Burnaby Updates

[jollyburger]

Burnaby Heights construction hole here to stay after condo development goes bust

Burnaby Heights residents can expect to be looking at a giant hole in the ground just off Hastings Street for a few more years after the failure of another development at the site.

Buyers got an email last month informing them Siena The Heights at 4451 Hastings St. was going into receivership after the developer, I4PG, was "unable to conclude satisfactory" financing arrangements.

"This is a very sad and disappointing outcome for everyone having an interest in the project, following several months of effort on our part to keep the project alive," stated the Jan. 16 message from I4PG president Myron Calof.

The development, directly across Hastings Street from the Heights Safeway was planned as a five-storey mixed-use development, with commercial space and 38 residential units.

Calof told the Burnaby NOW all of the commercial lots had been sold along with 28 of the residential units.

The developers had planned to complete the project in January, but it stalled before the all of the foundation work was complete.

"A considerable amount of foundation work has been done, but you have to look down and understand what you’re looking for," Calof told the NOW in a phone interview Wednesday.

Contaminated soil that was the subject of a lawsuit was also removed "a long time ago," he said.

According to the most recent assessment (July 1, 2024), the property is worth $12,269,000, $9,105,000 for the 0.4 acre of land and $3,164,000 for the buildings.

The receivership is set to take effect no later than Feb. 14, after which the property will be sold.

Calof expects another developer will purchase the property.

He said he thinks a finished project could be in place in three years.

"A lot of the hard part's been done," Calof said. "It's been rezoned; there's a development permit; there's building permit. The long process is over."

As for what went wrong with Siena, Calof wouldn't say.

"I really can't say anything more than I have," he said.

Siena wasn't the first condo project to be announced at the site.

Another developer, Empire Developments, owned the land before, and its four-storey "Venice" mixed-use development plan made it to second reading at city council and a public hearing in December 2008, but the project never materialized.

https://www.burnabynow.com/local-news/bu...ter-condo-development-goes-bust-10197031

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by chowhou

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

You forgot to highlight the 2 metre wide PATH on the west side of the riparian area in accordance with the Brentwood Town Centre Plan,
unless you need to be able to play soccer on top of the stream bed for it to be useable, in which case you would walk over to the Concord Brentwood playing fields at Brentwood Park South.

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.

Here's the statement in the Holdom Station Area Plan of the Brentwood Town Centre Plan:


https://burnaby.widen.net/s/bxkdkbql8q/holdom-station-area-guide-plan-2010


https://burnaby.widen.net/s/bxkdkbql8q/holdom-station-area-guide-plan-2010

Here's the Concord Brentwood plan just a bit to the west showing Brentwood Park South.
The watercourse shown in the park marked Stickleback Creek is the one marked above on the Holdom Plan Map 8 as "Delta Avenue Drainage".


https://concordbrentwood.com/oasis/circle

[Migrant_Coconut]

Lot of horrible assumptions going around - Tatlow Creek was given the same treatment not that long ago and looks perfectly fine. Not every green space needs to look like a botanic garden.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Lot of horrible assumptions going around - Tatlow Creek was given the same treatment not that long ago and looks perfectly fine. Not every green space needs to look like a botanic garden.

Tatlow Park isn't in the middle of what is supposed to be a commercial high street.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Tatlow Park isn't in the middle of what is supposed to be a commercial high street.

The frontage of Brentwood Park South (Concord Brentwood), creek and adjacent school along Dawson St. will also deaden the commercial high street too, like how David Lam Park, downtown, forces the end of the commercial area of Pacific Blvd.
The older condo projects along Dawson (at Beta Ave.) probably do not have retail at grade, either.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Tatlow Park isn't in the middle of what is supposed to be a commercial high street.

The southeast corner of a commercial high street - even then, that corner is centred on Douglas/Goring and kinda-sorta around Holdom Station. A grand total of one person is expecting Beecher Creek to become NEFC or Canary Wharf.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The southeast corner of a commercial high street - even then, that corner is centred on Douglas/Goring and kinda-sorta around Holdom Station. A grand total of one person is expecting Beecher Creek to become NEFC or Canary Wharf.

Yeah you're right, there's no sense ever trying to have anything nice in Vancouver. It's my fault for having any aspirations at all.

Humans bad. Fish good. Pedestrians bad. Cars good. Street activation bad. Suburbia good. I will submit. There are five lights. I surrender.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

- snip -

Vancouver "aspired" for Tatlow to be better; after the upgrades, locals and tourists alike enjoy it. Here, Holdom was never busy, and Brentwood's going to hog all the customers anyway. People and nature can coexist... and being miserable about that is a choice.

By contrast, I wish Asia hadn't manicured all the wilderness out of most of its natural spaces, nor made dozens of fake ones. There's a sterility to Sentosa or Cheongyyecheon that Vancouver lacks.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Here, Holdom was never busy, and Brentwood's going to hog all the customers anyway. People and nature can coexist... and being miserable about that is a choice.

This is the classic Vancouver experience whenever anyone wants anything to be better.

1. It was never good so why try
2. Others do it better anyway so why try
3. Why are you trying to make our quaint small rural village into a city? Leave it alone. Stop trying.

Everyone's a NIMBY at heart, you just have to try to build the right thing in the right backyard.

I will adhere to the status quo. I will propose to build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything. Fish good. Human bad. I love Colleen Hardwick. I love Patrick Condon. There are five lights!

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

- snip -

If we wanted the status quo, nothing would be changing at all.

You keep talking about parks for "people," but said people like what Metro Vancouver's doing with its creeks. It's progress, just not your kind of progress - sorry if you can't see the difference.

Maybe in twenty years we should put the creek in a drain pipe and put development and flower gardens on top (like we did with so many others)? That's even more progress.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If we wanted the status quo, nothing would be changing at all.

You keep talking about parks for "people," but "people" like what Vancouver's doing with its creeks. It's progress, just not your kind of progress - sorry if you can't see the difference.

Maybe in twenty years we should put the creek in a drain pipe and put development on top (like we did with so many others)? That's even more progress.

When's the last time you enjoyed some time with friends at scenic Brighton Beach Salt Marsh or enjoyed time to yourself in the city next to the inviting Renfrew Ravine? No one is asking for these. As previously mentioned in the thread they're the downstream effects of regulation, not people craving ravines and phoning into their elected representatives demanding more exclusion zones in their new commercial developments.

Regardless, even if I accept the absurd premise that the people of Vancouver yearn for parts of their urban neighbourhoods to be inaccessible, I've seen what Metro Vancouver voters like and I can't say I have much respect for the average voter's wishes. Vancouverites like having single family neighbourhoods across the Lower Mainland, so therefore we must keep them safe! 15m apartment exclusion zones around SFHs please!

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

When's the last time you enjoyed some time with friends at scenic Brighton Beach Salt Marsh or enjoyed time to yourself in the city next to the inviting Renfrew Ravine? No one is asking for these. As previously mentioned in the thread they're the downstream effects of regulation, not people craving ravines.

Ctrl-G those with Vanier and Tatlow and Camosun and Pacific Spirit and Iona, all of which have plenty of visitors. Give Brighton some time, it just opened.
And Stanley Park is currently one of Vancouver's most popular recreation spots in large part because it hasn't been deregulated; there's been plenty of offers for hotels and condos over the last century, but cooler heads prevailed.

You want a world-class waterfront and/or shopping street, lobby for NEFC to get built - many of us here pushed hard for that one - or the remainder of Olympic Village, or the English Bay renovation, or the North Shore reservations, or the Metro Vancouver Blueway. Holdom... ain't it.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

And Stanley Park is currently one of Vancouver's most popular recreation spots in large part because it hasn't been deregulated; there's been plenty of offers for hotels and condos over the last century, but cooler heads prevailed.

You want a world-class waterfront and/or shopping street, lobby for NEFC to get built - many of us here pushed hard for that one - or the remainder of Olympic Village, or the North Shore reservations, or the Metro Vancouver Blueway. Holdom... ain't it.

I'd really like to one day see the breakdown of what percentage of Stanley Park visitors enjoy the undeveloped parts of the park and what percentage enjoy the developed gardens, aquarium, beaches, seawall, lawns, playgrounds, amphitheatre, miniature railway, water park, lookout... need I go on? And I'd especially like to know what those numbers look like once the sun sets. Either way Stanley Park is designed to be used by humans so I'm not exactly sure what your point is here.

Do you live near Holdom or something? Why are you so adamant that public spaces belong elsewhere and definitely not in that backyard? Heaven forbid we let one single waterway in Metro Vancouver be designed for humans nowadays.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

- snip -

I literally listed my location up in the top right, my poster.

As officedweller mentioned, there'll be a sidewalk right beside the creek, so it's absolutely designed to please homo sapiens sapiens and other species alike; we know absolutely nothing else other than the fact that any development has to be set 15m back from it. Again, it doesn't have to be a botanic garden or wading pool or promenade with storefronts in order for the average human to enjoy it.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I literally listed my location up in the top right, my poster.

As officedweller mentioned, there'll be a sidewalk right beside the creek, so it's absolutely designed to please homo sapiens sapiens and other species alike; we know absolutely nothing else other than the fact that any development has to be set 15m back from it. Again, it doesn't have to be a botanic garden or wading pool or promenade with storefronts in order for the average human to enjoy it.

How blessed we are that Burnaby shall grant us a sidewalk. I've always dreamed of Brentwood having an inviting streetscape like that in front of 29th Street Station. Thank you Burnaby! Thank you BC! One day I hope that inferior spaces like Gastown or the Shipyards will have wonderful "dense plantings designed to discourage human access" but with a sidewalk like Brentwood will have!

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

- snip -

Sidewalks are literally why a park is considered "designed to be used by humans."

Some parks in Vancouver are destination parks, and that's fine. If you want every local green space in the middle of nowhere to have lamp posts (probably a good idea closer to the towers TBF), a splash fountain, two cafes, three mimes, a souvenir stall and fake rocks playing Oscar-winning soundtracks, that's also fine, but that's a "you" problem - others are happy watching birds and fish.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sidewalks are literally why a park is considered "designed to be used by humans."

Some parks in Vancouver are destination parks, and that's fine. If you want every local green space in the middle of nowhere to have lamp posts (probably a good idea closer to the towers TBF), a splash fountain, two cafes, three mimes, a souvenir stall and fake rocks playing Oscar-winning soundtracks, that's also fine, but that's a "you" problem - others are happy watching birds and fish.

Lamp posts would disturb the fish. Can't do that.

[Migrant_Coconut]

To use another example, Iona's "human" zone is basically two service roads (one on a jetty) with a beach and bathroom in-between, and pretty soon one of those jetties will be inaccessible at high tide in order for a river breach to open up more habitat space.

It's always packed regardless, because people like watching sunsets and/or wildlife. They know how to get to Playland (if you want to improve that dump, I'll be right behind you) if they want something "more exciting."

Originally Posted by chowhou

Lamp posts would disturb the fish. Can't do that.

Yeah, they probably would. Bad idea.

[jollyburger]

(Not sure if the Univercity thread needs to be renamed to cover the general campus wide development plan)

SFU's response to the OCP Burnaby 2050. Top of the 30 storey towers will be close to 1500 feet above sea level

Our vision calls for the integration of more space for industry partners, research collaboration and private sector/public sector partnerships. We need a land use
designation that allows for the mixed-use flexibility we require to create a more vibrant and innovative environment. Our plan identifies a new Innovation Precinct located between the main campus and UniverCity, where the gondola upper terminal is expected to be. This Innovation Precinct will support a mix of academic, research, industry partners, collaboration spaces and housing, and will contribute to the local and regional economy by supporting employment growth and new business start-ups. More uses and users will support a more vibrant commercial district on University High Street.

Our view is that student housing, faculty/staff housing and market housing could be successfully integrated into various parts of the main campus, rather than being developed solely in residential-only precincts.

It is our experience that the cost of concrete or mass timber means mid-rise residential buildings of 12 storeys (including student housing and market housing) are not financially viable. Buildings need to be taller to bring the construction cost per square foot as low as possible.

1. More land designated for open space
2. Integration of housing, office and retail in the Innovation Precinct. “Institutional”
designation should allow full range of uses currently allowed in P6-BCIT zone plus
market housing (strata and rental).
3. More opportunities for university housing (faculty, students and staff) and for
market housing (rental and strata) across the campus.
4. Heights greater than current limit of 12 storeys to enable mixed use, more compact
development, better use of transit and more sustainable infrastructure.

https://pub-burnaby.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=80464

The 2017-2020 campus master plan

https://www.sfu.ca/burnaby2065/about.html



https://www.urbanstrategies.com/project/simon-fraser-university/

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

They know how to get to Playland (if you want to improve that dump, I'll be right behind you) if they want something "more exciting."

reminds me, did anything ever happen with this? or is it just dead?

2016 plans
2019 plans
2022 plans