Burnaby Updates

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

That’s very interesting. Do cities have any say in where they should go or is it strictly up to Bc hydro?

It's usually not on city property (i.e the street or sidewalk).
It's almost always entirely on YOUR property - within your property lines.
Even though, as jlousa points out, you don't own it - they do - despite the fact that YOU pay for it.

So no, the city doesn't really have any say, other than stipulating that it's built to conform to public safety measures and standards per the building code.
They can't dictate where it goes or doesn't go, or how it looks like when the building is done.

I can't imagine the city would want any part of it anyway. Just imagine the liability and litigation minefield you'd have to navigate and risk harzards. The red tape and paperwork alone would be a trip.

It's a very odd arrangement but at the same time, one that all parties recognize as a necessary evil (for the building - and neighbourhood in some cases - to have power).

[osirisboy]

So because it’s not on city property the city has no say or won’t involve itself? That makes no sense. The city involves itself with everything on your property. I mean they will involve themselves if a building might produce a shadow on a sidewalk for 5 minutes a day during winter 5 blocks away. They don’t seem to shy away from meddling. Lol

But again in the above situation they could’ve just put a hedge in or something to hide it.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

those Pad Mounted Transformers (PMT) are placed for what is best/easiest for BCH. a developer may get some say, but its up to BC Hydro to do what is best for them and their network. the underground feeder lines need to connect to their existing network and BCH will design that with what is best for the neighbourhood's future. the PMT location, underground duct locations are dependent on existing underground infrastructure, existing BCH infrastructure locations, possible future needs, as well as ease of maintenance/replacements.

the PMT is also in a Statutory RoW on the property, is owned by BCH, and must not be encroached on. the development will pay for them as it is a requirement when using underground electrical lines. the PMT will generally be able to supply 3 properties depending on the size of the PMT, other developments size, projected needs, etc. only the development that triggered the need of the PMT will pay for it, the other developments after get "lucky" and don't have to pay the high amount they cost.

the city doesn't generally get involved with where PMT's are placed since they are on private property, and how can the city dictate to BC Hydro what is ideal for them? they're the electrical experts so they design their system as they need.

can you plant stuff around it? sure you can. our neighbours growing up had a PMT in their front yard, and they planted a hedge around it. so when it was replaced, it was all torn up and it was seeded with grass.

[osirisboy]

Lol

[officedweller]

So it looks like Aoyuan has rebanded its The Grove project to Alpha Gardens,
probably to avoid confusion with the Grosvenor Brentwood project next door ('Grosvenor' being pronounced 'grove-nor').

https://www.instagram.com/p/CLsDjZ3nk3F/?igshid=7ypl0ztken5g

[officedweller]

From Trish Jewison Twitter Apr 2:


https://twitter.com/TrishJewison?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

[Spr0ckets]

That's an awesome view.
Especially that angle capturing the relation between Metrotown and Brentwood in the distance.

Nice drone photography.
I'm assuming or estimating at a slightly higher elevation than what a penthouse level apartment view in the Concord Metrotown project would be (65th floor).
Though set much farther back from Kingsway.

[officedweller]

She's the traffic helicopter reporter - so real helicopter.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

That's an awesome view.
Especially that angle capturing the relation between Metrotown and Brentwood in the distance.

Also captures the relationship between developers and the future demovictions they will have to make in order to make more condo towers happen .

Burnaby, and quite generally all of the Metro Vancouver cities, need a stronger missing middle housing strategy in addition to these towers. I'm not saying that there isn't already missing middle housing projects being proposed but there definitely isn't some sort of emphasis on trying to address population demands through smart missing middle housing zones/projects outside of the city cores.

[vanman]

Some really cool shots of Burnaby in this video. Never seen the city look so dense before.

• Video Link

[Klazu]

Interesting but the video is a bit all over the place with those jump-cuts.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Interesting but the video is a bit all over the place with those jump-cuts.

But love having towers built all over the place though.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by vanman

Some really cool shots of Burnaby in this video. Never seen the city look so dense before.

.....

Yes, looks really cool, but have to agree with Klazu that the jump cuts are just plain annoying (and really pointless, distracting and detract from the entire effort).

But the video also does a great job of underlining Scryer's point about how the city is just ripe for a redevelopment bonanza when you see all those walkups and lowrises south of Beresford that are just sitting fodder waiting for developers to pounce in.

The city in recent times has improved its requirement for developers to include more non-market and affordable housing components to their projects, but who knows if it's enough.
They might need a harder push for some more pure non-market projects to replace all those that will be lost in the coming years once the redevelopments start shifting south in that Beresford neighbourhood (and just north of Kingsway) - just like they're doing in other places like Lougheed and New West.

[vanman]

I agree the editing needs work. The shots though are impressive. Haven't ever seen some of those angles. The lighting is pretty good too.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

The city in recent times has improved its requirement for developers to include more non-market and affordable housing components to their projects, but who knows if it's enough.
They might need a harder push for some more pure non-market projects to replace all those that will be lost in the coming years once the redevelopments start shifting south in that Beresford neighbourhood (and just north of Kingsway) - just like they're doing in other places like Lougheed and New West.

This is an interesting article from December addressing your point. Belford Properties is looking to consolidate 4 properties and build double the amount of below market rental units that currently exists in 2 towers.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by vanman

.....
This is an interesting article from December addressing your point. Belford Properties is looking to consolidate 4 properties and build double the amount of below market rental units that currently exists in 2 towers.

Thanks for that.

I can kind of see both sides of that issue

One the one hand you understand why it would be more beneficial and efficient (read : Cost Effective) for the developers to want to consolidate all the rentals or non-market housing to one separate site from the market component of their development.

The more money they're able to save means the more units and housing they can replace and/or add.

But on the other side of the coin, I also agree with the sentiment that you would really want to try to create a mix of housing-types (and residents) as much as possible and avoid a 'balkanization' that would inevitably happen when you have separate lots with solely market housing on the one hand and others with exclusively non-market on the other hand.

It just makes for a better neighborhood overall IMHO, with a good variation of residents rather than a tiered and stratified kind of neighbourhood.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by vanman

This is an interesting article from December addressing your point. Belford Properties is looking to consolidate 4 properties and build double the amount of below market rental units that currently exists in 2 towers.

To make it more like a downtown district, the City needs to make a road right-of-way bisecting this area, ie. Mayberry Street should continue east to meet Dow Avenue. Then for Heaven's sake, start introducing commercial and mixed-use developments here.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Vin

To make it more like a downtown district, the City needs to make a road right-of-way bisecting this area, ie. Mayberry Street should continue east to meet Dow Avenue. Then for Heaven's sake, start introducing commercial and mixed-use developments here.

They want to keep it as a quiet neighbourhood so the road wouldn't connect to Willingdon - 'cause you know drivers would rat race through here. Other than that I agree with a road cutting across and dividing up those long blocks. Sadly the city seems to think including some walkways is enough.

The only spots that have any hope of commercial or mixed use here are Beresford and maybe Imperial. Everything in-between will be strictly residential. At least they mandated rental replacement so the whole area won't be luxury condo towers. You know very well that the area north of Beresford (eg the mall and Kingsway) is where all the commercial and mixed use buildings will be. You're beating a dead horse by continually bringing it up.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Thanks for that.

I can kind of see both sides of that issue

One the one hand you understand why it would be more beneficial and efficient (read : Cost Effective) for the developers to want to consolidate all the rentals or non-market housing to one separate site from the market component of their development.

The more money they're able to save means the more units and housing they can replace and/or add.

But on the other side of the coin, I also agree with the sentiment that you would really want to try to create a mix of housing-types (and residents) as much as possible and avoid a 'balkanization' that would inevitably happen when you have separate lots with solely market housing on the one hand and others with exclusively non-market on the other hand.

It just makes for a better neighborhood overall IMHO, with a good variation of residents rather than a tiered and stratified kind of neighbourhood.

The transition point is a really good one - no need for the residents to find temporary accommodation while the project is constructed since the new units are at a different site and they can remain in place during that time. That's a huge stress reliever for the residents.

The flip side is that all renters in one building would themselves form a community of their own, rather than being a few floors in a condo tower as the "poor cousins".

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The transition point is a really good one - no need for the residents to find temporary accommodation while the project is constructed since the new units are at a different site and they can remain in place during that time. That's a huge stress reliever for the residents.

The flip side is that all renters in one building would themselves form a community of their own, rather than being a few floors in a condo tower as the "poor cousins".

This is true,..

......but the only thing I fear is that in this type of scenario the developers will be tempted and more likely to "cheap" out the development and go for far lower cost treatments and specs. in that building than they would in a building housing both market and non-market - and while towers that do have both market and non-market units usually bifurcate things like the amenities or entry points and whatnot, the need to smooth out costs usually means they are more apt to "upcost" or "upgrade" the non-market portion construction ( a bit) rather than to down-grade the market portion to even the costs.

The primary reason that Belford are doing it this way is because they are getting more FAR density from the city to do a (much higher upscale) market-only tower elsewhere in the neighbourhood, where they'll really splurge on their budget and flex on the high-end construction quality.

At least that's what I think.