Burnaby Updates

[Vin]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Well if they are knocking down market rental one would assume it would be replaced with market rental.

And I don't see the new mayor causing any developments to slow down. Replacing rentals being demoltioned with new ones will address the issue. Frankly this is how it should've been all along.

Only problem is that the new "affordable" rental apartments would never be as cheap as the ones being knocked down, so tenants would still be crying foul. There is no way spanking new buildings can offer rental fees that equate those of the rundown buildings, unless some kind of subsidized housing system is in place, which should not be encouraged.

With that said, I still feel that people should not be so entitled to cheap housing, but know that they need to work even harder to afford living in better neighbourhoods, especially when they have been given the opportunity to be close to so many amenities for so long when many others are less unfortunate and have to commute long distances. Entitlement is a disease in this part of the world.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

Only problem is that the new "affordable" rental apartments would never be as cheap as the ones being knocked down, so tenants would still be crying foul. There is no way spanking new buildings can offer rental fees that equate those of the rundown buildings, unless some kind of subsidized housing system is in place, which should not be encouraged.

With that said, I still feel that people should not be so entitled to cheap housing, but know that they need to work even harder to afford living in better neighbourhoods, especially when they have been given the opportunity to be close to so many amenities for so long when many others are less unfortunate and have to commute long distances. Entitlement is a disease in this part of the world.

1) New non-market rental housing, while not as low as some current rents in the area / being replaced, are close, and would most likely be income tied, depending on the model Burnaby wishes to go.

2) New buildings can afford and implement non-market components with rents close to many of the rents currently offered in the area in a new building. This is currently done in many forms in Vancouver, for best current market examples. This is a form of private subsidized housing, which is a fairly good practice for government monies. The current formula coming up, as I know, is for new buildings to either include a rental component regardless, or with some density bonusing to mandate non-market rental.

3) While these maneuvers are not to save all rentals for these folks at the rates they are currently at, it's a measure to ensure live-able rents and homes are provided to people and families in Burnaby with access to transit and amenities. Not providing measures to ensure rental housing and ones at rents (through policy and zoning) folks can afford (around or just below current market rates) elsewhere, while current rentals are torn down, all the while a below 1% vacancy rate exists is poor city planning.

4) Less about entitlement rather than: necessity, city policy and planning, land use, housing availability, and transportation management.

As a note, I'm helping relocate hundreds in the area in one form or another and know a swath of their tenant profiles. It's not a good scene. Lots of work to be done from Burnaby staff and council to catch up to the housing issue.

[GenWhy?]

For example, In Vancouver the following rents are "for profit rental housing", which is very close to market rates.

West Area DCL Maximum Rents 2018: Studio $1,646 1-bedroom $1,903 2-bedroom $2,756, 3-bedroom $3,702.

East Area DCL Maximum Rents 2018:Studio $1,496, 1-bedroom $1,730, 2-bedroom $2,505, 3-bedroom $3,365.

Income-tied units for non-market housing when built for profit are built with a income-generating component, much like condos with social housing in the same building. Income-tied rents average on the low end for those earning between $30-80k are the following:

Studio $950 1 Bedroom $1,200 2 Bedroom $1,600 3 Bedroom $2,000.

All of these are current policies in Vancouver and are attainable with the right incentives and models for developers to make a profit. This could be added density or height.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Vin

Only problem is that the new "affordable" rental apartments would never be as cheap as the ones being knocked down, so tenants would still be crying foul. There is no way spanking new buildings can offer rental fees that equate those of the rundown buildings, unless some kind of subsidized housing system is in place, which should not be encouraged.

With that said, I still feel that people should not be so entitled to cheap housing, but know that they need to work even harder to afford living in better neighbourhoods, especially when they have been given the opportunity to be close to so many amenities for so long when many others are less unfortunate and have to commute long distances. Entitlement is a disease in this part of the world.

There's a certain smugness in that comment that's rather unsettling.

A lot of the people who live in those "rundown buildings" are seniors and retired individuals who don't have family or close relatives or a support system within easy reach and who also are on a fixed source of income (mostly their retirement or pensions), and who therefore cannot afford to stay a senior living facilities or retirement homes (nor would they want to as most of them are very independent and capable of living on their own).
Some may have physical disabilities or limitations that limit how far they're able to move around on their own (even while still being able to live on their own with minimal support from outside groups) - and that's setting aside the notion of even getting back into the workforce or the job market (which some of them do anyway).

But I suppose in your perfect world, those "entitled" cheapos should get off their dusty moldy lazy asses and get to affording what the spanking bright new Developments bring and stop being such a drag on everyone else, right?

And let's also not even forget (in some cases) new immigrants or immigrant families who don't have legacy wealth or support systems either (even while they support themselves), or newly graduated young people who are probably still a decade or more from being in the "non-entitled" 'capable of affording living costs on their own' phases of their lives and who also might not have support systems nearby.
Although we know how some on here feel about immigrants, so it's probably a topic best left unbroached.

There's nothing inherently wrong with subsidized or social housing and they are pretty common in most metropolitan mature cities of the world and are a recognition of the fact that not all members of the city or the society will be able to start out their adult lives (or end them, for that matter) with $100k salaries or with "daddy and mommy's" trust fund waiting for them.

P.S.:-
And for the record, in Accounting and Business terminology, the phrase "Entitlement" means something that's actually OWED and should be paid back as soon as possible to help balance accounts - and it's typically used from the perspective of the party that OWES, rather then the one that feels owed, or "entitled" to repayment.

Such as in the case of those seniors, many of whom have already contributed to society for most of their productive lives and would hope, at the very least not to be treated like crap and with a modicum of dignity and respect at the final stages of their lives as their "entitlement" from the society they've already given to.

Given what month this is and what and whom we chose to remember and commemorate for what they did for everyone, you would think that some would actually remember that.

[owenhujb]

Does anyone know how likely Concord Metrotown will be built?

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by owenhujb

Does anyone know how likely Concord Metrotown will be built?

Perhaps eventually. There's a thread for it here with some background info. The master plan for the whole site hasn't budged and is still sitting at second reading.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

For example, In Vancouver the following rents are "for profit rental housing", which is very close to market rates.

West Area DCL Maximum Rents 2018: Studio $1,646 1-bedroom $1,903 2-bedroom $2,756, 3-bedroom $3,702.

East Area DCL Maximum Rents 2018:Studio $1,496, 1-bedroom $1,730, 2-bedroom $2,505, 3-bedroom $3,365.

Income-tied units for non-market housing when built for profit are built with a income-generating component, much like condos with social housing in the same building. Income-tied rents average on the low end for those earning between $30-80k are the following:

Studio $950 1 Bedroom $1,200 2 Bedroom $1,600 3 Bedroom $2,000.

All of these are current policies in Vancouver and are attainable with the right incentives and models for developers to make a profit. This could be added density or height.

Thanks Genwhy? for the insight and info. Just wondering if such rental rates can be maintained in the long term, with no rental increases for the foreseeable future. The rates you quoted, however, are not really affordable for pensioners etc.

Not sure about the rental rates that currently exist for the walkups, but one would think they are still much lower than the rates of the new subsidized housing rental u just mentioned. For old buildings, more family members or apartment mates can live in a single unit, but with more restrictions for newer rental buildings one can also see how it can become a lot more expensive.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

There's a certain smugness in that comment that's rather unsettling.

A lot of the people who live in those "rundown buildings" are seniors and retired individuals who don't have family or close relatives or a support system within easy reach and who also are on a fixed source of income (mostly their retirement or pensions), and who therefore cannot afford to stay a senior living facilities or retirement homes (nor would they want to as most of them are very independent and capable of living on their own).
Some may have physical disabilities or limitations that limit how far they're able to move around on their own (even while still being able to live on their own with minimal support from outside groups) - and that's setting aside the notion of even getting back into the workforce or the job market (which some of them do anyway).

But I suppose in your perfect world, those "entitled" cheapos should get off their dusty moldy lazy asses and get to affording what the spanking bright new Developments bring and stop being such a drag on everyone else, right?

And let's also not even forget (in some cases) new immigrants or immigrant families who don't have legacy wealth or support systems either (even while they support themselves), or newly graduated young people who are probably still a decade or more from being in the "non-entitled" 'capable of affording living costs on their own' phases of their lives and who also might not have support systems nearby.
Although we know how some on here feel about immigrants, so it's probably a topic best left unbroached.

There's nothing inherently wrong with subsidized or social housing and they are pretty common in most metropolitan mature cities of the world and are a recognition of the fact that not all members of the city or the society will be able to start out their adult lives (or end them, for that matter) with $100k salaries or with "daddy and mommy's" trust fund waiting for them.

P.S.:-
And for the record, in Accounting and Business terminology, the phrase "Entitlement" means something that's actually OWED and should be paid back as soon as possible to help balance accounts - and it's typically used from the perspective of the party that OWES, rather then the one that feels owed, or "entitled" to repayment.

Such as in the case of those seniors, many of whom have already contributed to society for most of their productive lives and would hope, at the very least not to be treated like crap and with a modicum of dignity and respect at the final stages of their lives as their "entitlement" from the society they've already given to.

Given what month this is and what and whom we chose to remember and commemorate for what they did for everyone, you would think that some would actually remember that.

Do you have stats to show the number of society-contributing seniors or people with disabilities that end up living in the area to justify your point? It's easy to point the blame finger at people who propose for change, but your logic that these walkups should remain in perpetuity by using the sympathy card for seniors or disabled people just does not hold water. How do they end up living in such rundown housing in the first place? There is already something inherently wrong with the society if that even happens.

[SpongeG]

Renos at casino mark 10 years in Burnaby

Grand Villa Burnaby has expanded its operation and renovated its facilities.

Burnaby Now
NOVEMBER 3, 2018


Grand Villa Burnaby, owned by Gateway Casinos & Entertainment, has undergone a refresh.

Marking its 10th anniversary, Grand Villa Burnaby has undergone $15 million in renovations with an expanded gaming floor and three new restaurants.

Renovations include new VIP and poker rooms, three new places to eat - Atlas Steak + Fish, Chow Lucky Noodle Bar and Villa Bistro – and a renovation of the hotel and conference centre adjacent to the casino.

...

https://www.burnabynow.com/news/renos-at-casino-mark-10-years-in-burnaby-1.23486316

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by Vin

Do you have stats to show the number of society-contributing seniors or people with disabilities that end up living in the area to justify your point? It's easy to point the blame finger at people who propose for change, but your logic that these walkups should remain in perpetuity by using the sympathy card for seniors or disabled people just does not hold water. How do they end up living in such rundown housing in the first place? There is already something inherently wrong with the society if that even happens.

I think you're missing the point. They could replace the walkups with rental units in new developments to house the displaced residents. But the city hasn't been doing that.

[SpongeG]

Burnaby is at a crossroads with affordable housing

SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
PUBLISHED 2 DAYS AGO


Condos in the Gilmore area of Burnaby are seen behind houses in east Vancouver, B.C., on Sept. 20, 2015.

DARRYL DYCK/THE GLOBE AND MAIL

Since he was first elected in 2002, former Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan sat by as vast tracts of affordable walk-up apartments in his city were bulldozed to make way for shiny new condo towers. Burnaby amassed a healthy cash reserve – $1.3-billion – but like Ebenezer Scrooge, spent very little to help poor residents by providing social or affordable housing. As a result, many of Burnaby’s low-income residents were forced to relocate to New Westminster, Surrey and even Vancouver, neighbouring municipalities struggling with their own low vacancy rates and rising property values.

...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/b...at-a-crossroads-with-affordable-housing/

[Anorak]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

Burnaby is at a crossroads with affordable housing

SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
PUBLISHED 2 DAYS AGO


Condos in the Gilmore area of Burnaby are seen behind houses in east Vancouver, B.C., on Sept. 20, 2015.

DARRYL DYCK/THE GLOBE AND MAIL

Since he was first elected in 2002, former Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan sat by as vast tracts of affordable walk-up apartments in his city were bulldozed to make way for shiny new condo towers. Burnaby amassed a healthy cash reserve – $1.3-billion – but like Ebenezer Scrooge, spent very little to help poor residents by providing social or affordable housing. As a result, many of Burnaby’s low-income residents were forced to relocate to New Westminster, Surrey and even Vancouver, neighbouring municipalities struggling with their own low vacancy rates and rising property values.

...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/b...at-a-crossroads-with-affordable-housing/

Ah yes, the solution to low vacancy rates is stopping new construction.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Vin

Do you have stats to show the number of society-contributing seniors or people with disabilities that end up living in the area to justify your point?

They're seniors.
They've already contributed most of their lives to society.
The only way to "prove" this point to you is to show you their tax returns for the working lives. How practical do you think that is?

And do you really want someone to prove to you that there are people who live in those walkups and lowrises who have disabilities or who are seniors?

Really?
Seriously?

Originally Posted by Vin

It's easy to point the blame finger at people who propose for change, but your logic that these walkups should remain in perpetuity by using the sympathy card for seniors or disabled people just does not hold water.

And where exactly in my comments did I say that "the walkups should remain in perpetuity"?
Can you point it out to me?
You seem to be good enough at using the quote function, so please,.... quote exactly where in my comment I said or even implied that.
I'd really appreciate it.

Either that or quit putting words in my mouth and claiming I said or implied things I didn't say and maybe learn how to read correctly.

The walkups are going away.
That's a fact.
They're going to be demolished sooner or later and that's the reality of the situation that nobody's arguing about nor even advocating against.
Certainly not myself.

You disparaged subsidized, affordable and social housing as a means of accommodating the people who get evicted from these walkups, which I pointed out is a way through which cities everywhere else in the world deal with this problem and recognize and acknowledge the fact that not every single member of their society is going to be able to afford $700k to $2 Million condos in these new developments but who might just need a place to stay and live in.

I'm not playing any sympathy card.
I also mentioned immigrant families and young recent graduates as two other groups of people who can and do support themselves AND who DO contribute, but who can't afford to buy (or rent) in these new developments - and which you somehow conveniently ignored.
What do you propose is done with them?

Throw them out in the streets and forget about them?
Or maybe just hope they move to some other city and become someone else's problem - for those of them that can actually afford to do so?

How do you think a homelessness crisis happens in the first place?

Originally Posted by Vin

How do they end up living in such rundown housing in the first place? There is already something inherently wrong with the society if that even happens.

Because the cost of living in the city (in particular living cost, rents, property taxes) has in recent years surpassed the wage growth rate and people can't keep up?
I don't know; are you seriously asking this question because you honestly don't know how people end up living in rundown housing, or is it a rhetorical question?

Yes, there's is something inherently wrong with society, as it is now, and the city is facing a problem that is now apparent to everyone - certainly if it wasn't so before the elections.

But the solution to fixing it is hardly smugly looking at the people most impacted by it and sneering at them while telling them to pull up their socks and get to affording these new developments housing or go live somewhere else and become someone else's problem.
And acting like as if they feel "entitled" to low rents that these walkups offer as opposed to the reality that these are usually their ONLY choice for housing.

I mean, come on man.

[invisibleairwaves]

Originally Posted by Vin

Only problem is that the new "affordable" rental apartments would never be as cheap as the ones being knocked down, so tenants would still be crying foul. There is no way spanking new buildings can offer rental fees that equate those of the rundown buildings, unless some kind of subsidized housing system is in place, which should not be encouraged.

With that said, I still feel that people should not be so entitled to cheap housing, but know that they need to work even harder to afford living in better neighbourhoods, especially when they have been given the opportunity to be close to so many amenities for so long when many others are less unfortunate and have to commute long distances. Entitlement is a disease in this part of the world.

Even if you set aside the issues of disability or age or family wealth/support (and it's inexcusable to do so, but here we are), libertarian bootstrappy gumption just doesn't make up for the increase in Metrotown rents over the past decade or so. Plenty of working professionals with degrees and salaries have been driven to the 'burbs or to (comparatively affordable!) East Van.

It's not just about new buildings vs. old. Every city in the Metro underwent the same condo boom as Burnaby did, only most of them tried to soften the blow of gentrification with rental requirements, non-market requirements, allowing development away from existing apartments, etc. None of them succeeded in keeping rents to pre-boom levels but at the same time none of them failed as badly as Burnaby did in Metrotown. To suggest that new construction made the rental situation an inevitability is to say "we've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas!".

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

Thanks Genwhy? for the insight and info. Just wondering if such rental rates can be maintained in the long term, with no rental increases for the foreseeable future. The rates you quoted, however, are not really affordable for pensioners etc.

Not sure about the rental rates that currently exist for the walkups, but one would think they are still much lower than the rates of the new subsidized housing rental u just mentioned. For old buildings, more family members or apartment mates can live in a single unit, but with more restrictions for newer rental buildings one can also see how it can become a lot more expensive.

From what I've seen, current rents in the walk-ups are around and above the rates of the Vancouver income-tied rates I listed. Which is a fairly normal rate for older stock units in Vancouver ($1,400 for a 1-bed, and $2,000 for a 2-bed). I also honesty don't think you'll get a lot of "pensioner friendly rents" unless you develop social housing (geared towards those under $30k).

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

From what I've seen, current rents in the walk-ups are around and above the rates of the Vancouver income-tied rates I listed. Which is a fairly normal rate for older stock units in Vancouver ($1,400 for a 1-bed, and $2,000 for a 2-bed). I also honesty don't think you'll get a lot of "pensioner friendly rents" unless you develop social housing (geared towards those under $30k).

I'm sure you're right that most pensioners can only afford subsidized rates. The whole problem is that when you've lived somewhere for 10 or 20 years, even if the landlord applied the annual allowable increase, you'll be paying much less than the numbers you're quoting that a new tenant would have to pay.

That's the same issue with the renovation of Berkeley Tower in the West End; many tenants have been there a long time, and couldn't find a new tenancy at anything like the price they've been used to paying. In many cases it's probably close to what they can afford. The demographic 'bulge' of the boomers is significant, and there will be more of them on fixed incomes every year, for several more years. It's not a permanent problem, as they'll all die in a decade or three, but in the meantime it's a significant issue that no housing agency or city has really taken seriously (in terms of providing enough low cost housing to allow them a comfortable life).

[Lexus]

My pics were taken on Nov 5, 2018

Burnaby by Dmytro Zhukovets, on Flickr
Burnaby by Dmytro Zhukovets, on Flickr
Burnaby by Dmytro Zhukovets, on Flickr

[Lexus]

My Pictures were taken on Nov 5, 2018

Burnaby by Dmytro Zhukovets, on Flickr
Burnaby by Dmytro Zhukovets, on Flickr
Burnaby by Dmytro Zhukovets, on Flickr
Burnaby by Dmytro Zhukovets, on Flickr
Burnaby by Dmytro Zhukovets, on Flickr

[Vin]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

I think you're missing the point. They could replace the walkups with rental units in new developments to house the displaced residents. But the city hasn't been doing that.

Well, in that case, you are right. They need the replacement units. That's why the previous mayor got voted off. Renewal still needs to happen in that area with new policies for more affordable housing in place, although I still doubt the new units would be as cheap as the walk-ups. To live so close to all the amenities, shops, etc, people need to be prepared to pay more, and not only to decry the demolition of the walkups. Talked to a couple of people, including a co-worker, who used to live there. Truth is, there are actually a lot more young folks living in the area, and perhaps a handful of seniors/disabled people. Most would not prefer living in a place where they need to walk up so many flights of stairs anyway.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/b...at-a-crossroads-with-affordable-housing/

[Changing City]

I can't recall if this has been reported already, but Vancouvermarket blog is reporting that Peterson Group have bought the Lougheed Saputo site for $209m. No development for a few years, but that'll be another big project right next to transit which won't displace any existing renters.