[Burnaby] Gilmore Place | 214.8m | 64fl | Phase 1 Completed

[rofina]

Hopefully with limited excavation this thing grows up fast.

[SpongeG]

I drove past last week on Tuesday at around midnight and there was some work going on the site, there were some trucks doing something.

[vanman]

My pic from today.

[Lexus]

My Pic from SkyTrain 2019-09-06
Untitled by Lexus, on Flickr
Untitled by Lexus, on Flickr

[MetroYVR]

Opinion: Does this Burnaby project next to SkyTrain need so much parking?

People like to complain that there’s never enough parking when they need it, but what if I told you there was too much parking?

Would you storm the NOW office with torches and pitchforks? Likely not, when you can just flay me on social media.

I’m willing to risk this by bringing up an uncomfortable – to some – opinion about the addition of parking spaces.

I bring this up after reading a tweet by Joel Gibbs, who ran for the Burnaby Greens in the 2018 civic election. Unlike most candidates – who say they are on top of civic politics, but disappear until the next election – Gibbs is working his 🞵🞵🞵🞵 off going to council meetings, public hearings and an array of other city meetings, including the housing task force.

Gibbs even live tweets council meetings (you should follow him and NOW reporter Kelvin Gawley for the live tweeting). On Monday night, he tweeted about a public hearing set for Tuesday night for a massive housing project right next to the Gilmore SkyTrain station.

Gibbs drew attention to the city’s formula for parking, which for this project will result in the construction of 1,453 below-ground parking spaces.

Yep, 1,453 parking spaces somehow need to be built right next to a SkyTrain station.

Gibbs said he planned on going to the public hearing, along with this comment: “Join me for another episode of complete climate denial in action tomorrow.”

It’s a fair comment because we’re in a climate emergency and the whole point of putting housing next to transit is so people will use transit and not vehicles.

I read the report by staff about the Onni project and it mentions such warm buzzwords like “walkable neighbourhoods” and “efficiently served by transit.”

“Dawson Street will be developed as a pedestrian-oriented high street.”

And yet, there is a formula in place in which developers have to build so many parking spaces based on the size of the project – resulting in the need for a whopping 1,453 parking spaces. They are below ground, but it’s not about their location, but the conflicting message of being friendly when it comes to transit, cyclists and pedestrians, but still demanding a 🞵🞵🞵🞵 load of parking.

Do we really need this much parking?

That’s a fair question to ask because according to our regional government, a lot of parking connected to housing in our region is a waste.

Metro Vancouver recently presented the 2018 Regional Parking Study to the board of directors, which consists of municipal politicians such as Burnaby Coun. Sav Dhaliwal.

Mike Howell, ace reporter for NOW sister paper the Vancouver Courier, did a nice piece about the parking study.

“It concludes what a similar 2012 study did: there continues to be an excessive number of parking spots at apartment buildings in the region that are not being filled up with cars,” read Howell’s article. “What the study found is that parking supply exceeded utilization by 42 per cent at strata buildings. It was 35 per cent at market rental sites and 41 per cent for mixed tenure and mixed rental.”

Yikes.

Imagine how many of parking spots at the Gilmore project will be empty since it’s right. Next. To. A. SkyTrain. Station. You can also factor in high gas prices and more people are either leaving vehicles at home or not getting them at all – which is a good thing.

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/2019/06/26/burnaby-project-gilmore-skytrain-parking/

[Klazu]

It boggles my mind how some people see things only in black and white. In their mind one only drives a car or takes SkyTrain, but never both!

Most people still do both for different types of trips and I would never get a place without a parking space or two. Lives of these city dwelling "green people" only revolve around their small bubble yet they try to impose bans and limitations on everyone else.

It makes me happy to know these people would rage over me DRIVING all the way to Tsawwassen Mills this morning to shop, although I could just walk to another megamall next to where I live. Sorry but not sorry.

[logan5]

If condo dwellers want parking spaces then that's their choice, but 42% of the spaces not being used? That's a huge number, and underground parkades are costly to build. In large developments like we are seeing in Metrotown, that's several millions of dollars of added cost to to the development for what amounts to dead space.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by logan5

If condo dwellers want parking spaces then that's their choice, but 42% of the spaces not being used? That's a huge number, and underground parkades are costly to build. In large developments like we are seeing in Metrotown, that's several millions of dollars of added cost to to the development for what amounts to dead space.

In 2135 when cars become more and more obsolete and compact, I predict that we will start redeveloping empty parkades into underground units for housing purposes.

A fun little fantasy for ya!

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Klazu

It boggles my mind how some people see things only in black and white. In their mind one only drives a car or takes SkyTrain, but never both!

Most people still do both for different types of trips and I would never get a place without a parking space or two. Lives of these city dwelling "green people" only revolve around their small bubble yet they try to impose bans and limitations on everyone else.

It makes me happy to know these people would rage over me DRIVING all the way to Tsawwassen Mills this morning to shop, although I could just walk to another megamall next to where I live. Sorry but not sorry.

The problem is right now developers are required in many places to add an excessive amount of parking that goes beyond actual demand. Also, with improved public transit and rideshare, we'll likely be seeing less of a need for parking, not more. This excessive parking comes at a tremendous cost, inflating the cost of housing and reducing affordability.

Nobody is arguing that there should be no parking in any project. What makes sense is to instead of having arbitrary minimums is to just get rid of them and let the developer decide based on the demand of buyers.

[Klazu]

I have hard time believing that 42% figure. In all six buildings that I have lived in, residential parking utilization has been close to 90% with people desperately trying to rent a parking space. Sure, technically my two spots and only one car contributes to a lower number, but all parkades I have seen seem to be well-utilized.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I have hard time believing that 42% figure. In all six buildings that I have lived in, residential parking utilization has been close to 90% with people desperately trying to rent a parking space. Sure, technically my two spots and only one car contributes to a lower number, but all parkades I have seen seem to be well-utilized.

That's also anecdotal. I can also tell you from my strata building downtown is that there is a lot of parking that goes unused.

Here's some hard data from Metro Vancouver. Across the board, there is an oversupply of parking in rental and strata buildings.

[cairnstone]

So why is it that parking spots rent for over a $100 a month now in a lot of projects. If there was no demand they would lower the cost. I recently moved and was looking into a few of the new purpose built rental towers. The Westminster I believe was $100 per spot, Similar price in the River District. I would need 2 spots as there is little to no visitor parking in a lot of these developments and no street parking. So I find it hard to believe that there is a huge surplus.

Looking at that project there is less than 1 car per unit.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

The problem is right now developers are required in many places to add an excessive amount of parking that goes beyond actual demand. Also, with improved public transit and rideshare, we'll likely be seeing less of a need for parking, not more. This excessive parking comes at a tremendous cost, inflating the cost of housing and reducing affordability.

Nobody is arguing that there should be no parking in any project. What makes sense is to instead of having arbitrary minimums is to just get rid of them and let the developer decide based on the demand of buyers.

But how would anyone ever be able to determine that?
You can't really estimate the number of parking stalls your development will need based on what past projects (that might have had different circumstances, and different type of buyers and renters, different locale,etc...) ended up using.
And if left to developers like the way you're suggesting, what then do you imagine cost-cutting, profit-driven developers are going to do?
Especially onsidering the fact that parkades are typically among the most expensive parts of any construction project to build (particularly in projects that have underground parkades, given the amount of reinforced steel concrete necessary in such situations).

I can see both sides of the situation, however, it does make sense that cities DO have minimum parking stall requirements per unit, erring on the side of over-supply, than risking under-supplying when you consider the fact that part of the whole reasoning behind it is to reduce the amount of street parking that comes with developments that don't provide sufficient parking - with residents trying to find surface parking anywhere they can while cities are looking to get rid of them.

It also lends itself to the likelihood of parking companies over-charging for their badly needed parking spots - which is already a bad enough problem in downtown especially, where they know they can get away with anything because, ....what else are you going to do?

I don't really think you can force, manipulate or steer people's commuting and transportation habits (like encouraging more people to use public transit or biking or walking), because at the end of the day, if I can afford to own and drive a car, and to own and buy (or rent) a unit in one of these developments, then why would I spend my money in a place that would force me to park several blocks away on the street (if that), just because the developer thought it would be a smart idea to provide way less parking than necessary and all the parking spots got scooped up by the usual "friends and family" shenanigans that tend to accompany the pre-sale antics of these developments.
In that case even the developers lose money when they can't sell units, on top of everything - and the end result is they jack up their prices to cover the losses which only exacerbates the already terrible housing crisis.
It's a no-win situation.

I don't really see the cities or municipalities have a choice in stipulating such a requirement for new developments, particularly if they're also driving towards making streetscapes more walkable and less cluttered with street parking as is the case in most municipalities.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

That's also anecdotal. I can also tell you from my strata building downtown is that there is a lot of parking that goes unused.

Here's some hard data from Metro Vancouver. Across the board, there is an oversupply of parking in rental and strata buildings.

Out of any study I have seen on housing, this one has always been fishy to me.

I visit a lot of commercial/residential buildings around town and there are plenty of notices for wanting to rent additional parking.

My building has 0 spots left. My previous tower was at capacity. 2 buildings I looked at recently only had 1 spot per 2 bedroom, with no option to rent additional because parking was at capacity.

Maybe this parking excess applies to areas like Yaletown but I feel like most buyers I know want at least 1 spot, and often 2.

[cornholio]

New Westminster once didnt build enough parking spaces and once the shine wore off it became a derelict pit of shut businesses and a place for those that could not afford to live elsewhere. In a valiant effort to save downtown New Westminster the city at great expense in the 70's built a huge parkade which helped revitalize the area. It cost them. Only now with skytrain and addition of thousands of private parking spaces in new developments were they able to remove part of the parkade, and that still at great long term risk of creating in decades the same situation they found them selves in last century.

To suggest you dont need parking spaces is insane in developments that will be around for a century. The shine will ware off, trends and needs will continue to change and the public spaces wont be able to handle future demand which is unpredictable to all...an even if they could handle it they would never do it in a livable way like parking supply directly tied to these developments would.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by cornholio

New Westminster once didnt build enough parking spaces and once the shine wore off it became a derelict pit of shut businesses and a place for those that could not afford to live elsewhere. In a valiant effort to save downtown New Westminster the city at great expense in the 70's built a huge parkade which helped revitalize the area. It cost them. Only now with skytrain and addition of thousands of private parking spaces in new developments were they able to remove part of the parkade, and that still at great long term risk of creating in decades the same situation they found them selves in last century.

To suggest you dont need parking spaces is insane in developments that will be around for a century. The shine will ware off, trends and needs will continue to change and the public spaces wont be able to handle future demand which is unpredictable to all...an even if they could handle it they would never do it in a livable way like parking supply directly tied to these developments would.

Not to mention that some sort of individual transportation will always exist. Be it hydrogen powered autonomous cars, or electric, or who knows what.

Space is needed for these things in a region that's constantly growing.

[SpongeG]

Yea, some form of personal transport will always exist. Some areas like the west end maybe able to lessen the amount of spaces required but outer areas will need more.

[MetroYVR]

I personally own two spots, only need one but rented the other. Once my daughter is old enough, she might use that extra spot.

[MetroYVR]

While integrated refrigerators certainly look modern, I was wondering how to replace them with new ones when it comes time to do so?

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by MetroYVR

While integrated refrigerators certainly look modern, I was wondering how to replace them with new ones when it comes time to do so?

Depending on the manufacturer of the refrigerators, they can and do do custom installations into built-in Millwork like this all the time.

For high-end ones more so since a lot of their customers and clients would be to high-end homes with custom-designed millwork for the kitchens.

They might not do it themselves, but they do make them with this sort of thing in mind such that a third party trades person can do it for you.

Of course it's not the same thing as just walking into a Best Buys or Home Depot or Coastal Appliances and walking out with your new fridge and popping it in.
You have to check with the sales clerk or call or talk to the manufacturers first and find out if the model you want can be custom installed.