Burnaby Updates

[SpongeG]

yes the 800 foot one. they have the website on the signage but I will have to pay better attention to what it is.

this comes up from a search
https://src-eng.com/project-items/pi...ed-burnaby-bc/

[jollyburger]

Building thread is over here:

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho....php?p=9971940

[SpongeG]

Ok. I'll post it there too

They have a website on their signage but it takes you to a GoDaddy page. Pinnaclelougheed.com

I took some pics will try upload. My Flickr uploads never seem to work on my phone. Anyway the signage says pinnacle Lougheed presentation centre and show homes.
__________________

[SpongeG]

'Inevitable decimation': Burnaby residents petition against B.C.'s transit-oriented housing rules
'Save Brentwood Park' petition seeks municipal support for exemptions from transit-oriented development rules.
Lauren Vanderdeen Apr 26, 2024



A group of concerned residents living in Burnaby’s Brentwood Park neighbourhood have filed a petition to be exempted from the province’s new legislation on transit-oriented development.

The rules will require cities, including Burnaby, to allow buildings with minimum heights of eight to 12 storeys within a ring 400 to 800 metres circling transit hubs like SkyTrain stations.

But Save Brentwood Park petition leader Edward Pereira said the law exposes his neighbourhood of single-family homes “to its inevitable decimation.”

Pereira said the coalition believes the 104 transit-oriented rings identified by the province deserve “bespoke application of the legislation” that considers local differences.

...

https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...-rules-8661993

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

'Inevitable decimation': Burnaby residents petition against B.C.'s transit-oriented housing rules
'Save Brentwood Park' petition seeks municipal support for exemptions from transit-oriented development rules.
Lauren Vanderdeen Apr 26, 2024

A group of concerned residents living in Burnaby’s Brentwood Park neighbourhood have filed a petition to be exempted from the province’s new legislation on transit-oriented development.

The rules will require cities, including Burnaby, to allow buildings with minimum heights of eight to 12 storeys within a ring 400 to 800 metres circling transit hubs like SkyTrain stations.

But Save Brentwood Park petition leader Edward Pereira said the law exposes his neighbourhood of single-family homes “to its inevitable decimation.”

Pereira said the coalition believes the 104 transit-oriented rings identified by the province deserve “bespoke application of the legislation” that considers local differences.

...

https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...-rules-8661993

I really wish this emoji had eyes that rolled away to show how I really feel about this...

Yes the new rules mean that developers will be allowed to build taller next to Skytrain stations, etc - not that they're going to be able to kick people out of their homes and build mega towers everywhere Right Now.

I live by Edmonds Station and it means any new buildings could be taller than a lot of what's here now. Plenty of the buildings are new enough that they won't be torn down anytime soon - but there are some older low rise buildings and SFH that I'm sure developers are eyeing.

This screams Nimby...

He noted Brentwood Park, located in concentric streets radiating north of Brentwood mall, has been known for its “decades of low crime, neighbourliness and community wellness.”

Pereira said land assemblers have already been “circling like vultures, knocking on doors and sending us junk mail,” he wrote in the letter.

Years ago (before any of this legislation) I got a strata wind up letter in the mail and yeah it did freak me out at first. Then I learned it was spam and tossed it, which is exactly what will happen if I get another one. It's really not that big of a deal. Hell we regularly get flyers from realtors as they have clients looking to buy into the area - I toss those into recycling too.

On a slightly different rant, decimate technically means to reduce by 1/10th - I'm pretty sure that's not what they mean when they wrote "inevitable decimation" of their neighbourhood.

[jollyburger]

It's okay one of his neighbours will sell their house and everyone else will line up to sell out.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Sheba

On a slightly different rant, decimate technically means to reduce by 1/10th - I'm pretty sure that's not what they mean when they wrote "inevitable decimation" of their neighbourhood.

Yes, it seems unlikely that the development industry will kill off 10% of the area's population, (unless they have a heart attack when they see an 8 storey building?)

Seeing 10% of the houses replaced with new buildings over 15 or 20 years doesn't seem so outrageous though. It will change the character of the neighborhood, but if the image in the article is a fair representation of what's there now, it appears to be neither unique or especially worthy of preservation. One big difference might be changes to assessed values. Once developers start paying over the current market rate to create land assemblies, there could be an impact on the other homes in the same area.

[Burquitlaman]

I will never understand the North American obsession with these paper machet homes. They don't even offer privacy!! What's the point of these things. I grew up in one when we moved to Canada and I couldn't wait to move to an apartment.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Sheba

On a slightly different rant, decimate technically means to reduce by 1/10th - I'm pretty sure that's not what they mean when they wrote "inevitable decimation" of their neighbourhood.

DIdn't know that one, fun fact!

[griswold]

Grosvner Brentwood Block. Not sure if this ones approved or not but some of the site is cleared.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I really wish this emoji had eyes that rolled away to show how I really feel about this...

Yes the new rules mean that developers will be allowed to build taller next to Skytrain stations, etc - not that they're going to be able to kick people out of their homes and build mega towers everywhere Right Now.

I live by Edmonds Station and it means any new buildings could be taller than a lot of what's here now. Plenty of the buildings are new enough that they won't be torn down anytime soon - but there are some older low rise buildings and SFH that I'm sure developers are eyeing.

This screams Nimby...


Years ago (before any of this legislation) I got a strata wind up letter in the mail and yeah it did freak me out at first. Then I learned it was spam and tossed it, which is exactly what will happen if I get another one. It's really not that big of a deal. Hell we regularly get flyers from realtors as they have clients looking to buy into the area - I toss those into recycling too.

On a slightly different rant, decimate technically means to reduce by 1/10th - I'm pretty sure that's not what they mean when they wrote "inevitable decimation" of their neighbourhood.

Perhaps they are renting the decaying houses around skytrain stations and will face being kicked out when landlords decide to sell? All the more municipal governments should quickly build more affordable rental buildings right now.

But yeah you are right that Nimbys will always be Nimbys.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

DIdn't know that one, fun fact!

It goes back to the Ancient Roman days when they would "discipline" delinquent military units by sanctioning the deaths of one in every 10 soldiers from the unit - selected at random using lots (dice).

Pretty grim stuff.
Those ancient Romans didn't play around.

You don't get to rule the (then known) world without a properly "disciplined" and well-drilled army.

[Migrant_Coconut]

From a certain point of view, all we did was flip the meaning from "1 in 10 die" to "1 in 10 survive."

[NetMapel]

Source: https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/bass...ntwood-burnaby

Sure, I understand tall buildings can seem unwieldy. Even more so when it’s stuck in the sea of single family houses. How else are you going to house people without building more homes? The reasons we have this phenomenon of tall buildings in the sea of single family houses is precisely because these people BLOCK DEVELOPMENTS like NIMBYs. Would I prefer more low rises spread more evenly if it avoids these tall buildings? Sure! But y’all block that and won’t accept it. So here we are and when you live so close to a desirable and walkable skytrain station, I have news for you…expect and accept density.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by NetMapel

So here we are and when you live so close to a desirable and walkable skytrain station, I have news for you…expect and accept density.

The one scary thing about this though is it might give NIMBYs more reason to oppose Skytrain development in their backyards. Will Queensbury or Norgate residents in North Vancouver be less amenable to Purple Line stations near their homes? What about the famously NIMBY Strathcona residents and a future Hastings Line? Or heaven forbid, the West Point Grey residents and the "should-be-a-given-but..." UBC extension?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

The one scary thing about this though is it might give NIMBYs more reason to oppose Skytrain development in their backyards. Will Queensbury or Norgate residents in North Vancouver be less amenable to Purple Line stations near their homes? What about the famously NIMBY Strathcona residents and a future Hastings Line? Or heaven forbid, the West Point Grey residents and the "should-be-a-given-but..." UBC extension?

For North Van, IMO the resistance comes from people living "outside" the highway ring, while people living "inside" are more receptive to urbanization. And UBCx is already pretty much a done deal; Alma's densifying as we speak, and Jericho and Blanca aren't far behind.

... Strathcona might be a problem, with them being lower income and able to pull the "gentrification" card.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

For North Van, IMO the resistance comes from people living "outside" the highway ring, while people living "inside" are more receptive to urbanization. And UBCx is already pretty much a done deal; Alma's densifying as we speak, and Jericho and Blanca aren't far behind.

I wouldn't be so sure about North Van or UBCx. Norgate isn't even in the City, it's part of the District, and the CNV is only more amenable to density because the urban/suburban ratio in the City leans towards urban while in the DNV it leans suburban. Queensbury is right on the edge and is pretty firmly a suburban area right now.

I agree that UBCx is pretty much a done deal, but that was before Bill 47. As it gets closer to something more solid I would not be surprised if we start to see West Point Grey residents coming out of the woodwork to at least be obstructionist even if it's still a foregone conclusion. The Canada Line was a foregone conclusion, but Richmond was able to kneecap it as much as they could.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Norgate also (currently) has some of the tallest buildings on the North Shore, while lower Queensbury is adding one townhome after another, so I'm not too worried.

Which ones, though? Alma's already practically part of Broadway (the NIMBYs already made their noise over 3701 West B and lost), Jericho's just about ready to go (they lost that one too), and Blanca's home to a lot of nearby business owners who probably want more foot traffic. And how would they even get it watered down? Can't exactly one-track a tunnel.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

For North Van, IMO the resistance comes from people living "outside" the highway ring, while people living "inside" are more receptive to urbanization. And UBCx is already pretty much a done deal; Alma's densifying as we speak, and Jericho and Blanca aren't far behind.

... Strathcona might be a problem, with them being lower income and able to pull the "gentrification" card.

Hard to gentrify much more that $2.3m for an SFD.

[Burquitlaman]

Originally Posted by NetMapel

Sure, I understand tall buildings can seem unwieldy. Even more so when it’s stuck in the sea of single family houses. How else are you going to house people without building more homes? The reasons we have this phenomenon of tall buildings in the sea of single family houses is precisely because these people BLOCK DEVELOPMENTS like NIMBYs. Would I prefer more low rises spread more evenly if it avoids these tall buildings? Sure! But y’all block that and won’t accept it. So here we are and when you live so close to a desirable and walkable skytrain station, I have news for you…expect and accept density.

I know this wasn't your point and I'm off topic, but I want to counter this idea that tall buildings are worse than low rises. Low rises here are made of wood and you still have to deal with suburbia hell even if sfh owners accepted urbanization on mass. North American cities are unnecessarily widespread. Let's say we don't build as many tall towers and instead move towards more low rises. That just means more families stuck in the middle of nowhere with little to no resources. Cars will still be king.

The only hope we have is more of these master developments like Brentwood, Lougheed/Burquitlam etc. A low rise in Downtown Vancouver is MUCH different than a low rise in North Vancouver for example.

But one of the biggest issues that is less talked about is wood construction. I will never EVER live in a wood building again. It's night and day. I've lived in two different wood buildings and two different concrete high rises. It's night and day. The peace and comfort in a concrete building in terms of noise is not even comparable.

If it is indeed the case that NIMBYs caused this high rise boom in Metro Vancouver, I tip my hat to them. Thank you NIMBYs b/c for once in your lives you're good for something lol