Burnaby Updates

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by VanK

@invisibleairwaves. Are we not all aware that Burnaby has a 20% inclusionary rental policy? At least 20% of the units are below market rental (when taking down existing rental). There is also additional market rental density available on top which many are building. Also existing tenants are "accommodated" between displacement and construction completion. The tenants have first right of refusal to come back into the new build at their existing rents/affordable rents. Its never easy being displaced but its a pretty good compromise.

But that's a relatively recent policy change. For decades Burnaby effectively encouraged the loss of affordable rental buildings and the creation of condo towers.

The question is whether Pinnacle should be able to move their required rental units off-site. The compromise on multi tower projects has often been to allow one building to be rental (including non-market), and the remainder to be wholly strata. Here they want to export the rental to an entirely different location.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Lexus

Also there is no such thing a single family neighbourhoods. Lots of them have suits (legal or illegal) so that could have two families already. I think that whole R zone should be scraped.

there is a difference between a basement suite, which i dont mind, compared to a laneway house which now takes away any privacy the neighbour had in their backyard. i have lived next to a laneway house, and it is not something i plan to do again.

not to mention there were laneway issues such as way more garbage, issues with people parking where i couldn't access my garage. (yes i can call 311, but that doesn't help me leave for work in the morning). there were also some issues of more ground water in my yard from the increased non-permeable area next door. (once again they mitigate this, but it certainly was muddier than it was previously). i never had these issues with basement suites in the neighbourhood. i also noticed my backyard was a tad more warm in the summer. i can hazard a guess that the loss of green-space for the laneway house did increase the heat island effect. there was a hedge lost and tree (wasn't that big, but still some greenery). i can only go by my experiences living with one, and i did not enjoy it. it was detrimental to the quality of life that i had wanted by moving into a SFH neighbourhood. basement suites are hidden, out of the way, and don't impact others nearly as much as laneway houses do.

not everyone salivates over density everywhere. some people enjoy their privacy, peace and quiet away from others. not everyone wants to live ontop of one another. that just breeds conflict and noise and pollution.

i once liked the idea of living downtown, in the centre of the city, etc. but not anymore and certainly not after the pandemic. couple in the fact strata fees are insanely high these days and how shoddily built buildings are; its insane.

[VanK]

Originally Posted by Changing City

But that's a relatively recent policy change. For decades Burnaby effectively encouraged the loss of affordable rental buildings and the creation of condo towers.

The question is whether Pinnacle should be able to move their required rental units off-site. The compromise on multi tower projects has often been to allow one building to be rental (including non-market), and the remainder to be wholly strata. Here they want to export the rental to an entirely different location.

Is that a big contentious issue? The rental transfer off-site isn't that far away (maybe 500m?) The Pinnacle condo sites are Stream 2 - no existing rental on site, so not displacing any rental on the parent site. Its a net positive # of rental to the City of Burnaby / Lougheed area.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by VanK

Is that a big contentious issue? The rental transfer off-site isn't that far away (maybe 500m?) The Pinnacle condo sites are Stream 2 - no existing rental on site, so not displacing any rental on the parent site. Its a net positive # of rental to the City of Burnaby / Lougheed area.

Apparently it was sufficiently contentious for two Burnaby councillors to vote against allowing it, but not enough to prevent it going ahead. “We’re going to end up with an exclusive four towers, all-strata, no rental, and we’ve delegated the rental to another neighbourhood,” Councillor Jordan said, noting the point of rental zoning is to incorporate it with market strata. It's only possible because the application was submitted in 2019, before the rental policy was created. It will mean a high concentration of non-market rental units on the Carrigan site - 405 units.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

there is a difference between a basement suite, which i dont mind, compared to a laneway house which now takes away any privacy the neighbour had in their backyard. i have lived next to a laneway house, and it is not something i plan to do again.

not to mention there were laneway issues such as way more garbage, issues with people parking where i couldn't access my garage. (yes i can call 311, but that doesn't help me leave for work in the morning). there were also some issues of more ground water in my yard from the increased non-permeable area next door. (once again they mitigate this, but it certainly was muddier than it was previously). i never had these issues with basement suites in the neighbourhood. i also noticed my backyard was a tad more warm in the summer. i can hazard a guess that the loss of green-space for the laneway house did increase the heat island effect. there was a hedge lost and tree (wasn't that big, but still some greenery). i can only go by my experiences living with one, and i did not enjoy it. it was detrimental to the quality of life that i had wanted by moving into a SFH neighbourhood. basement suites are hidden, out of the way, and don't impact others nearly as much as laneway houses do.

not everyone salivates over density everywhere. some people enjoy their privacy, peace and quiet away from others. not everyone wants to live ontop of one another. that just breeds conflict and noise and pollution.

i once liked the idea of living downtown, in the centre of the city, etc. but not anymore and certainly not after the pandemic. couple in the fact strata fees are insanely high these days and how shoddily built buildings are; its insane.

We need density everywhere though. We can’t keep forcing people to pay a premium to live in towers.

Most house lots in Metro Vancouver are 60 to 70 feet wide, so instead of Kane way homes, subdivide those lots and build 2 detached homes with 2 secondary suites each. That’s 6 units on 69 foot lot.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by VanK

@invisibleairwaves. Are we not all aware that Burnaby has a 20% inclusionary rental policy? At least 20% of the units are below market rental (when taking down existing rental). There is also additional market rental density available on top which many are building. Also existing tenants are "accommodated" between displacement and construction completion. The tenants have first right of refusal to come back into the new build at their existing rents/affordable rents. Its never easy being displaced but its a pretty good compromise.

IIRC that policy came into place because of the Metrotown plan. A lot of people in the area got demovicted for those luxury condos before the 2018 election.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

there is a difference between a basement suite, which i dont mind, compared to a laneway house which now takes away any privacy the neighbour had in their backyard. i have lived next to a laneway house, and it is not something i plan to do again.

not to mention there were laneway issues such as way more garbage, issues with people parking where i couldn't access my garage. (yes i can call 311, but that doesn't help me leave for work in the morning). there were also some issues of more ground water in my yard from the increased non-permeable area next door. (once again they mitigate this, but it certainly was muddier than it was previously). i never had these issues with basement suites in the neighbourhood. i also noticed my backyard was a tad more warm in the summer. i can hazard a guess that the loss of green-space for the laneway house did increase the heat island effect. there was a hedge lost and tree (wasn't that big, but still some greenery). i can only go by my experiences living with one, and i did not enjoy it. it was detrimental to the quality of life that i had wanted by moving into a SFH neighbourhood. basement suites are hidden, out of the way, and don't impact others nearly as much as laneway houses do.

not everyone salivates over density everywhere. some people enjoy their privacy, peace and quiet away from others. not everyone wants to live ontop of one another. that just breeds conflict and noise and pollution.

i once liked the idea of living downtown, in the centre of the city, etc. but not anymore and certainly not after the pandemic. couple in the fact strata fees are insanely high these days and how shoddily built buildings are; its insane.

It doesn't matter what people like or don't like: all the math points towards SFH neighbourhoods being impossible as a city gets bigger and bigger.

And nothing's stopping the NIMBYs from moving to Gibsons or Aldergrove - not many amenities, but there's plenty of detached houses and green space for everybody. Vancouver proper (and the inner suburbs, to a lesser extent) are very much beyond the point where you can have your cake and eat it too.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It doesn't matter what people like or don't like: all the math points towards SFH neighbourhoods being impossible as a city gets bigger and bigger.

Any SFH neighborhood has always been unsustainable. Some simple math comparing the property taxes collected per home to the critical infrastructure and services costs per capita would reveal that denser neighborhoods have always had to subsidize urban sprawl. As cities like Burnaby run out of undeveloped green fields that can be developed to continue the pyramid scheme, density is the only option.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

there is a difference between a basement suite, which i dont mind, compared to a laneway house which now takes away any privacy the neighbour had in their backyard. i have lived next to a laneway house, and it is not something i plan to do again.

not to mention there were laneway issues such as way more garbage, issues with people parking where i couldn't access my garage. (yes i can call 311, but that doesn't help me leave for work in the morning). there were also some issues of more ground water in my yard from the increased non-permeable area next door. (once again they mitigate this, but it certainly was muddier than it was previously). i never had these issues with basement suites in the neighbourhood. i also noticed my backyard was a tad more warm in the summer. i can hazard a guess that the loss of green-space for the laneway house did increase the heat island effect. there was a hedge lost and tree (wasn't that big, but still some greenery). i can only go by my experiences living with one, and i did not enjoy it. it was detrimental to the quality of life that i had wanted by moving into a SFH neighbourhood. basement suites are hidden, out of the way, and don't impact others nearly as much as laneway houses do.

not everyone salivates over density everywhere. some people enjoy their privacy, peace and quiet away from others. not everyone wants to live ontop of one another. that just breeds conflict and noise and pollution.

i once liked the idea of living downtown, in the centre of the city, etc. but not anymore and certainly not after the pandemic. couple in the fact strata fees are insanely high these days and how shoddily built buildings are; its insane.

Your Vancouver of the Future sounds terrible. A city where the majority of land is taken up by low density housing where only the wealthy or those who bought 20 years ago can afford to live, and everyone else crammed into increasingly hyper dense and tiny condos because that's the only place anyone else can afford to live, if they can even afford that.

[Migrant_Coconut]

It's called the Grand Bargain: city planners want density without torquing off the reactionary homeowners, so instead they develop the commercial and industrial zones, giving us islands full of towers surrounded by suburbistan.

The problem is that Burnaby's running out of places to do that, so they're going to have to choose between A) zero growth whatsoever or B) slowly expanding density into NIMBYville.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

Your Vancouver of the Future sounds terrible. A city where the majority of land is taken up by low density housing where only the wealthy or those who bought 20 years ago can afford to live, and everyone else crammed into increasingly hyper dense and tiny condos because that's the only place anyone else can afford to live, if they can even afford that.

you assume i want it all to stay. not at all.
the biggest issue we have is we dont maximize the areas for density we have.

the cambie corridor is a good example. they could have done more with King Ed its pretty minimal. 41st is shaping up to turn out well, shame about the aquifer. 49th should be going to a smaller version of 41st. 57th is shaping out well. but damn it, why didnt the build that station? its retarded they didnt. no one can tell me a developer couldnt afford it with everything in that area. then the entire corridor should have probably gone to 10-12 floors similar to richmond. downtown should see more density. then there is commerical skytrain station which should see more. broadway could work.


the key is. we cant just destroy the SFH neighbourhoods. literally thats part of what makes Vancouver what it is.you will loose a piece of the city by doing that. they dont ALL need to stay; but there still needs to be that option. you'll kill the city if you kill off all of that. by the time most people realize that itll be too late.

i think density should stick around skytrain. there is no point in building density in SFH neighbourhoods with no access to skytrain.

Burnaby is doing metrotown, brentwood, etc. right.


but in the end, we cannot build our way out of any of this. we cannot keep up with how many people move here no matter what we do. this forum is very heavy learning to density, which makes sense based on what it is. but dont think your echo chamber is what most people want.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Seeing as the preservationists keep losing every election despite high turnout on their side, it's safe to conclude that yes, it's what people want, and that it's the anti-density crowd that's the echo chamber. We can most definitely build our way back to affordability. The CMHC says BC only needs 57k units/year to break even.

And... what? SFHs have absolutely nothing to do with Vancouver's unique essence - you can find the exact same thing in Seattle or Toronto or Kamloops. Redevelop the houses, keep the trees, and there'll be no discernible change in quality at all.

[Spr0ckets]

Interesting article at the Daily Hive about this very topic (Densification versus bowing to SFH resistance/reluctance - vis-a-vis the Commercial Broadway Skytrain hub area.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/comm...-plan-skytrain

It's amazing just how many times they've rejected increasing densification in the past, around the third busiest and most heavily trafficked Skytrain station in the GVA, leading to the present with all the fuss over a development with 3 sub-30 storey towers.

And in a different article they talked about how BC (and really, the entire country) will fall short of the required housing needed (by 2030) to curb the affordability crisis, or even put a dent into it.
And people are confused as to why? (specifically in the case of Vancouver and the GVA)

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Interesting article at the Daily Hive about this very topic (Densification versus bowing to SFH resistance/reluctance - vis-a-vis the Commercial Broadway Skytrain hub area.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/comm...-plan-skytrain

It's amazing just how many times they've rejected increasing densification in the past, around the third busiest and most heavily trafficked Skytrain station in the GVA, leading to the present with all the fuss over a development with 3 sub-30 storey towers.

And in a different article they talked about how BC (and really, the entire country) will fall short of the required housing needed (by 2030) to curb the affordability crisis, or even put a dent into it.
And people are confused as to why? (specifically in the case of Vancouver and the GVA)

Interesting read. One thing I've wondered is in BC roughly 50% of the population is in Metro Van - we're a tiny dot on a BC map. Shouldn't we be enlarging other cities and then connecting them with dedicated passenger rail? We've got a lot of empty space in this province and we're preoccupied with fitting many many more people into one tiny area.

[Migrant_Coconut]

How many small towns in the North want to double in size, though? How many people want to live there? And how do we get rail to them? Remember, Canada is basically Russia (in terms of vastness, of course, not dash cams/Adidas/warmongering).

I'm guessing BC's second city will be Victoria or Abbotsford, maybe Kamloops - somewhere where there's already a concentration of infrastructure and amenities.

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

(in terms of vastness, of course, not dash cams/Adidas/warmongering).

you missed the extreme love of Rugs >> https://onedio.co/content/32-photos-...culture-688496

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

How many small towns in the North want to double in size, though? How many people want to live there? And how do we get rail to them? Remember, Canada is basically Russia (in terms of vastness, of course, not dash cams/Adidas/warmongering).

I'm guessing BC's second city will be Victoria or Abbotsford, maybe Kamloops - somewhere where there's already a concentration of infrastructure and amenities.

I'd vote for Victoria on the island, Kelowna for the interior, and Prince George (home of the main UNBC campus) for the north. They could certainly take up some of the slack.

I doubt we'd manage to achieve this...

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

you missed the extreme love of Rugs >> https://onedio.co/content/32-photos-...culture-688496

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Interesting read. One thing I've wondered is in BC roughly 50% of the population is in Metro Van - we're a tiny dot on a BC map. Shouldn't we be enlarging other cities and then connecting them with dedicated passenger rail? We've got a lot of empty space in this province and we're preoccupied with fitting many many more people into one tiny area.

Seems like it would be a no-brainer to me.

I mean why we don't already have a dedicated transit network(like passenger rail as you suggested or if we're really ambitious, high-speed rail network) linking Vancouver to Kamloops, Kelowna and Abbotsford on the interior, and Victoria to Nainaimo, and maybe even as far up north to Courtney and Campbell River on the Island, is a puzzle.

It would be tough but the reason most of the population is coalesced around the Metro Van area is primarily because the GVA remains the major economic centre and jobs magnet for the region and indeed the province.

The challenge would be creating a similar kind of pull or economic incentive in these other towns that would incentivize people to want to live away from the Metro Van area rather than just the push factor of unaffordability or housing crisis which are the primary driver the pushes people out of the city.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Seems like it would be a no-brainer to me.

I mean why we don't already have a dedicated transit network(like passenger rail as you suggested or if we're really ambitious, high-speed rail network) linking Vancouver to Kamloops, Kelowna and Abbotsford on the interior, and Victoria to Nainaimo, and maybe even as far up north to Courtney and Campbell River on the Island, is a puzzle.

It would be tough but the reason most of the population is coalesced around the Metro Van area is primarily because the GVA remains the major economic centre and jobs magnet for the region and indeed the province.

The challenge would be creating a similar kind of pull or economic incentive in these other towns that would incentivize people to want to live away from the Metro Van area rather than just the push factor of unaffordability or housing crisis which are the primary driver the pushes people out of the city.

I left it as passenger (vs freight that supposed shares with passenger) rail - I'll leave the speed for other people to debate.

I've known people who left Metro Van not so much because of affordability but because trying to fit more people in here was a bit claustrophobic for them. Once they moved away they felt like they could breathe deeply and stretch out.

Getting back to Burnaby... some on here will likely have a fit to learn the city is going ahead on government cannabis stores. From the Dec 6 2001 public meeting I learned that they've picked a Lougheed location (9861 Austin Road) to go along with the existing Metrotown location (4429 Kingsway), the under construction Brentwood location (4615 Lougheed Hwy) and the soon to be official Edmonds location (7300 Market Crossing).

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I doubt we'd manage to achieve this...

Not when the whole province could double the population and still fit into Cairo, we're not!

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Seems like it would be a no-brainer to me.

I mean why we don't already have a dedicated transit network(like passenger rail as you suggested or if we're really ambitious, high-speed rail network) linking Vancouver to Kamloops, Kelowna and Abbotsford on the interior, and Victoria to Nainaimo, and maybe even as far up north to Courtney and Campbell River on the Island, is a puzzle.

It would be tough but the reason most of the population is coalesced around the Metro Van area is primarily because the GVA remains the major economic centre and jobs magnet for the region and indeed the province.

The challenge would be creating a similar kind of pull or economic incentive in these other towns that would incentivize people to want to live away from the Metro Van area rather than just the push factor of unaffordability or housing crisis which are the primary driver the pushes people out of the city.

Because back when rail was cheap, whatever money BC had got spent on the highways, and all our public rail got privatized for a song *cough*bribery*cough*.

Fast-forward to 2022: passenger service to Kelowna would be great... but at $90 million per klick ($40+ billion), it ain't happening.