Burnaby Updates

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

To be fair, most of those new lowrises were first put in application for development before the City put out their 'Downtown Core' plan - which obviously means closer to nothing on that side of Royal Oak, however it was in concert with the city's overall drive and increased push to have more density around Transit hubs.

...

The Metrotown downtown south-east boundary is Royal Oak and Imperial - so everything in an immediate circle around Royal Oak Station is part of that Urban Area instead. While I would really like to see some 6 storey buildings mixed in with the 4 storey ones I suspect that wouldn't go with their 'urban village' vibe for the Royal Oak area - hell they have some row houses right near the station. They'll likely only agree to some 6 storey buildings along / near Kingsway and that's it.

The article you posted is a little further away from a transit hub and near the edge of the Royal Oak area. I still wouldn't call it a 'prime redevelopment area' but otherwise yeah I agree people shouldn't be planning on being in a place forever when they don't own it.

Anywhere within the Metrotown downtown area is still a hot area for redevelopment. It feels like the tower building frenzy has calmed down for the moment. I have no doubt there's planning going on in the background and it'll pick up again soon. In the meantime there's a bit of breathing room and some lowrise buildings are going up.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the delays on the lowrises is because there weren't enough construction crews to go around. I know with my building we've had trouble getting trades in to do repairs because why bother doing a job that'll take a few weeks or months vs working for a few years on one of the new towers going up.

Originally Posted by officedweller

Reminds me of the disparity in heights and densities between the north and south sides of West 2nd Ave. in Vancouver - which has been or is in the process of being changed.

The edges of the Metrotown area are zoned for lower buildings than what's allowed in the center. So while there will be a difference in heights it's not like one side of the street will be a supertall and the other side will be single storey houses.

[logan5]

Given how Metrotown has evolved into a large and dense cluster of towers, it would seem strange to have a low rise building at such a busy intersection such as Royal Oak and Kingsway (Safeway). I bet the City of Burnaby could be convinced to allow more height and density on that site if they included rental units. Don't be surprised if there is a tower there after all.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Sheba

The edges of the Metrotown area are zoned for lower buildings than what's allowed in the center. So while there will be a difference in heights it's not like one side of the street will be a supertall and the other side will be single storey houses.

I expect that the heights will be allowed to vary over time rather than being constrained. It's like having taller buildings on the periphery of downtown Vancouver.

[Ailurus]

A random tidbit...

Seems Polygon has plans for that awkward industrial site behind Fulton House. See RZ 20-35 here:

https://www.burnaby.ca/Assets/city+servi...r+Development+Projects/01+-+February.pdf

"2300 Madison Ave and BC Hydro ROW

Permit construction of a high-density multiple-family residential development with market strata and non-market rental uses

Initial Report 2021.02.08"

[Klazu]

Good news! The site at Willingdon and Maywood has been cleared, so construction start for the 42-floor tower must be imminent. I love how this will add to the skyline, being so far from the current Beresford row.

They have also fenced off the building at Wilson and Central Boulevard, so demolition may follow soon. This would be another 44-floor tower for the area.

[Galaxy]

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Sheba

You really don't know the area. If it was on the west side of Royal Oak then a tower would be proposed (and some have, although none have been built on Royal Oak yet) as it's part of the Metrotown downtown area. This is on the east side of Royal Oak and every single newer build has been 4 floors, with ground floor retail and residential above. The City isn't going to change the rules for this one location.

Just look at Maywood and Willingdon: this area was supposed to be lower-rise in the OCP, but now it seems there will be towers in the 40s here. Even though that area of Royal Oak isn't part of downtown Metrotown, the fact is that the City can actually attract developers to build there if it can be upzoned. That makes a lot of sense, and is a win-win for all. That is how Burnaby triumphs over Vancouver when it comes to attracting developers to build tall: pigheadedness among decision makers isn't always present here, unlike the neighbouring municipality.

[Sheba]

The site on Royal Oak (just up from the station) for social housing has been cleared. The Major Developments page still has it listed as at second reading but I'm guessing it's going to be some version of fast tracked.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

Just look at Maywood and Willingdon: this area was supposed to be lower-rise in the OCP, but now it seems there will be towers in the 40s here. Even though that area of Royal Oak isn't part of downtown Metrotown, the fact is that the City can actually attract developers to build there if it can be upzoned. That makes a lot of sense, and is a win-win for all. That is how Burnaby triumphs over Vancouver when it comes to attracting developers to build tall: pigheadedness among decision makers isn't always present here, unlike the neighbouring municipality.

Was there a draft version or preliminary version of the OCP that wasn't highrise for Maywood? I admit I wasn't in the region yet.

The Royal Oak area's OCP is I believe from the 90's and if going off current trends in Burnaby could feature quite the new set of housing requirements. The displacement tactic sure didn't go over well.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Sheba

The site on Royal Oak (just up from the station) for social housing has been cleared. The Major Developments page still has it listed as at second reading but I'm guessing it's going to be some version of fast tracked.

The term "social housing" has become so negative that I do wonder what type of clientele this building is aimed for?

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Was there a draft version or preliminary version of the OCP that wasn't highrise for Maywood? I admit I wasn't in the region yet.

The Royal Oak area's OCP is I believe from the 90's and if going off current trends in Burnaby could feature quite the new set of housing requirements. The displacement tactic sure didn't go over well.

There was - I remember seeing it too. The latest land use map is Dec 2017 and shows Maywood going from highrises along Beresford down to midrises by Maywood St to lowrises along Imperial.

The overall plan for Royal Oak is from 1999 but the latest land use map for the area is Feb 2016.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Klazu

The term "social housing" has become so negative that I do wonder what type of segment this building is aimed for?

It has? Maybe in the DTES it has but not so much in the rest of the region or province. Of course that's not most of what's listed on the BC Housing page (scroll down to Latest News).

[Klazu]

Didn't see anything about Royal Oak project in there but there are few "there goes the neighborhood" projects underway in central Burnaby.

Checking out BC Housing page for the first time it is pretty incredible to see how many announcements there are already for 2021 alone. And people are saying that the province isn't doing enough... I would like to see the same level of investment in Provincial Parks and some other things that benefit everyone.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Klazu

The term "social housing" has become so negative that I do wonder what type of clientele this building is aimed for?

If I'm not wrong, it's typically low-income (families or individuals) who can't afford market rate or non-market "affordable units, but also who are working and on income and are thus not technically 'Homeless' in the conventional sense of the term (i.e. non-income earner).
So it's not 'Homeless Housing' facilities.

I believe it also covers seniors who are on fixed income/pension but don't need to live in assisted living facilities and residences, but who would be at risk of being evicted at a standard inflationary rent increase situation.

Typically you're talking about people like new immigrants, individuals just getting back on their feet and who may be on Disability or working limited hours, etc. that sort of thing.
The kinds of people most impacted by 'Demovictions' and the loss of the lowrises in the area and who may not be able to afford to move too far from Transit options or their work situations (like at the mall or business in the area).

Again, I could be wrong, and I'm happy to be corrected in case I got anything incorrect, but I'd suggest checking with City Duo's blog, who did a great breakdown between the different categories ( Social Housing - Low income - Moderate Income - non-market - Affordable Housing - Market rate)

[Flynn86]

I have some crazy photos of a big screw up on a tower but how do I post them

[Flynn86]

https://flic.kr/p/2kGTBT2

https://flic.kr/p/2kGPpZb

https://flic.kr/p/2kGT2gL

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

If I'm not wrong, it's typically low-income (families or individuals) who can't afford market rate or non-market "affordable units, but also who are working and on income and are thus not technically 'Homeless' in the conventional sense of the term (i.e. non-income earner).
So it's not 'Homeless Housing' facilities.

I believe it also covers seniors who are on fixed income/pension but don't need to live in assisted living facilities and residences, but who would be at risk of being evicted at a standard inflationary rent increase situation.

Typically you're talking about people like new immigrants, individuals just getting back on their feet and who may be on Disability or working limited hours, etc. that sort of thing.
The kinds of people most impacted by 'Demovictions' and the loss of the lowrises in the area and who may not be able to afford to move too far from Transit options or their work situations (like at the mall or business in the area).

Again, I could be wrong, and I'm happy to be corrected in case I got anything incorrect, but I'd suggest checking with City Duo's blog, who did a great breakdown between the different categories ( Social Housing - Low income - Moderate Income - non-market - Affordable Housing - Market rate)

Yeah there are a lot of types of people who move into these various types of housing - it's not just homeless junkies who would tear copper out of the walls to sell for their next fix.

I live near a few co-ops and I know one of them ('cause it's on my street) is run by BC Housing and most of the people living there are seniors. It's hardly the horror stories some people seem to think of when they hear 'social housing'. I've gotten to know some of them as I see them out walking their dogs - and they're regular people, just like the rest of us.

Originally Posted by Klazu

Checking out BC Housing page for the first time it is pretty incredible to see how many announcements there are already for 2021 alone. And people are saying that the province isn't doing enough... I would like to see the same level of investment in Provincial Parks and some other things that benefit everyone.

Sadly it's just the initial announcement - who knows when shovels will be in the ground. They tend to post a flurry of them and then things can be quiet for weeks to months until the next batch of announcements (which tends to match with when the BC gov is in session in Victoria).

[Marshal]

This time I agree with Klazu. I don't care about social care. For me, I am disappointed to see the money going into hospitals. I am healthy and have not been in a hospital yet. Hospitals are full of sick people on drugs. They are surely a minority. I would rather those millions went into the parks too. Then everyone can enjoy the investment. I like my recreation. The wilderness is a beautiful resource; one I want served up conveniently in the form of 'parks.'

[SpongeG]

regarding a 34 storey on Kathleen in the metrotown area

Burnaby mega-rental tower approved - with changes to 'awful' design, says councillor

https://www.burnabynow.com/local-news/bu...-to-awful-design-says-councillor-3473047

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Flynn86

https://flic.kr/p/2kGTBT2

https://flic.kr/p/2kGPpZb

https://flic.kr/p/2kGT2gL

Geez, what happened there?

Looks like a miscommunication between the crane operator and the people on the tower.

Is that in Brentwood?
Looks like Solo.