Burnaby Updates

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Sheba

The hubs have always been Edmonds / Kingsway and the Skytrain station. Southgate was added as it's such a large site. I'm not sure where else a hub would go (and I live in the area).

Maybe if they can get Hydro to give up some of it's lands... but considering they've been willing to have a bunch of it fenced off for decades I'm guessing they're not in any hurry. It would be too small for a 'mall' - maybe ten small to medium stores but that's it.

I've often thought the section between the bus loop and Griffith (vs the section between the bus loop and the Hydro building) would be a good place to stick a convenience store and a bank with a floor or two of office space above. But the Southgate plans have small retail so I doubt that will happen.

The Royal Oak industrial lands have been slowly moving to Big Bend for years.


Here's hoping they add in some low rises with ground floor retail and a few floors of residential above. Currently almost all retail is Kingsway or Royal Oak, which makes for a long walk for anyone not living right there. It doesn't need to be every building - even just at intersections would be fine.

Dunno.
Southgate is pretty far from the SkyTrain Station, and the areas south of the station is fairly close.
The biggest problem is the lack of commercial/residential balance.

I dunno what's going on with the midrises south of the station area.
I know it's isolated from the rest of the city, but 5 story midrises 6 minutes from the station in a town center is... Edmonds is not the other town centers, but still.

I agree with the lack of ground-floor retail south of the tracks, but I think density may be too small for that.
It's part of the problem with building an entirely new commercial district from scratch, rather than piggybacking off an existing commercial district that you densify.


The station hub as defined right now is pretty much only on the BC Hydro Lands, so depending on that is probably not smart unless they have some sort of written deal with them.

It's a big early to redevelop, but extending the station hub to the City in the Park region would hopefully densify the entire area around Edmonds and create an easily-accessible large commercial hub south of Edmonds.

The undeveloped BC Hydro lands is about the same size as the Aberdeen Center Mall (not Aberdeen Square or the parking lot) or Henderson Place (minus the tower.)

So it's possible to build a decently-sized mall here- just make it 3 stories tall.


IMO the area south of Edmonds and Southgate should have been kept industrial like the Royal Oak industrial lands, but it's quite late for that.

---

The point about Big Bend is true, but Big Bend also doesn't have any more room to expand without removing ALR, golf course, or park lands.
It's unlikely they preserve anything but the minimum they're required to by Metro Vancouver, but still.

They're getting rid of the industrial lands in Brentwood and Sperling as well (also not preserved by Metro 2050), which puts even more pressure on Big Bend that the area can't take.
Hence, the idea of rezoning SFHs.

The only other vacant land in Burnaby is the Cariboo Hill Heights area, which is also in limbo. Maybe more industrial could move there?

---

This redo of the Edmonds and Royal Oak plans is well-needed, though and overall looks decent so far.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Here's hoping they add in some low rises with ground floor retail and a few floors of residential above. Currently almost all retail is Kingsway or Royal Oak, which makes for a long walk for anyone not living right there. It doesn't need to be every building - even just at intersections would be fine.

Corner stores (and stuff like bakeries or coffee shops) in residential neighborhoods would do so much to build community and increase interest in walking/cycling.

While I'm on this topic can I point out how ludicrous this plan is when it comes to citing potential commercial opportunities particularly the one located at Bond/Patterson? On one corner is a park, on the other is a townhouse complex and the other two corners are not part of the community plan and are zoned for SFHs. Yes I want a corner store there but why mark it on the plan when there's no opportunity to make use of it?

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Dunno.
Southgate is pretty far from the SkyTrain Station, and the areas south of the station is fairly close.
The biggest problem is the lack of commercial/residential balance.

I dunno what's going on with the midrises south of the station area.
I know it's isolated from the rest of the city, but 5 story midrises 6 minutes from the station in a town center is... Edmonds is not the other town centers, but still.

I agree with the lack of ground-floor retail south of the tracks, but I think density may be too small for that.
It's part of the problem with building an entirely new commercial district from scratch, rather than piggybacking off an existing commercial district that you densify.

Uhm the 'front corner' of Southgate (14th Ave and 18th St) is a 8 min / 650m walk following streets and the pathway by Hydro. It's not a million miles away. The 112 bus also takes 14th Ave right past Southgate.

There are 7 towers just south of Edmonds Station and then lowrises. That area only has a few houses (at the corner of Sanborne / Southpoint) - everything else is multi-family.

The ground floor retail I mentioned was in reference to the Royal Oak area.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by ecbin

Corner stores (and stuff like bakeries or coffee shops) in residential neighborhoods would do so much to build community and increase interest in walking/cycling.

Well hopefully someone other than me makes comments to them about it. If only one person says something they're not very likely to follow through but if more people make the same sort of comments...

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Uhm the 'front corner' of Southgate (14th Ave and 18th St) is a 8 min / 650m walk following streets and the pathway by Hydro. It's not a million miles away. The 112 bus also takes 14th Ave right past Southgate.

There are 7 towers just south of Edmonds Station and then lowrises. That area only has a few houses (at the corner of Sanborne / Southpoint) - everything else is multi-family.

The ground floor retail I mentioned was in reference to the Royal Oak area.

"Front Corner". That's my point. The vast majority is beyond 10 min.
It's not exactly convenient or central.

True, but it's also closer to the station than Southgate.
The towers are also tower-in-park style and have low actual FSRs.

[Lexus]

$825,000 gets you this:

https://youtu.be/B6DseAGH-ps

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Lexus

$825,000 gets you this:

https://youtu.be/B6DseAGH-ps

From the Solterra website:

With the emphasis on superior construction and stringent quality control, Solterra provides well-built and affordable homes for the discerning buyer. For your added peace of mind, our homes are backed by third party 2/5/10 warranty insurance.

(emphasis mine)

https://www.solterradev.com/company

[Klazu]

Haha, that's a great quote.

[Redtruck]

Originally Posted by Lexus

$825,000 gets you this:

https://youtu.be/B6DseAGH-ps

Curious what the cause of this is? how does concrete just fall apart like this? I wonder if the the concrete was already damaged during construction and they tried to patch it?

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Redtruck

Curious what the cause of this is? how does concrete just fall apart like this? I wonder if the the concrete was already damaged during construction and they tried to patch it?

Seems like what might have happened.

Someone noticed a crack or a tear during construction and possibly after a pour (possibly a combination of bad mix and bad settling), and in trying to save themselves tens of thousands of dollars in doing a pour all over again and doing it right, they instead tried to do a patch-up job only they hashed it up and didn't get all of it.

The tear continues to develop as the construction proceeds and adds more load on top of it, before finally giving way when this poor woman had already moved in.

She's right.
She's lucky it didn't happen while she was in bed or anything, and any prospective buyer would be insane to place their lives in that unit on Solterra's word.
She's also right that she'd never be able to sell it and get a fair price with full disclosure for why she's doing so.

I'm kind of surprised there hasn't been a lawsuit for more (...damages and infliction of stress and injury).
She just seems to want the money back at fair market value to get a comparable unit elsewhere and put all this behind her.

And if I were the other residents in that building I'd demand that they do a full inspection of the rest of the units (at Solterra's cost through a contracted third party) to ensure that this sort of thing isn't waiting for the rest of them sometime in their futures.
If for no other reason then, for their own units' re-sale values that surely going to take a hit with this story being in the press now.
If the story of that Victoria residential Condo building wasn't a cautionary tale enough for pre-sale buyers, there's no way I'm just going to trust a developer's word that everything's okey-dokey.

[madog222]

Residential is now planned for the former Metro Vancouver office building site at 4330 Kingsway.

Originally Posted by officedweller

Slate Cancels Capital Point Metrotown AAA Strata Office Project


https://storeys.com/capital-point-me...et-management/

“We remain fully committed to working with the City of Burnaby and the local community to realize the potential of this great site in a way that best meets the demands of the Burnaby market today,” Slate said. “We believe the best use for the site will include a mix of residential and commercial uses and will be proposing a new development strategy with an updated rezoning package later this year.”

https://storeys.com/capital-point-me...et-management/

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by madog222

Residential is now planned for the former Metro Vancouver office building site at 4330 Kingsway.



https://storeys.com/capital-point-me...et-management/

love to see how this turns out. It will be a costly and ugly to construct

[Spr0ckets]

If I had to wager, I'd bet they knock down those two aged towers and replace them with a residential condo tower in the mid-30's to 40's storey height range on top of a mixed office and retail/commercial podium.
In keeping with the profile of the neighbouring existing (Sovereign) and proposed (Keltic-Esso site) project make-ups, and assuming they're able to get the density to do so in their rezoning application.

And assuming the rezoning allows they might also add a smaller market rental tower (for more density) - even though they don't have to replace any existing housing on their current office-zoned site.

It's a pity about the office renovation and refurbishment falling through.
I rather like the new design and what they were proposing to do with it, but if it affords them the opportunity to do something bigger or more substantial for that location, then all the better.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Redtruck

Curious what the cause of this is? how does concrete just fall apart like this? I wonder if the the concrete was already damaged during construction and they tried to patch it?

With condo high rises you have electrical and mechanical systems in the concrete slab floors. Sometimes something gets missed and you have to chip out the concrete floor to put in slab duct or maybe some plumbing. I would say it is probly a poor patch job.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by madog222

Residential is now planned for the former Metro Vancouver office building site at 4330 Kingsway.



https://storeys.com/capital-point-me...et-management/

The article suggests that the existing buildings would be converted to residential, which would be a huge waste of potential density.

They were going to suck the life out of those buildings anyways (gold glass replaced with seafoam clear glass), so may as well tear the whole thing down and build to max FSR.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

The article suggests that the existing buildings would be converted to residential, which would be a huge waste of potential density.

They were going to suck the life out of those buildings anyways (gold glass replaced with seafoam clear glass), so may as well tear the whole thing down and build to max FSR.

They were trying to sell off the existing (refurbished) towers as strata office, so it seems unlikely they would want to build the full potential commercial space as part of a mixed use project. They develop residential in the GTA, so they may well consider a residential rezoning.

The floor plates of the office towers are probably small enough to consider a residential conversion, but it would be an expensive project and you're right that it would seem to leave quite a bit of density undeveloped.

[Redtruck]

Originally Posted by logan5

With condo high rises you have electrical and mechanical systems in the concrete slab floors. Sometimes something gets missed and you have to chip out the concrete floor to put in slab duct or maybe some plumbing. I would say it is probly a poor patch job.

If this is indeed what happened the lady might not have much to stand on as they fixed the problem and paid her expenses. I think she should sell the unit herself its not worth the risk or headache in my opinion.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by logan5

With condo high rises you have electrical and mechanical systems in the concrete slab floors. Sometimes something gets missed and you have to chip out the concrete floor to put in slab duct or maybe some plumbing. I would say it is probly a poor patch job.

You normally would never run mechanical or electrical conduits inside ir within a concrete slab (or any concrete structural element for that matter)

You typically have openings on the slab to pass through the conduits and ducts at selected locations, after which the they run parallel to the slab - either above it or below.
Never through (as inside it)

For the very reason that if there's a problem that needs to be fixed or replaced, you don't want anyone "chipping", cutting or otherwise breaking the concrete structure to access them since that puts the structural integrity of the entire building at risk.

And I doubt that that's what happened here anyway since the concrete falling apart looks like began to happen before any mechanical or electrical problems arose that had to be fixed, just after she had moved in.
This was more likely a suspect job done during the pour, only becoming apparent after the building was completed and most of the settling was still happening along with the loading of people moving in.

I would be apprehensive about the patch-up job they've done since it seems they just applied on some filler concrete to cover the gap.
Have they checked to ensure the steel reinforcing rebars were uncompromised?
Maybe that might have been at the root of the problem to begin with.

It's why I think they have to conduct a full check of the entire building to make certain the problem isn't systemic and won't crop up elsewhere down the road, because maybe it might have been a bad batch of concrete mix on a particular day that wasn't properly prepared, and now it's just another tear elsewhere waiting to happen.

To just come in and slather on some concrete and paper it up with some drywall or paint and say "Problem solved. Job done!",........I don't know about that, ......and I'd be wary if I were any of her neighbours or anyone else looking to buy that unit or even move into the building.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

You normally would never run mechanical or electrical conduits inside ir within a concrete slab (or any concrete structural element for that matter)

You typically have openings on the slab to pass through the conduits and ducts at selected locations, after which the they run parallel to the slab - either above it or below.
Never through (as inside it)

For the very reason that if there's a problem that needs to be fixed or replaced, you don't want anyone "chipping", cutting or otherwise breaking the concrete structure to access them since that puts the structural integrity of the entire building at risk.

And I doubt that that's what happened here anyway since the concrete falling apart looks like began to happen before any mechanical or electrical problems arose that had to be fixed, just after she had moved in.
This was more likely a suspect job done during the pour, only becoming apparent after the building was completed and most of the settling was still happening along with the loading of people moving in.

I would be apprehensive about the patch-up job they've done since it seems they just applied on some filler concrete to cover the gap.
Have they checked to ensure the steel reinforcing rebars were uncompromised?
Maybe that might have been at the root of the problem to begin with.

It's why I think they have to conduct a full check of the entire building to make certain the problem isn't systemic and won't crop up elsewhere down the road, because maybe it might have been a bad batch of concrete mix on a particular day that wasn't properly prepared, and now it's just another tear elsewhere waiting to happen.

To just come in and slather on some concrete and paper it up with some drywall or paint and say "Problem solved. Job done!",........I don't know about that, ......and I'd be wary if I were any of her neighbours or anyone else looking to buy that unit or even move into the building.

There has been countless pictures posted of deck work being done before the slab is poured. You can see the core line for electrical, and slab duct for ventilation - kitchen, bathroom exhaust. On almost all condo towers you can see the soffit discharges embedded in the concrete when you look up at the balconies all the way up the building.

Sometimes the soffit discharge or inlet boot will be in the wrong spot, then the decision is made to chip out the concrete to correct the problem.

[Redtruck]

I am pretty sure its quite common to put electrical conduit inside slabs. You can see the conduit in the video. Also what may have happened is the conduit was placed wrong so there was not enough concrete coverage.

If the building is proven safe by an engineer, and the problem is fixed and her expenses paid. It will be interesting to find out the case she has? This happened 2 years ago so I am sure this has been looked at. The developer fucked up but have not been totally unreasonable with what they offered her in my opinion.