12 stories scattered all the way up to Burke is a LOT of density.



AIUI the provision for a station is right at Boundary which would put the station about 800m from Patterson and about 1100m from Joyce - not an unreasonable distance between stations.

That's what I thought too.

And Patterson itself is currently 600m from Metrotown station, so those two stations are even closer to each other than this potential new station would be to either of its neighbours.

And as I mentioned before in Downtown Vancouver you have even closer situated stations like Granville station that's 300m and 400m from Burrard and Waterfront Station, respectively.
(granted, those are in Downtown which is different from suburban stations)

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

That's what I thought too.

And Patterson itself is currently 600m from Metrotown station, so those two stations are even closer to each other than this potential new station would be to either of its neighbours.

If I had to trade stations (and I know they'd never do that) I'd happily trade Patterson for Boundary even if it hurts my (infrequent) commutes to downtown (Patterson is closest to me). I understand why Patterson is there but with how the Joyce area has developed all the way to Boundary and then opportunity on the Burnaby side Boundary is the right place for another station.

This will, of course, NEVER EVER happen in my lifetime.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by ecbin

AIUI the provision for a station is right at Boundary which would put the station about 800m from Patterson and about 1100m from Joyce - not an unreasonable distance between stations.

It's at Kingsway, no idea if it would be straddling Kingsway or east of the road. The station was moved to what is now Patterson but the guideway geometry wasn't changed so technically a station can be built. At the most it would be 500m from Patterson so there is no reason to.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by madog222

It's at Kingsway, no idea if it would be straddling Kingsway or east of the road. The station was moved to what is now Patterson but the guideway geometry wasn't changed so technically a station can be built. At the most it would be 500m from Patterson so there is no reason to.

That would be right where the bottle depot/Smith is which would be a pretty crappy spot to put it then so I would agree that it wouldn't make sense.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by madog222

It's at Kingsway, no idea if it would be straddling Kingsway or east of the road. The station was moved to what is now Patterson but the guideway geometry wasn't changed so technically a station can be built. At the most it would be 500m from Patterson so there is no reason to.

From this thread:
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...=145264&page=2

Posted June 6, 2010.

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I sent Translink a letter asking them what are the possible locations for future stations. This is what they told me:

Hi (red-paladin),

Sorry for the delay in responding to your email – I just received it as it was circulated rather widely given the involvement of different staff for the different lines…

Line by line, on the Canada Line:

· Capstan Way station came very close to being constructed but it was contingent on a substantial contribution from the developer of an adjacent property and the economic downtown destroyed the economics of the project so it is not currently proceeding but is likely to come back.

· YVR3 was planned to support an expanded airport terminal - if the Airport Authority proceeds with that expansion, the station would proceed as well. The Airport Authority’s strategic plan may have more detail on it.

· 33rd and 57th Avenue stations would only be built with a large developer contribution, should future land use plans support developments of the necessary scale. 33rd would be a particular challenge given the adjacency to Queen Elizabeth Park.

On the Expo Line, the geometry allowed for future stations at:

· Clark Drive

· Kingsway (E of Boundary Rd)

These could still be built if desired.

The section along Stewardson Way has excessive gradients (1.4% and greater, when SkyTrain stations need to be on a 0.5% grade or less) as well as very few tangent (straight) track sections of sufficient length.

On the Millennium Line, the geometry only allows for a future station at Woodlands – most of the line has excessive gradients and curvatures between the original stations. Where flat and straight sections exist, they are often too close to existing stations to be of consideration (e.g, approx 500 m E of Commercial-Broadway station).

Hope this assists, let me know if you have questions.

________________________________________________
Ian Fisher, Project Planner, Project Planning
TransLink (South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority)
1600 - 4720 Kingsway, Burnaby BC V5H 4N2 Canada
Tel 604.453.3058 Fax 604.453.4697
ian.fisher@translink.ca www.translink.ca

[BaddieB]

Woodlands needs it's own station. That dense community is so far from Sapperton or Columbia, and it wouldn't slow down Surrey to Vancouver traffic.

[madog222]

Newly submitted rezonings, from the next council meeting:

5534 Lougheed Hwy - Brassano Phase 2
-35 storey strata

5000 Kingsway Plaza (4900-4940 Kingsway)
-71 storey tower with a "westcoast inspired art deco style" at 8.9fsr
This had a lot of skepticism here when it was first announced a year or two ago.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by madog222

Newly submitted rezonings, from the next council meeting:

5534 Lougheed Hwy - Brassano Phase 2
-35 storey strata

4900 Kingsway (5000 Kingsway Plaza)
-71 storey tower with a "westcoast inspired art deco style" at 8.9fsr
This had a lot of skepticism here when it was first announced a year or two ago.

....which probably still exists and will continue to persist until they submit an actual Development Permit application with the same height.

That's still a rezoning application and it wouldn't be the first of those (or a pre-application submitted) touting a tower height of 70+ storeys (even just in Metrotown alone. The Tower proposal(s) for the Esso station at Willingdon by Keltic come to mind. That one's gone quiet recently)


*(granted,....a 70 storey tower in that lot would be a nice complement to Concord's 65 storey Grand Tower across the street.
Suddenly Nelson and Kingsway will would become one of the most prominent intersections in the province, with two of the tallest towers (or thereabouts))

[jollyburger]

Phase 2 of Bassano was originally "up to 45 storeys"?

https://www.burnabynow.com/real-esta...condos-8892493

https://pub-burnaby.escribemeetings....edium=referral

[jollyburger]

Good luck trying to win this.

Property owners in the Brentwood Park area of Burnaby, B.C., say they will rely on restrictive covenants put in place in the 1950s to preserve the area's character and single-family homes in the face of provincial density rules.

For months the horseshoe-shaped community of around 500 homes — situated just northeast of the rapidly developing area around the Brentwood Town Centre mall and SkyTrain station — has been lobbying the province for exemptions to Bill 47, which allows for smaller-sized apartment buildings on single-family home lots within 400 to 800 metres of transit hubs.

"That would be the start of the end," said Brentwood Park resident Edward Pereira about the prospect of eight- to 12-storey apartment buildings replacing single-family homes in the neighbourhood.

The area's residents, whose homes are on large lots with plenty of open green space, want it preserved. They argue densification would ruin Brentwood Park's appeal as a quiet, walkable community with strong links between residents.

"This neighbourhood's a gem," said Pereira. "If you were trying to design a neighbourhood, if you were trying to hope for a good neighbourhood, this accomplishes all of it."

However, banding together for a campaign called Save Brentwood Park has not been enough to stop development there.

At least four properties are now the subject of an attempted land assembly, with the purchaser wanting to erect an eight-storey apartment building in their place, according to Pereira.

He says the province is not budging. The city also has no recourse, having to change its zoning to comply with the new provincial housing legislation passed late last year.

As well as Bill 47, it also includes Bill 44, which allows for housing such as four- or six-unit multiplexes in place of single-family homes.

In a statement, the City of Burnaby said it "takes great pride in the character and history of our neighbourhoods."

"However, through changes to provincial legislation, the City of Burnaby, as with all municipalities across the province, are unable to protect single-family neighbourhoods from redevelopment under required Small Scale Multi-Unit Housing zoning."
That's left Brentwood with one last weapon to defy densification: statutory building schemes, or restrictive private covenants.

These types of agreements between developers, builders and property owners were historically made under sections 219 or 220 of B.C.'s Land Title Act. They were used for a variety of purposes, including limiting density.

Since the passing of the province's new housing bills, they've become what some call an unintended complication to the province's desire to increase housing in places where it's unaffordable, inappropriate or limited.

"Looking at this role of covenants … I think it's just perhaps one of a number of challenges toward final implementation of the housing legislation that was passed just late last year," said Andy Yan, city program director at Simon Fraser University.
The province admits its new housing legislation doesn't supersede private covenants.

But Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon wants communities to ponder whether the often decades-old private agreements are now antiquated.

"Does it make sense in the housing crisis today to still have those covenants in place?" he said.

"I know that conversation is happening in my community and I know it's happening in communities throughout the province."

The housing ministry said in a statement that it "will continue to look into this issue as it focuses on building more homes, faster, in B.C."

It's a change from a week earlier when it urged homeowners to seek legal advice over questions related to covenants.

Experts have said the province could use its powers to pass laws that would universally address certain parts of restrictive covenants that it may deem outdated.

Records of these types of agreements can be searched through the B.C. Land Title and Survey website, as court challenges are now emerging over them.

The justice system is the only recourse at present to determine whether covenants should be maintained or nullified to increase housing in neighbourhoods like Brentwood Park.

Residents like Pereira say they are betting their neighbourhood will be protected by its restrictive covenants, which specifically call for a certain type of housing.

"What they call for is single-family homes, so that means they, by definition, would defend against both bills [44 and 47], and so that's the reality of that."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...tion-1.7303509

[Migrant_Coconut]

Let's just fast-forward a month or two to the rezoning and the homeowners saying "there wasn't any consultation."

[Sheba]

Burnaby 2050 Draft Land Use (map and survey)

A new Land Use Map is being created for the new Burnaby 2050 OCP. The map visualizes how land will be used to achieve the community’s vision for the future, including the types of uses permitted in each parcel in the city.

In previous phases of engagement for the Burnaby 2050 OCP, we gathered input on the community’s vision for the future and how and where growth should be managed. The draft Land Use Map has been developed based on the community’s priorities on how land across the city should be used in the future.