Burnaby Updates - Page 207

Klazu · #**4121** Posted **May 14, 2022, 4:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marshal

Burnaby needs to get a handle on separating distances asap. The City of Laugheed towers are too close. These and the proposed towers at the NW corner of Laugheed and Willingdon are an insult to livability - especially for projects on relatively 'open' lands.

I am with you and almost hope Tower 1A would not happen, at least as planned. It is absurd how even the 73rd floor penthouses facing north will be looking into Tower 1B units.

They should transfer density to Tower 2 which has the most visible location that should be the location for an iconic tallest tower. Make it 88 floors to appease oversees buyers or aim for 100 floors for some serious prestige.

Klazu · #**4122** Posted **May 14, 2022, 6:31 PM**

Just browsed through the PDF and wow, there is going to be 14 levels (!!) of parking and 12 units per floor all the way to the top, totaling 788 units on the tallest tower. That is a LOT and there are no units larger than 1,000 sqft, so no proper penthouse units. No wonder they are going for 2 x 4 elevators on this building, as there is going to be a lot of elevator traffic and someone moving in our out every day.

This is definitely not a luxury project, but a super high-density project trying to cram as many units as possible into the space. Kind of sad that this would be the tallest building outside of Toronto.

officedweller · #**4123** Posted **May 15, 2022, 2:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marshal

Burnaby needs to get a handle on separating distances asap. The City of Laugheed towers are too close. These and the proposed towers at the NW corner of Laugheed and Willingdon are an insult to livability - especially for projects on relatively 'open' lands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

I am with you and almost hope Tower 1A would not happen, at least as planned. It is absurd how even the 73rd floor penthouses facing north will be looking into Tower 1B units.

They should transfer density to Tower 2 which has the most visible location that should be the location for an iconic tallest tower. Make it 88 floors to appease oversees buyers or aim for 100 floors for some serious prestige.

Agreed.
It makes more sense to me to have one wider tower (or with an L-shaped or V-shaped floorplate) than 2 towers so close together.

Metro-One · #**4124** Posted **May 15, 2022, 4:11 AM**

No on a single wider tower for me, a single wider tower would take too much away from the perceived height.

Instead, ten floors should be taken off the shorter tower and added to the taller tower, creating a better contrast between the two structures.

I definitely prefer the current concept over a single wider building.

officedweller · #**4125** Posted **May 16, 2022, 12:48 AM**

I could also see a single tower with the change in heights so the shorter one becomes a shoulder on the tower.

Vin · #**4126** Posted **May 16, 2022, 6:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by connect2source

I'm most excited about the fact that DB will be providing ICE 2 high speed rail service to Lougheed Town Centre Station. I wonder if it will connect to the rest of the DB high speed network in Germany!

...or Lougheed to Waterfront in 2 minutes.

No kidding. ICE trains are used by a few countries outside Germany, so why not have Siemens ICE 3 or Velaro trains here in Canada's West Coast too?

Precix · #**4127** Posted **May 18, 2022, 9:59 PM**

I wonder with they economy slowing down, rising interest rates, and ban on foreign ownership if all these projects will get built or delayed. There are so many of them? I am pretty sure developers were marketing them overseas heavily. So I wonder how the ban for two years will affect all these developments. I guess time will tell.

Lexus · #**4128** Posted **May 19, 2022, 3:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lexus

2022 April 7

Alaska St & Willingdon Ave

Untitled by Lexus LX570, on Flickr

2022, May 19

Untitled by Lexus LX570, on Flickr

SpongeG · #**4129** Posted **May 28, 2022, 9:22 PM**

Byrne Park is coming along

2022-05-28_02-17-49 by snub_you, on Flickr

Spr0ckets · #**4130** Posted **May 30, 2022, 7:34 PM**

This must be quite possibly the most NIMBY-IEST thing to ever NIMBY anywhere in these here NIMBY parts.....

"North Van resident sues to stop view-spoiling development"

https://www.nsnews.com/local-news/no...opment-5416124

She might even have a point, if it's taller than the bylaw allows.
But to sue because of a "view" being blocked????!??!

That's.......just......wow.

Luxuriate if you will, in the entitlement and tone-deafness....

Quote:

"Kvarnstrom said if she had known about the potential for a building of that height to be built in front of hers, she wouldn’t have purchased the condo five years ago.

“It is a pretty bitter pill to swallow for the average middle-class homeowner who is having their dearly loved ocean view completely obliterated without any consideration or compensation whatsoever,” she said, suggesting she and her neighbours would also lose their privacy and an estimated $100,000 from their property values. “It doesn't seem quite right, does it?”

"compensation"!??!?!?!?!?

Who's her supplier?
I'd like to get a hit of whatever she's smoking.
Must be good stuff.

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**4131** Posted **May 30, 2022, 7:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

"North Van resident sues to stop view-spoiling development"

https://www.nsnews.com/local-news/no...opment-5416124

But to sue because of a "view" being blocked????!??!

she'd doing what CoV City Hall has done. the only difference is she cant put a view cone in front of her window.

unless you buy waterfront, views can and will probably disappear eventually.

dreambrother808 · #**4132** Posted **May 30, 2022, 8:12 PM**

City Hall is a place of general civic symbolism, where dignitaries have meetings, where there is value in presenting the full majesty of our city, to entice and spur investors, etc.

These issues are not the same.

Migrant_Coconut · #**4133** Posted **May 30, 2022, 8:44 PM**

That said, there's very little reason to have viewcones to City Hall (i.e. looking at the building from random places on the seawall). You have maybe three people a day that make full use of them.

Spr0ckets · #**4134** Posted **May 30, 2022, 8:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

she'd doing what CoV City Hall has done. the only difference is she cant put a view cone in front of her window.

unless you buy waterfront, views can and will probably disappear eventually.

Even waterfront views can eventually end up getting blocked.
Just ask some folks in Coal Harbour.

Unless you buy into a condo building built right up the the edge of the harbour or sea wall, of course.

Or you could buy right behind City Hall since they seem to save all the best viewcones for themselves.

What I loved about her comment was the inherent delusion that the views would be preserved forever and that nothing could be built to block it
(...OCP or not).

Spr0ckets · #**4135** Posted **May 30, 2022, 8:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That said, there's very little reason to have viewcones to City Hall (i.e. looking at the building from random places on the seawall). You have maybe three people a day that make full use of them.

I feel like you covered it with your first nine words.

Others might see it differently, of course.

Migrant_Coconut · #**4136** Posted **May 30, 2022, 8:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

I feel like you covered it with your first nine words.

Others might see it differently, of course.

Meh, some have their uses. What Council really needs to do is split the QE cone, pick 5-10 of the remainder and ditch everything else.

Personally still waiting for a cone for the VCC-Clark overpass. That's a good one. Alas, the entire system seems to be set up for the benefit of maybe ten co-ops in False Creek South.

Sheba · #**4137** Posted **May 30, 2022, 8:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

This must be quite possibly the most NIMBY-IEST thing to ever NIMBY anywhere in these here NIMBY parts.....

"North Van resident sues to stop view-spoiling development"

The same thing happened in New West years ago... Still this is the Burnaby thread.

One of my neighbours *hates* the Byrne Park development due to the loss of trees - but she just grumbles about it instead of suing and / or complaining to the press. I've reassured her that most of the area is dedicated park land so it's not all going to be bulldozed.

Spr0ckets · #**4138** Posted **May 30, 2022, 10:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheba

The same thing happened in New West years ago... Still this is the Burnaby thread.

One of my neighbours *hates* the Byrne Park development due to the loss of trees - but she just grumbles about it instead of suing and / or complaining to the press. I've reassured her that most of the area is dedicated park land so it's not all going to be bulldozed.

Loss of trees I can understand.
It can even be legitimately defended on certain grounds.
(as long as your not blocking traffic on highways to make your point, that is).

Loss of views is a whole other ball of wax, I feel.

You're always playing a lottery when you buy into a condo building in an urban (or even suburban) area, ostensibly because of the "amazing" views your unit will have.

There's a good reason why developers always love to show marketing renders of their buildings as if it will be a tower built in the middle of a desert with no other neighbouring buildings in sight, instead of what the reality will likely end up being.

Buy in front of a forested park, Skytrain guideway tracks or right at the waterfront edge , if views are so important to you.

a16107 · #**4139** Posted **May 30, 2022, 11:14 PM**

Does anyone think Edmonds street or Kingsway/Edmonds will develop in the future?

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**4140** Posted **May 31, 2022, 12:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

City Hall is a place of general civic symbolism, where dignitaries have meetings, where there is value in presenting the full majesty of our city, to entice and spur investors, etc.

These issues are not the same.

i disagree, it is the same. its not on the water, nor in the mountains, cities don't really do dignitary meetings, i wouldn't say it presents the city that well, and nor does a view from city hall spur investors. its a mediocre building at best i think. a better City Hall would have been the Marine Building.

i would argue the reason for the views from there were more about city staff keeping their views. i get the want for that, but at the same time... "pot meet kettle"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Even waterfront views can eventually end up getting blocked.
Just ask some folks in Coal Harbour.

Unless you buy into a condo building built right up the the edge of the harbour or sea wall, of course.

Or you could buy right behind City Hall since they seem to save all the best viewcones for themselves.

What I loved about her comment was the inherent delusion that the views would be preserved forever and that nothing could be built to block it
(...OCP or not).

i was thinking of places like Marina Side Cr, facing south. where you're right on the water.

other than that, i dont think there should be an exception to views. her building blocked someone else before, which then in of itself can get blocked, unless of course you pay more $$$ for waterfront.

look at Shangri La, had some views nice high up, but then Trump got built. so much for that.

in the end, this will go nowhere as they always will. it makes a good clickbaity title for ad revenue. (i didnt read it, title was enough for me)