Broadway Corridor Development Plan

[misher]

Looks like the skytrain station at Granville may be on Granville https://www.straight.com/life/123942...ast-van-office

Back in 2017, Sharon Townsend—then the executive director of the South Granville Business Improvement Area—told me that there had been, as she put it, “rumblings for quite some time about RBC and it having 20-storey potential”.

Today she reiterated her belief that the corner location of 1489 West Broadway “is the most logical location for a station” (meaning a Granville Street station for the proposed Broadway subway line, running from VCC-Clark Station to Arbutus Street) and she added—leaving no doubt about her feelings, vis-a-vis the current occupant of the address:

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by misher

Looks like the skytrain station at Granville may be on Granville https://www.straight.com/life/123942...ast-van-office

A homeless guy heard a staff member relocating to another office suggest it might be there. Sounds reliable. Shame he didn't have a yellow vest. (Don't worry, you haven't been here long enough to get that reference).

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Krissy

La Defense is not in Paris. Evidently you like La Defense more than Paris. Who cares about La Defense when there's Paris.

By extension, who cares about Burnaby when there's Vancouver? Not much except tall tower fanatics like Vin.

May I remind you that you are in skyscraper discussion forum. Nothing wrong with that.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

And yet most of it is still SFH. Burnaby's overall density is 2,568.7/km2, which is less than Victoria and half of Vancouver.

Hence multiple rezonings, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, if you'd ever bothered to read the community plans. An amalgamated city that wants to keep the suburbs low would also raise the core higher.

The same Chilliwack that has a controversy over one six-storey? No, they're too far away and too quiet even if both residents and developers were interested. What would happen is that the developers would just squeeze under Burnaby's viewcones like they're already doing in Vancouver, and nothing would change except the shape of the skyline.

See this:

Originally Posted by deasine

Look at Vancouver's density change:

That big part of yellow that still exists in Vancouver has to change, but it hasn't really, and most likely won't in the long run. Suburbs always start out as low density, but in Metro Van, the pace has already outstripped Vancouver's when it comes to adding population densities. That has to do with the high-rise construction we see in many Town Centres. Sure, you may hope to have 6-stories built all over City of Vancouver, but is that really happening? Stop kidding yourself.

All the more we should be aiming for more talls along W. Broadway corridor.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

See this:

That big part of yellow that still exists in Vancouver has to change, but it hasn't really, and most likely won't in the long run. Suburbs always start out as low density, but in Metro Van, the pace has already outstripped Vancouver's when it comes to adding population densities. That has to do with the high-rise construction we see in many Town Centres. Sure, you may hope to have 6-stories built all over City of Vancouver, but is that really happening? Stop kidding yourself.

All the more we should be aiming for more talls along W. Broadway corridor.

In terms of appropriate density for running transit, we absolutely don't need more than we already have along most of Broadway. That's not to say adding more density around stations shouldn't be planned - it is being planned. It doesn't necessarily have to look like Downtown (or Brentwood or Metrotown). There are midrise projects in Southeast False Creek with higher density than some tower projects next to stations in Burnaby. But I know, you just want more towers.



source

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

See this:

Like I said, most densification is on the west side of Boundary. EDIT: On second glance, almost ALL of it is west of Boundary!

Originally Posted by Vin

That big part of yellow that still exists in Vancouver has to change, but it hasn't really, and most likely won't in the long run. Suburbs always start out as low density, but in Metro Van, the pace has already outstripped Vancouver's when it comes to adding population densities. That has to do with the high-rise construction we see in many Town Centres. Sure, you may hope to have 6-stories built all over City of Vancouver, but is that really happening? Stop kidding yourself.

All the more we should be aiming for more talls along W. Broadway corridor.

A simple Google search reveals massive upcoming densification along Cambie, Grandview, Joyce-Collingwood and various other parts of Vancouver. Leaving the keyboard for a simple walk down Cambie reveals existing densification already. Even a walk down Arbutus, Oak, Dunbar, 41st, SW Marine or any the "yellow" parts of Vancouver would reveal plenty of change already.

The yellow parts of Burnaby, Coquitlam and Surrey will stay yellow for the next twenty years. You want to see self delusion, look in the mirror.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Like I said, most densification is on the west side of Boundary. EDIT: On second glance, almost ALL of it is west of Boundary!



A simple Google search reveals massive upcoming densification along Cambie, Grandview, Joyce-Collingwood and various other parts of Vancouver. Leaving the keyboard for a simple walk down Cambie reveals existing densification already. Even a walk down Arbutus, Oak, Dunbar, 41st, SW Marine or any the "yellow" parts of Vancouver would reveal plenty of change already.

The yellow parts of Burnaby, Coquitlam and Surrey will stay yellow for the next twenty years. You want to see self delusion, look in the mirror.

Lol... Vin posts an illustration to show how the humble East Side is denser than 'high rise' Burnaby?

Originally Posted by Vin

Going tall allows more green spaces, parks, and better views from the windows of residence units. You can perhaps perhaps pact 5 to 6 stories taking up whole lot sizes but u will be starring onto a brick wall or someone else's living/bed room. A lot of tall buildings already have podiums equating the density of a mid-rise, especially those with 6 to 8 storey podiums. Add on the towers and they definitely provide way more density than a low-rise does, even if it occupies the entire lot. You can try proving me wrong on that.

You just proved yourself wrong. Burnaby with all its towers isn't as dense as you would like to think.

But evidently to you, tall suburban towers amongst a sea of car-oriented SF housing is still more progressive and better than compact walkable neighbourhoods.

You should just drop the guise that you actually care about density and good urban planning and just say that you like tall towers because you find it nice to look at, nothing more.

[a very long weekend]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Shame he didn't have a yellow vest. (Don't worry, you haven't been here long enough to get that reference).

The funny thing is that the great oracle, towerguy3, was absolutely correct about the stadium roof. Still not clear why he was so fanatically obsessed with that goddamned roof, but for all the years of abuse directed at the guy on this forum and the times he was banned and all the rest (which I witnessed, having participated in this forum under different account names since 2002/2003), with members ridiculing him and scoffing at the very notion that a retractable roof would/could be built, that's exactly what happened.

Edit: also, wasn't it an orange vest?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by squeezied

Lol... Vin posts an illustration to show how the humble East Side is denser than 'high rise' Burnaby?



You just proved yourself wrong. Burnaby with all its towers isn't as dense as you would like to think.

But evidently to you, tall suburban towers amongst a sea of car-oriented SF housing is still more progressive and better than compact walkable neighbourhoods.

You should just drop the guise that you actually care about density and good urban planning and just say that you like tall towers because you find it nice to look at, nothing more.

Don't act like you know me. Maybe you haven't seen my comments in the Victoria thread. So stop being a constant troll.

Of course Burnaby isnt dense since it has so many parklands and even farmlands that can be preserved. The town centres there are plenty dense.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

Edit: also, wasn't it an orange vest?

I think you might be correct.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Vin

Don't act like you know me. Maybe you haven't seen my comments in the Victoria thread. So stop being a constant troll.

Of course Burnaby isnt dense since it has so many parklands and even farmlands that can be preserved. The town centres there are plenty dense.

It doesn't take long to know what you're like. Your unsubtle opinionated biases speak for themselves.

I suggest you actually look at the density map you posted. It's not the parklands that make Burnaby less dense, it's the car-oriented sf neighborhoods. Town centres are dense, but evidently not as dense as you would like to think.

[logan5]

I looked at 1 dissemination area for South Burnaby (Imperial and Sussex area) on the Census Canada map. It was an area with all single family homes. I would say a majority of those homes are subdivided into 2 homes. The density is 4297/sq km. I'm use to Sq miles for density so it's 11200/sq mile.

There you go Vin. Check it out.

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...16A00055915025

[misher]

Broadway Plan Walking Tours are Up. Space is limited to 25 and it’s already pretty full.

https://vancouver.ca/home-property-d...ay-plan_Vanity

[misher]

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/1745...da-earth-tower

40 story wood tower proposed and is attempting to get Council approval to be built despite the two year block.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by squeezied

It doesn't take long to know what you're like. Your unsubtle opinionated biases speak for themselves.

I suggest you actually look at the density map you posted. It's not the parklands that make Burnaby less dense, it's the car-oriented sf neighborhoods. Town centres are dense, but evidently not as dense as you would like to think.

I don't think I need to argue further about this.


The suburbs are now beating Vancouver in building rental housing: report
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/metr...te-may-21-2019

The City of Vancouver has traditionally outpaced the rest of Metro Vancouver when it comes to the creation of new purpose-built rental housing, but that no longer is the case.

17-storey tower with 131 rental homes proposed for West Vancouver
A new rental market update by the Goodman Report (GR) indicates the number of proposed rental housing units in Vancouver actually fell by 36% over the last two years from 3,371 units in 2017 to 2,150 units in 2019.

In contrast, the region’s suburban municipalities have seen their proposed rental units skyrocket during the same timeframe — from 2,618 units in 2017 to 6,999 units in 2019.

Vancouver’s downward trend is happening despite its recently enacted policies that are meant to encourage developers to construct new rental units, including the Moderate Income Rental Housing Pilot Program and the Rental 100 Secured Market Rental Housing Policy.

According to GR analysts, developers are turning to suburban municipalities to build rental housing as they are offering very simple incentives. The City of Coquitlam and the City of North Vancouver, for instance, are providing an extra floor space ratio density of 1.0 times the size of the lot.

“On the other, the City of Vancouver’s rezoning process is so convoluted and risky, builders of rental are moving elsewhere,” reads the market update.

“In the last two years, the City of Vancouver has gone from the new rental supply sweetheart, with its self-congratulatory missives outlining the success of its programs, to being absolutely outpaced by the suburban market.”

Based on data from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), Vancouver saw its first major new gains in rental housing from 2010 and 2018, when 3,023 units were created — far more than the suburbs. But in 2018, within Vancouver proper, only 12 projects containing 1,364 new rental units were completed.

With a narrowing vacancy rate and a housing affordability crisis that had clearly expanded beyond the borders of Vancouver, other municipalities adopted their own incentives in an attempt to persuade developers to build rental units instead of condominiums that are generally more profitable and provide a quick return.

CMHC’s data notes that Vancouver’s total purpose-built rental stock only grew by 3,960 additional units over a three-decade period — from 54,170 units in 1990 to 58,130 units today. Over this same period, the city’s population grew from about 460,000 people to approximately 650,000 people.

The rental vacancy rate in Vancouver is currently hovering at less than 1%, providing households depending on rental housing with extremely few housing options. According to the city, a healthy vacancy rate ranges between 3% and 4%.

The municipal government is anticipated to provide an update on its housing strategies later this year.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by misher

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/1745...da-earth-tower

40 story wood tower proposed and is attempting to get Council approval to be built despite the two year block.

Nimbys are already lining up with their pitchforks and torches to burn it down.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The Goodmans, in this case, happens to be full of it.

Originally Posted by Changing City

I'm sorry, but the Goodman Report is not a reliable source of data, except on the prices paid for apartment buildings. They're claiming that there are 2,150 proposed rental units in Vancouver, and 6,999 in the suburbs.

It's not clear what they think 'proposed' consists of, but current rezoning proposals are for 2,392 rental units in the City of Vancouver. There are several thousand more approved - which aren't under construction yet, so those ought to be considered as 'proposed'. And there must be at least 1,000 units with development permit applications yet to be approved.

And there are even more where a rezoning has been approved - like Onni's redevelopment of Pearson Hospital, and Oakridge, and North East False Creek, where each will see several hundred more rental units built as part of the overall project.

It's worth remembering that the Goodmans have an axe to grind - they make their money acting as agents for rental owners wanting to sell apartments. They expressed opposition to Rental 100, and similar programs because it makes the rental buildings less likely to be sold for redevelopment. They issued dire warnings that nobody would ever build rental in the city if rents were controlled, and as we have seen more rental has been built, and is being built, in the City of Vancouver than in several decades.

It's great if there really are nearly 7,000 rental units proposed in other municipalities - it's time for a catch-up. Burnaby actually has fewer rental units than 10 years ago. I wonder if the 3,000 rentals that the Squamish Nation are contemplating are included in that total? Georgraphically they ought to be counted as being in the Vancouver total - although jurisdictionally they aren't. (They can't be called suburban though).

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vin

Nimbys are already lining up with their pitchforks and torches to burn it down.

Putting the Nimby's grievances aside for a moment, anyone with common sense, Nimbys included, should be aware of the necessity of densiification. This is rather a pleasant form of it IMO

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The Goodmans, in this case, happens to be full of it.

It seems like to you, every report is "full of it". Perhaps you want to come up with your own report, sir?

Fact remains that many have to find housing outside Vancouver proper and fact also points to insufficient housing units built here. It would be crazy to think the majority of those living in the suburb cities commuting to Vancouver for work or school would prefer living outside the City of Vancouver if they can help it. Everyone wants to stay close to their daily destinations.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

It seems like to you, every report is "full of it". Perhaps you want to come up with your own report, sir?

Fact remains that many have to find housing outside Vancouver proper and fact also points to insufficient housing units built here. It would be crazy to think the majority of those living in the suburb cities commuting to Vancouver for work or school would prefer living outside the City of Vancouver if they can help it. Everyone wants to stay close to their daily destinations.

And I suppose that if there were a report painting Vancouver in a good light, you'd be 100% on board with it? Or perhaps you'd be pointing out obvious biases like the rest of us?

Fact is, even the Goodmans' numbers say Vancouver is well ahead of everybody else in terms of rental housing. 6,999 over all the suburbs is about 1-2k (give or take) for Surrey and Burnaby. The Squamish alone - let alone the rest of the city like NEFC or Cambie, have proposed 3k units on their lands - those do not show up on the report as "proposed" for some inexplicable reason.