Burnaby Updates

[BaddieB]

I like those golden buildings. The original buildings in Metrotown (from the 70s to 90s) have a lot of varied colour, something you don't see much now.

[djmk]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Overall the office market is still the strongest in Canada. "The Canadian office market reported 439,000 sq. ft. positive net absorption to start off the year. This is the first quarter of positive net absorption since Q3 2022 and was bolstered by pre-leased new supply in Vancouver, offsetting further softness in Toronto." [CBRE]

outside the downtown core, things are a little less rosy unfortunately

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by djmk

outside the downtown core, things are a little less rosy unfortunately

According to CBRE in Q1 2024 the Downtown has a higher vacancy rate (10.9%) than the rest of Metro. The overall Metro vacancy rate (including Downtown) is 9.5%. They're both a little higher than a year ago.

Colliers (who track more space) have Downtown at 11.7% vacant, (partly due to including vacancies in Gastown and Railtown, and newly completed but not yet occupied space in new Downtown buildings), while the whole of Metro Vancouver is only 8.8%.

So Downtown is reasonably healthy, and the suburbs appear to be doing slightly better for current vacancy. Burnaby has only 7.5% vacancy (although there are unleased buildings under construction that could increase vacancy in the near future, but not in the Downtown).

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by baddieb

i like those golden buildings. The original buildings in metrotown (from the 70s to 90s) have a lot of varied colour, something you don't see much now.

burn the heretic!! This man wishes to be unique!

I really do love the glazing but who wants to cough up money to make a building stylish?

[djmk]

Originally Posted by Changing City

(partly due to including vacancies in Gastown).

it's this that's killing me right now

[idunno]

[deleted]

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

I like those golden buildings. The original buildings in Metrotown (from the 70s to 90s) have a lot of varied colour, something you don't see much now.

me too, always liked them, was sad to hear they were going to redo them.

[Spr0ckets]

So Burnaby doesn't want to comply with the Provincial TOD legislation (,.....or more specifically, Brentwood SFH'ers, it seems),...or is this just the usual Hurley posturing and grandstanding we've all become accustomed to?


https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...g-laws-9143054

In its latest protest against B.C.’s new housing legislation, Burnaby has delayed the bylaw required by the province to allow taller housing heights near SkyTrain stations.
Instead of approving three of four major approvals needed at a council meeting June 24, Mayor Mike Hurley formally tabled the bylaw for a minimum of 90 days.
There was no discussion around the council table, and the motion was approved unanimously.
.......
...
....Burnaby’s opposition to the provincial legislation has taken on a defiant tone before.
“What if we say no? What are they going to do? What’s the province going to do if we say no?” Hurley asked at a meeting May 27.
Council had been discussing what would happen if the city didn’t approve the transit-oriented development rules by the June 30 deadline......

Apparently if they don't comply by the 30th (this weekend), the Province can step in and write their own bylaw that the city has to comply with.

That should be interesting to watch.

Both sides seem to have backed themselves into a corner here.
This being an election year, the Provincial Administration can't afford to let Burnaby get away with this and risk a potential "slippery slope" situation with other cities also deciding they don't have to comply if Burnaby don't.

And on Burnaby's side, Hurley and his council will look really silly if they back down now and comply anyway after all this bellyaching and posturing they've been doing.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Probably posturing; Hurley got elected by promising to be more receptive to locals' outrage. So he obstructs, the province overrules that obstruction, and then he steps back and says "I did my best - take it up with Victoria."

Best to hope there's enough YIMBYs to keep Burnaby orange?

[Redtruck]

Good, go Hurley! The majority of people who live in Burnaby think the density is already enough before the TOD policy. It's not about the towers overshadowing people's houses; it's about creating a livable, sustainable Burnaby. The proposed TOD density is too much, too fast! It is a policy to get votes that does not consider the concerns of the municipalities that have to build the infrastructure to support these people or the concerns of the people who already live here. Metro Vancouver has already proven they cannot build the infrastructure to support these population increases, just look at the North Vancouver water treatment plant fiasco which tax payers are being forced to foot the bill for the next 30 years for.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Redtruck

Good, go Hurley! The majority of people who live in Burnaby think the density is already enough before the TOD policy. It's not about the towers overshadowing people's houses; it's about creating a livable, sustainable Burnaby. The proposed TOD density is too much, too fast! It is a policy to get votes that does not consider the concerns of the municipalities that have to build the infrastructure to support these people or the concerns of the people who already live here. Metro Vancouver has already proven they cannot build the infrastructure to support these population increases, just look at the North Vancouver water treatment plant fiasco which tax payers are being forced to foot the bill for the next 30 years for.

And whose fault is that?
Is that the provincial government's fault that Municipalities like Burnaby have been sitting on budget surpluses for years instead of using that money to improve infrastructure and increase capacity for a growing population, while the affordability and housing crisis was growing out of hand?

The policy is not to get votes.
The policy is to deal with a problem that everyone in all levels of government - not just the municipalities or the city councils, and also not just the provincial governments - have all ignored for far too long and that has made Canada one of the most unaffordable places to live in today.

What is Hurley's (or your) solutions or alternative solution to the housing crisis we're facing?
Sit down and think about debating it some more for a couple more years?
Maybe that'll do it.

And I don't get what you're celebrating with Hurley's defiance here.
As stated, if the cities don't pass the bylaws the Province will write one and override them instead and they'll still have to follow it anyway.
Only it won't be tailored to Burnaby's specific needs compared to if they had passed on themselves.


This is going to happen one way or another, whether you or Hurley or other SFH NIMBY's like it or not.

And it's about darn time.

[GenWhy?]

I think we all called it when we said "I can't wait to see what will happen when apartments get proposed in single family areas"...

[Redtruck]

"What is Hurley's (or your) solutions or alternative solution to the housing crisis we're facing?"

The problem if you like it or not is the amount of immigration into our county. All this new housing supply is rapidly absorbed by new immigrants and does nothing to fix the housing problem only worsen it. Developers get richer and the people get poorer as they now must foot the bill for new infrastructure projects to support the influx of people.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by Redtruck

Good, go Hurley! The majority of people who live in Burnaby think the density is already enough before the TOD policy. It's not about the towers overshadowing people's houses; it's about creating a livable, sustainable Burnaby. The proposed TOD density is too much, too fast!

It's laughable to have concerns about the livability of low rise apartments in favour of Burnaby's status quo of 60 storeys only outside of SFH areas. The 'too much too fast' argument is also funny, creating housing quickly is the point. If you and Hurley rightfully have issues with a too fast population increase, take that up with Trudeau and his immigration agenda.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by Redtruck

The problem if you like it or not is the amount of immigration into our county.

I agree, but the solution to that is for Hurley tell Trudeau that. BC's government doesn't control immigration.

[Vin]

Since the density around many of Burnaby Skytrain stations are already so high compared to Vancouver, I am also thinking that the City's defiance is more political than anything else.

Also need to stress that Burnaby also has some of the most isolated Skytrain stations in the Lower Mainland: stations that are pretty much surrounded by woods or industrial parks, particularly along the Millennial Line. The Province should give the City a reprieve for these isolated stations, as building around these would constitute further urban sprawl.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Redtruck

"What is Hurley's (or your) solutions or alternative solution to the housing crisis we're facing?"

The problem if you like it or not is the amount of immigration into our county. All this new housing supply is rapidly absorbed by new immigrants and does nothing to fix the housing problem only worsen it. Developers get richer and the people get poorer as they now must foot the bill for new infrastructure projects to support the influx of people.

No, the problem is not immigration - that's just a convenient red herring scapegoat that people love to pull out and blame to avoid addressing real issues because it hues to their favourite pickaboos to whine about.

The problem is a housing and affordability problem that's been long gestating and has predated this "immigration problem" from even long before it became fashionable (once again) to blame immigrants for our latest problems.
Canada would still have a housing and affordability problem even if you halved immigration tomorrow (.....which in itself would lead to other problems that people like yourself don't want to admit to).

Besides which, as has been pointed out, immigration is not the responsibility or purvey of of the Provincial government, and if Hurley truly believed like you that immigration was the real problem then why isn't he calling it out or addressing it to the level of government responsible?
He's never brought up immigration in any of his diatribes about this being forced on the municipalities. Why do you think that is?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

Since the density around many of Burnaby Skytrain stations are already so high compared to Vancouver, I am also thinking that the City's defiance is more political than anything else.

Also need to stress that Burnaby also has some of the most isolated Skytrain stations in the Lower Mainland: stations that are pretty much surrounded by woods or industrial parks, particularly along the Millennial Line. The Province should give the City a reprieve for these isolated stations, as building around these would constitute further urban sprawl.

Building more homes near Lake City Way or Production Way stations would actually be highly beneficial as those new homes would be in close proximity to a high concentration of existing / new jobs.

Burnaby is already re-planning Royal Oak.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Vin

Since the density around many of Burnaby Skytrain stations are already so high compared to Vancouver, I am also thinking that the City's defiance is more political than anything else.

Also need to stress that Burnaby also has some of the most isolated Skytrain stations in the Lower Mainland: stations that are pretty much surrounded by woods or industrial parks, particularly along the Millennial Line. The Province should give the City a reprieve for these isolated stations, as building around these would constitute further urban sprawl.

They can't do that.
As was already established with the Brentwood group that was seeking an exemption from these bylaws, if they gave Burnaby a reprieve based on whatever rationalization you want to use, then what's to stop other municipalities, areas, cities and "special interest groups" from coming up with their own "valid" rationalizations for why they should be exempted from following the new legislation?

At which point, what then is even the point of having any legislation if anyone can opt out, just as long as they make a "good enough" argument to not have to follow them?

The point of having the cities write the bylaws themselves rather than have the province step in, is to allow them to customize and tailor their own respective bylaws as much as possible to their particular localities' individual concerns and then have them comply with the provincial bylaw.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by Redtruck

Good, go Hurley! The majority of people who live in Burnaby think the density is already enough before the TOD policy. It's not about the towers overshadowing people's houses; it's about creating a livable, sustainable Burnaby. The proposed TOD density is too much, too fast! It is a policy to get votes that does not consider the concerns of the municipalities that have to build the infrastructure to support these people or the concerns of the people who already live here. Metro Vancouver has already proven they cannot build the infrastructure to support these population increases, just look at the North Vancouver water treatment plant fiasco which tax payers are being forced to foot the bill for the next 30 years for.

These concerns seem like a fundamental misunderstanding of the density and planning situation in Burnaby. Burnaby made a compromise decades ago to not touch single family neighbourhoods with any density whatsoever, and the cost was massive towers crammed into a small amount of land near the stations. Burnaby building "too much too fast" is an illusion brought on by their own unwillingness to introduce even gentle density anywhere outside the small designated areas. Provincial requirements don't require anywhere close to the heights and densities already being proposed in areas like Brentwood and metrotown, what is currently being built has higher FARs than the legislation requires.

What it does mean though is that you may start to see some gradual densification of single family neighbourhoods near stations through midrises and small towers (but not anything remotely close to what is currently being built in Burnaby TCs), which should have been done a long time ago anyways. If anything, the amount of land this opens up will take pressure off the TCs to cram as much density into every property as possible.

I think people look at current Burnaby towers and assume that that will be the density required everywhere, but no, the province is requiring far less than that. The massive towers were an active choice by the city to avoid density anywhere else.

I find it a bit ironic that Burnaby tower size are now being used as an argument against provincial legislation, when situations like Burnaby are exactly why it was needed. Burnaby is great at creating the illusion of density with tall towers, but not so much at actually creating density.