Burnaby Updates

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by logan5

Interesting fact from a Daily Hive article on this project -

I wonder if that design preference actually accomplished anything.

It's not just Wall Centre but all the way to Joyce Station.

Didn't BC Tel build right at that spot because they had problems getting their tower built in downtown Vancouver?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

The idea that Vancouver set a height limit for tower proposals in that area based on a tower that was not even within their municipal boundaries - even while Burnaby, where the Boot sits, has no such height limitations in the immediate vicinity of it (as shown by this project) and would happily welcome 50, 60 storey towers.

And since they also happen to sit within the designated Metrotown "Downtown" core allowing for density, it means you could have a cluster of very tall towers straddling Central Park on one side of the boundary, while on the Vancouver side you have pockets of much shorter towers that are height restricted by a tower that's not even visible anymore since it's dwarfed by all the neighbouring (Burnaby) towers.

It's truly bizarre.
....and sort of funny.

i think its funny and shows the CoV in a perfect light of how it does development.

Originally Posted by jollyburger

It's not just Wall Centre but all the way to Joyce Station.

Didn't BC Tel build right at that spot because they had problems getting their tower built in downtown Vancouver?

thats the rumour i have heard. not sure if its true or one of those things people tell eachother and create a feedback loop.

[SpongeG]

will those houses south of Kingsway along Boundary on the Vancouver side ever densify? they can't be more than a 10-minute walk to Patterson station.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

will those houses south of Kingsway along Boundary on the Vancouver side ever densify? they can't be more than a 10-minute walk to Patterson station.

That area falls outside of the 800m radius from both Patterson and Joyce so it's stuck at 4plex/1FSR zoning unless the mythical Smith/Boundary station comes to life.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i think its funny and shows the CoV in a perfect light of how it does development.



thats the rumour i have heard. not sure if its true or one of those things people tell eachother and create a feedback loop.

Yeah I couldn't find any references but it says they were trying to build at 609 Granville with a 38 storey tower.

https://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=1365

[logan5]

Originally Posted by ecbin

That area falls outside of the 800m radius from both Patterson and Joyce so it's stuck at 4plex/1FSR zoning unless the mythical Smith/Boundary station comes to life.

Provincial policy says 6 plex - FSR tbd.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

Provincial policy says 6 plex - FSR tbd.

I thought that so far, the 4-plex and 6-plex policy is voluntary, rather than legislated like the TOD regulations?

[djmk]

pretty wild that there will be no public hearings

[Vin]

Burnaby is just flexing its muscles to show Vancouver how they can do it so much better. It's all good because Vancouver will get inspired, albeit slowly.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Taller =/= better. Wake me up fifty years from now when they get around to adding more transit, any amenities, or any kind of density north of the SkyTrain tracks; until then, this is a bedroom community for drivers, which Vancouver should avoid doing.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Taller =/= better. Wake me up fifty years from now when they get around to adding more transit, any amenities, or any kind of density north of the SkyTrain tracks; until then, this is a bedroom community for drivers, which Vancouver should avoid doing.

Didn't they recently cancel or put back n the drawing board their major rec centre re-build? It's been torn down for over a year or something and there is no construction start date?

[mcj]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Didn't they recently cancel or put back n the drawing board their major rec centre re-build? It's been torn down for over a year or something and there is no construction start date?

Not to mention south Burnaby losing it's only brewery with Studio brewing closing this week, doesn't seem like the city is that serious about a brewery district after all

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by mcj

Not to mention south Burnaby losing it's only brewery with Studio brewing closing this week, doesn't seem like the city is that serious about a brewery district after all

Seems more of a problem with the economy problems/CEBA/rent than Burnaby wanting a brewery district.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I thought that so far, the 4-plex and 6-plex policy is voluntary, rather than legislated like the TOD regulations?

I haven't read these policies thoroughly, so maybe that's the case. Making something voluntary is pointless though.

[jollyburger]

The Housing Technical Briefing seems to suggest it will be legislated just like TOD?

https://news.gov.bc.ca/files/Housing...ov_01_2023.pdf

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by logan5

Provincial policy says 6 plex - FSR tbd.

That particular policy doesn't apply to Vancouver - the province is letting them off the hook b/c Vancouver rolled out their multiplex policy before the province did. I'm not sure why they're doing that as the provincial policy isn't THAT different - it's just higher FSR (1-1.2 vs 1.5 in most cases) for the most part.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by ecbin

That particular policy doesn't apply to Vancouver - the province is letting them off the hook b/c Vancouver rolled out their multiplex policy before the province did. I'm not sure why they're doing that as the provincial policy isn't THAT different - it's just higher FSR (1-1.2 vs 1.5 in most cases) for the most part.

Where are you getting your FSR 1.5 (in most cases) from?

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by logan5

Where are you getting your FSR 1.5 (in most cases) from?

3 stories, 50% lot coverage = 1.5FSR. There's also 3 stories, 60% lot coverage in some cases (1.8FSR).

The policy doesn't specifically say 1.5FSR or 1.8FSR, it just specifies height, # of stories, and lot coverage and that combination gets the above numbers. There's some fuzziness around things like whether storage rooms, elevators, etc count or not but the number is around 1.5 and 1.8 depending on lot size and transit frequency.

[GlassCity]

The 3-6plexes are mandatory (for all urban municipalities other than Vancouver proper; not sure if there's anything different in Vancouver under the Charter) - the Policy Manual "site standards" (lot coverage, height, etc.) are just recommendations.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

The 3-6plexes are mandatory (for all urban municipalities other than Vancouver proper; not sure if there's anything different in Vancouver under the Charter) - the Policy Manual "site standards" (lot coverage, height, etc.) are just recommendations.

I (and I think most people) read "recommendations" as closer to when my wife says, "When you have a minute can you..." than to when my dentist tells me to floss more. I'd have to re-read the policy manual but I see language like "clear expectations" in there so it reads more like "you better do this" than "think about it but if you don't like it ignore me".

Seems like the province is seeking a balance of being heavy handed (forcing specifics) but showing they are open to negotiation (as long as the goals are met they'll adapt) in their language.