Burnaby Updates

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

That's madness.

The market highrise-adjacent to-shorter rental tower model ought to be a standard that the city should be encouraging whenever developers are able to build them that way, if even as a means of putting a dent in replacing all the affordable housing they're losing whenever these lots get developed.

If I'm not wrong there's a similar proposal for the lot adjacent to the Metroplace towers on Beresford, I believe done in conjunction with Housing BC.

It really should be a no-brainer IMO.

Interesting, must be very recent. I have a report to the City of Burnaby from December 2017 on all recent non-market and market rental projects in the city and there doesn't appear in it. Only BC Housing one's I know of are going up around Kingsway.

Yeah, on the rental portion I mentioned. The client showed us all the design proposals they were able to economically bring forward that had a rental / reduced rent portion - essentially a two-tower development on multiple lots. The City wanted instead to maintain their design and plan standards of 1 tower with a very long and large podium... so large setbacks between towers. The 2nd tower they proposed was somewhere around 14 stories. The site is about double Metroplace in lot area, but allowed only 1 tower. So the City of Burnaby is just tearing down all the old rental with no replacement, no spaces for existing tenants through their area plans and lack of replacement of single family homes, not to mention a lack of Rate of Change.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Tetsuo

I'm pretty sure the city is trying to offload/sell those sites no?

Yes for the Seniors Center - and seeing as it's part of Edmonds town centre it'll be zoned for a tower so I doubt it'll sit empty for long.

I haven't been able to find anything about the old library site. I just looked again and there's nothing.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Interesting, must be very recent. I have a report to the City of Burnaby from December 2017 on all recent non-market and market rental projects in the city and there doesn't appear in it. Only BC Housing one's I know of are going up around Kingsway.

It's not new. I looked back and we were talking about it on here in Oct 2016.

[GenWhy?]

Ah yes, 6500 Sussex Ave. I completely glossed over the report. Correct BC Housing is a part of it and it's currently still going through the rezoning application with a 14-storey 125 unit building. Went to public hearing on December 11th, 2017. Partnership between the City of Burnaby, BC Housing, and New Vista Society, and Thind Properties. City tossed in a cool $7 million.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Interesting, must be very recent. I have a report to the City of Burnaby from December 2017 on all recent non-market and market rental projects in the city and there doesn't appear in it. Only BC Housing one's I know of are going up around Kingsway.

Yeah, on the rental portion I mentioned. The client showed us all the design proposals they were able to economically bring forward that had a rental / reduced rent portion - essentially a two-tower development on multiple lots. The City wanted instead to maintain their design and plan standards of 1 tower with a very long and large podium... so large setbacks between towers. The 2nd tower they proposed was somewhere around 14 stories. The site is about double Metroplace in lot area, but allowed only 1 tower. So the City of Burnaby is just tearing down all the old rental with no replacement, no spaces for existing tenants through their area plans and lack of replacement of single family homes, not to mention a lack of Rate of Change.

So on a site larger than metroplace they only want one tower. This is ridiculous. Why do they only want one very specific type of developement?! Burnaby is going to be an extremely sterile homogenous place.

And if they only want one tower could they allow for larger floor plates then?

[GenWhy?]

You mean like a bulkier tower? Just imagine Beresford... over and over and over. Just big tall rectangles.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

You mean like a bulkier tower? Just imagine Beresford... over and over and over. Just big tall rectangles.

Yeah bulkier towers. As is the tower itself on all these developments seem to take up only a 1/4 of the site.

[SpongeG]

THE FUTURE TEARDOWN OF METROTOWN MIGHT HAPPEN FASTER THAN YOU THINK

Elana Shepert | April 17, 2018

While undoubtedly the most popular mall in Metro Vancouver, the Metropolis at Metrotown may be torn down in the future.

Burnaby city council announced last year that the mall’s demolition was part of long-term plan. Specifically, the teardown is part of a massive vision to restructure the entire Metrotown area.

Indeed, the city centre is currently the most populated one in British Columbia after downtown Vancouver. Also, it is expected to grow more rapidly in the coming years. Over 125,000 new residents are set to move into the city in by 2041.

In turn, the restructuring is meant to accommodate this tremendous growth; however, residents are furious about the decision.

RELATED: Metrotown Station Just Opened An Additional Four Escalators

Efforts to Prevent Metrotown Demovictions
“The new plan will designate three thousand apartment units in Metrotown for rezoning by raising their legally allowable building heights from three to twelve (or more) stories. This Plan will demovict and displace more than 6,000 renters and further diminish the lower mainland’s shrinking rental stock by handing them over to condo development corporations for massive profit,” reads a campaign from Stop Displacement.

Although these plans are disconcerting, the full timeline was expected to take up 40 years to fulfill. With that in mind, some recent decisions are putting pressure on locals.

On Monday, April 9th, applications were submitted to city council to build four high-rise residential buildings. They would be located at 4960 Bennet St., 5900 Olive Ave, the shared property of 6366 Cassie Ave, and on 6433 McKay Ave.

Mayor Derek Corrigan said that it was too early to decide, but that something would likely need to be done.

...

https://604now.com/residents-future-teardown-metrotown/

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

On Monday, April 9th, applications were submitted to city council to build four high-rise residential buildings. They would be located at 4960 Bennet St., 5900 Olive Ave, the shared property of 6366 Cassie Ave, and on 6433 McKay Ave.

I'm not sure why those properties are listed - 2 are Maywood (demoviction central), 1 over by Patterson and 1 over by Bonsor. Sure they're all in the same general area and replacing older lowrises but that's pretty much every development happening there.

[Tetsuo]

General question for everyone.

What would you personally prefer, redevelopment of the low rises in the area

vs.

redevelopment of the commercial lots in the area (including the mall itself)

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Tetsuo

General question for everyone.

What would you personally prefer, redevelopment of the low rises in the area

vs.

redevelopment of the commercial lots in the area (including the mall itself)

For the most part the lowrises are in crap shape and would end up getting redeveloped - the developers just timed it for when they could build towers in a hot market.

I have no issue with the mall parking lots being redevloped (this includes the former Sears and likely also the former Target spaces). I don't agree with redeveloping the mall itself.

[GenWhy?]

There are 15 towers / projects in the preliminary stage around Metrotown... might be know/unknown as most are on or yet to be at 1st reading so far. To clarify my earlier point of the City's position on the subsidized rental. Got clarification on the development I'm on. Turned out why the non-market rental didn't pass the smell test with burnaby. The sites in question are two separate legal lots. One with a condo Metrotown tower special, the other a low-rise rental... was because 1) they didn't want to give bonus density to a developer who was already building a condo tower on the site next to it to allow more density for a tower (even if it was non-market rental to replace the housing of those displaced in the area, and 2) they wouldn't allow a developer to own land/building and let a non-profit operate the units. They are only just now doing this in Vancouver where the developer retains the land/building and "leases: it to a nonprofit to operate the social housing. The old model is to forfeit it over to the non-profit. We're executing this and under the SHORT program in Vancouver, but... in Burnaby they need to catch up and step it up or there is going to be a lot of families displaced and in need of homes. I think we have... 300ish people to relocate in 3 years... at the moment.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Tetsuo

General question for everyone.

What would you personally prefer, redevelopment of the low rises in the area

vs.

redevelopment of the commercial lots in the area (including the mall itself)

It's more complex than that. Many buildings in the area could receive updates to extend their life. Issues around Rate of Change could have been implemented, more rental, bonus density tied to rental at certain rental rates (the mentioned 2 tower scheme above), rezoing single family homes and commercial spaces in the area... etc. The low hanging fruit under the plans and lack of rental /renter protection is the low rise old walk-ups. There is so much square feet of area and with no height limits from the City the plan really craps on those that will have to move (hundreds if not almost 2000+ of people in the next 5 years alone) to places that either don't exist in Burnaby, pish them out further, or bust their bank. I look at rent rolls all day, and yes they are low... but these families and seniors can't find new lodgings anywhere at the rate they pay... a rate they can only afford. That's the real issue.It should have been phased in and more comprehensive, but we're where we are and I'm evicting hundreds of people because of poor zoning, planning, and foresight.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I have no issue with the mall parking lots being redevloped (this includes the former Sears and likely also the former Target spaces). I don't agree with redeveloping the mall itself.

^ This. Metrotown is more or less the reason people go all the way to shop or eat at south Burnaby - if they get rid of it, they lose most of their non-local customers.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

but we're where we are and I'm evicting hundreds of people because of poor zoning, planning, and foresight.

That sounds like it must be difficult for you.


https://media.giphy.com/media/xUPGcgUsWS8jd3s26k/giphy.gif

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

It's more complex than that. Many buildings in the area could receive updates to extend their life...... Issues around Rate of Change could have been implemented, more rental, bonus density tied to rental at certain rental rates (the mentioned 2 tower scheme above), rezoing single family homes and commercial spaces in the area... etc. The low hanging fruit under the plans and lack of rental /renter protection is the low rise old walk-ups. There is so much square feet of area and with no height limits from the City the plan really craps on those that will have to move (hundreds if not almost 2000+ of people in the next 5 years alone) to places that either don't exist in Burnaby, pish them out further, or bust their bank. I look at rent rolls all day, and yes they are low... but these families and seniors can't find new lodgings anywhere at the rate they pay... a rate they can only afford. That's the real issue.It should have been phased in and more comprehensive, but we're where we are and I'm evicting hundreds of people because of poor zoning, planning, and foresight.

They can but they won't.
Why would they (the owners and landlords)? Especially when they can get away with charging the exorbitantly (or disproportionate) rental rates to keep up with the rising property taxes.
And since those out-sized rents are still well below what other owners of newer low and midrises charge for newer units, it means they never run the risk of running out of prospective renters and people to lease out to.

Regardless, this situation is not sustainable for the long-term even for areas that are not at immediate risk for demovictions.
And for the ones that are, or are currently getting demolished, the big losers are the mostly seniors and recent college grads or college students (or middle and low class small families) that live in them as the only affordable option for them.
The young people if they can, probably will move to other cities and provinces (particularly Alberta) - a big loss for BC to lose all that young talent and all that brain-drain. The small families are in a tougher situation, but the toughest of all will probably be the seniors and retirees.


It's a mess, really.
For a city that doesn't like to deal with their homelessness issue (especially not having any homeless shelters), Burnaby is skirting really perilously close to a homelessness calamity, sometime in the near future.
They ought to take a look at California and especially Greater Los Angeles area to get a glimpse of what their future will look like if they don't deal with this situation soon and comprehensively.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

^ This. Metrotown is more or less the reason people go all the way to shop or eat at south Burnaby - if they get rid of it, they lose most of their non-local customers.

The mall is going nowhere.

I realise it's a pipe dream for a lot of people - especially around these parts - and probably in the city) to tear it down and re-design it to fit some grand plan, but at the end of the day, the last word comes down to the landowner and mall landlord - Ivanhoe Cambridge.
And as of right now there's no incentive (financial mainly) for them to go the route that most people think they should go.

In addition to what you've pointed out, it's the third most lucrative retail center in the GVA (after Pacific Centre and Oakridge) and the most highly trafficked one.

I could see them re-developing parts of it (like the old Target store which has been vacant for a long while now......although being above the much busies T & T in the basement complicates that significantly - or the current plans in progress to develop the parking lot area in front of the Superstore and Silvercity on the Kingsway side into residential and office towers.
But nothing large scale to the degree that significantly disrupts mall functions for an extensive period.

Added to all this is the fact that the lost the battle (it seems) to prevent Concord Pacific from developing the old Sears store and the parking infront of it into their own multi-tower project, so what incentive would they have to progress other parties' plans over their own interests?

I just don't see it happening.

[Spork]

Demolish the SFH North of Grange and South of Imperial.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

It's more complex than that. Many buildings in the area could receive updates to extend their life.

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

They can but they won't.
Why would they (the owners and landlords)? Especially when they can get away with charging the exorbitantly (or disproportionate) rental rates to keep up with the rising property taxes.

Exactly. They've done enough to keep the buildings standing - why would they spend any more money than they have to.

[invisibleairwaves]

Originally Posted by Spork

Demolish the SFH North of Grange and South of Imperial.

And subject a few millionaire homeowners to the hardships of packing up and finding a new place to live? Unthinkable. We need to reserve those indignities for the hundreds of paycheque-to-paycheque renters who don't have the luxury of cashing out.