Burnaby Updates

[Vin]

Originally Posted by ecbin

So you mean Burnaby would have actually done something meaningful in the last 20 years to address the housing crisis by densifying SFH communities? They would have encouraged more duplexes, smaller lots, laneways, and secondary suites far sooner than real life Burnaby? They'd likely have a population density that is perhaps 70% of Vancouver's versus 40% (about 200k more people, likely 100-120k more housing units).

Burnaby have actually done something VERY meaningful in the last 20 years to address the housing crisis by densifying available town centres and selected industrial lands. There is also considerable densification of certain SFH neighbourhoods with the creation of Urban Villages, especially nearer train stations. Also note that SFH neighbourhoods have essentially been stagnated.

Duplexes and smaller lots are just non-existent all throughout the Lower Mainland. Besides, they don't create too much density or impact if the entire City is not rezoned. Laneway housing and secondary suites are just not feasible in Burnaby since most lots do not have lanes unlike Vancouver.

Burnay has a lot more green spaces, and that's why it does not have 70% of Vancouver's population. The actual built-up area of Burnaby is very small. That is a good thing since by going tall, a lot of green spaces in Burnaby are preserved.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Comparing Burnaby and Vancouver's official densities isn't that useful because Burnaby has massive parks, and some farmland, that Vancouver simply does not have. If you remove the forest along the inlet, Burnaby Mountain parkland (but keeping the developed area at SFU), Deer and Burnaby Lake parks, and the farmland/business parks at Big Bend, Burnaby has an area of about 60 sqkm as opposed to 98. This gives Burnaby a density of 4200/sqkm. Still less than Vancouver's 5700, but a big difference from the official 2500. That being said Burnaby still could have done more for housing.

Vancouver has parks too though so let's use equivalent numbers:

25% of Burnaby is park land and 11% of Vancouver's is park land. Burnaby's farmland is only 129 hectares (1.2 sq km) which is smaller than Vancouver's Southlands (data is from both city's websites) which are set aside for horses so the equivalent math is (using 2021 pop data): (Edit: Vancouver has more ALR land than Burnaby)

Vancouver: 102 sq km and a density of 6470
Burnaby: 74 sq km and a density of 3400

So Burnaby goes from a bit less than half the density of Vancouver to a bit more the density of Vancouver so Burnaby goes from being the biggest culprit of the housing crisis here (on the supply side) to...still the biggest culprit of the housing crisis. New West is only slightly behind Vancouver in density so it's not like Burnaby can say it's only Vancouver that's kicking its ass.

Edit: The parkland numbers are misleading as well - most of Burnaby's green space is of the undeveloped type (forest) vs Vancouver's which is largely developed. Undeveloped parkland is technically land that can be developed into housing (like what Coquitlam/Poco are doing in Burke Mountain) - Vancouver, by virtue of developing land aggressively doesn't have much in the way of undeveloped parkland anymore.

I'm not advocating for Burnaby to develop all that undeveloped parkland into housing but it's not an apples to apples comparison to exclude all parkland - Vancouver is 50-70 years ahead in development so it'd naturally have less undeveloped parkland.

A more fair comparison is developed green space to developed green space. Additionally, Vancouver is much greener in its neighbourhoods - there's far more tree canopy on Vancouver streets than in Burnaby - both cities have taken divergent approaches to green space. Vancouver optimises for greenery everywhere, Burnaby optimises for a couple/few big green spaces.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by logan5

Agree. It's more like 40 years ahead.

There are so many more dense nodes in Vancouver, and a lot more to come, compared to Burnaby. Vancouver is going to pull even further ahead of Burnaby. Metrotown is awful. It has density but is not vibrant or walkable at all.

Because of the new BC government bills, both Vancouver and Burnaby will see mid-rise density sprout around skytrain stations. It completely changes the trajectory of density and urbanism.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by Vin

Burnaby have actually done something VERY meaningful in the last 20 years to address the housing crisis by densifying available town centres and selected industrial lands. There is also considerable densification of certain SFH neighbourhoods with the creation of Urban Villages, especially nearer train stations. Also note that SFH neighbourhoods have essentially been stagnated.

Yet in the last 20 years Burnaby's population has grown 28% versus Vancouver's 21% and Surrey's 63% - in real numbers Vancouver added 116k people while Burnaby added 55k (Surrey added 220k). The numbers do not lie - Burnaby, with half the density (so lots of room to grow) added half as many people as Vancouver and only slightly more than similarly sized North Van (which grew by 21% by adding 41k residents)

Originally Posted by Vin

Duplexes and smaller lots are just non-existent all throughout the Lower Mainland. Besides, they don't create too much density or impact if the entire City is not rezoned. Laneway housing and secondary suites are just not feasible in Burnaby since most lots do not have lanes unlike Vancouver.

This is simply not true, stop with the lies. Burnaby does have fewer lanes but it's still 67% of lots (and Burnaby lots are, on average, much bigger than Vancouver lots meaning bigger units) (https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...urnaby-7547730)

[Migrant_Coconut]

Or put a duplex or quadplex on the property - with the size of suburban lots, it'll be almost twice as big as an equivalent CoV one. But Vancouver's way ahead of Burnaby on that one as well.

Originally Posted by Vin

Only gullible folks will believe that "laneway housing" can create more density than what Burnaby is doing now. You're just kidding yourself.

Brentwood: 5,191 residents/sq km, 2015*
Kitsilano: 7,884 residents/sq km, 2016*

No, that's the joke of the year. You may be continually suckered by "tallest tower" headlines, but anybody willing to look deeper knows the real answers. Height is for clickbait. Overall supply is for locals.

Fun fact: Dubai, despite having the all-time record for building height, only has 2,200 residents/sq km overall. That's less than Kerrisdale.

*In fairness, Brentwood grew by 15% between 2016 and '21... so that should actually be 5,970 against 8,106. They're still behind.

[jollyburger]

Do you include UBC? "Not park of Vancouver"

What about SFU? "Must be a part of Burnaby"

First Nation land? "Not part of Vancouver"

Even with laneway house most of Vancouver still looks like most of Burnaby with SFH. I guess percentage differences in overall population numbers is a better measure of adding housing supply versus trying to tie it to the land mass.

I thought Metro Vancouver only wanted SFH upsized in certain areas?

encourage infill and intensification (e.g. row houses, townhouses, mid-rise apartments, laneway houses) in appropriate locations within walking distance of the Frequent Transit Network; and

[Migrant_Coconut]

Percentage is crap too though, since it's biased toward smaller towns.

If Middle of Nowhere jumps from 300 to 400, that's 33%, but if Global Metropolis jumps from 9 million to 9.1, that's only ~1%. Growth rate goes down even if growth itself goes up.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Percentage is crap too though, since it's biased toward smaller towns.

If Middle of Nowhere jumps from 300 to 400, that's 33%, but if Global Metropolis jumps from 9 million to 9.1, that's only ~1%. Growth rate goes down even if growth itself goes up.

Do a rating with both percentage growth and population density.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Serious answer: Vancouver grew by 30,762 within the last census period; Burnaby, 16,370. Those are the only growth numbers which should really matter.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Serious answer: Vancouver grew by 30,762 within the last census period; Burnaby, 16,370. Those are the only growth numbers which should really matter.

Here's the data for the last 20 years of most of the GVRD cities ranked by absolute change. There's also density data as well. FWIW, the total population of Canada grew at 23% during these 20 years.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Or put a duplex or quadplex on the property - with the size of suburban lots, it'll be almost twice as big as an equivalent CoV one. But Vancouver's way ahead of Burnaby on that one as well.

Kits isn't a good example of a laneway house neighbourhood as most of its density comes from low-rise apartment buildings built 40 or so years ago. But you are correct that Metrotown, Brentwood, or even Surrey Central will never approach the density of Vancouver's third-most dense neighbourhood. Building 40 stories but only covering 40% of a lot is how you end up with 6 fsr, and even a mid-sized apartment building with complete lot coverage will easily beat that.

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Even with laneway house most of Vancouver still looks like most of Burnaby with SFH.

I disagree. Burnaby's lots are noticeably wider, and the lot coverage is significantly lower.

[jollyburger]

Kathleen X Kemp is up to Level 30

Kathleen x Kemp, developed by Bosa Properties is a 36-storey purpose-built rental building, located in Burnaby’s most desirable neighborhood. Designed with exceptional finishes, the development will offer 295 residences, five underground levels of parking, along with diverse amenity spaces - both indoors and outdoors.

Having recently completed the structure of L30, the team continues to progress through interior finishing. In the next few weeks, installation of the slab face covers and metal panels will begin, bringing to life the vision of Kathleen x Kemp.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/axiom...92437505-eUeT/

[MIPS]

What I find absolutely mental about the BC Tel redevelopment is the demolition of Building 2. It's not the original boot but it's still a very large structure.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by ecbin

Yet in the last 20 years Burnaby's population has grown 28% versus Vancouver's 21% and Surrey's 63% - in real numbers Vancouver added 116k people while Burnaby added 55k (Surrey added 220k). The numbers do not lie - Burnaby, with half the density (so lots of room to grow) added half as many people as Vancouver and only slightly more than similarly sized North Van (which grew by 21% by adding 41k residents)


This is simply not true, stop with the lies. Burnaby does have fewer lanes but it's still 67% of lots (and Burnaby lots are, on average, much bigger than Vancouver lots meaning bigger units) (https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...urnaby-7547730)

67% versus 100%? You do the Math. Besides, laneway housing has already been legalized in Burnaby, so what's your point?

It doesn't matter Burnaby "only" rose 28% versus 20% in Vancouver in the past 20 years. Fact is, Burnaby's town centres only really started booming last decade. The City started out slow playing their part and second fiddle as a bedroom community to Vancouver back then, but things have definitely changed. You can certainly notice that crossing the border from Van to Burnaby.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

67% versus 100%? You do the Math. Besides, laneway housing has already been legalized in Burnaby, so what's your point?

It doesn't matter Burnaby "only" rose 28% versus 20% in Vancouver in the past 20 years. Fact is, Burnaby's town centres only really started booming last decade. The City started out slow playing their part and second fiddle as a bedroom community to Vancouver back then, but things have definitely changed. You can certainly notice that crossing the border from Van to Burnaby.

Vancouver doesn't have 100% of blocks with lanes - some blocks don't have them, and some blocks have buildings on the end lots at 90 degrees to the blockface, so can't build a laneway home.

And your narrative on Burnaby's growth is completely wrong. From 2001 to 2011 it added 29,264 people. From 2011 to 2021 it only added 25,907. So it hasn't 'boomed' in the last decade at all.

Vancouver however added 57,831 from 2001 to 2011 and 60,392 from 2011 to 2021.

[griswold]

There’s so much construction going on in Metrotown going on it’s going to start rivaling downtown pretty soon. Good to see it.

[SpongeG]

nice updates, nice to see that side of Willingdon growing up.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by griswold

There’s so much construction going on in Metrotown going on it’s going to start rivaling downtown pretty soon. Good to see it.

Lol, not a chance. Obviously Metrotown will have taller towers, but Downtown (I defined as including Coal Harbour, West End, and Yaletown, but not Gastown, DTES, Chinatown) is >4 square kilometres of built-up high- and mid-density, while Metrotown is <2 square kilometres. Even at full build out and no progress downtown, Metrotown will not rival downtown in any way (population, economic activity, transit connections, traffic, crime, protests, good food, etc.) except for built height.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Lol, not a chance. Obviously Metrotown will have taller towers, but Downtown (I defined as including Coal Harbour, West End, and Yaletown, but not Gastown, DTES, Chinatown) is >4 square kilometres of built-up high- and mid-density, while Metrotown is <2 square kilometres. Even at full build out and no progress downtown, Metrotown will not rival downtown in any way (population, economic activity, transit connections, traffic, crime, protests, good food, etc.) except for built height.

Unless it's some outlier like a city in China magically appearing out of no where then downtown Vancouver will always have the edge since it's been the central business/commercial zone in Metro Vancouver. But if you think Metrotown builds out in 50-75 years then it's possible the gap isn't as massive. I think the question is how far the sprawl will extend from Metrotown station.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Yeah, unless Burnaby Council grows some balls and starts allowing low/midrises beyond the town centre boundaries, even Whalley is going to overtake Metrotown eventually.