Burnaby Updates

[mcj]

Originally Posted by ecbin

Burnaby's not really growing that much - 28% growth since 1991 (30 years) which is barely ahead of Vancouver (21%) despite Vancouver having a population density that's more than double Burnaby's. Surrey grew 63% and New West grew 44% during that time.

All that towers being constructed give the impression of a lot of density being added but it masks the fact that the city is doing little to nothing to touch all the SFH zoned land and it still only has the population density of Point Grey.

Yeah despite all the development around their city centres, they managed to miss their Metro 2040 targets for 2021 by the largest nominal difference (on a percentage basis Coquitlam did worse for large municipalities). Their 2021 target was 117,800 dwelling units and they only had 107,046 for a miss of 10,754 units. Even if all the current projects under construction were completed tomorrow they'd still be behind the targets they made in 2011. Surrey also missed theirs, but the CoV and New West both surpassed their 2021 targets.

[jollyburger]

Seems like this is something new in regards to all those sites along Lougheed?

Bainbridge Master Plan REZ 22-15 Create Urban Development Corp. 7000 Lougheed Highway Master Plan. No specific development is being proposed by
this applications.
Master Plan Initial Report 2022.08.29

Bainbridge Master Plan REZ 22-28 Sperling Limited Partnership 6800 Lougheed Highway Master Plan. No specific development is being proposed by
this applications.
Master Plan initial Report 2022.10.03

https://www.burnaby.ca/sites/default...20Projects.pdf

[SpongeG]

the old telus site gas had signage banners up for a few months on the fence about a new urban village type thing coming.

[Klazu]

Has a 53-floor tower on Wilson Avenue been mentioned before? What a stupid article, though, as I bet the non-market units don't pay anything towards those amenities, yet should be entitled to using them?

https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...proval-6136830

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Has a 53-floor tower on Wilson Avenue been mentioned before? What a stupid article, though, as I bet the non-market units don't pay anything towards those amenities, yet should be entitled to using them?

https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...proval-6136830

Yeah back in the summer:

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...on#post9655517

[Migrant_Coconut]

Most below-market housing is spread throughout the tower these days instead of treated as a separate building; I wouldn't be surprised if the "poor door" units end up having comparably lower demand and/or lower rents over time.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

why should strata owners be forced to subsidize amenities for non-market rentals? how is that fair? it should be treated as a separate since they are completely different.

strata owners don't "get access to" anything. strata owners PAY for it.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

Strata owners don't "get access to" anything. strata owners PAY for it.

Now, now. Someone's feelings have been hurt from this absolute lack of equity and SEGREGATION, so your facts don't apply here.

I genuinely don't know who is the real fool here; the author of the opinion letter or the Burnaby Now employee deciding to publish it.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Now, now. Someone's feelings have been hurt from this absolute lack of equity and SEGREGATION, so your facts don't apply here.

I genuinely don't know who is the real fool here; the author of the opinion letter or the Burnaby Now employee deciding to publish it.

man, i am glad i got out of strata a few years ago.

strata fees are getting to the point of being a 2nd mortgage. all these new buildings, while have amazing amenities, they will be costly over the life of the building. now you have the BC Govt. stopping a strata limiting rentals, which hinders on the individuals property rights, and then this push that the strata owners should pay for the non-owners use of the amenities. we are punishing people for owning something.

i don't know where strata is going, but with those factors, and others such as insurance issues, i don't see strata going to good places in the future, that's for sure.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

... stopping a strata limiting rentals, which hinders on the individuals property rights,

How does allowing rentals hinder property rights? Doesn't it increase them, since you now have the right to rent out your property?

[NewfBC]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

and then this push that the strata owners should pay for the non-owners use of the amenities.

Huh? The person who owns the unit that they're renting is still paying for the use of the amenities.

Ron.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by ecbin

Burnaby's not really growing that much - 28% growth since 1991 (30 years) which is barely ahead of Vancouver (21%) despite Vancouver having a population density that's more than double Burnaby's. Surrey grew 63% and New West grew 44% during that time.

All that towers being constructed give the impression of a lot of density being added but it masks the fact that the city is doing little to nothing to touch all the SFH zoned land and it still only has the population density of Point Grey.

Let's not talk about "since 1991", but let's talk about "since 2000". You'll be surprised.

Vancouver had a good start in the 1990s, with Yaletown, Coal Harbour etc. coming online, but in the past year, Burnaby the development rate has surpassed Vancouver by a mile.

Originally Posted by mcj

Yeah despite all the development around their city centres, they managed to miss their Metro 2040 targets for 2021 by the largest nominal difference (on a percentage basis Coquitlam did worse for large municipalities). Their 2021 target was 117,800 dwelling units and they only had 107,046 for a miss of 10,754 units. Even if all the current projects under construction were completed tomorrow they'd still be behind the targets they made in 2011. Surrey also missed theirs, but the CoV and New West both surpassed their 2021 targets.

Then it looks like CoV has pretty low target to hit.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by Vin

Let's not talk about "since 1991", but let's talk about "since 2000". You'll be surprised.

Vancouver had a good start in the 1990s, with Yaletown, Coal Harbour etc. coming online, but in the past year, Burnaby the development rate has surpassed Vancouver by a mile.

It has not surpassed Vancouver at all. Jan-Sep 2022 data shows 4,755 permits in Burnaby versus 6,180 in Vancouver.

2021 data shows 1,106 permits in Burnaby, 5,574 in Vancouver.

Source: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/da...its_detail.pdf

Gentle density in the form of widespread low rises and infill will beat pockets of large towers every single time.

Originally Posted by Vin

Then it looks like CoV has pretty low target to hit.

Vancouver had the second highest target to hit after Surrey and blew everyone else out of the water. As much fun as this forum has piling on the CoV, they're actually the only municipality overperforming their targets by a landslide (that's not the city of North Vancouver).

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by mcj

It has not surpassed Vancouver at all. Jan-Sep 2022 data shows 4,755 permits in Burnaby versus 6,180 in Vancouver.

2021 data shows 1,106 permits in Burnaby, 5,574 in Vancouver.

Source: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/da...its_detail.pdf

Gentle density in the form of widespread low rises and infill will beat pockets of large towers every single time.






Vancouver had the second highest target to hit after Surrey and blew everyone else out of the water. As much fun as this forum has piling on the CoV, they're actually the only municipality overperforming their targets by a landslide (that's not the city of North Vancouver).

How much of this is net new supply though? Does this include tear-downs and rebuilds?

[mcj]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

How much of this is net new supply though? Does this include tear-downs and rebuilds?

It's the delta between dwelling units counted in the 2011 census versus dwelling units in the 2021 census, then compared to the 2011 RGS targets.

So net new supply.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Let's not talk about "since 1991", but let's talk about "since 2000". You'll be surprised.

mcj has shown you the growth in dwellings in Vancouver and Burnaby. In terms of population change Burnaby added 55,000 people and Vancouver more than twice as many, with a gain of 116,577.

In terms of population density, Burnaby added 609 people / sq. km. in 20 years; Vancouver added 1,014 / sq. km. in the same period.

Vancouver has more than double the population density of Burnaby; 5,760 people / sq km in 2021, compared to 2,749 in Burnaby.

I'm not surprised (that you don't know this).

[Migrant_Coconut]

I suggest a compromise: since below-market rentals are only paying a fraction of their "share" of the revenue, they only get a fraction of the gym and pool time. Renters aren't shunned outright, stratas don't feel exploited, everybody wins.

Originally Posted by mcj

... Gentle density in the form of widespread low rises and infill will beat pockets of large towers every single time...

Ah, but can gentle density satisfy a poster's insecurity complex toward Calgary and Toronto?

[seamusmcduff]

Hyper density in a small amount of the City will never compete against high density in some areas+ modest density throughout most of the City. Even just allowing for laneway homes would likely have a noticeable impact on their numbers

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

How does allowing rentals hinder property rights? Doesn't it increase them, since you now have the right to rent out your property?

it takes away the will of the other people who had the majority that didn't want rentals in the building. many buildings do this, by choice, since the majority of a building with that prohibition do want to keep rentals out. now the BC govt is forcing everyone to have rentals no matter what. its taking away that ability for a group of owners to decide on their own

Originally Posted by NewfBC

Huh? The person who owns the unit that they're renting is still paying for the use of the amenities.

Ron.

im specifically referring to the non-market rentals in buildings where they mix the strata in with the non-market rental. if the organisation that owns the non-market contributes their proportional part of the strata fees, then that would be perfect reasonable to allow access to the strata amenities that pay for those benefits.

the issue comes when lets say a building has 250 units, 200 strata, 50 non-market. 250 families have access to those amenities, but only 200 are paying for them. doesn't seem fair that strata needs to cover the other 50. if those 50 non-market get access to the amenities, the organization that runs those, needs to pay the proportional costs as if those 50 units were strata. that's the only way that's fair and then its perfectible reasonable they get access to those amenities.

i could see these buildings being a clusterf*** when these buildings need large repairs in 20/30yrs such as curtain wall replacements, HVAC, elevators, etc.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

... the issue comes when lets say a building has 250 units, 200 strata, 50 non-market. 250 families have access to those amenities, but only 200 are paying for them. doesn't seem fair that strata needs to cover the other 50. if those 50 non-market get access to the amenities, the organization that runs those, needs to pay the proportional costs as if those 50 units were strata. that's the only way that's fair and then its perfectible reasonable they get access to those amenities...

Not non-market, below-market: the lower-income renters are being partially subsidized by a third party or by the rest of the residents. If we want it to be proportional, the logical solution would be finding a way to limit the amount of time they get to use the amenities... not locking them out altogether.