Burnaby Updates

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

No, actually I love your list.

I was just poking some fun at what people tend to fixate on when project proposals and information like this tends to be released.

In the grand scheme of things, if there was anything there to be fixated about, at least your list serves a useful and informative purpose.

I believe there once was a notion of having a interregnum station between Patterson and Joyce Collingwood, but for the longest time there simply hasn't been the density and foot traffic in that area to justify having such a station there.

Most of the potential foot traffic would be cannibalized by Patterson and Joyce-Collingwood and Patterson (whose own traffic is likewise cannibalized by Metrotown's much bigger Transit hub station), anyway.

I guess the argument could be made that the combination of this development bringing 2,500 homes with the next door residential complex along with the lowrise homes north of Kingsway and the Park, would eventually give the sort of numbers that could justify it, but I don't know the logistics and feasibility of adding a station to an already existing line and in between two stations - as opposed to at the end of a terminus station as an extension - and whether it would even be financially viable to do so.

I could see Transllink and the cities instead pushing for a bus transfer loop instead - but again,......there's already a transfer loop at Joyce Collingwood and a major loop and hub at Metrotown just a couple of stops away.

I think they'll just add a couple more bus/shuttle lines in the Boundary road and Kingsway routes to deal with any increase in density, but I don't see a station being added there.
But that's just me.

It's feasible- at least on elevated track- Port Moody did a study on it a while back. It just costs more if you don't have an infill location.

There's no bus on Boundary, which would benefit from this.

Also, this area/station location is right next to Swangard Stadium (which is great if you want to host more summer games) and is zoned pretty dense under the Metrotown Plan.
There's a viewcone, but it's also not a very useful viewcone, and I doubt it'd last long if it becomes a massive problem for density here.
The viewcone hasn't become a problem yet, so no one's gone back to reconsider its existence.

If Vancouver updates the Joyce-Collingwood plan to allow for more density on the other side of Boundary (despite the existing towers there, like MOSAIC), this would definitely become a new center (despite Boundary being a bit of a stroad.)

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by fredinno

It's feasible- at least on elevated track- Port Moody did a study on it a while back. It just costs more if you don't have an infill location.

There's no bus on Boundary, which would benefit from this.

Also, this area/station location is right next to Swangard Stadium (which is great if you want to host more summer games) and is zoned pretty dense under the Metrotown Plan.
There's a viewcone, but it's also not a very useful viewcone, and I doubt it'd last long if it becomes a massive problem for density here.
The viewcone hasn't become a problem yet, so no one's gone back to reconsider its existence.

If Vancouver updates the Joyce-Collingwood plan to allow for more density on the other side of Boundary (despite the existing towers there, like MOSAIC), this would definitely become a new center (despite Boundary being a bit of a stroad.)

Viewcones by their definition and description are technically and generally not "useful"in any meaningful sense.

They are a luxury if you really want to pin it down to brass tacks, and essentially only exist insofar as the respective cities feel they can afford to have them.

Which means, - as long as there isn't a greater need that needs addressing, than to having them there*.

In this case that would mean developable area and land to build on.
And Metrotown still has plenty of that in other areas before it gets to the point where a particular administration would consider they have to get rid of the viewcone to allow more density in the area.


(*some would argue that Vancouver has long passed this point for some of its many viewcones to the mountain given how expensive housing is there, but again, even there their defenders would argue that there's plenty of places you can build on and build tall at that, that there currently isn't a pressing requirement or need to get rid of them altogether)

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Viewcones by their definition and description are technically and generally not "useful"in any meaningful sense.

They are a luxury if you really want to pin it down to brass tacks, and essentially only exist insofar as the respective cities feel they can afford to have them.

Which means, - as long as there isn't a greater need that needs addressing, than to having them there*.

In this case that would mean developable area and land to build on.
And Metrotown still has plenty of that in other areas before it gets to the point where a particular administration would consider they have to get rid of the viewcone to allow more density in the area.


(*some would argue that Vancouver has long passed this point for some of its many viewcones to the mountain given how expensive housing is there, but again, even there their defenders would argue that there's plenty of places you can build on and build tall at that, that there currently isn't a pressing requirement or need to get rid of them altogether)

This is the only major development here so far on the Burnaby site of Metrotown.


That's my point- the rest of Metrotown still has 20 years to fill out, so there aren't many developers up on the North side of Central Park anyways, so there's no reason to touch the regulations.
Max FAR there is ~5 anyways, which is Broadway levels of density.

I don't see the viewcones as a problem- mainly because by the time they're actually a problem, the Metrotown Plan will be revisited by Burnaby.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Most of that area will likely never have any towers - at least on the Burnaby side of the boundary.

That's the singular part of the entire Burnaby municipality that has a viewcone restriction protecting the view to Central Park, and I don't see them getting rid of it even for more residential development - especially when there's still quite a lot more developable lots to the East of that, north of Kingsway.

But Administrations change, and so do cities' priorities along with them, so who knows?

Is there any information on what the view cone actually is? I can't find anything on it and I can see that there's a tower around Inman and Kingsway (a 55+ building) and the lot on Kingsway by Sandell and Jersey is on sale and advertised for allowing height.

My point isn't to say we should add 40-50 story towers but I'm not sure why most of the area from Kingsway up to Burke couldn't have lots of 10-20 story buildings on it b/c there are already a number of them. And/or lots and lots of 4-6 story low rises. Any mix of that up to Burke would render that a pretty dense area that could support a Skytrain station (and retail) at Boundary. If on the Vancouver side they do same thing up to Wellington (or further north) you'd definitely get enough density.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by ecbin

Is there any information on what the view cone actually is? I can't find anything on it and I can see that there's a tower around Inman and Kingsway (a 55+ building) and the lot on Kingsway by Sandell and Jersey is on sale and advertised for allowing height.

My point isn't to say we should add 40-50 story towers but I'm not sure why most of the area from Kingsway up to Burke couldn't have lots of 10-20 story buildings on it b/c there are already a number of them. And/or lots and lots of 4-6 story low rises. Any mix of that up to Burke would render that a pretty dense area that could support a Skytrain station (and retail) at Boundary. If on the Vancouver side they do same thing up to Wellington (or further north) you'd definitely get enough density.

We found some references to the view of the North Shore mountains that they wanted to protect but it was never a set boxed out frame like with the Vancouver view cones. There is almost zero chance there's going to be a Boundary Skytrain station.

The best planning decision would be to turn that section of park between Boundary and Patterson Station into a more activated pedestrian route. So it wouldn't feel so sketchy walking along at night time especially.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Klazu : "Look at that vertical ghetto. I don't like that tower spacing"
(he has a point in this case)

Vin : "58 and 63 Storeys!!!! YAY!!! Fantastic!! I hope it has a mall and lots of commercial and retail!!!"

Metro-One : [I]"58 and 63 Storeys!!! Awesome! I can't wait to update my list"

Well said.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I guess it’s not that far of a walk to Patterson, especially with the walkway over Kingsway.

Basically 700 meters from both. As the article points out, that is not an unreasonable walk. That distance is also perfect for last mile micro mobility solutions (scooters, foldable e-bikes, etc.) and Joyce has a bike parkade for those who want to use a full-sized bike.

The 28 bus also runs up and down Vanness between Joyce and Boundary so that is another option for people who prefer to not use active transportation.

Originally Posted by NetMapel

Seems like unnecessarily massive towers that are surrounded by mostly single family houses.

I know Burnaby hasn't been as aggressive in re-zoning its arterial streets, but I don't think SFHs are long for Kingsway or a block or two north and south.

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i would like to see the BC Parkway get a bridge over Boundary Rd. using the old railway bridge embankments.

And a bridge over Kingsway! TBH, the crossing over Boundary isn't really an issue IMO because that signal cycle is short but the wait to cross Kingsway is miserable. The signal cycle is very long and the pork chop island is not a comfortable place to wait as a cyclist or pedestrian.

Originally Posted by jollyburger

The best planning decision would be to turn that section of park between Boundary and Patterson Station into a more activated pedestrian route. So it wouldn't feel so sketchy walking along at night time especially.

Some pretty big lighting improvements were made to the BC Pkwy where it runs next to the guideway through Central Park. At this point the only thing that makes the walk feel sketchy is the lack of pedestrian traffic once the sun goes down. There just are not enough reasons to walk from Patterson to Boundary and vice-versa, but this development would change that.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

This is the difference between Vancouver and Burnaby in one picture. Vancouver: small scale and almost completely lost in the landscape. Burnaby: building metropolitan area defining skylines.

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

To quickly summarize a sampling of what some of the responses will likely be....

Klazu : "Look at that vertical ghetto. I don't like that tower spacing"
(he has a point in this case)

Haha, yup.

They definitely need to consider building a station here. Neither Patterson or Joyce is nearby per se and the former is also uphill.

I do hate that Burnaby is deviating from its own town centre model and these megahubs are being proposed around every station. Here, a scale similar to Vancouver side would have been more preferable.

I also think Expo Line will be overcrowded with no room to expand in less than 10 years.

Also, they better upgrade Boundary to six lanes now to help handle all the traffic. It would be easiest road expansion out there.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by ecbin

Is there any information on what the view cone actually is? I can't find anything on it and I can see that there's a tower around Inman and Kingsway (a 55+ building) and the lot on Kingsway by Sandell and Jersey is on sale and advertised for allowing height.

My point isn't to say we should add 40-50 story towers but I'm not sure why most of the area from Kingsway up to Burke couldn't have lots of 10-20 story buildings on it b/c there are already a number of them. And/or lots and lots of 4-6 story low rises. Any mix of that up to Burke would render that a pretty dense area that could support a Skytrain station (and retail) at Boundary. If on the Vancouver side they do same thing up to Wellington (or further north) you'd definitely get enough density.

I believe it was Jollyburger that first caught onto the Viewcone information from the city documents, so they're the ones who should have the link to it which I can't seem to find either.

I do know that it's a viewcone protecting the view from Brentwood and that part of Northern Burnaby looking up to Central Park , hence the reason you see almost no towers along that stretch just north of Kingsway and the baseball field, and as you go down the hill northwards.

And ....um....which 55+ Tower on Inman and Kingsway are you referring to? The only tower I can see there on Google maps is a 10 storey midrise a bit farther down the road on Inman. Is this a built tower or a proposal?
The tallest tower in that area currently (for the moment anyway) is the 35+ storey residential tower just adjacent to the east of the baseball field.
I do know that there was a letter of inquiry to the city not that long ago for a proposal for a slightly taller tower for the lot on the corner of Patterson and Central Blvd. with the concrete stepped building just north of Patterson Station, but that site would be outside the viewcone.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

And a bridge over Kingsway! TBH, the crossing over Boundary isn't really an issue IMO because that signal cycle is short but the wait to cross Kingsway is miserable. The signal cycle is very long and the pork chop island is not a comfortable place to wait as a cyclist or pedestrian.

i dont even know where it crosses Kingsway. but i always thought that stuff that is meant to be continuous linear parks should get grade separation. its not ideal to be sitting at a traffic signal on a busy road. it sucks for the cars, it sucks for the buses, it sucks for the pedestrians, it sucks for the bikes.

the Laurel Land Bridge should be a template for these projects. a seamless integration of park space over railway & arterial. its sad we dont do those anymore; its amazing.

it used to have an irrigation system to water the plants, and it used to have a beautiful landscape plan. sadly its all been neglected. *sigh* gone are the days of big ideas.

[jollyburger]

Here's that Burnaby view reference:

It just says this in the Metrotown Downtown Plan

Sites along Kingsway, east of Smith
Avenue and west of Barker Avenue,
are intended to be mixed-use with
commercial and/or residential podiums
and high-rise residential apartment
buildings above that relate to Kingsway
and Central Park. The mixed-use
designations fronting the north side
of Kingsway require a consolidated
site that fronts Kingsway to access the
commercial density. The commercial
component of the development must
be orientated towards Kingsway. Where
possible, views from Central Park
looking north should be considered.

and

Burnaby’s spectacular views are an asset to be shared
between a proposed project and existing and future
developments on surrounding sites. The orientation,
massing, and siting of buildings should be respectful of
desirable public view corridors. New developments should
be designed and landscaped to provide visual interest and
a visual terminus, where appropriate.

https://www.burnaby.ca/our-city/stra...ommunity-plans

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...postcount=3891

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

And ....um....which 55+ Tower on Inman and Kingsway are you referring to? The only tower I can see there on Google maps is a 10 storey midrise a bit farther down the road on Inman. Is this a built tower or a proposal?

Sorry, I meant that the tower is for people over 55 of age. Looking more closely that one is relatively short - maybe 20 stories tops. The ones on Sardis are quite a bit taller.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Here's that Burnaby view reference:

It just says this in the Metrotown Downtown Plan



and



https://www.burnaby.ca/our-city/stra...ommunity-plans

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...postcount=3891

Thanks, so it's not as restrictive as a Vancouver view cone - it just says people in Brentwood should be able to see the Expo line from their homes eh? Haha.

Central Park is a nice place but to call it the view of it "spectacular" is pretty serious hyperbole. Maybe I need to go over to Brentwood to see if Central Park makes my heart race when I look at it.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Klazu

This is the difference between Vancouver and Burnaby in one picture. Vancouver: small scale and almost completely lost in the landscape. Burnaby: building metropolitan area defining skylines.



Haha, yup.

They definitely need to consider building a station here. Neither Patterson or Joyce is nearby per se and the former is also uphill.

I do hate that Burnaby is deviating from its own town centre model and these megahubs are being proposed around every station. Here, a scale similar to Vancouver side would have been more preferable.

I also think Expo Line will be overcrowded with no room to expand in less than 10 years.

Also, they better upgrade Boundary to six lanes now to help handle all the traffic. It would be easiest road expansion out there.

Dunno, I thought most people liked Sperling getting towers instead of remaining industrial.

The Vancouver side is lined with very tall towers on Boundary.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Klazu

- snip -

Rather, the CoV wants to balance growth with habitability, while Burnaby is all like "HEY, LOOK AT ME, I EXIST TOO!!!" You said yourself that Boundary is a bit oversized, after all. Demoviction/bulk rezoning already cost City Hall a mayor, so once all the warehouses and car dealerships run out and it's just SFHs and walkups left, we can expect Burnaby to start tiptoeing like Vision did.

The Expo's at 17,500 pphpd out of 25,000 - and is probably able to go higher with the Mark Vs - so unless Boundary's going to add 42% more riders or more all on its own, capacity ain't a problem. The big bottleneck is between Stadium and Commercial.

[rickvug]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The Expo's at 17,500 pphpd out of 25,000.

10 years of 5% compound annual growth will bring the Expo Line from 17,500 to 28,505 pphpd. Personally I wouldn't be surprised to see growth in excess of 5% considering the Surrey-Langley Skystrain extension, bounce back from COVID, increased immigration targets, and large pipeline of development around Skytrain Stations. I could absolutely see a scenario where the Surrey-Langley line sees more ridership that anticipated and there are heavy overcrowding issues in 2028-2030.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i dont even know where it crosses Kingsway. but i always thought that stuff that is meant to be continuous linear parks should get grade separation. its not ideal to be sitting at a traffic signal on a busy road. it sucks for the cars, it sucks for the buses, it sucks for the pedestrians, it sucks for the bikes.

If you don't know the area it can actually be confusing to navigate from the pathway next to the guideway in Central Park to where the BC Pkwy resumes at Boundary/Vanness. It requires biking or walking along the south side of Kingsway to the Kingsway/Boundary intersection, waiting for that traffic signal, then proceeding to the Vannes/Boundary intersection where you have to wait for another traffic signal.

This is only made more frustrating by the presence of a path between the Boot and the guideway (you can clearly see it on Google maps). All it would take is a mixed use bridge over Kingsway to make travelling on the Pkwy much more pleasant.

Originally Posted by rickvug

10 years of 5% compound annual growth will bring the Expo Line from 17,500 to 28,505 pphpd. Personally I wouldn't be surprised to see growth in excess of 5% considering the Surrey-Langley Skystrain extension, bounce back from COVID, increased immigration targets, and large pipeline of development around Skytrain Stations. I could absolutely see a scenario where the Surrey-Langley line sees more ridership that anticipated and there are heavy overcrowding issues in 2028-2030.

Even if we see 5% compound growth it is unlikely to occur evenly across the line. As Migrant pointed out the main congestion is downtown. Now, that congestion may get worse, but if all the development in Surrey, New West, and Burnaby includes the establishment of some office space we may see more riders getting off the train at different points along the line.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by rickvug

10 years of 5% compound annual growth will bring the Expo Line from 17,500 to 28,505 pphpd. Personally I wouldn't be surprised to see growth in excess of 5% considering the Surrey-Langley Skystrain extension, bounce back from COVID, increased immigration targets, and large pipeline of development around Skytrain Stations. I could absolutely see a scenario where the Surrey-Langley line sees more ridership that anticipated and there are heavy overcrowding issues in 2028-2030.

That's a higher growth rate than the pre-covid expected max growth numbers.
Also, 25,000 was for MKII, MKIII/V gets you to 30,000 +, and you can probably go a bit higher by reducing the margin for headway to 60s.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Rather, the CoV wants to balance growth with habitability, while Burnaby is all like "HEY, LOOK AT ME, I EXIST TOO!!!" You said yourself that Boundary is a bit oversized, after all. Demoviction/bulk rezoning already cost City Hall a mayor, so once all the warehouses and car dealerships run out and it's just SFHs and walkups left, we can expect Burnaby to start tiptoeing like Vision did.

Dunno, Burnaby's still building on the old apartments pretty quickly, and Vancouver is bulk rezoning on the properties on Cambie to accelerate the Cambie plan.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by rickvug

10 years of 5% compound annual growth will bring the Expo Line from 17,500 to 28,505 pphpd. Personally I wouldn't be surprised to see growth in excess of 5% considering the Surrey-Langley Skystrain extension, bounce back from COVID, increased immigration targets, and large pipeline of development around Skytrain Stations. I could absolutely see a scenario where the Surrey-Langley line sees more ridership that anticipated and there are heavy overcrowding issues in 2028-2030.

Moved to transit thread.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Dunno, Burnaby's still building on the old apartments pretty quickly, and Vancouver is bulk rezoning on the properties on Cambie to accelerate the Cambie plan.

And when they run out of walkups? Vancouver's speeding up, yeah, but Burnaby looks like they're going to slow down - again, they don't even like laneways.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Moved to transit thread.



And when they run out of walkups? Vancouver's speeding up, yeah, but Burnaby looks like they're going to slow down - again, they don't even like laneways.

That's still at least a decade away.


Both Bainbridge and Lochdale are asking for midrises on their shoulders, on areas that are currently SFHs, so it's not that medium density or developing on SFHs are being prevented with the new plans.
They just don't really need to touch the wider SFH stock, so won't.
If they need more land, they'll just rezone a bunch of SFHs for development at a time.
https://burnaby.widen.net/s/7cgdbdxr...d-use-map-2022
https://burnaby.widen.net/s/5mncqpmn...d-use-map-2022

Vancouver IMO has the opposite problem to Burnaby- they have all SFHs to max 1.0 FAR, but don't allow enough towers around stations like Joyce and Nanaimo to actually make them 'hubs' for activity.
These are both problems, just different kinds of problems.