Burnaby Updates

[Klazu]

Most families with kids will be driving anyways and the new Aquatic Center will be well-positioned for parking.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Most families with kids will be driving anyways and the new Aquatic Center will be well-positioned for parking.

That's what I mean... isn' that going to be an issue in a few short years?

[madog222]

Rec centre scale swimming pools and the required infrastructure are huge and require open space unimpeded by support columns, not ideal let alone practical in a mixed use development podium.

[officedweller]

So no one has mentioned the grocery store at the southwest corner of the Grosvenor project?

High Street within the southwest corner of the site would feature a residential tower on top of a larger format anchor retail and grocery store space.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/gros...naby?auto=true

[53064043]

Originally Posted by officedweller

So no one has mentioned the grocery store at the southwest corner of the Grosvenor project?


https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/gros...naby?auto=true

That's going to be a while... the area could really use another grocery store. Not a big box supermarket, but a smaller footprint one like a Kins Farm Market, Nesters, Choices, Urban Fare etc. would be welcome.

[SpongeG]

will this be done in two phases? with the western portion being first? the office building on Beta and Lougheed will need to be demolished and will be a phase two?

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

will this be done in two phases? with the western portion being first? the office building on Beta and Lougheed will need to be demolished and will be a phase two?

Yeah two phases. It mentions the phasing in this document.

Phase 1 is Urban Gateway/High Street/Civic Heart which is on the Alpha/Dawson end.

https://pub-burnaby.escribemeetings....cumentId=58787

[Vin]

Originally Posted by NetMapel

Apology as I wasn’t clear before. My point was, why are the swimming pools being built in surrounding areas but not right near the centre of where the actual population centres are? Brentwood centre is the population centre in that area, not north to Confederate Park nor east to Sinclair Centre. Put the amenities at where the population centre is.

That would make a lot of sense, wouldn't it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by madog222

Rec centre scale swimming pools and the required infrastructure are huge and require open space unimpeded by support columns, not ideal let alone practical in a mixed use development podium.

I'm also guessing that it's cheaper to rebuild the existing site (chosen way back when town centres weren't a thing) than to look for a new one in a now crazy-expensive neighbourhood.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Yeah two phases. It mentions the phasing in this document.

Phase 1 is Urban Gateway/High Street/Civic Heart which is on the Alpha/Dawson end.

https://pub-burnaby.escribemeetings....cumentId=58787

ok, I used to work in that office building back in the 00's.

[Klazu]

I hope the person suing in this case will get zilch and have to pay for their legal costs. An absolutely ridiculous claim and their "incredible view" was shitty to start with. A proper NIMBY.

https://www.burnabynow.com/opinion/o...locked-5152911

[VarBreStr18]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I hope the person suing in this case will get zilch and have to pay for their legal costs. An absolutely ridiculous claim and their "incredible view" was shitty to start with. A proper NIMBY.

https://www.burnabynow.com/opinion/o...locked-5152911

That neighbor from hell is also totally selfish . Maximizing his own gain without the slightest consideration of others. He could at least tone it down some what so that both can share some view. I would never build such a ominous structure entirely for self gratification. mho only.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I hope the person suing in this case will get zilch and have to pay for their legal costs. An absolutely ridiculous claim and their "incredible view" was shitty to start with. A proper NIMBY.

https://www.burnabynow.com/opinion/o...locked-5152911

wow, that's crazy. but agreed, it wasn't a very nice view to begin with.

if they truly cared that much, they should have done what one of my friends parents did to keep their view; they bought the property in-front of their view when it went on the market, put a covenant on it to create a maximum height limit for plants/buildings/etc. then resold the property a few months later.

otherwise, GTFO and buy a place with a view that cant be covered.

[Klazu]

Yeah, buying air rights has been a thing in cities for many decades. It is your only way to retain views as otherwise you are not entitled to any view. In this case I don't understand why the city would ever be on hook to pay this idiot, not those building the house in front of the view.

[Spr0ckets]

Holy Crap!!! I hope this petition fails and fails hard.


https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...-union-5163871

Some of their reasoning for not wanting this in "their neighbourhood" are beyond nonsensically mind-boggling - but this one was a gem.....

>>"One of the petition supporters, Peter Then, wrote: “I'm signing because our residential area is way over-congested with traffic resulting in unsafe conditions for the many nearby daycares, elementary schools, and young children living around these areas. A lot of the time, I've problems parking my own car on the street. These are just a couple of many congestion problems we face today. We cannot afford to accommodate more population in our area.”

"I've problems parking my own car on the street"?!?!?!?!?!

Really?!???

Then isn't your problem the people who live around you who have more cars then their living allocations allow them to park in - you know,.....people who live in SINGLE FAMILY HOMES,....like YOU!?!?!?
(or the people they rent to?)

The people that this kind of development (below market rental; close to a transit hub and Skytrain station....) will attract are not the kind of people who will be owning and driving 2 or 3 cars per household, let alone have them clogging up your street, you dummy.
These are people who will want to live there specifically because they don't want to or simply can't drive - to work or anywhere else.

NIMBYs have the most silly ways of couching their NIMBYism and "reasons" why they don't want "those people" living in (or near) our "nice" neighbourhood.

And as they usually do, the woman who started the petition gave the standard boilerplate,...

"...of course, we believe these kinds of developments are important and needed and should be built.....

.....just not around here"


Right.


Ladies and Gents, your GVA Housing and Affordability problem in a nutshell.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Viewcones coming to Royal Oak in 3... 2... 1...

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Viewcones coming to Royal Oak in 3... 2... 1...

Ironically (or coincidentally), the height of this development COULD be a legitimate reason to petition against it being built since it's being built on the wrong side of Royal Oak, where the City's plan limits developments to 4-6 storey level buildings, and the developers - the Union - are hoping for an exemption given the goodies that this project is bringing in tow that would benefit the City ( below market-rental and childcare facilities, and proximity to Skytrain).


But that's not the reason (or reasons) that these people are petitioning against it being built.
At least not the primary one.

But then again, you can't complain it's too close to a public park and it will cause shadowing. (It's not).
You can't complain it's demolishing existing housing to replace it with high-priced condos (It's not).
You can't complain it's blocking any legitimate views or whatnot, given it's location.

So whine about "congestion" and "parking",....and too many people coming in the area.
(It's going to be right next door to a skytrain station.
By definition, that's already a high traffic-high congestion area.)

Personally, I would have gone with the old reliable slippery-slope trope "If you make an exemption for this development breaking the height limit, you'll be making an exemption for every project that throws goodies at you and before you know it,......anarchy!!! Chaos!!! Cats and Dogs living together!!!"

But that's not where they're headed it seems.

Should be interesting to see how this one plays out.

[SpongeG]

I had to quit following the Burnaby Now. Its basically three things, People complaining about parking on the street, bad tenants in income suites or how North Burnaby keeps getting better and better since the writer grew up their as a kid. And also how many fried chicken joints seem to be opening weekly.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Ironically (or coincidentally), the height of this development COULD be a legitimate reason to petition against it being built since it's being built on the wrong side of Royal Oak, where the City's plan limits developments to 4-6 storey level buildings, and the developers - the Union - are hoping for an exemption given the goodies that this project is bringing in tow that would benefit the City ( below market-rental and childcare facilities, and proximity to Skytrain).

Ah yes I remember this one. It would have sailed through if it had been proposed on the other side of Royal Oak - instead it's brought out the Nimbys in force. I have to laugh at the picture of the head Nimby in the article as you can see towers behind her (I suspect if she had her way they'd be Photoshopped out of the picture).

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Ah yes I remember this one. It would have sailed through if it had been proposed on the other side of Royal Oak - instead it's brought out the Nimbys in force. I have to laugh at the picture of the head Nimby in the article as you can see towers behind her (I suspect if she had her way they'd be Photoshopped out of the picture).

Yes, talk about tone-deaf.
Or maybe the cameraman just tricked her into posing facing that way to make a point.

It might still get through, but this does indeed give the City some cover to reject it - a project like this with the bells and whistles it has (below-market rental, childcare, not demovicting anyone to get built, replacing old industrial properties adjacent to residential neighbourhoods etc etc) during a housing affordability crisis in an election year.