Burnaby Updates

[Migrant_Coconut]

Canada Way gets TransLink a B-Line straight through central Burnaby and New West - no chance of them giving that up to save students a three-minute walk. At most, there'll be a Sanderson station near the Energy building.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

It's silly because all of the students who commute to BCIT would have to walk a few hundred meters extra just so there would be a Canada Way bus connection (which isn't as busy, remember we are trying to prioritize the most common type of commuter). The 222 station for BCIT is at Goard Way for a reason.

Also, the Willingdon Lands development argument makes no sense considering a station at Canada Way would be in the further corner of the development, rather than somewhere in the middle.

Think of how big UBC is and the campus is only getting one station and has had one main bus loop for ages (the other proposed station is for the residential area at 16th & Wesbrook).

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

It's silly because all of the students who commute to BCIT would have to walk a few hundred meters extra just so there would be a Canada Way bus connection (which isn't as busy, remember we are trying to prioritize the most common type of commuter). The 222 station for BCIT is at Goard Way for a reason.

Also, the Willingdon Lands development argument makes no sense considering a station at Canada Way would be in the further corner of the development, rather than somewhere in the middle.

I pointed out way way back that the station at Canada Way could easily have an exit near Goard Way so we're not talking several hundred meters but more like 100-150 meters as the station won't sit in the Canada Way intersection but would be south of it. Figure station house is 100m and you can easily locate it somewhat in the middle of Canada Way and Goard (closer to Canada Way to service bus connections).

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by djmk

If Burnaby really cared about housing, they would of developed the 3800 block of Hastings years ago

I don't think Burnaby is slacking on building housing. It is one of the fastest growing cities in the Metro. Many other cities are doing way less than Burnaby in adding to the housing stock...

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I don't think Burnaby is slacking on building housing. It is one of the fastest growing cities in the Metro. Many other cities are doing way less than Burnaby in adding to the housing stock...

Your right, Burnaby is certainly building more housing than many other municipalities. Percentages don't really tell the full story (and those are population numbers, not housing). Here's the number of dwelling units added for that same list of places between 2016 and 2021 (Statistics Canada census data).

Vancouver 18,929
Surrey 13,939
Burnaby 9,016
Richmond 7,557
Abbotsford 3,889
Coquitlam 4,290
Kelowna 9,682
Langley Township 5,291
Saanich 642
Delta 2,146

[GenWhy?]

Hoping for being able to have selling prices normalize in Metrotown and Brentwood at $1,500 psf! Definitely some good business rolling into Burnaby.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Canada Way gets TransLink a B-Line straight through central Burnaby and New West - no chance of them giving that up to save students a three-minute walk. At most, there'll be a Sanderson station near the Energy building.

Or the B-Line just detours down to Goard Way (you know, where the vast majority of students that would be taking that B-Line would be getting to anyways, might as well save them a walk) and then goes back down to Canada Way (this is the same thing busses do at Burnaby City Hall so it's not unrealistic, it just gets people to their destination (Central, City Hall).

I don't get why its so controversial to build a station where most people are going (Goard Way, the central area of the campus along Willingdon). Metrotown Station wasn't built at Willingdon (a major throughfare), but rather at the mall where most people were actually going. Can you imagine if they built Metrotown Station at Willingdon because there was the potential for a bus to go down Willingdon (like you're saying at Canada Way). That'd just make everyone walk more than they have do.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Think of how big UBC is and the campus is only getting one station and has had one main bus loop for ages (the other proposed station is for the residential area at 16th & Wesbrook).

...so they should have another station in a better location then. Not an argument against what I'm saying really.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Or the B-Line just detours down to Goard Way (you know, where the vast majority of students that would be taking that B-Line would be getting to anyways, might as well save them a walk) and then goes back down to Canada Way (this is the same thing busses do at Burnaby City Hall so it's not unrealistic, it just gets people to their destination (Central, City Hall).

I don't get why its so controversial to build a station where most people are going (Goard Way, the central area of the campus along Willingdon). Metrotown Station wasn't built at Willingdon (a major throughfare), but rather at the mall where most people were actually going. Can you imagine if they built Metrotown Station at Willingdon because there was the potential for a bus to go down Willingdon (like you're saying at Canada Way). That'd just make everyone walk more than they have do.

Demand on Willingdon ends at Metrotown, at least until the River District picks up; a Canada Way B-Line can extend to Gilmore or Renfrew & Commercial and make itself much more useful.

Because detours suck for everybody else on the bus (which, as an anchor between SkyTrain stations, will definitely not be mostly students); you save three minutes walking to Goard, and waste over five minutes driving to it and back out, plus dwell time. It's not just about one school. It's about the network in general.

So they'll likely just put it on Canada Way - maybe on the south side between CW and Smith, as an olive branch - and then BCIT will make do. UBC would kill kittens for a station that's a three-minute walk from campus.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Your right, Burnaby is certainly building more housing than many other municipalities. Percentages don't really tell the full story (and those are population numbers, not housing). Here's the number of dwelling units added for that same list of places between 2016 and 2021 (Statistics Canada census data).

Vancouver 18,929
Surrey 13,939
Burnaby 9,016
Richmond 7,557
Abbotsford 3,889
Coquitlam 4,290
Kelowna 9,682
Langley Township 5,291
Saanich 642
Delta 2,146

See how the suburbs are providing so much more housing compared to Vancouver. Vancouver as the centre should be shouldering at least half of all housing in this region. Otherwise this kind of growth constitutes urban sprawl, pure and simple.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

See how the suburbs are providing so much more housing compared to Vancouver. Vancouver as the centre should be shouldering at least half of all housing in this region. Otherwise this kind of growth constitutes urban sprawl, pure and simple.

You repeat that often, and it's garbage every time. The last time the City of Vancouver had half the region's population was 1956. If you think a Metropolitan Region, with a plan that concentrates most of its growth into transit-served centres, linked to each other, and surrounded by a green zone that limits development is sprawl, you clearly have no idea what sprawl is.

[Migrant_Coconut]

This crap again? If Manhattan's only building 13% of its metro and Toronto's building 28%, then 50% and above is completely unreasonable.

[FarmerHaight]

Per the 2021 population estimates, Vancouver is slightly behind Burnaby and Richmond on housing starts per capita.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Per the 2021 population estimates, Vancouver is slightly behind Burnaby and Richmond on housing starts per capita.

Whoever put those stats together didn't understand that those aren't housing starts. They're net addition to housing stock from the census data (over the previous 5 years).

Per capita housing construction is an odd thing to measure, or consider relevant. The City of Vancouver has the highest population density in Metro Vancouver (double that of Burnaby, and three times Surrey) so it would logically be more difficult to add more housing. It has just 4.1% of the Metro land area, and yet more units were added there in the past five years than any other municipality.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by ecbin

I pointed out way way back that the station at Canada Way could easily have an exit near Goard Way so we're not talking several hundred meters but more like 100-150 meters as the station won't sit in the Canada Way intersection but would be south of it. Figure station house is 100m and you can easily locate it somewhat in the middle of Canada Way and Goard (closer to Canada Way to service bus connections).

Even then, it'd still be a 200 to 250m extra walk (in a north-south direction) for the thousands of BCIT students that commute to BCIT everyday. It's the same if Metrotown Station was placed at Willingdon instead of where it is now by the mall.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You repeat that often, and it's garbage every time. The last time the City of Vancouver had half the region's population was 1956. If you think a Metropolitan Region, with a plan that concentrates most of its growth into transit-served centres, linked to each other, and surrounded by a green zone that limits development is sprawl, you clearly have no idea what sprawl is.

Garbage comes from you. I suppose 1956 and before were much better times for this city, as is evident how the older areas of town were much better planned and implemented. Baby boom era was what drove the masses to the suburbs creating the sprawl we have today.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

This crap again? If Manhattan's only building 13% of its metro and Toronto's building 28%, then 50% and above is completely unreasonable.

Crap comes from you. As usual you compare us with a city (NYC) on the decline, and in a country notorious for urban sprawl? Toronto isn't hemmed in by coastal mountains and the US border like we are.

I do hold us to much higher standards, which you will probably never get.

[Vin]

Burnaby will see more positive changes in the next few years.

Burnaby sees surge in new residents in latest Census data
https://www.burnabynow.com/local-news/bu...er%20square%20kilometre%20of%202%2C750.7.

Although the population density is still lower than its neighbouring city Vancouver that got a decades-old headstart, Burnaby is still retaining more parklands and green spaces, including agricultural spaces, which most likely explains its low population density number.

The mixed use commercial/residential high-density nodes with new town centres developed in this city will curtail the rise of urban sprawl which has plagued many North American cities, including Burnaby when it first started out as a bedroom community of Vancouver. Gaining city status in 1992 has certainly helped to let it charter its own future.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Garbage comes from you. I suppose 1956 and before were much better times for this city, as is evident how the older areas of town were much better planned and implemented. Baby boom era was what drove the masses to the suburbs creating the sprawl we have today.

Crap comes from you. As usual you compare us with a city (NYC) on the decline, and in a country notorious for urban sprawl? Toronto isn't hemmed in by coastal mountains and the US border like we are.

I do hold us to much higher standards, which you will probably never get.

Now you’ve doubled down on the crap and the garbage. Classy. That era spawned the Bartholomew Plan, which is a large part of why the suburbs exist in the first place.

By all means, divide any first world city of our size by its own metro, anywhere else on the globe: a grand total of none meet your 50% and above “high standards.” It’s only a realistic number in SimCity. Definitely not in North America.
If we’re boxed in by mountains and oceans, then all the more the City isn't going to be building as much as central Toronto. And the City That Never Sleeps, declining? Hardly - it added over half a million new residents just months after that story ran.

Originally Posted by Vin

Burnaby will see more positive changes in the next few years.

Burnaby sees surge in new residents in latest Census data
https://www.burnabynow.com/local-news/bu...er%20square%20kilometre%20of%202%2C750.7.

Although the population density is still lower than its neighbouring city Vancouver that got a decades-old headstart, Burnaby is still retaining more parklands and green spaces, including agricultural spaces, which most likely explains its low population density number.

The mixed use commercial/residential high-density nodes with new town centres developed in this city will curtail the rise of urban sprawl which has plagued many North American cities, including Burnaby when it first started out as a bedroom community of Vancouver. Gaining city status in 1992 has certainly helped to let it charter its own future.

Vancouver only has 14% less green space than Burnaby, yet 124% more density. Parks are clearly not the problem. And why should Burnaby try and retain so many parks in the first place? Get that 25% down to Vancouver’s 11%, and then according to you more people could live there instead of Surrey and Coquitlam.

Which only works until the day there's no more malls or warehouses to build condos on, which is approaching fast. Once that happens, all City Council's got left is the two-thirds of Burnaby that's hostile NIMBYs in SFHs... and they've only just gotten around to thinking about laneways.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Although the population density is still lower than its neighbouring city Vancouver that got a decades-old headstart, Burnaby is still retaining more parklands and green spaces, including agricultural spaces, which most likely explains its low population density number.

No, that's not why Burnaby's population density is less than half Vancouver's. Vancouver has more agricultural land than Burnaby. Neither of them have any significant agricultural production, and haven't for decades. Burnaby has more 'green' space - but if you took the Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area out of the statistics it actually has less land devoted to parks and green space.

Burnaby's population density is lower because it's growing more slowly. A great deal of the growth is concentrated in those nodes of towers, around some, but not all, the transit stops. In Vancouver it's much more spread out across the city, along the arterials, and increasingly in other parts of the city too.

Burnaby has grown steadily, and no doubt will continue to do so. It typically adds about half the population growth of Vancouver. That's apparent if you look over a longer time period too - in the past 35 years Burnaby added 103,964 people. Vancouver added 229,863 in the same period.

[gaviscon]

Originally Posted by Changing City

No, that's not why Burnaby's population density is less than half Vancouver's. Vancouver has more agricultural land than Burnaby. Neither of them have any significant agricultural production, and haven't for decades. Burnaby has more 'green' space - but if you took the Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area out of the statistics it actually has less land devoted to parks and green space.

Burnaby's population density is lower because it's growing more slowly. A great deal of the growth is concentrated in those nodes of towers, around some, but not all, the transit stops. In Vancouver it's much more spread out across the city, along the arterials, and increasingly in other parts of the city too.

Burnaby has grown steadily, and no doubt will continue to do so. It typically adds about half the population growth of Vancouver. That's apparent if you look over a longer time period too - in the past 35 years Burnaby added 103,964 people. Vancouver added 229,863 in the same period.

While I'm all for the idea of Vancouver maintaining a dominant presence in the LM, the population growth you mentioned can't really be used to argue that "Burnaby is growing slower than Vancouver" because populous cities will always gain more population in numbers much like a larger snowball adding on more snow than a smaller snowball running downhill. What's more significant is the rate at which Burnaby is growing, and perhaps the change in Burnaby's population growth rate broken down by certain periods of time.

As you said, Burnaby added 103,964 people over the same period, relative to its original population. If you see it that way, a growth of 229,863 should be compared to Vancouver's original population 35 years ago rather than a direct side-by-side comparison to Burnaby, which suddenly makes it seem like Vancouver is the one growing slower than Burnaby.
Once Burnaby adds on an economy and population of scale, we will see its population will begin to grow faster in actual numbers relative to Vancouver.