Burnaby Updates

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by vanman

Please no. The Boot is basically heritage for Burnaby standards.

Ironically, the Boot is not so much a heritage building, much less even a landmark building for Burnarby.....as such.....despite actually being in Burnaby, but (and herein lies the irony) for the longest time - and probably still valid to today, and at least until these towers get built - the Telus Boot has had some weird significance for the Vancouver side, such that any towers being built on the Vancouver side int he vicinity weren't allowed to have a (geodetic) height greater than The Boot.

Ironic because Burnaby on the other hand, clearly doesn't really care about it as a height restricting landmark building, so much so that they're even seemingly going to greenlight a project (this project) that will have almost triple its height all around it and on its lot.

I was passing by the site today onthe skytrain and I noticed the site-prep fencing seems to be actually going around the entire proposed project site ( both Phase 1 and Phase 2 lots - which means both legs that are getting demolished).
Which might imply that they're are indeed prepping the site to demolish both buildings in this initial stage (Which might make more economic sense to do it all at once now).

But whether that means they're doing both phases now rather than in a phased schedule still remains to be seen.
They could demo both legs and then only do phase 1 but use phase 2's side for staging for the Phase 1 construction.

On the flip side, they might also be doing it because they hope to excavate the entire site and do the parking and underground in one shot but then build the towers as the phasing dictates.

Whatever the case, they currently have an excavator on the Boundary road side inside the fencing and the trees on that side have already been protectively-fenced and boxed.
So I guess this project is really moving forward now.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Are people actually complaining about there being more usable greenspace in Brentwood?

It's nuts when you think about it.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Just to be clear, the riparian setback doesn't "exclude" humans from encroaching into the creek area.

It's prohibits construction within the riparian area.

Human beings can still go and enjoy the nature in that creekside, which is kind of part of the point.

Which is silly that it "prohibits" construction because there will need to be construction to return it to whatever state is deemed acceptable.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Just to be clear, the riparian setback doesn't "exclude" humans from encroaching into the creek area.

It's prohibits construction within the riparian area.

Human beings can still go and enjoy the nature in that creekside, which is kind of part of the point.

Just like the rest of the Beecher Creek right? I'm sure you didn't look at the links I provided. These areas are never usable by humans. They're just ravines that people don't feel safe or comfortable spending time near, especially at night.

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

It's nuts when you think about it.

It's only nuts if you want Brentwood to remain a lifeless suburbia with empty sidewalks and full roads. It's nuts to want that.

This is a vibrant waterway oriented public space designed for people to use.

This is a ravine similar to what is designed.

These are not the same.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Just like the rest of the Beecher Creek right? I'm sure you didn't look at the links I provided. These areas are never usable by humans. They're just ravines that people don't feel safe or comfortable spending time near, especially at night.

Who the hell walks beside a river in the middle of the night?

The Grouse Grind or Quarry Rock aren't much more usable for humans either and there's lots of people on those trails.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Who the hell walks beside a river in the middle of the night?

The Grouse Grind or Quarry Rock aren't much more usable for humans either and there's lots of people on those trails.

This is not the win you might think... are we really aiming to make our urban centres depopulated provincial parks that are lifeless at night?

It's so sad that we're conditioned as Vancouverites to think that urban public spaces must be completely unusable at night, when other countries around the world seem to have figured this out centuries ago. Nightlife depends on having usable public spaces to socialise and enjoy the city in.

San Antonio River Walk (at night)

Seoul Cheonggyecheon (at night)

Tokyo Meguro River (at night)

Toulouse Canal du Midi (at night)

Taichung Lyu-Chuan Canal (at night)

It's shockingly undifficult to make small waterways pleasant and useful for humans, yes even at night. It's so sad to me that Vancouverites seem to "value" our greenspaces so much that we design them to make sure people won't use them...

[seamusmcduff]

I would highly recommend surreys development permit guidelines for sensitive ecosystems to get a sense of the intent of these riparian protections, and the benefits/purpose.

Riparian areas are the most ecologically diverse, even new ones that have been restored (which is done with native vegetation). Even a small area can help create connections for small wildlife, among other benefits.

https://www.surrey.ca/renovating-buildin...-community-plan/development-permit-areas

[officedweller]

Here's Beecher Creek on the south side of Goring.
It's already a natural water course that runs to Still Creek and Burnaby Lake.
Rev's is the main part that is still paved over. It's not a ravine in this area.

The City actually allowed a narrower riparian area over the Rev's site to increase the developable area.


https://www.google.com/maps/place/Beeche..._ep=EgoyMDI1MDIwNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Here's a pic of Beecher Creek near the Railway tracks.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/9817122@N05/50947453173/in/photostream/



https://www.google.com/maps/place/Beeche..._ep=EgoyMDI1MDIwNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D


https://search.heritageburnaby.ca/viewer...%2F2009%2F19-Oct-2009%2F77747.pdf#page=1

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Here's Beecher Creek on the south side of Goring. It's already a natural water course that runs to Still Creek and Burnaby Lake. Rev's is the main part that is still paved over. It's not a ravine in this area.

The City actually allowed a narrower riparian area over the Rev's site to increase the developable area.


https://www.google.com/maps/place/Beeche..._ep=EgoyMDI1MDIwNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Here's a pic of Beecher Creek near the Railway tracks.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/9817122@N05/50947453173/in/photostream/

What a lovely public area with plenty of usable greenspace. Let me just bushwack through the blackberries and jump in the creek real quick.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by chowhou

What a lovely public area with plenty of usable greenspace.

The fish like it!

Beecher Creek is a tributary of Still Creek that flows southward from north Burnaby and is home to a resident population of Cutthroat trout and Chum and Coho salmon that return to spawn each fall in the lower reaches.

https://burnabylakepark.ca/burnaby-streamkeeper-groups/

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The fish like it!

https://burnabylakepark.ca/burnaby-streamkeeper-groups/

As long as we admit that these areas are intended to create a less liveable area for humans in order to make a more liveable area for fish at least that's being honest.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by chowhou

As long as we admit that these areas are intended to create a less liveable area for humans in order to make a more liveable area for fish at least that's being honest.

Well, DUH!
That's what protection of a RIPARIAN AREA is for - to protect fish habitat.
Stream setbacks for riparian areas are under federal Fisheries Act and the provincial Fish Protection Act regulations.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Well, DUH!
That's what protection of a RIPARIAN AREA is for - to protect fish habitat.
Stream setbacks for riparian areas are under federal Fisheries Act regulations.

If that's the case then why are we allowing these towers to be built at all then? If protecting fish in the middle of the city is so crucial at the expense of a livable neighbourhood then we ought to mandate returning the entire lot and really the entirety of the city to its original forested state. Humans do not need to be here, we should return the lands of the Lower Mainland to the bears, deer, and eagles too.

[Spr0ckets]

So we're now at the point at which more green spaces and greater protection of natural or restored ecosystems make for "less or lower" livability for human beings.

Wild.

Someone actually intimated that with what I can only imagine was a straight face.

And yes, I did look at those photos and all I'll comment about that, and in a general sense is that "usability" by humans isn't defined by the narrow constraint of,... "I have to be able to walk on it and trample on the vegetation and plantlife on it in the name of hiking,...otherwise what's the point?".

Aside from the other function that these natural watercauseways serve and provide, which I mentioned earlier (and which YOU seem to have ignored and are conveniently moving past) like their housing of ecosystems that plays a role in helping sanitizing some of the runoff water and yes, ....waste water that gets fed back into the wider water causeway network (i.e. the River ssystem) that drains into the sea.......or....I don't know....having more plantlife and greenery around which is always great for stuff like .......more oxygen? and stuff like that,..... I'm still confused as to why it bothers you so much that there would be a lot of greenspace somewhere close to where humans live that we would put restrictions on regarding how much we can build on, or near them.

Because if you're getting this much all bent out of shape because a piddly little creek is getting the standard riparian protection and conservation that happens pretty much all over the place, then....buddy,.....I have some very very bad news for you regarding what the Provincial powers-that-be have done with restricting areas to the north of the city in the province covered with nothing but green and trees for miles.

Dude is really going all out to bat for building honking tall towers all over fish cribs and homes.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

So we're now at the point at which more green spaces and greater protection of natural or restored ecosystems make for "less or lower" livability for human beings.

Wild.

Someone actually intimated that with what I can only imagine was a straight face.

And yes, I did look at those photos and all I'll comment about that, and in a general sense is that "usability" by humans isn't defined by the narrow constraint of,... "I have to be able to walk on it and trample on the vegetation and plantlife on it in the name of hiking,...otherwise what's the point?".

Aside from the other function that these natural watercauseways serve and provide, which I mentioned earlier (and which YOU seem to have ignored and are conveniently moving past) like their housing of ecosystems that plays a role in helping sanitizing some of the runoff water and yes, ....waste water that gets fed back into the wider water causeway network (i.e. the River ssystem) that drains into the sea.......or....I don't know....having more plantlife and greenery around which is always great for stuff like .......more oxygen? and stuff like that,..... I'm still confused as to why it bothers you so much that there would be a lot of greenspace somewhere close to where humans live that we would put restrictions on regarding how much we can build on, or near them.

Because if you're getting this much all bent out of shape because a piddly little creek is getting the standard riparian protection and conservation that happens pretty much all over the place, then....buddy,.....I have some very very bad news for you regarding what the Provincial powers-that-be have done with restricting areas to the north of the city in the province covered with nothing but green and trees for miles.

You think having a vibrant streetscape is going to hurt our... oxygen supply? It's such a good thing REVs is getting redeveloped, I was almost suffocating. There is nothing else of substance to respond to here. If your fallback argument is "well it has to be that way because it's the law", then I wish you all the best.

Please, I beg of you to move here. There is plenty of greenspace for you, it's very livable. You're not meant for the city.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

On the flip side, they might also be doing it because they hope to excavate the entire site and do the parking and underground in one shot but then build the towers as the phasing dictates.

Whatever the case, they currently have an excavator on the Boundary road side inside the fencing and the trees on that side have already been protectively-fenced and boxed.
So I guess this project is really moving forward now.

They won't share a parkade considering the layout of the new towers and the old Boot. I assume they'll want to keep a route into the Boot parkade as well during construction.

And it sounds like they are doing the demo in phase 1a so they can restore the facade of the office tower before they start full construction of the new phase 1 towers.

The proposed development plan for the subject site, as shown in Figure #1 below, is for two high-rise residential rental buildings and three high-rise residential strata buildings atop non-market rental and commercial/retail podiums with underground parking, as well as the retrofit, refurbishment, and retention of the existing ‘Boot’ office building. Phase 1a of the redevelopment consists of the demolition of the northern portion of the existing office building on site, followed by the refurbishment of the building’s façade and updates to ensure the retained office building is more closely aligned with building code and safety standards.

https://pub-burnaby.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=73390

[GenWhy?]

This seems similar to the Tatlow Park upgrade, no?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Are people actually complaining about there being more usable greenspace in Brentwood?

I hope it's clear now these people don't want usable greenspace in Brentwood.

[GenWhy?]

I also assume that the image we're all looking at is a released Feb 5 site plan proposal and not an approved detail landscaping plan?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I also assume that the image we're all looking at is a released Feb 5 site plan proposal and not an approved detail landscaping plan?

We can read the rules and regulations along with the planning report to see how livable it will be.

An Environmental Review Committee (ERC) application requesting relaxations to SPEA setbacks associated with Beecher Creek was made in July 2023. Following considerable review and design iterations, ERC supported the reduction of SPEA setbacks to 15 m from the top of bank, with the condition that the applicant enhance the entire 15 m SPEA with native species, and in accordance with the Brentwood Town Centre Plan, provide a 2 m wide pedestrian pathway within the identified SPEA setback (15 m). In keeping with the Brentwood Town Centre Plan, the realignment of Beecher Creek requires a Water Sustainability Act Section 11 approval from the Province. The provincial approval will be required prior to Final Occupancy.

SPEA Protection Once the boundary of the SPEA is confirmed, it must be integrated into the landscape design, and shown on submitted landscape and building drawings. The SPEA must be clearly marked in the field and fenced to protect the area from construction impacts (see item 9). Permanent fencing or installation of a ‘live barrier’ may be required as a condition of ERC approval, for long term protection of the SPEA (see item 7). Wherever possible the SPEA should be integrated as a positive asset into the site. Permanent protection of the SPEA with registration of a restrictive (no-build) covenant may be required as a condition of development approval.

Permanent Fencing. Fencing may be required to retain the SPEA in a natural undisturbed condition in perpetuity, depending on the adjacent land uses. The type of fencing used will depend on the objectives of the site, and could range from a low impact design (e.g. split rail fence) combined with signage, to a tall fence of wood and/or metal where trespassing is a concern. Generally, fencing should be at least four feet tall, to prevent a person easily stepping over the fence. Where possible, fencing should allow the movement of wildlife through a riparian area. In some cases, dense plantings, often including thorny (native) plants may be used to discourage human access into riparian setback areas. Fencing or live barriers must be shown on all landscape drawings.

Trails and infrastructure. Any construction of trails or infrastructure (e.g. roads, sewers, stormwater systems, sediment control facilities) within a SPEA must be approved by the City Environmental Review Committee, and may be subject to compensation requirements. Wherever possible trails will be constructed outside of the SPEA or at least 15m from the top of bank, with appropriately designed viewpoints constructed to minimize impacts. Trails should be combined with service access facilities where possible, to minimize incursions into the streamside area.

Is construction of small structures or formal landscaping allowed within the SPEA?
The intent of the Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area is to provide a natural area
for habitat and stream protection, and the Zoning Bylaw prohibits “development” within this
area, therefore no small structures or formal landscaping are allowed within the SPEA. As
stated by the Ministry of Environment:

The vegetation in the SPEA provides the natural features, functions and conditions that
support fish life processes. In this regard, the vegetation in the SPEA must be left in a
natural, undisturbed state and activities that have the potential to damage it are not
permitted in the SPEA. Where a SPEA has been previously disturbed by development
activities the objective is to allow regeneration of the vegetation either naturally or through
enhancement efforts.

Very usable!