Burnaby Updates

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Blease

Agreed. Many Vancouverites at their core are hicks, who would happily bring back the small town Vancouver of the 70s & 80s. Don't get me wrong, I grew up in Vancouver and have deep roots in it, but the anti-development, anti-metropolitan, and (let's be honest) the socialist and statist mindset of much of the population is exasperating.

So Blease, what of my comment above,...is the unregulated market perfect and thus won't inherently precipitate its own economic collapse/implode (as history has repeatedly shown via growing income inequality/debt etc.)?? There is however at times a dysfunctional relationship (as with oil and water) between statist planning goals which seek stability (e.g. social or subsidized housing) and that of the volatile/chaotic/unpredictable market based house pricing regime in our mixed (schizophrenic) economy.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Blease

Agreed. Many Vancouverites at their core are hicks, who would happily bring back the small town Vancouver of the 70s & 80s. Don't get me wrong, I grew up in Vancouver and have deep roots in it, but the anti-development, anti-metropolitan, and (let's be honest) the socialist and statist mindset of much of the population is exasperating.

I'm a second-generation Vancouverite with memories of a "quainter" time, and pleasant as it was, one has to bite the bullet, and build the infrastructure, for the city to grow.
And grow it will (and is!) like it or not. Some people, as you say can't/won't grasp that. Pushing 3 million while retaining its "Cutesville-by-The-Sea" image is simply not possible.
And I agree with your statement 100%. That said, it is ironic that these same people have allowed large parts of the city to be butchered by developers.
Ocean Park village, where my grandmother lived when I was a child, hung on for years, but finally bit the dust when it was torn down for mega-houses with pools, etc etc.
Yet the same city-dwellers howl and squawk at the idea of a higher buildings, highway improvements, or even downtown plazas in the classic style without scream-machines and plalo rings.
You can't have it both ways (in the urban context) but some people, as you say, just cannot get their heads around that.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I'm a second-generation Vancouverite with memories of a "quainter" time, and pleasant as it was, one has to bite the bullet, and build the infrastructure, for the city to grow.
And grow it will (and is!) like it or not. Some people, as you say can't/won't grasp that. Pushing 3 million while retaining its "Cutesville-by-The-Sea" image is simply not possible.
And I agree with your statement 100%. That said, it is ironic that these same people have allowed large parts of the city to be butchered by developers.
Ocean Park village, where my grandmother lived when I was a child, hung on for years, but finally bit the dust when it was torn down for mega-houses with pools, etc etc.
Yet the same city-dwellers howl and squawk at the idea of a higher buildings, highway improvements, or even downtown plazas in the classic style without scream-machines and plalo rings.
You can't have it both ways (in the urban context) but some people, as you say, just cannot get their heads around that.

Where was Ocean Park Village?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

....the real questions you should be asking is whether or not all this urban growth benefits Vancouver in terms of housing affordability and attendant needed urban socioeconomic stability/sustainability. Many (lower income but critical) service providers will be forced away from Vancouver (including young families headed by food service workers, police, teachers, health care workers, fire personnel, garbage collectors etc. who all are needed to keep Vancouver's economy rejuvenated and robust over the short-medium-long term).

Yes, urban growth and high density do address affordability. Imagine if Vancouver and all suburb cities only have SFHs, I don't think we would be better off today. In fact, many more of us would end up on the streets.

Urban growth here also makes the Lower Mainland area the only couple of regions in North America with so many high rise towers outside the downtown core (the other one being T.O.), yes, relatively even more so than New York City. We should be proud of that.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Vin

Yes, urban growth and high density do address affordability. Imagine if Vancouver and all suburb cities only have SFHs, I don't think we would be better off today. In fact, many more of us would end up on the streets.

Completely agree with you here, Vin.

Growth and increased density are a big part towards affordability. If massive parts of the CoV were rezoned to allow 4.0+ FSR we would see a lot more affordable, family-sized units being built.

Paul Krugman wrote a good article regrding this:

The answer, surely, is no, at least not to the extent we’re seeing now. Rising demand for urban living by the elite could be met largely by increasing supply. There’s still room to build, even in New York, especially upward. Yet while there is something of a building boom in the city, it’s far smaller than the soaring prices warrant, mainly because land use restrictions are in the way.

http://truthinmedia.com/krugman-land-use-regulations-block-affordable-housing-development/


The same could be said of Vancouver.

[Pinion]

I find it funny when people talk about the good old days when the biggest towers in my area were built in the 60s and 70s when they were in their 20s/30s. Building tall is harder than ever - it's all just FYGM self-interest.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Where was Ocean Park Village?

Ocean Park "village" was at Kwomais Point, just west of White Rock, just south of Crescent Beach,on the "point" where the BN railway tracks curve beneath it.
Cozy, quaint, green and unpretentious, it was a heartbreaker to go back and see it all destroyed, (but that's largely personal nostalgia.)

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Vin

Yes, urban growth and high density do address affordability. Imagine if Vancouver and all suburb cities only have SFHs, I don't think we would be better off today. In fact, many more of us would end up on the streets.

Urban growth here also makes the Lower Mainland area the only couple of regions in North America with so many high rise towers outside the downtown core (the other one being T.O.), yes, relatively even more so than New York City. We should be proud of that.

.....you're are assuming that high rise density equates automatically with housing affordability.......if so I direct you to the ironies of the expensive new high rise developments in Vancouver (with its dearth of social housing component) and the uber priced older skyscraper condo of Manhattan, NYC.'s ultra rich.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Ocean Park "village" was at Kwomais Point, just west of White Rock, just south of Crescent Beach,on the "point" where the BN railway tracks curve beneath it.
Cozy, quaint, green and unpretentious, it was a heartbreaker to go back and see it all destroyed, (but that's largely personal nostalgia.)

Have any pics of what it used to be? (maybe post in the historical photo section)

[sburnaby33]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

....the real questions you should be asking is whether or not all this urban growth benefits Vancouver in terms of housing affordability and attendant needed urban socioeconomic stability/sustainability. Many (lower income but critical) service providers will be forced away from Vancouver (including young families headed by food service workers, police, teachers, health care workers, fire personnel, garbage collectors etc. who all are needed to keep Vancouver's economy rejuvenated and robust over the short-medium-long term).

It is indeed terrible that the service workers that we rely upon may not be able to live close to the city they work and will certainly cause the local economy to stagnate if not remedied. I think the affordability issue would be addressed by greater supply, speeding up developments in areas earmarked for major urban growth, and lowering the quality of finishes in some new developments to lower purchasing costs. In essence, the market needs to be flooded. The demand for condos is barely being met by the supply offered as most people who are looking for SFH are shifting their focus to condos. In the development I purchased in there were literally 50 to 60% more buyers then places offered.

The big dilemma is that all land west of the Pitt River and north of the Fraser has been developed for SFH. We have nowhere to sprawl. The only place is up, but these developments take a lot longer to build than a home, unfortunately. Places like Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, etc. can simply annex an area, have developers come in and make SFHs. The only places that can happen here are Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge, Surrey, and Langley, which are poorly serviced by transit and road infrastructure with the urban core.

I am a teacher and was able to buy in my area of choice, Brentwood, which is a short drive to work in South Burnaby. The caveat is that I live at home, so I do not have to pay rent. However, not many out there are in this position, so having to pay rent will make a sizable down-payment difficult to save for. Maybe take the money from the PPT and give it to first-time homebuyers or families when they make a purchase for a home?

EDIT: It has not helped that we have gone roughly 25 years without a national housing policy. Before 1992 the Federal government regularly gave money to provinces and cities to build affordable housing. During Chretien's time as prime Minister he abolished the housing program to save money to make it look like he could balance the books. Since then virtually no low-income subsidized housing has been developed and no national plan has been enacted to ensure that middle- and low-income workers can get decent housing.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by sburnaby33

I am a teacher and was able to buy in my area of choice, Brentwood, which is a short drive to work in South Burnaby. The caveat is that I live at home, so I do not have to pay rent. However, not many out there are in this position, so having to pay rent will make a sizable down-payment difficult to save for. Maybe take the money from the PPT and give it to first-time homebuyers or families when they make a purchase for a home?

Amen. Private developers will only build at a rate to which will maintain the existing pricing of a new build and will do whatever they can to continue the rate of inflation of new condos until a non profit or government entity step up to the plate and deliver 'real' affordable condos even if that means giving up granite counters, hardwood floors and the expensive to maintain amenities in order to keep the maintenance fees down. That's what community Rec. centres are for.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by sburnaby33

The big dilemma is that all land west of the Pitt River and north of the Fraser has been developed for SFH. We have nowhere to sprawl. The only place is up, but these developments take a lot longer to build than a home, unfortunately. Places like Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, etc. can simply annex an area, have developers come in and make SFHs. The only places that can happen here are Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge, Surrey, and Langley, which are poorly serviced by transit and road infrastructure with the urban core.

You're presenting a strong argument for transportation linked housing land use policy. In addition to mass (skytrain) rail opening up short to medium term housing affordability in such places as Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows there is a clear need to build a direct highway to Powell River and the Sunshine Coast from (preferably Horseshoe Bay) or Squamish etc.. Such transportation infrastructure will expand housing/real estate (affordability) options significantly.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

.....you're are assuming that high rise density equates automatically with housing affordability.......if so I direct you to the ironies of the expensive new high rise developments in Vancouver (with its dearth of social housing component) and the uber priced older skyscraper condo of Manhattan, NYC.'s ultra rich.

I'm just saying without the high density, it could be way way worse. At least now we have an option of buying something cheaper than the SFH and forego the daily hell of commute, and be closer to places of work. Despite the expensive rent, lots of people are able to rent at high-density neighbourhoods and get on to work/school with the nearby transit system. Property price won't stay the same if this city wants to grow in population. Simple math tells us that with a huge increase in population, we must add the density if we don't want to continue with the sprawl. We rather have arable land preserved out in Langley and beyond than to have them taken over by SFH neighbourhoods in them.

Hence I applaud Burnaby, Coquitlam, Richmond, New Westminster and Surrey to do what they can to add lots of density to transit nodes.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Vin

I'm just saying without the high density, it could be way way worse. At least now we have an option of buying something cheaper than the SFH and forego the daily hell of commute, and be closer to places of work. Despite the expensive rent, lots of people are able to rent at high-density neighbourhoods and get on to work/school with the nearby transit system. Property price won't stay the same if this city wants to grow in population. Simple math tells us that with a huge increase in population, we must add the density if we don't want to continue with the sprawl. We rather have arable land preserved out in Langley and beyond than to have them taken over by SFH neighbourhoods in them.

Hence I applaud Burnaby, Coquitlam, Richmond, New Westminster and Surrey to do what they can to add lots of density to transit nodes.

.....a combination of increased housing supply and policy controls in terms of limiting ostentatious/investor demand are needed towards finding a sustainable solution for Vancouver's housing crisis.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Vin

I'm just saying without the high density, it could be way way worse. At least now we have an option of buying something cheaper than the SFH and forego the daily hell of commute, and be closer to places of work. Despite the expensive rent, lots of people are able to rent at high-density neighbourhoods and get on to work/school with the nearby transit system. Property price won't stay the same if this city wants to grow in population. Simple math tells us that with a huge increase in population, we must add the density if we don't want to continue with the sprawl. We rather have arable land preserved out in Langley and beyond than to have them taken over by SFH neighbourhoods in them.

Hence I applaud Burnaby, Coquitlam, Richmond, New Westminster and Surrey to do what they can to add lots of density to transit nodes.

I'd argue in that list Surrey is relatively new to the density at transit nodes, well behind the likes of Burnaby, Coquitlam, Richmond, and New West. That said today yes it is good.

That said, there's a lot of talk about mass transit for affordability but I don't feel that is the case. Look at all the SkyTrain hubs and statistically land prices over the past 20 years around SkyTrain stations has gone up on average 4 times as quickly as everywhere else.

It's the Chicken and Egg problem we have in Metro Vancouver because our mass transit is small. We haven't reached critical mass where it just becomes "another sidewalk" or "another road" and thus doesn't factor into housing prices much. We're a long way from that though.

Right now it just seems:

1. People with less income need to rely on transit more
2. Places close to transit hubs are worth more than those not
3. People with less income therefor can't live close to transit hubs

Look at the average price of residential units in and around Metrotown, Brentwood, Coquitlam Centre, etc.

[red-paladin]

This is getting off topic...

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

.....you're are assuming that high rise density equates automatically with housing affordability.......if so I direct you to the ironies of the expensive new high rise developments in Vancouver (with its dearth of social housing component) and the uber priced older skyscraper condo of Manhattan, NYC.'s ultra rich.

NYC has disastrous rent control policies that act as a disincentive to the construction and maintenance of affordable housing.

[Sheba]

I just noticed that Burnaby has posted a Major Development Projects page for July.

I wonder how fast Southgate is going to be built - they have 3 towers at second reading and another 2 at rezoning initiated.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Jebby

NYC has disastrous rent control policies that act as a disincentive to the construction and maintenance of affordable housing.

If market based capitalist housing policies were really successful we would not have had (socialist) rent/price controls being implemented. Remember that socialism is a response to the historical failures of capitalism and NOT the reverse.

And please don't try dismissing this reality by talking about crony capitalism being the causative factor because no other type of capitalism has ever or will ever exist.

You need to realize that capitalism is a Ponzi Casino that generates illusionary debt based wealth within the context of GROWING INCOME INEQUALITY AND ATTENDANT DEBT (hence a need for social housing and rent controls).

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Have any pics of what it used to be? (maybe post in the historical photo section)

Me, sadly, I have no pics, but as a starter, here are links, if you're interested:

http://www.surrey.ca/culture-recreation/2418.aspx

http://www.whiterockmuseum.ca/archives/askthearchives.php#photo_repro_service