HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #241  
Old Posted May 26, 2019, 6:27 AM
squeezied's Avatar
squeezied squeezied is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
I don't think I need to argue further about this.


The suburbs are now beating Vancouver in building rental housing: report
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/metro-vancouver-rental-housing-update-may-21-2019

The City of Vancouver has traditionally outpaced the rest of Metro Vancouver when it comes to the creation of new purpose-built rental housing, but that no longer is the case.

17-storey tower with 131 rental homes proposed for West Vancouver
A new rental market update by the Goodman Report (GR) indicates the number of proposed rental housing units in Vancouver actually fell by 36% over the last two years from 3,371 units in 2017 to 2,150 units in 2019.

In contrast, the region’s suburban municipalities have seen their proposed rental units skyrocket during the same timeframe — from 2,618 units in 2017 to 6,999 units in 2019.

Vancouver’s downward trend is happening despite its recently enacted policies that are meant to encourage developers to construct new rental units, including the Moderate Income Rental Housing Pilot Program and the Rental 100 Secured Market Rental Housing Policy.

According to GR analysts, developers are turning to suburban municipalities to build rental housing as they are offering very simple incentives. The City of Coquitlam and the City of North Vancouver, for instance, are providing an extra floor space ratio density of 1.0 times the size of the lot.

On the other, the City of Vancouver’s rezoning process is so convoluted and risky, builders of rental are moving elsewhere,” reads the market update.

“In the last two years, the City of Vancouver has gone from the new rental supply sweetheart, with its self-congratulatory missives outlining the success of its programs, to being absolutely outpaced by the suburban market.”

Based on data from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), Vancouver saw its first major new gains in rental housing from 2010 and 2018, when 3,023 units were created — far more than the suburbs. But in 2018, within Vancouver proper, only 12 projects containing 1,364 new rental units were completed.

With a narrowing vacancy rate and a housing affordability crisis that had clearly expanded beyond the borders of Vancouver, other municipalities adopted their own incentives in an attempt to persuade developers to build rental units instead of condominiums that are generally more profitable and provide a quick return.

CMHC’s data notes that Vancouver’s total purpose-built rental stock only grew by 3,960 additional units over a three-decade period — from 54,170 units in 1990 to 58,130 units today. Over this same period, the city’s population grew from about 460,000 people to approximately 650,000 people.

The rental vacancy rate in Vancouver is currently hovering at less than 1%, providing households depending on rental housing with extremely few housing options. According to the city, a healthy vacancy rate ranges between 3% and 4%.

The municipal government is anticipated to provide an update on its housing strategies later this year.
How does this have anything to do with what I was talking about above? Do you even bother to read what I posted? Moreover, do you even bother reading what you posted? I told you to look at that density map you posted more than once. Evidently your head is too 'dense' to understand things. Seriously you come across as a sore loser with the frequent and unsubtle 'look at me, see I'm right, haha, everyone else is wrong' vin logic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #242  
Old Posted May 26, 2019, 5:23 PM
scryer scryer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,964
Hmm... interesting to see a lot of hard-on's for Vin these days. I gotta find that popcorn emoji again .

Last edited by scryer; May 27, 2019 at 4:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #243  
Old Posted May 27, 2019, 7:54 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by squeezied View Post
How does this have anything to do with what I was talking about above? Do you even bother to read what I posted? Moreover, do you even bother reading what you posted? I told you to look at that density map you posted more than once. Evidently your head is too 'dense' to understand things. Seriously you come across as a sore loser with the frequent and unsubtle 'look at me, see I'm right, haha, everyone else is wrong' vin logic.
Are you only good at giving useless insults which have no effect on me whatsoever?

Of course I look at the density map: the rate of density increase over the years of Burnaby is way higher compared to what is happening in Vancouver. East Vancouver started out pretty dense, but have remained almost the same over time. Burnaby started out as mostly yellow, and now it has big patches of dark orange and deep orange urban centres. That is what we are talking about. The best thing about Burnaby is that growth is concentrated in the town centres, leaving other parts less dense with parklands and woods, as compared to the urban sprawl-like growth of Vancouver.

Evidently Vancouver West is still yellow, and that is truly SAD.

I think you need to give you own head a shake before you comment.

Of course by squeezied logic, the suburb beating Vancouver in terms of building more high-density affordable housing, may it be for ownership or rental as well as increasing its stock of high-density commercial and retail spaces have NOTHING to do with increasing urban density. Yes, that's Squeezied logic for you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #244  
Old Posted May 27, 2019, 8:06 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
And I suppose that if there were a report painting Vancouver in a good light, you'd be 100% on board with it? Or perhaps you'd be pointing out obvious biases like the rest of us?

Fact is, even the Goodmans' numbers say Vancouver is well ahead of everybody else in terms of rental housing. 6,999 over all the suburbs is about 1-2k (give or take) for Surrey and Burnaby. The Squamish alone - let alone the rest of the city like NEFC or Cambie, have proposed 3k units on their lands - those do not show up on the report as "proposed" for some inexplicable reason.
Nothing in it says it is beating the suburbs, or the fact that the rate of building density is more than the suburb's.

With that said, I still prefer the current administration way more than the previous one. Kennedy Stewart is taking steps to improve the City overall: something that Vision had failed to do in decades. I just hope the current government don't cave in to Nimby demands.

The suburbs are not considered the traditional urban centres of Metro Vancouver and should not be expected to provide so much housing in the first place. They are only growing because of the inability of Vancouver to perform. No matter how you see it, 6,999 (2019 alone) units of rental housing approved in the burbs still trumps the measly 1,851 (2018-2019) or so units of Vancouver's, big time!

Try harder and show me better numbers k?

Last edited by Vin; May 27, 2019 at 8:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #245  
Old Posted May 27, 2019, 9:09 PM
Changing City's Avatar
Changing City Changing City is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 8,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
No matter how you see it, 6,999 (2019 alone) units of rental housing approved in the burbs still trumps the measly 1,851 (2018-2019) or so units of Vancouver's, big time![/B]

Try harder and show me better numbers k?
Try harder with the reading comprehension first - they're proposed units - not approved units. We don't know the source of the numbers, or what 'proposed' covers, but they're almost certainly inaccurate. They may well count the Squamish 3,000 rental units as 'proposed' in 'the suburbs' - which isn't accurate.

If you look at real data - the CMHC published data on housing starts - in 2018 there were 6,425 rental housing starts in Metro Vancouver, and over half - 3,433 - were in the City of Vancouver.
__________________
Contemporary Vancouver development blog, https://changingcitybook.wordpress.com/ Then and now Vancouver blog https://changingvancouver.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #246  
Old Posted May 27, 2019, 11:15 PM
misher's Avatar
misher misher is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 4,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Changing City View Post
Try harder with the reading comprehension first - they're proposed units - not approved units. We don't know the source of the numbers, or what 'proposed' covers, but they're almost certainly inaccurate. They may well count the Squamish 3,000 rental units as 'proposed' in 'the suburbs' - which isn't accurate.

If you look at real data - the CMHC published data on housing starts - in 2018 there were 6,425 rental housing starts in Metro Vancouver, and over half - 3,433 - were in the City of Vancouver.
Honestly if you look at the EHT numbers combined with the rental vacancy rate it paints a very sad picture. There just isn't enough housing, everything points to that.

Quote:
Highlights from preliminary analysis comparing 2018 and 2017 declaration data are:

The number of residential properties declared as vacant fell by 15%:

This represents a decrease of 163 properties from 1085 for 2017 to 922 for 2018;

There was significant net movement of formerly vacant property into the rental pool of 117 properties;

525 properties declared vacant for both years.

https://council.vancouver.ca/20190227/documents/pspc2.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #247  
Old Posted May 28, 2019, 1:08 AM
Changing City's Avatar
Changing City Changing City is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 8,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by misher View Post
Honestly if you look at the EHT numbers combined with the rental vacancy rate it paints a very sad picture. There just isn't enough housing, everything points to that.
Maybe you should take discussion of the rental market to the rental market thread where it's more appropriate to talk about how you're showing there are apparently fewer empty homes in Vancouver, because more are now being rented (and the rest are paying 1% of their assessed value to help build new non-market rental).

Meanwhile, when there's something to report on the Broadway Corridor Plan, this is the place to do so.
__________________
Contemporary Vancouver development blog, https://changingcitybook.wordpress.com/ Then and now Vancouver blog https://changingvancouver.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #248  
Old Posted May 28, 2019, 3:39 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 10,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Changing City View Post
Try harder with the reading comprehension first - they're proposed units - not approved units. We don't know the source of the numbers, or what 'proposed' covers, but they're almost certainly inaccurate. They may well count the Squamish 3,000 rental units as 'proposed' in 'the suburbs' - which isn't accurate.

If you look at real data - the CMHC published data on housing starts - in 2018 there were 6,425 rental housing starts in Metro Vancouver, and over half - 3,433 - were in the City of Vancouver.
Page 22, to be specific - as many as the suburbs combined, and at least quadruple each individual suburb. To repeat, the authors of the Goodman Report are either mistaken, picking cherries or outright lying.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #249  
Old Posted May 28, 2019, 5:16 AM
squeezied's Avatar
squeezied squeezied is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
Are you only good at giving useless insults which have no effect on me whatsoever?

Of course I look at the density map: the rate of density increase over the years of Burnaby is way higher compared to what is happening in Vancouver. East Vancouver started out pretty dense, but have remained almost the same over time. Burnaby started out as mostly yellow, and now it has big patches of dark orange and deep orange urban centres. That is what we are talking about. The best thing about Burnaby is that growth is concentrated in the town centres, leaving other parts less dense with parklands and woods, as compared to the urban sprawl-like growth of Vancouver.

Evidently Vancouver West is still yellow, and that is truly SAD.

I think you need to give you own head a shake before you comment.

Of course by squeezied logic, the suburb beating Vancouver in terms of building more high-density affordable housing, may it be for ownership or rental as well as increasing its stock of high-density commercial and retail spaces have NOTHING to do with increasing urban density. Yes, that's Squeezied logic for you.
I wouldn't call my insults useless. They've clearly had an effect on you when you feel the need to respond with low level logic.

Tip #1. Stop using blatant exaggerations, frankly they just make you sound inane and unable to use logic. The East side started out dense and has gotten considerably denser, it didn't 'almost remained the same'. I don't know how many time I need (and will need) to tell you, look at the map again, because you must be confusing part of the East side with Burnaby.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
The best thing about Burnaby is that growth is concentrated in the town centres, leaving other parts less dense with parklands and woods, as compared to the urban sprawl-like growth of Vancouver.
This has got to be one of your best quotes. It just shows how delusional your thinking is. Evidently you've never noticed the single family sprawl surrounding Burnaby's town centres. Vancouver's single family neighbourhoods are at least in a dense, compact, tightly-knit grid layout; the same cannot be said for most of Burnaby's sprawl. May I suggest you to look at google satellite view of Burnaby. Let me fix that quote for ya: "The best thing about Vancouver is that growth is concentrated in downtown, leaving other parts less dense with parklands and woods (eg Stanley Park, Pacific Spirit, QE, list goes on...), as compared to the urban sprawl-like growth of Burnaby."

For the West side remaining less dense... what do you expect from the wealthy single family part of town? The wealthy single family parts of Burnaby like Buckingham Heights has also remained the same with no density added. If you are going to fault Vancouver for having low-density single family housing, you need to fault Burnaby for having the same because the town centres are surrounded with them.

And nice... I like how you throw in the 'rental' bit at the squeezied logic. Somehow you needed to tie that unrelated rental article to this topic. It's about time Burnaby build more rental housing instead of demolishing the rental walkups and replacing them with unaffordable condos south of Metrotown. I'm just amused how salty your tone is.

Anyways it sounds like I'm hating on Burnaby but I'm actually not. I'm just trying to get through to your dense mind that Burnaby isn't as progressive as you think it is. But alas I think your mind may be too dense and I'll have another round of this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #250  
Old Posted May 28, 2019, 8:39 AM
Krissy Krissy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 63
Lol Vin logic: Burnaby - just skyscrapers surrounded by bucolic meadows and old growth forests.

Reality: Burnaby - just a Vancouver suburb with a sea of shitty sprawl and suburban high rises.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #251  
Old Posted May 28, 2019, 7:58 PM
Galaxy's Avatar
Galaxy Galaxy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 475
Density along all arterial roads in Metro Vancouver would be ideal. The added density can help to fill bus capacity and increase the efficiency of our existing transit network.

Lets also not all pile on poor Vin. Vin is allowed to have an opinion even if we don't always agree with the ideas expressed in his past posts. I would like to think we can keep these forums somewhat civil and all and allow for sharing of thoughts and opinions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #252  
Old Posted May 28, 2019, 8:24 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 10,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galaxy View Post
Density along all arterial roads in Metro Vancouver would be ideal. The added density can help to fill bus capacity and increase the efficiency of our existing transit network.

Lets also not all pile on poor Vin. Vin is allowed to have an opinion even if we don't always agree with the ideas expressed in his past posts. I would like to think we can keep these forums somewhat civil and all and allow for sharing of thoughts and opinions.
Absolutely. And when he finally decides to judge a city by something other than the height of its towers or the size of its casinos and malls, and in an informed, non-instigatory manner, then we can debate that opinion in a civil fashion; otherwise, he's basically just a kid with a keyboard.

That said, yes, flat-out name calling demeans yourself just as much as the target. Knock it off people.

Multistorey along every arterial would be nice - many of said arterials (Arbutus, Oak, Main) are already getting some.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #253  
Old Posted May 28, 2019, 9:27 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by squeezied View Post
I wouldn't call my insults useless. They've clearly had an effect on you when you feel the need to respond with low level logic.

Tip #1. Stop using blatant exaggerations, frankly they just make you sound inane and unable to use logic. The East side started out dense and has gotten considerably denser, it didn't 'almost remained the same'. I don't know how many time I need (and will need) to tell you, look at the map again, because you must be confusing part of the East side with Burnaby.



This has got to be one of your best quotes. It just shows how delusional your thinking is. Evidently you've never noticed the single family sprawl surrounding Burnaby's town centres. Vancouver's single family neighbourhoods are at least in a dense, compact, tightly-knit grid layout; the same cannot be said for most of Burnaby's sprawl. May I suggest you to look at google satellite view of Burnaby. Let me fix that quote for ya: "The best thing about Vancouver is that growth is concentrated in downtown, leaving other parts less dense with parklands and woods (eg Stanley Park, Pacific Spirit, QE, list goes on...), as compared to the urban sprawl-like growth of Burnaby."

For the West side remaining less dense... what do you expect from the wealthy single family part of town? The wealthy single family parts of Burnaby like Buckingham Heights has also remained the same with no density added. If you are going to fault Vancouver for having low-density single family housing, you need to fault Burnaby for having the same because the town centres are surrounded with them.

And nice... I like how you throw in the 'rental' bit at the squeezied logic. Somehow you needed to tie that unrelated rental article to this topic. It's about time Burnaby build more rental housing instead of demolishing the rental walkups and replacing them with unaffordable condos south of Metrotown. I'm just amused how salty your tone is.

Anyways it sounds like I'm hating on Burnaby but I'm actually not. I'm just trying to get through to your dense mind that Burnaby isn't as progressive as you think it is. But alas I think your mind may be too dense and I'll have another round of this.

Maybe you should just look at this map with the Satellite feature turned on:
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.1594431,-123.0275195,9353a,35y,43.46t/data=!3m1!1e3
This clearly shows there is a lot less urban sprawl than Vancouver in Burnaby, contrary to what you are saying.
See how much green space there is in Burnaby? Those are the yellow shown on the population density map.

Yes, there are single family housing neighbourhoods in Burnaby, but the rate of high density growth in Burnaby's commercial centres is definitely outpacing Vancouver's.

West Broadway area is a perfect example of how Vancouver can achieve the same as Burnaby's, but only if we allow extremely high density growth on it. Allowing only 6-10 storey buildings simply isn't going to cut it unless West Broadway plus multiple streets around that area have the same zoning. We will not be able to achieve the desired density for a long long time.

Perhaps you should lessen your insults and think less highly of yourself to see this.

Last edited by Vin; May 28, 2019 at 9:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #254  
Old Posted May 28, 2019, 9:32 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Absolutely. And when he finally decides to judge a city by something other than the height of its towers or the size of its casinos and malls, and in an informed, non-instigatory manner, then we can debate that opinion in a civil fashion; otherwise, he's basically just a kid with a keyboard.

That said, yes, flat-out name calling demeans yourself just as much as the target. Knock it off people.

Multistorey along every arterial would be nice - many of said arterials (Arbutus, Oak, Main) are already getting some.
You are definitely a pretty sensitive fellow to be easily instigated.

Your latest move is "emboldened" when you find your pack rat support from Squeezied and Krissey. Keep doing it like they do: your insults will just be ignored.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Galaxy View Post
Density along all arterial roads in Metro Vancouver would be ideal. The added density can help to fill bus capacity and increase the efficiency of our existing transit network.

Lets also not all pile on poor Vin. Vin is allowed to have an opinion even if we don't always agree with the ideas expressed in his past posts. I would like to think we can keep these forums somewhat civil and all and allow for sharing of thoughts and opinions.
Thanks buddy. Nice to have someone mature and sensible speak up for a change. It is tempting for me to just keep throwing insults at these guys but I'm trying to refrain from doing it. Can't control what others write though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #255  
Old Posted May 28, 2019, 9:38 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krissy View Post
Lol Vin logic: Burnaby - just skyscrapers surrounded by bucolic meadows and old growth forests.

Reality: Burnaby - just a Vancouver suburb with a sea of shitty sprawl and suburban high rises.
See for yourself:

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2390526,-123.0043608,9688m/data=!3m1!1e3
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #256  
Old Posted May 28, 2019, 9:51 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Changing City View Post
Try harder with the reading comprehension first - they're proposed units - not approved units. We don't know the source of the numbers, or what 'proposed' covers, but they're almost certainly inaccurate. They may well count the Squamish 3,000 rental units as 'proposed' in 'the suburbs' - which isn't accurate.

If you look at real data - the CMHC published data on housing starts - in 2018 there were 6,425 rental housing starts in Metro Vancouver, and over half - 3,433 - were in the City of Vancouver.
So just because you don't agree with them, you discount their numbers too? At least that is a published article, and the publisher can be held accountable for coming up with fake numbers, so I do trust that more than the mere opinions from forumers here. We are trying to establish the fact that the suburbs have outpaced rental housing units than Vancouver's, and the direction they are heading. CMHC's published data only shows the data of actual construction from last year, but obviously there will be a lot more high-density housing in the suburb, including rental housing, especially since Burnaby just voted to approve 20% high density rental housing for all their new developments. Where in North America has the suburb municipalities start outpacing the city centre in high density growths, retail or even building heights? Obviously Vancouver isn't performing so well in that regard.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #257  
Old Posted May 28, 2019, 9:57 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,738
Just throwing this in for good measure.


Burnaby outpaces Vancouver in tower development
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/burnaby-outpaces-vancouver-in-tower-development
Burnaby is putting up a forest of high-rise residential towers up to 65 storeys tall over the next 25 years, far outstripping anything Vancouver is contemplating.

BRIAN MORTON & MATT ROBINSON Updated: April 6, 2016

Burnaby is putting up a forest of highrise residential towers over the next 25 years, far outstripping anything contemplated by Vancouver.

Targeting land around rapid transit nodes and four malls — Metrotown, Brentwood, Lougheed and Edmonds, developers have at least 106 highrise residential buildings with more than 30,000 units proposed or under construction. Of those, 47 are 40 storeys or more in height, according to data collected by a real estate expert with Colliers International. By comparison, there are 68 highrises under development in Vancouver, of which only 13 are 40 storeys or taller.

The scale of the development is dramatically reshaping Burnaby, which has long been content to be a bedroom community to Vancouver and its job-centric downtown core. Burnaby’s town centres developed as local or regional malls surrounded by low-density rental housing or single-family neighbourhoods, but they are now transforming into dense urban communities with towers rivalling those in Vancouver.

Around Brentwood and Gilmore no less than 46 towers, ranging from 25 to 65 storeys, are planned. And at Lougheed Town Centre, on the eastern edge bordering Coquitlam, at least 23 towers up to 65 storeys are planned around the soon-to-be finished Evergreen SkyTrain line. The expansive former Dairyland and Safeway industrial complex near Edmonds will have 19 towers up to 44 storeys tall.

But this pace of development also highlights a disparity between how developers are treated in Burnaby and Vancouver and what the cities expect from them. Many proponents of Burnaby’s biggest projects are developers like Shape Properties, Concord Pacific, Onni, Ledingham McAllister, Polygon, Beedie Industrial and Anthem Properties.

David Taylor, a specialist with Colliers International, said Vancouver’s restrictive building policies and the lack of developable land are largely why developers now target Burnaby with such dramatic results.

“In Vancouver, outside of downtown there are effectively less than a handful of projects where you can do towers. You are not going to find a site in Vancouver to build a highrise, so where are you going to build it? You are going to find it in Burnaby or Coquitlam,” he said.

Taylor pointed to problems the Kettle Society is having building a relatively simple 12-storey building at Venables and Commercial Drive and the recent backlash in Grandview-Woodland over the Vancouver planning department’s plans for towers at Commercial and Broadway.

“You’ve got neighbourhoods that don’t want any development. If you could build towers anywhere in Vancouver, you would see hundreds of them. There is that much demand for that. But the reality is that to build a 40-plus storey tower in the city of Vancouver, even downtown, is extremely difficult.”

Anne McMullin, the CEO of the Urban Development Institute, said Burnaby’s planned development closely aligns with its regional growth strategy. What makes the difference, she said, is that a lot of the land being redeveloped is non-controversial and doesn’t pit neighbourhoods against the developers.

“It’s a lot easier than in Vancouver. These are malls or industrial areas like the Safeway lands,” she said. “It is a lot less controversial and it involves higher densities around transit hubs.”

But Michael Geller, a well-known developer, said many of his colleagues choose Burnaby over Vancouver for simplicity’s sake.

“I think most developers will tell you they like working in Burnaby because it is the place where the political side and the staff side are on the same page,” he said. “For years, developers have been saying that given the way Vancouver manages its planning and approval process, we’re not building in Vancouver.

“In Burnaby it is very clear. They have a policy that makes it absolutely clear how much you pay for extra density. It is almost like going to the butcher shop. You buy your density by the square foot.”

Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan said defined community plans around the town centres and clear rules for how extra density is awarded are why his city attracts big developers.

“We stand out for being consistent in our policy decisions. Every developer who comes in can expect to get the same deal as the developer before him and the one after him,” he said. “They don’t want to think that the next guy might do better than them.”

Burnaby levies extra fees from developers for community benefits. Corrigan said 20 per cent goes into an affordable housing fund and the rest toward local benefits such as libraries, parks and pools.

“We extract a lot from our developers, too. I don’t want to leave the impression that we are leaving anything on the table. We’re very aggressive. We are very clear about what you have to do and how much you have to pay.”

Vancouver Coun. Geoff Meggs dismisses such comparisons. He said his city applies a rigorous rezoning process that may be slow compared to Burnaby, but it gets better results.

“I think they’re different places at different stages of development,” Meggs said. “I don’t think the numbers by themselves tell us anything. I’m not sure how many people in Vancouver would want to win that race anyway.

“It’s not like a race to get as many built as possible in the shortest timeframe. It’s to get a good job done. I don’t have any comments on their processes, but I think ours is pretty careful,” Meggs said. “The people who complain about the timing are developers, but the community feels that things are going far too quickly.”

Jane Pickering, Vancouver’s acting general manager of planning and development services, couldn’t say for sure why developers are building highrises in Burnaby instead of Vancouver.

“I can only speak to the ones built in Vancouver. I think Burnaby has done quite a few new plans around some of their town centres like Lougheed Town Centre. So land that was previously not available has now been made available.”

Pickering also said she doesn’t believe highrises are the only way to address affordable housing, noting that Vancouver is more focused on a diversity of housing types, such as laneway houses.

Pickering disagreed with complaints that Burnaby’s process is clearer than Vancouver’s.

“I think Vancouver’s process is clear, (but) our regulations are sometimes a lot more complex than other places. So it takes a bit more attention. Plus, we have included some things like view corridors that other municipalities don’t have that add a whole layer of what you can do and where you can do it,” she said.” So we have a lot of things aimed at protecting certain specific issues that are very dear to the hearts of people who live in Vancouver.”

Vancouver’s acting mayor Raymond Louie, who is vice-chair of the Metro Vancouver Regional District, said Burnaby is less built out than Vancouver and has more development potential given its lower densities.

As well, he noted: “We have a comprehensive development plan that we’ve developed in order to ensure that there’s a balance between the needs of the future with the current residents, which are typically concerned with the impacts of development in our city.”

Louie said that Vancouver has seen a boom in office developments compared to the rest of the region, and that the Burnaby residential highrise boom may be cyclical.

“We have the highest density in the region and the largest amounts of residential towers, I’d say, anywhere across the region. When other regions were contracting, we had record years. It might be a bit of cycle. We’ve enjoyed good growth in our city (and) now the cycle has turned to Burnaby.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #258  
Old Posted May 28, 2019, 10:22 PM
Marshal Marshal is offline
perhaps . . .
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,493
How about all the combatants grow up. You show incredible immaturity when you get personal with a troll or any other participant on a forum. You have no idea who is behind a nickname so how can you let them bother you? You might be getting all worked up fighting with a 12 year old.

Use your time to discuss/comment on what you think is worth discussing. Let others do the same. Whether their's are insulting or stupid is irrelevant to you. Engage those who say something meaningful to you and grow up and learn to ignore the others.

This nonsense ruins the forum. Please stop.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #259  
Old Posted May 28, 2019, 11:16 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal View Post
How about all the combatants grow up. You show incredible immaturity when you get personal with a troll or any other participant on a forum. You have no idea who is behind a nickname so how can you let them bother you? You might be getting all worked up fighting with a 12 year old.

Use your time to discuss/comment on what you think is worth discussing. Let others do the same. Whether their's are insulting or stupid is irrelevant to you. Engage those who say something meaningful to you and grow up and learn to ignore the others.

This nonsense ruins the forum. Please stop.
Point noted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #260  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 3:03 AM
Krissy Krissy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
Oh do explain...

Vancouver's downtown is denser and more populated than Burnaby's town centres combined.

Vancouver's single family neighbourhood is more compact than Burnaby's.

Vancouver street grid is compact and walkable compared to Burnaby's .

You post a link to a map but evidently you don't bother to look at it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:01 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.