Burnaby Updates

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by chowhou

You guys are both being silly. In 1935 when Vancouver moved its city hall to its current location, the new site was serviced by the number 1 streetcar and number 17 streetcar (today it's still serviced by the 17 bus and of course Canada Line and 99 B-Line, soon to be serviced by the Millennium Line). From there you could easily connect with the Arbutus Line BCER line or the Central Park BCER line. At the time, the old Burnaby municipal hall was located at the intersection of Edmonds and Kingsway which was on a New Westminster streetcar line and was walking distance to the Central Park BCER line. Both sites were easy to access for all residents of their respective municipalities by the rapid transit of the day.

Vancouver City Hall was moved to where it is to make it more accessible to the residents of Point Grey and South Vancouver post-annexation. It remains easy to access for all residents of Vancouver, and is only getting more accessible.

Burnaby City Hall was moved to where it is to literally put it at the physical centre of Burnaby for some reason. To this day it is poorly accessible by transit.

They are not the same.

I'm confused as to how you come to the conclusion that I'm being "silly" with him when you've made the exact same point I've been making since this whole City Hall relocation debate started. Complete with an elucidation of the fact that nothing is the same today as it was almost 100 years go.

Or are you just new to the discussion and just decided to lump everyone as "silly" just to save yourself the time or effort for thinking, without even bothering to familiarize yourself with the respective points being made?

"Geographically central" does not mean "accessible to everyone".
Gee, thanks.
For being the umpteenbillionth person to make that same observation in this discussion.

What next?
Sky is blue and water is wet?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

I'm confused as to how you come to the conclusion that I'm being "silly" with him when you've made the exact same point I've been making since this whole City Hall relocation debate started. Complete with an elucidation of the fact that nothing is the same today as it was almost 100 years go.

Or are you just new to the discussion and just decided to lump everyone as "silly" just to save yourself the time or effort for thinking, without even bothering to familiarize yourself with the respective points being made?

"Geographically central" does not mean "accessible to everyone".
Gee, thanks.
For being the umpteenbillionth person to make that same observation in this discussion.

What next?
Sky is blue and water is wet?

Yikes! I get that the other guy has bad points but don't take it out on me! I just personally think you were being far too concilliatory with him. You were defending the point that Vancouver moved its city hall to "the suburban wasteland" which is silly. Even in 1935 the city hall site was very well served by public transportation and the rapid transit of the day. Things aren't different 100 years later. Back then Vancouver city hall staff wanted city hall to be more accessible to residents of the city. Today, Burnaby city hall staff want city hall to be more accessible to residents of the city. To be fair to Burnaby, in 1955 during the golden age of the automobile, being centrally located might have been the way to have city hall be most accessible to everyone. That's not the case anymore when we have modern rapid transit.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Yikes! I get that the other guy has bad points but don't take it out on me! I just personally think you were being far too concilliatory with him. You were defending the point that Vancouver moved its city hall to "the suburban wasteland" which is silly. Even in 1935 the city hall site was very well served by public transportation and the rapid transit of the day. Things aren't different 100 years later. Back then Vancouver city hall staff wanted city hall to be more accessible to residents of the city. Today, Burnaby city hall staff want city hall to be more accessible to residents of the city. To be fair to Burnaby, in 1955 during the golden age of the automobile, being centrally located might have been the way to have city hall be most accessible to everyone. That's not the case anymore when we have modern rapid transit.

Buddy, you started off your comment intimating we were "both being silly"
In fact, in the interest of accuracy, you very specifically said "You guys are both being silly."

Perhaps I completely misunderstood you, so in the interest of clarity and fairness, it would be really great of you could point out which part of my comment or argument was, as you put it, ..."silly"?

The part that made the point that you then went on to make yourself?
Or the other part that made a point I have made in the past in this discussion?

I never made, nor defended the point of, "Vancouver moving its City Hall to the subaurban wasteland" and I don't know where you got the notion that I did.
I didn't even bring Vancouver or their City Hall into this. He did.

My only point on that was, and remains that making a comparison to what Vancouver did almost 100 years ago - not that far removed from the Great Depression, and a few years before the start of the 2nd World War, to what Burnaby is, or could do in the early 21st century with regards to their own city hall is a silly comparison on its face - especially when you ignore everything that's changed, even within those two municipalities in the intervening time period.
And particularly especially changes that have occurred in the areas of demographics, mass transit and public transportation, and city and urban planning layouts.
Context matters.
Historical context more so.

You and him apparently think things are not so different 100 years later.
Fine.
So apparently you agree more with him (...at least on this point) than I do.
Again, I think lots of things have change considerably in 100 years - even just the last 40 year slice of that 100 years alone, when we've had the Skytrain change how people get around and where they even choose to live, along with increased proliferation of the bus network system both of which have MASSIVELY increased accessibility for most services and city functions - especially for people living farther away than would have been possible 100 years ago. Even 70 years ago in the golden age of the automobile as you put it.
Unlike you, I choose not to ignore that fact or these factors.

I mean, just to highlight the contradiction in your own position, you start off your argument in saying (*underlining mine for emphasis and comparison....), .....

" Things aren't different 100 years later.Back then Vancouver city hall staff wanted city hall to be more accessible to residents of the city....."

And then end it by completely refuting that notion by pointing out the obvious and saying....

" Today, Burnaby city hall staff want city hall to be more accessible to residents of the city. To be fair to Burnaby, in 1955 during the golden age of the automobile, being centrally located might have been the way to have city hall be most accessible to everyone. That's not the case anymore when we have modern rapid transit."

Those two underlined points are in almost violent disagreement with each other.
But hey, I'm the silly one.

As you were.

Bringing this back on-topic before the Mods slam down on us with the 'DeleteHammer', I think the city should give very strong consideration to revisiting their City hall relocation/renovation plans with this Golden Towers purchase (which are effectively now "public land") as it would save them(/the public) money on a complete Deer Lake tear-down and reconstruction (if the original reported $300 Million or so cost are anything to go by), it would achieve the originally hoped goal of having the City Hall (or at least some of its functions) more accessible, or in a more accessible location, and they wouldn't need to put it to a public vote or referendum thanks to not cannibalizing public green space or public facilities, to get it done like having to do so at the Public library/Civic area site would have required or at the Bonsor Rec grounds.

I don't think its going to happen, but it doesn't hurt to have the discussion now that the elections are behind as and we don't have to frame it in the light of election-season posturing and pandering.

My two cents, for what they're worth.

[chowhou]

Clearly I struck a nerve calling you silly. It seems you're pretty riled up about this entire conversation so sorry about that I guess.

The silly thing you've done is accept VancouverOfTheFuture's thesis. He implies that Vancouver moved its city hall to the "suburban wasteland" in an inaccessible way. You seem to accept this and reply with snark that of course it would be that way as things were different.

However, this is silly and you've misunderstood what I said. The history of humanity is that as some things change, other things remain the same. The city councils of Vancouver and Burnaby have always wanted city hall to be accessible to the most people. This has not changed in the past 100 years. However, as you are able to correctly point out, the way that people can and do access city halls has changed. As a result, although the priority has not changed, the way of achieving that priority must change.

At no point did I make the silly point that transit or demographics have not changed, but it's very silly to accept that Vancouver decided to randomly put its city hall in the middle of nowhere. In the 1930s during the peak of the electric railway, the current Vancouver city hall location was the most accessible location. In the 1950s, during the peak of the automobile and decline of the electric railway, the current Burnaby city hall location was the most accessible location.

Nowadays, Metrotown would probably be the most accessible location to Burnaby residents (especially with a future Purple Line on the way, right Burnaby? )

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Clearly I struck a nerve calling you silly. It seems you're pretty riled up about this entire conversation so sorry about that I guess.

The silly thing you've done is accept VancouverOfTheFuture's thesis. He implies that Vancouver moved its city hall to the "suburban wasteland" in an inaccessible way. You seem to accept this and reply with snark that of course it would be that way as things were different.

However, this is silly and you've misunderstood what I said. The history of humanity is that as some things change, other things remain the same. The city councils of Vancouver and Burnaby have always wanted city hall to be accessible to the most people. This has not changed in the past 100 years. However, as you are able to correctly point out, the way that people can and do access city halls has changed. As a result, although the priority has not changed, the way of achieving that priority must change.

At no point did I make the silly point that transit or demographics have not changed, but it's very silly to accept that Vancouver decided to randomly put its city hall in the middle of nowhere. In the 1930s during the peak of the electric railway, the current Vancouver city hall location was the most accessible location. In the 1950s, during the peak of the automobile and decline of the electric railway, the current Burnaby city hall location was the most accessible location.

Nowadays, Metrotown would probably be the most accessible location to Burnaby residents (especially with a future Purple Line on the way, right Burnaby? )

Pro-Tip for future interactions with other people.

This.....





...means, "sarcasm".

It literally means the OPPOSITE of agreeing with the person you're responding to or accepting their thesis - only doing so in a not-so-obvious manner.
At no point did I accept or agree with whatever they were saying and if you read it that way (while missing the obvious sarcasm signifier), then I'm afraid to inform you that the misunderstanding was all on your side of the fence.

If we're going to get to the nub of who's misunderstanding whom or what point, that is.

We can move on from this and let this get back on-topic.

[chowhou]

And making a snarky comment like you did doesn't disagree with the underlying point. When you sarcastically say, "Yeah your point is so good because it completely disregards the state of affairs of the time" all you're effectively saying is, "of course it's that way. You'd be an idiot for thinking it wouldn't be that way back then." (It wasn't that way back then!)

You accept the premise but snark about why you think it's not worth talking about. This is a pretty basic sarcasm tip!

[jollyburger]

(wrong thread)

[madog222]

Two new tower proposals submitted for next weeks’s council meeting.

A 45 storey, 12 fsr, tower at 7135 Walker Ave and Bosa with a 40 storey rental tower at 4978 Wilson, just west of their Kathleen x Kemp tower.

[Spr0ckets]

Great to see a tower proposal for the Edmonds area.
It always seems to get lost in the new proposals in the other 3 sister town centers.

Also, I'm assuming that new Bosa proposal is for the lot(s) just south of the Golden towers.
Google maps seems to point the location as being the Golden towers, but it obviously can't be that since that site was recently bought out by the City of Burnaby and they've not stated what they plan on doing with that site yet.

[madog222]

Yes, it's the south corner of Wilson & Kemp

[hollywoodnorth]

crane is up for the new RCMP Building >> https://www.burnabynow.com/local-news/burnaby-breaks-ground-on-new-229m-rcmp-facility-9135276

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

waste of money. the RCMP wont even exist as municipal policing by the end of the decade, and theyre pretty useless in general.

i would rather have seen the Burnaby Lake Aquatic and Arena built instead of this. would have been better to cancel this and build the aquatic centre/arena.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

waste of money. the RCMP wont even exist as municipal policing by the end of the decade, and theyre pretty useless in general.

i would rather have seen the Burnaby Lake Aquatic and Arena built instead of this. would have been better to cancel this and build the aquatic centre/arena.

Even if Burnaby replaces the RCMP with the BPD (hopefully picking a better acronym), they're still going to need a headquarters, no? Even the VPD is planning construction of a new headquarters in the coming years.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Even if Burnaby replaces the RCMP with the BPD (hopefully picking a better acronym), they're still going to need a headquarters, no? Even the VPD is planning construction of a new headquarters in the coming years.

Besides the E-Division building, isn't Surrey taking over most of the RCMP facilities as we speak?

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Even if Burnaby replaces the RCMP with the BPD (hopefully picking a better acronym), they're still going to need a headquarters, no? Even the VPD is planning construction of a new headquarters in the coming years.

Probably a yes. Not sure if Surrey or the province has to pay any money to the RCMP/federal government with the transition.

Seems more likely we'll see a provincial police force in 15-20 years.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Even if Burnaby replaces the RCMP with the BPD (hopefully picking a better acronym), they're still going to need a headquarters, no? Even the VPD is planning construction of a new headquarters in the coming years.

or they could have just kept the current buildings, theyd continue to not bother responding to crime, and we could have gotten actual beneficial community amenities.

but nahh, lets just waste money on stuff we dont need.

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Seems more likely we'll see a provincial police force in 15-20 years.

yeah, no way the RCMP continue municipal/local policing. theyre a mess and mess up federal cases due to the local eating up so many resources. not to mention the fact they are controlled by ottawa. explains why theyre so useless.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

or they could have just kept the current buildings, theyd continue to not bother responding to crime, and we could have gotten actual beneficial community amenities.

but nahh, lets just waste money on stuff we dont need.



......

The existing building is past it's useful and intended lifespan.
It was built in 1967 and originally meant as a courthouse before being converted to serve as the police headquarters.

It's currently plagued by persistent leaks, and because of it's age, it costs a lot more to heat it as it's energy ineffecient, ....as is to be expected of a building of its era. And likewise it costs a lot of money to fix the increasing number of problems that persintently and increasingly crop up in a building in the state and of its age.

Doing a major refit and renovation to fix all these problems and bring it up to modern building code and seismic requirements and standards - as well as likely expanding it to meet their increased needs - would almost certainly cost more than the money it's going to cost to build a new HQ.

Buildings are not built, nor meant to last forever.
The fall apart eventually, and at a certain point it costs less to completely replace them than to keep patching them up.

Do you want them to keep band-aiding and duct-taping it at taxpayer expense indefinitely?
They're going to spend money either way.
A lot of it.
This is likely going to be a lot less in the long run.

Sometimes people just love to find things to complain about even when it makes no sense to do so.

[Spr0ckets]

Another day,....
Another foreclosure of a Thind property in Metro Vancouver......

And the way they acquired this one has more drama than a Spanish telenovela.


https://storeys.com/thind-4330-maywood-madeira-manor-foreclosure/

Thind Facing Foreclosure On Burnaby Maywood Project Acquired This Year

....Another project being developed by Burnaby-based real estate developer Thind Properties is now facing insolvency proceedings, according to filings in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, adding to the embattled developer's litany of financial trouble.

Joining a list that includes the multi-phased District Northwest in Surrey, Minoru Square in Richmond, and Highline Metrotown in Burnaby, is now an unnamed project Thind Properties was planning at 6677 Silver Avenue, also known as 4330 Maywood Street, located in the Metrotown neighbourhood of Burnaby near Highline Metrotown and Metrotown Station.....
......
The sale of the property also faced scrutiny after Goodman Commercial took Kirpal Group and its partners — Nita Developments Ltd., SVM Properties Ltd., and Madeira Manor Ltd. — to court over the sales commission.

Basically, the previous owners of the site and development, The Kirpal Group tried to stiff their RE sales broker of their commission by selling the project to Thind (apparently family friends or relatives of theirs), and claiming the achieved the sale without going through Goodman Commerical (the sales Broker's) Listing, and thus didn't owe them the commission.
Since Thind is now listed as the owner, they're the ones the claim is being made against in Court.

It now joins a list that includes the multi-phased District Northwest in Surrey, Minoru Square in Richmond, and Highline Metrotown in Burnaby

If Thind Developers were a Bravo TV show, they'd be the 'Real Housewives of Metro Vancouver Developers'.

When's the next table going to flipped....er.... I mean.....any bets on the next Thind property to face foreclosure proceedings.

[kja384]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Another day,....

Basically, the previous owners of the site and development, The Kirpal Group tried to stiff their RE sales broker of their commission by selling the project to Thind (apparently family friends or relatives of theirs), and claiming the achieved the sale without going through Goodman Commerical (the sales Broker's) Listing, and thus didn't owe them the commission.
Since Thind is now listed as the owner, they're the ones the claim is being made against in Court.

Lollll that's exactly what happened with their hotel component at Highline, tried to cut out the realtor.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by kja384

Lollll that's exactly what happened with their hotel component at Highline, tried to cut out the realtor.

They must be the shadiest developers in all of Metro Vancouver.

And it's not even close.

4 projects now facing foreclosure.

You'd have to be a really brave realtor or financier to get into bed with these guys on a project after all this.