[Burnaby] The Amazing Brentwood | 15 Towers | 186m | 56 flrs | U/C & Proposed

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Vin

Nope, Burnaby is preserving its land stock as parks and green space, and only redeveloping existing built-areas. Hence there are so many high rises. They also have no problem building a 50-storey beside a SFH, which helps in putting pressure on SFH or lower density neighbourhoods to be redeveloped in the long run. Vancouver needs to learn from that.

Burnaby has an incredible amount of land open for redevelopment without needing to touch a single SFH.

Metrotown/Royal Oak area


Gilmore/Brentwood/Holdom area

[dgipson]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Looking good! and nice to see the original mall will be getting renovated too. Are they building towers 1, 2 and 3 now?

Hey guys... this video numbered the towers. But the numbering is different than I've seen in the past. Wondering which one is right? I thought Tower2 was the one right next to the Skytrain but this video says that is Tower3.

[NetMapel]

Just curious if they'll open up the mall up earlier before any of those towers are completed. Seems like the mall is progressing very well and obviously much ahead of the towers. If that's the case, when do you expect that the mall will be opened and accessible to the public ?

[Geof]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Burnaby has an incredible amount of land open for redevelopment without needing to touch a single SFH.

I'm afraid that Brentwood map is not correct. Much of the area you have included is not part of the Town Centre. The railway tracks, not Highway 1, are the southern boundary of the town centre. The western boundary is Gilmore, not Boundary. On the other hand, there is some land north of Lougheed that you have excluded, particularly around Halifax and Springer.

Here is the city plan for Brentwood.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Geof

I'm afraid that Brentwood map is not correct. Much of the area you have included is not part of the Town Centre. The railway tracks, not Highway 1, are the southern boundary of the town centre. The western boundary is Gilmore, not Boundary. On the other hand, there is some land north of Lougheed that you have excluded, particularly around Halifax and Springer.

It was just a rough sketch based on what is not currently SFHs and is already mostly commercial/industrial and just because it's not currently part of the Town Center plan doesn't mean in another 20-25 years it can't be redeveloped to add significant density.

Remember, in 20 years most of the existing Brentwood Town Center area will have been built up allowing new areas to be rezoned and redeveloped with additional density.

The point I'm trying to make is that Burnaby has 50+ years left of underdeveloped land to continue densifying (with tall towers as Vin wants) without needing to demolish a single SFH.

[Vin]

Although many would prefer that they demolish the SFHs than more of the industrial lot buildings, especially those further away from the OCP of the town centre.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Vin

Although many would prefer that they demolish the SFHs than more of the industrial lot buildings, especially those further away from the OCP of the town centre.

Why? You don't necessarily have to get rid of industrial uses when you densify. You can easily add office on top of warehouses and other light industrial buildings.

Heck, if you used even a tiny portion of your brain designing a true mixed-use area you could have industrial at grade (possibly even with retail), a few floors of offices above that, and a residential tower on top.


It seems just you have a hatred of SFHs and all you want is towers everywhere...

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Why? You don't necessarily have to get rid of industrial uses when you densify. You can easily add office on top of warehouses and other light industrial buildings.

Heck, if you used even a tiny portion of your brain designing a true mixed-use area you could have industrial at grade (possibly even with retail), a few floors of offices above that, and a residential tower on top.


It seems just you have a hatred of SFHs and all you want is towers everywhere...

This X 10.

We need to rethink the way we zone cities, and with that, the way we build.

No reason a development like Brentwood couldn't accommodate warehousing into the design, underground for instance.

Or why we can't have office, retail, and housing in one building.

It just needs to be incorporated well, built well to limit factors such as noise transfer, and presto.

Limits pocket zoning, limits travel distances, allows us to create thriving living, working spaces.

The idea that offices need to be in block one, restaurants in block 2, residential in block 3, etc, is so antiquated and failed that it shouldn't even be a question anymore.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Why? You don't necessarily have to get rid of industrial uses when you densify. You can easily add office on top of warehouses and other light industrial buildings.

Heck, if you used even a tiny portion of your brain designing a true mixed-use area you could have industrial at grade (possibly even with retail), a few floors of offices above that, and a residential tower on top.


It seems just you have a hatred of SFHs and all you want is towers everywhere...

So why do you think no one's doing it? Huge commercial retail already has certain warehousing capabilities. I'm sure Brentwood with all its retail components will be able to accommodate quite a lot of truck traffic too, but not the huge amount required if you mix industrial with residential and commercial. Do you want a greasy garage below/underneath your food court, with dirty vehicles coming in and out? Or Dairyland semi-trailers rolling in and out of the shopping parking lot? For it to truly work, I suppose you mean only to accommodate light industry, such as IT firms mixed into residential and commercial, but wouldn't that be achieved with simply office buildings in mixed developments? Like it or not, I'm sure those SFHs beside Brentwood mall are slated to go within a decade. To be so simplistic as to state of my hatred for them is nothing but a hyperbole. Hey, if you give me a house with a yard I'll gladly accept it. F.Y.I., towers are ALREADY everywhere in the Lower Mainland.. and they are still spreading.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Vin

So why do you think no one's doing it? Huge commercial retail already has certain warehousing capabilities. I'm sure Brentwood with all its retail components will be able to accommodate quite a lot of truck traffic too, but not the huge amount required if you mix industrial with residential and commercial. Do you want a greasy garage below/underneath your food court, with dirty vehicles coming in and out? Or Dairyland semi-trailers rolling in and out of the shopping parking lot? For it to truly work, I suppose you mean only to accommodate light industry, such as IT firms mixed into residential and commercial, but wouldn't that be achieved with simply office buildings in mixed developments? Like it or not, I'm sure those SFHs beside Brentwood mall are slated to go within a decade. To be so simplistic as to state of my hatred for them is nothing but a hyperbole. Hey, if you give me a house with a yard I'll gladly accept it. F.Y.I., towers are ALREADY everywhere in the Lower Mainland.. and they are still spreading.

I think you're not seeing the bigger picture of how a decentralized model would look like.

Massive warehouse capacity is only required because of our old zoning mentality;

Zone massive swaths of distant farmland into warehousing and have business build mega storage facilities that require trucking logistics to deliver goods

The trucks, trailers, etc, could largely be done away with when stores have their own storage capacity near by, and are replenished on a more frequent, but smaller quantity basis.

Where a truck and 50ft trailer might of been required before, only a 5ton truck or less may be needed now.

This isn't exactly anything new, much of old Europe operates this way.

We just need to do away from an antiqued, and broken zoning mentality in North America, thats is largely based around automobile use.

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by rofina

I think you're not seeing the bigger picture of how a decentralized model would look like.

Massive warehouse capacity is only required because of our old zoning mentality;

Zone massive swaths of distant farmland into warehousing and have business build mega storage facilities that require trucking logistics to deliver goods

The trucks, trailers, etc, could largely be done away with when stores have their own storage capacity near by, and are replenished on a more frequent, but smaller quantity basis.

Where a truck and 50ft trailer might of been required before, only a 5ton truck or less may be needed now.

This isn't exactly anything new, much of old Europe operates this way.

We just need to do away from an antiqued, and broken zoning mentality in North America, thats is largely based around automobile use.

The reason warehouses are on the out skirts is do to cost. Do you realize the amount of goods our modern world consumes each and every day. Even today your local distributors only stock the most common goods in this city. If you need non stock it comes from some where else in the big global market. Oh and just wait for all the high way road way haters when we start widening all the road ways to allow tractor trailer to access these warehouses under a high rise.

If your lucky the business may run for a year or 2 before the stratas want it shut down do to noise dust etc.

Even here farmers are dealing with encroaching residential and have been forced to change as residential has way more votes per mile.

In Richmond Center they have had to almost stop all night work in the mall for construction as high rises that have been built over the years have forced the issue. THe mall routinely gets noise bylaw fines and these are passed down to the contractor. These are a few reasons why industrial is separate.

[GilmoreStation]

Confirmed tenants for the Amazing Brentwood include T&T, McDonalds, Tim Hortons, CIBC, Reitmans

[VarBreStr18]

Originally Posted by GilmoreStation

Confirmed tenants for the Amazing Brentwood include T&T, McDonalds, Tim Hortons, CIBC, Reitmans

Wonder how confirmed is it, since I have not notice any mentioning in their leasing site? Perhaps another confirmed rumors

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Vin

So why do you think no one's doing it?

Because current zoning laws generally don't allow true mixed uses such as combining industrial and residential or make it difficult to get sufficient density in creating mixed industrial/commercial/office projects work financially.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Because current zoning laws generally don't allow true mixed uses such as combining industrial and residential or make it difficult to get sufficient density in creating mixed industrial/commercial/office projects work financially.

There are also code (a number of things centred on safety and separation) issues when mixing some uses, as well as legal/insurance aspects which together make these mixed uses unpalatable to both developers and municipalities.

I work with a Swiss architect as partners on projects in Europe, and have learned a fair bit about how they approach this. (I myself have not done a project like this) They have a greater acceptance of all sorts of mixed uses for a number of reasons which differentiate them from North American practice. As an example, in Switzerland and Austria, they deal with the threat of fire differently than we do. We rely on extensive fire codes, which effectively try to manage every possible scenario and 'write' it out of existence. There, they have a minimal fire code, and instead rely on prevention through diligence (the chimneysweep is a profession with legal clout). The difference is considerable. We have fire codes in excess of 1,000 pages, there's is about 120. They maintain and check all fire related building components/aspects at least once a year, if not considerably more often for things involving industrial. Statistically, they do a considerably better job . . . and that is in the context of them having numerous old structures, less fire separation, and a much higher intensity of proximity and mixed use.

It should also be noted that they have many other forces at work, pushing them to intensify the general mixing of all things 'built.'

[excel]

Today:






mine.

[GilmoreStation]

Shape has just corrected the numbering of the towers on their new video
• Video Link

[Klazu]

Funny that they had to re-release the video.

[logan5]

Geez, I hope they give all those new retail units some colour, some visual variety.

I almost feel like they should have subsidized retail units so as to at least try to duplicate the diversity you have in established neighbourhoods. Unique stores would draw even more people to Brentwood. A win for everybody.

[VarBreStr18]

UNIQLO is unique, will definitely bring attention.