[Burnaby] Blake Village & Burnaby Lake Heights | 14 & 12 Towers | Proposed

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by towerseeker101

Yeah I kind of figured the renderings were too good to be true.

Yes, and I think that's the case with many, if perhaps the majority of project renders. It's all smart and spiffy at first, but gets dumbed down in one way or another. Too bad they can't get their heads around this.

[towerseeker101]

Website is up for the first phase of 7000 Lougheed by Create. They're calling it Forest Walk One: http://liveatforestwalkone.ca/
If Create sticks with their latest renderings on social media, the architecture should be nicer than what's planned/proposed for the 6800/Saputo side of the property. Although, i'm a bit skeptical. Those nice glass buildings will probably be replaced with some more value engineered stuff.

[BaddieB]

Looks very university campus, in a good way.

[jollyburger]

It'll probably look like their Main Street project in terms of finishing.

[towerseeker101]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Looks very university campus, in a good way.

Funny you mentioned it, that's exactly what I was thinking

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

https://storeys.com/burnaby-lake-village-phase-one/

Originally Posted by Newcastle Kid

I wish they'd kept the masterplan architects on to design the actual buildings. It seems that's where the discrepancy in quality is coming from.

Originally Posted by jollyburger

IBI's buildings look more UBC campus housing. Boniface is a little more refined.

I wonder why they wouldn't have used them for the actual project other than being too expensive.

Masterplan renderings

https://hariripontarini.com/projects/burnaby-lake-village-sperling-master-plan-6800-lougheed/

Originally Posted by BaddieB

It's going to be an nice addition to the M-line, but kind of awkward having the the first phase be furthest from the station.

form the burnaby updates thread.

[SpongeG]

the block to the east, the houses that back onto Lougheed next to the little strip mall have a for sale sign that says up to 8 storey building, etc available, then a little further east there is a large area that has never been developed, it's not a park either just trees, can they get developed or is it protected anyone knows?

[BaddieB]

I believe it's just a vacant piece of land that maybe Burnaby owns No protections I believe, other than a social one. People would probably be very unhappy if it were to be developed.

It should be transformed into a park with little boardwalks around it. And before anyone says Burnaby Lake is sufficient, it is cut off from the neighborhood and 1km away from the NE corner of that lot. More parks the merrier.

[Sheba]

Burnaby has a parks section on their website that includes a full list and an accessible parks map.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

the block to the east, the houses that back onto Lougheed next to the little strip mall have a for sale sign that says up to 8 storey building, etc available, then a little further east there is a large area that has never been developed, it's not a park either just trees, can they get developed or is it protected anyone knows?

Originally Posted by BaddieB

I believe it's just a vacant piece of land that maybe Burnaby owns No protections I believe, other than a social one. People would probably be very unhappy if it were to be developed.

It should be transformed into a park with little boardwalks around it. And before anyone says Burnaby Lake is sufficient, it is cut off from the neighborhood and 1km away from the NE corner of that lot. More parks the merrier.

page 11 of the bainbridge village community plan shows what that empty land is slated for. future park & community spaces.

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

Bainbridge Village Community Plan

[kja384]

Peterson & Create Properties At Odds, Facing $207M Debt On Burnaby Lake Village

https://storeys.com/peterson-create-burnaby-lake-village-creditor-protection/

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by kja384

Peterson & Create Properties At Odds, Facing $207M Debt On Burnaby Lake Village

https://storeys.com/peterson-create-burnaby-lake-village-creditor-protection/

"Over the past 12 months, certain disputes between the Partners have arisen relating to the progression of the Project and management of Sperling LP, resulting in various mediation and arbitration proceedings," said RBC. "The result of these disputes is that the Project is currently at a standstill, and in the interim Sperling LP is unable to fulfill its obligations to the Lenders."

The aforementioned loan had a maturity date of September 1, 2024, by which the developers failed to pay the loan. In a statement on November 28, Peterson identified itself as the majority owner and sole guarantor of the loan, saying that it had the ability to repay the debt in full and had intentions to do so, but that Create Properties "refused to provide consent for the Partnership to do so or to seek a loan extension."

partnerships can be rough. im guessing Create Properties wants out of the development. i wonder what the major sticking point is.

i do like this development, and hope it happens.

[BaddieB]

Burnaby's development monies are gonna run dry as more developments stall, and I'm happy to see it. We need the provincial and/or federal government to intervene and scrap like 90% of DCCs, ACC, et al.

“Unfortunately, senior government funding for infrastructure hasn’t been nearly enough to support affordability for residents,” said Hurley, who also serves as Metro Vancouver’s chairman. “Without increasing DCCs, households would need to pay for the vast majority of the cost of new infrastructure through their utility bills.”

Imagine saying this with a straight face. God forbid people pay for the infrastructure they use through taxes. Let's shove everyone's tax burden onto the 1% of people that are new homebuyers instead.

https://www.biv.com/news/real-estate/met...rs-seeking-relief-from-fee-hikes-9545828

[seamusmcduff]

Getting most of our infrastructure spending from new development through DCCs is one of the least talked about issues contributing to our housing crisis. The fees are so high that developers need high housing prices in order to justify started a project. Everywhere else in the country seems to understand that living in a city means paying taxes to maintain, upgrade, and expand services, but we don't seem to get that. Instead we have the lowest tax rates in the country, and developments that can't get off the ground until the ppsf is at a certain point to cover all of the fees.

[BaddieB]

Poilievre has alluded to this issue, framing it as housing being expensive because of taxes going to bureaucrats (which isn't really the case) but I would consider voting for him solely because he's the only bringing this issue up.

Anyways, sad to see this project and many others stall because of taxes. I hope this sends a message to Burnaby, Hurley, and others.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Burnaby's development monies are gonna run dry as more developments stall, and I'm happy to see it. We need the provincial and/or federal government to intervene and scrap like 90% of DCCs, ACC, et al.



Imagine saying this with a straight face. God forbid people pay for the infrastructure they use through taxes. Let's shove everyone's tax burden onto the 1% of people that are new homebuyers instead.

https://www.biv.com/news/real-estate/met...rs-seeking-relief-from-fee-hikes-9545828

Yep. Inter-generational wealth transfer at it's best!

[seamusmcduff]

It's not really a tax issue as much of a funding structure issue. It still would need to be paid for somehow, and I highly doubt Pierre cares much for the getting into the weeds of local municipalities funding models.

[jollyburger]

Never heard of Create before..

https://www.createproperties.ca/about-us

[Burquitlaman]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

Getting most of our infrastructure spending from new development through DCCs is one of the least talked about issues contributing to our housing crisis. The fees are so high that developers need high housing prices in order to justify started a project. Everywhere else in the country seems to understand that living in a city means paying taxes to maintain, upgrade, and expand services, but we don't seem to get that. Instead we have the lowest tax rates in the country, and developments that can't get off the ground until the ppsf is at a certain point to cover all of the fees.

Our taxes are low. But why is it a given that when DCCs are brought down the Devs will pass those costs over?

[WarrenC12]

Developers can't pass along costs. Same as landlords. They charge as much as the market will bear, full stop.

If they can't make a profit doing that, they won't engage in developing. Those with a lower cost structure will keep going.