Burnaby Updates

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

Inserting the preliminary concept for 5000 Kingsway. Phase 1 includes a 70-storey signature landmark tower



....

Something's wrong in that rendering.
Something's off with the scale they're representing.

It seems to show the 70 storey signature landmark tower just across Nelson street from (the silhouette of)Concord Pacific's 65 storey Grand tower, and yet that render suggests their tower will be something like 15-20 storeys taller than Concord's tower.

Even if it ends up having a podium of several levels of office or hotel program, I doubt it will tower over the the Concord tower by that much.

I'm assuming that's just a stock model for rendering and that the tower itself won't end up looking anything like that at all, since that looks like an office tower anyway rather than a residential tower.
Like something out of New York.

[seamusmcduff]

Yeah there's no reason for the parking rates to be that high. Even surrey is looking to reduce their parking rates in transit oriented location to 0.65/unit for rental. I know this may scare some of you, but parking studies have consistently shown that most parkades built at 1 stall/unit are severely underutilized when they're adjacent to transit. It's a waste of money, time, and space to provide this much parking.

Realistically Burnaby should have started looking into this year's ago. Hopefully they're able to work something out before they go forward with this ridiculous amount of parking.

https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/sur...et-parking-around-market-rental-housing/

[logan5]

I remember yeas ago Andy Yan put out a figure of $50 000 added to the cost of a condo just for the parking space. That figure is much greater now. Probly in the range of 70 to 80 k.

[fredinno]

Use car elevators?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Use car elevators?

That seems extraordinarily unlikely. There are 2,680 spaces in Phase 1. The largest automated parking garage in the world (in Kuwait) has 2,314 spaces and can deliver 7 cars a minute through 12 grade level entry / exit bays. Non-automated parking elevators are slower, and can handle fewer vehicles.

Better to have fewer parking spaces.

One reason Pinnacle are facing this depth of parkade is because they're shifting their non-market units to a different site, so they have to meet condo level parking requirements for all the units. Another is that unlike Vancouver, Burnaby haven't yet revisited and reduced parking requirements in transit-served City Centre locations.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by logan5

I remember yeas ago Andy Yan put out a figure of $50 000 added to the cost of a condo just for the parking space. That figure is much greater now. Probly in the range of 70 to 80 k.

and what does this saved cost for the developer achieve?

it will not lower prices. the market will dictate the price the unit sells for, not if they spend $$$ for a parking stall.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

and what does this saved cost for the developer achieve?

it will not lower prices. the market will dictate the price the unit sells for, not if they spend $$$ for a parking stall.

I was only noting how costly parkades are too build.

But to your point - there is a huge untapped homebuyer market out there waiting for a lower priced product. Every company that sells something offers their products in different price ranges so they can sell as much product as possible, and make as much profit as possible. You have a choice of a Lexus IS or a toyota Corolla. Why would the real estate business be any different. We see an example of this with some developments offering micro suites in an effort to get to lower price point to attract buyers who would otherwise be locked out of real estate.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by logan5

But to your point - there is a huge untapped homebuyer market out there waiting for a lower priced product.

of course people do; who doesnt want cheaper things? i know i do.

but not building parking will NOT change the price point. the real estate market is based on the market rates; not the costs to build. if this was the case, when CoV removed those parking minimums, we would have seen a boom of building no-parking buildings; we did not. because the developers know they need to offer parking to sell their product. clearly they make more $$$ by building the parking.

youe example of micro-suites doesnt really show a cheaper product either. sure its "lower" as a full suite. but if you break down the $/sqft, its not really lower at all. youre just buying less sqft for a high $$$.

personally, i am pro off-street parking. no one here can tell me they like how the west end works. people can drive around for 15mins looking for parking. there are SO many cars on the streets. the west end has a parking issue due to the lack of off-street parking.

i dont know how people can look at that and think "see it works!" because it doesn't. it never did. and still doesn't. streets should be used for transportation. off-street should be used for parking. we waste so much street space on parking. it should all be off-street. either below grade or above grade.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

of course people do; who doesnt want cheaper things? i know i do.

but not building parking will NOT change the price point. the real estate market is based on the market rates; not the costs to build. if this was the case, when CoV removed those parking minimums, we would have seen a boom of building no-parking buildings; we did not. because the developers know they need to offer parking to sell their product. clearly they make more $$$ by building the parking.

youe example of micro-suites doesnt really show a cheaper product either. sure its "lower" as a full suite. but if you break down the $/sqft, its not really lower at all. youre just buying less sqft for a high $$$.

personally, i am pro off-street parking. no one here can tell me they like how the west end works. people can drive around for 15mins looking for parking. there are SO many cars on the streets. the west end has a parking issue due to the lack of off-street parking.

i dont know how people can look at that and think "see it works!" because it doesn't. it never did. and still doesn't. streets should be used for transportation. off-street should be used for parking. we waste so much street space on parking. it should all be off-street. either below grade or above grade.

You don't think developers would like to offer a product to people who are currently priced out of the real estate market? And micro suites cost less. Kind of a strange comment.

[Lexus]

2023, June 10

METROTOWN Another site is cleared for next tower:

Untitled by Lexus LX600, on Flickr

BRENTWOOD

Old warehouses are all gone for the Southyards project

Untitled by Lexus LX600, on Flickr

SOUTHGATE

Ice rinks, it's getting there, wonder is they will be able to finish by Christmas:

Untitled by Lexus LX600, on Flickr

Untitled by Lexus LX600, on Flickr

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

of course people do; who doesnt want cheaper things? i know i do.

but not building parking will NOT change the price point. the real estate market is based on the market rates; not the costs to build. if this was the case, when CoV removed those parking minimums, we would have seen a boom of building no-parking buildings; we did not. because the developers know they need to offer parking to sell their product. clearly they make more $$$ by building the parking.

youe example of micro-suites doesnt really show a cheaper product either. sure its "lower" as a full suite. but if you break down the $/sqft, its not really lower at all. youre just buying less sqft for a high $$$.

personally, i am pro off-street parking. no one here can tell me they like how the west end works. people can drive around for 15mins looking for parking. there are SO many cars on the streets. the west end has a parking issue due to the lack of off-street parking.

i dont know how people can look at that and think "see it works!" because it doesn't. it never did. and still doesn't. streets should be used for transportation. off-street should be used for parking. we waste so much street space on parking. it should all be off-street. either below grade or above grade.

Some developers already sell the parking spaces separately from the apartment. Reliance and MacDonald built 400 spaces when the developed Prime at the Plaza in Surrey. They only managed to sell 300 of them.

The West End has parking problems because tenants try not to pay the average $50 a month additional parking rental that's the average in parkades, so look for on street parking. There's more than enough parking available in most buildings. That's why a parking permit in the area is now $360 a year - staff recommended $600 originally, and the price could still be increased (although that seems likely under the current makeup on Council). Parking minimums were only removed Downtown, not in the West End. There haven't been many condo projects Downtown since the change, but certainly recent rental projects have been taking advantage of the changed requirements. 430 W Pender is proposing 80 new apartments and 3 parking spaces.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

and what does this saved cost for the developer achieve?

it will not lower prices. the market will dictate the price the unit sells for, not if they spend $$$ for a parking stall.

I've mentioned this before. I was looking to buy in a building and there were two identical units, one with a stall, one without (adjacent units, same floor, same square footage, same layout but mirrored). The unit without the parking stall sold for 65k less. So yes, it does literally make housing cheaper to build without. We shouldn't have parking minimums for condos. If developers don't think they can make as much profit on units without parking, they won't build them. Many places without parking minimums still largely have developments with parking, but it gives a lot more flexibility to build to the actual demand

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

I've mentioned this before. I was looking to buy in a building and there were two identical units, one with a stall, one without (adjacent units, same floor, same square footage, same layout but mirrored). The unit without the parking stall sold for 65k less. So yes, it does literally make housing cheaper to build without. We shouldn't have parking minimums for condos. If developers don't think they can make as much profit on units without parking, they won't build them. Many places without parking minimums still largely have developments with parking, but it gives a lot more flexibility to build to the actual demand

Just make sure everywhere within a 15-minute driving radius has either local parking registration programs (so you can only park overnight if you're a resident nearby without getting towed and fined) or paid street parking.
Or both.

[Vantage]

Originally Posted by Lexus

Ice rinks, it's getting there, wonder is they will be able to finish by Christmas:

If I were a betting man I'd say no.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by logan5

You don't think developers would like to offer a product to people who are currently priced out of the real estate market? And micro suites cost less. Kind of a strange comment.

if they wanted to, they could do it in downtown Vancouver quite easily; but none are jumping into it all that much.

are microsuites costing less though? this article talks about $/sqft in rent.
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-studio-one-bed...most-expensive-per-square-foot-1.5873169

Renters in B.C. who were able to spend more per month for a larger space paid less for the square footage. The rate for a one-bedroom in the province was $3.28, compared to $2.78 for a two-bedroom apartment and $2.30 for a third bedroom. Four-bedroom homes cost new renters an average of $1.65 per square foot

so more $$$ for landlords & developers, and higher costs for the average person.

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

I've mentioned this before. I was looking to buy in a building and there were two identical units, one with a stall, one without (adjacent units, same floor, same square footage, same layout but mirrored). The unit without the parking stall sold for 65k less.

that isnt because the costs were less, its because the market wont value it as high. there are less people who want a place without parking; less demand.

as i said before, if developers could make more $$$ NOT building parking, they would do it. but what are they doing? still building parking. people want parking, so it will get built.

i mean the west end should be the best case study for how the policy of no off-street parking failed and continues to fail. talk about being able to walk/bike to places. and how will people charge their EVs in the future just parked on some random street in the middle of a neighbourhood?

these parking minimums ensure e neighbourhood doesnt get overrun with people circling and filling up the streets with cars. terrible use of limited road space.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Developers keep building parking because parking minimums mean they're legally required to keep building parking. Take those away, and we'll see how many of them still want to build ten floors' worth of basement.

[seamusmcduff]

Exactly. That building still has unsold parking stalls in it that the developer was forced to build. The developer lost money on those stalls, or chose to spread out the cost throughout all the units. Regardless though, it was cheaper to buy without a stall, and I'm sure the developer would have preferred to not build them, seeing as people aren't buying them.

Similar to most dense areas of the city, parking is either paid street parking or limited time so no one is buying without a stall with the assumption they can find street parking, and this I'd going to be the case in most places where developers choose not to build as much parking. In dense, transit friendly areas there simply isn't enough street parking for the population to make it freely available. Which means those who buy units without stalls are doing so because they likely don't have a car.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

if they wanted to, they could do it in downtown Vancouver quite easily; but none are jumping into it all that much.

Could you explain how developers could quite easily offer more affordable homes on downtown Vancouver?

[Lexus]

2023, June 10

I was this sing a few weeks ago and was hoping they finally widening the bridge; however, it seems just a maintenance project.

Untitled by Lexus LX600, on Flickr

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Developers keep building parking because parking minimums mean they're legally required to keep building parking. Take those away, and we'll see how many of them still want to build ten floors' worth of basement.

TBF, it seems many developers in DT Vancouver are going far over the minimums already anyways in areas more accessible than here:
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/1477-wes...granville-station-tower-pci-developments

So maybe not 12 floors. Maybe 10 or 8.