Burnaby Updates

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Redtruck

Why show a report from 2019? this is not relevant now... new policies have been added that further increase density from what was originally planned and this is what people are pissed off about.

You're not the only person in Burnaby. Got a more recent study (and not a straw poll of ten friends and family) showing a drop in support?

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I think the tower developments were also about getting a bunch of cash from developers for their pet projects. Honestly SFH NIMBYs will be more upset about duplex/multiplex/townhouse density than anything around Brentwood/Metrotown because it will directly impact them.

Toronto is famous for those. The Grand Bargain's a win-win for developers, city councillors and NIMBYs, but a lose-lose for the city... which is why more urban-minded areas are starting to rezone into suburbistan as well.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by Redtruck

Why show a report from 2019? this is not relevant now... new policies have been added that further increase density from what was originally planned and this is what people are pissed off about.

Here's a 2021 report: https://www.burnaby.ca/sites/default...ard-Report.pdf (page 8).

The policy docs supporting laneways and secondary suites in duplexes say the same thing - the degree in which the public supports density is remarkably consistent through the years regardless of how much density is being added. You an go back 20-30 years and the survey results say the same thing.

If you have contradictory evidence beyond your own opinion and the comment section of the Burnaby Now please share it.

[BaddieB]

From my experience as someone who lives in Burnaby, I feel most people would rather see rowhomes/multiplexes/3 to 4 storeys all over than 60 storey towers and just in the town centres. Most people I hear complain of the tall towers but like the shorter builds like for example around Royal Oak or Hastings. But just anecdotally.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

From my experience as someone who lives in Burnaby, I feel most people would rather see rowhomes/multiplexes/3 to 4 storeys all over than 60 storey towers and just in the town centres. Most people I hear complain of the tall towers but like the shorter builds like for example around Royal Oak or Hastings. But just anecdotally.

It depends on who those "most people" are and where they live - as in, .....are they SFHer's? (....versus people who live in multiplexes, or the apartment buildings or towers, or people just generally looking for housing.)

Most SFHer's will generally tend to be anti-densification and anti-'tall towers' in their neighbourhoods regardless of if it's because of shadowing, blocked views or whether they believe increased densification will bring along with it more people (.....the "wrong" kinds of people), more traffic and congestion and less parking...etc.

So if that's the circle of people you're generally hearing from, then it should be no surprise that that's the view they hold.

But the cities and municipalities have been beholden to serving the needs and priorities of people who live in that particular demographic zone for the longest time to the detrimental degree we currently are in now with outdated and terrible land use and zoning policies that haven't kept pace with the changing economics of the time or the population changes.
The TOD legislations are a belated attempt at self-correction and even on their own they're barely, if not utterly insufficient to do so.
But it's a start.

But I'll also point out as others have here photographically and otherwise, that Burnaby isn't in danger of becoming a forest of 50-60 storey highrise towers and jungle of over-densification any time soon in any of our lifetimes (and I'd argue, ......ever), so all the finger-wagging and couch-fainting is just pointless hysterics, IMO.

And all the other nonsense about immigration is just that. I'm not going to rehash any of it since others on here have more effectively done so than I ever could .
Hurley himself never mentioned it or mentions it in any of his complaining and whining as a cause or anything to bring up, and if anyone would have a reason to it would be him, but on some things even the most politically expedient and self-serving folks will be clear-eyed about.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Also worth noting that many SFH tend to be the first ones to block laneways/duplexes/walkups/low rises for the same reasons as towers. It’s only when they’re suddenly threatened with ~20 floors that they’ll suggest the missing middle they’ve always blocked as the “reasonable” option, and then when it moves to 40+ they’ll suggest ~20, and so on and so forth. The opposite is true if city planners “listen” to them, at which point the building gets nickel and dimed down to two floors or less.

Takeaway: just build whatever. They’ll get used to it just like they did the West End and Olympic Village.

[Redtruck]

Hurley himself never mentioned it or mentions it in any of his complaining and whining as a cause or anything to bring up, and if anyone would have a reason to it would be him, but on some things even the most politically expedient and self-serving folks will be clear-eyed about.[/QUOTE]


No one yet has explained to me how our population keeps increasing if our birth rate keeps declining, and who is buying up all this housing if it's not due to immigration? In the early 2000s, property value appreciation was largely due to foreign investment, and now it's due to immigration. The argument is not against immigration entirely because it is needed; it is the rapid rate of immigration and lack of diversification that is causing our housing problem. A lot of people throughout Canada are concerned about this. Our government should be creating policies that encourage people to have children instead of forcing people to live in shoeboxes and housing India. The first step to fixing this problem is removing Trudeau.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/what-i...hows-1.6943736

Look at the graphs and tell me how this is healthy immigration, if this keeps up Canada will be Canandia pretty soon.

[seamusmcduff]

No one is denying the fact that our birthrates have gone down, but instead your assertion that immigration is what is causing birthrates to fall.

Again, birthrates have been below replacement levels since 1973, at time when our immigration levels were at a rate consistent with what our immigration rate had been since [I]1950[/I ]and a modest 1% population growth, which any country can handle easily. Our birthrates started to drop far before housing affordability became an issue.

Our immigration rate has stayed below 1% all the way until 2019, and yet housing affordability started to become an issue a full decade or more before that.

This is what I take issue with. Obviously our higher immigration is going to increase the housing affordability issues, and potentially even our birth rates, but it didn't cause those issues. Getting rid of immigration isn't going to bring our birth rates back up, because those were at unsustainable levels all on their own, far before housing affordability was an issue.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Again, it's a first world thing in general: the more developed the country is (education, contraception, women's rights/employment, de-emphasis on early marriage and breadwinner/homemaker families, etc etc), the less kids it has.

Most people can get behind a rollback to pre-2018 immigration levels. Even if we did, we still don't have enough surplus homes for everybody, and haven't since before the Olympics.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Redtruck

No one yet has explained to me how our population keeps increasing if our birth rate keeps declining, and who is buying up all this housing if it's not due to immigration? In the early 2000s, property value appreciation was largely due to foreign investment, and now it's due to immigration. The argument is not against immigration entirely because it is needed; it is the rapid rate of immigration and lack of diversification that is causing our housing problem. A lot of people throughout Canada are concerned about this. Our government should be creating policies that encourage people to have children instead of forcing people to live in shoeboxes and housing India. The first step to fixing this problem is removing Trudeau.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/what-i...hows-1.6943736

Look at the graphs and tell me how this is healthy immigration, if this keeps up Canada will be Canandia pretty soon.

Who would tell you immigration isn't part of why the population is growing? Birth rates have been falling in Canada for more than 60 years. Canada, like most countries that were involved in the second world war, experienced a baby boom once things settled down. There's a bulge of population, 'the Boomers', working through the demographics, very visible in the population pyramid, so in 2003 there were 4 million people aged 65 and over, and they were just 13% of the population and in 2023 there were 7.5 million, and they represent 19%.

The proportion of the population of working age (20-64) was 62% of the population in 2003, 63% in 2008, and had fallen to 60% in 2023. There is a much higher retired population, and a smaller proportion of the population of working age. That's why the government (irrespective of who has been elected) has favoured continuing immigration. Although the birth rate has fallen, because of immigration there are still more people in the childbearing agegroups, and the number of 0-19s increased from 7.7m in 1983, 7.9m in 2003 and was 8.4m in 2023.

Your fixation with India appears misplaced. The data you linked to shows only 14% of new citizens in Canada in the past 20 years came from India. In Burnaby, the 2021 census shows only 10,300 out of 249,000 people in the municipality were born in India, and only 2,530 had moved to Canada in the previous five years. There were more Chinese recent immigrants, and over 1,600 came from the Philippines. There are three times as many immigrants living in Burnaby who were born in China than in India, and more from the Philippines and Hong Kong.

Once they become citizens, people born in India become part of the Canadian population. One became a lawyer, federal minister, and then Premier of British Columbia. One joined the army, then the Vancouver Police Department, and then became an MP and government minister. They have families, and their children become members of the BC Legislature, and then Members of Parliament. One moved to Burnaby and was elected and became leader of the NDP.

Your political comment isn't relevent to the Burnaby thread - you can find similar theories claiming that foreign investors and now immigrants are why housing prices are higher on the Canada threads.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Changing City

One moved to Burnaby and was elected and became leader of the NDP.

only thing ill comment on is this.

"moved?" no, he was dropped in from ontario (after he became leader) because this was considered a very safe riding for him to get elected in, based on the demographics (same race, religion) that live there. he has no interest in Burnaby or BC. he is probably the worst type of politician. he goes on social media, decries the government, how terrible they are, worst thing ever, but then goes into parliament and 100% supports the government. he is the only reason the government can be in power. so which is it? does he hate them or love them? pick one, and stick with it.

you shouldnt use him as a good example for anything.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

only thing ill comment on is this.

"moved?" no, he was dropped in from ontario (after he became leader) because this was considered a very safe riding for him to get elected in, based on the demographics (same race, religion) that live there. he has no interest in Burnaby or BC. he is probably the worst type of politician. he goes on social media, decries the government, how terrible they are, worst thing ever, but then goes into parliament and 100% supports the government. he is the only reason the government can be in power. so which is it? does he hate them or love them? pick one, and stick with it.

you shouldnt use him as a good example for anything.

Somehow it's not surprising that you're not a fan. We could debate your statement, but not in the Burnaby development thread.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Redtruck

No one yet has explained to me how our population keeps increasing if our birth rate keeps declining, and who is buying up all this housing if it's not due to immigration? In the early 2000s, property value appreciation was largely due to foreign investment, and now it's due to immigration.

Citation needed, please.

Originally Posted by Redtruck

The argument is not against immigration entirely because it is needed; it is the rapid rate of immigration and lack of diversification that is causing our housing problem..

What does this even mean?
What is this "lack of diversification" you're speaking of and how is it causing the housing problem?

And while you're at it, please take a crack at explaining how a country like Japan that has traditionally had low immigration, are still themselves having a housing problem as well, - especially with this take of yours that "immigration" is the key cause that's creating the housing and affordability problem.

Originally Posted by Redtruck

... A lot of people throughout Canada are concerned about this..

I'm sorry to be the one to inform you, but you are not, "....a lot of people throughout Canada"
You are not even, "....most people in Burnaby",...much less even (representative of) the Comment section of BurnabyNow, where you're also perpetuating this nonsense.
You've been asked repeatedly by others to back up any of your claims with recent studies or surveys supporting your point that this is the majority view and you've repeatedly and consistently failed to do so.

Originally Posted by Redtruck

Our government should be creating policies that encourage people to have children instead of forcing people to live in shoeboxes and housing India..

And there it is.
Took us a while to finally get there.

Also, last I checked, passing legislation that tries to facilitate the construction of more housing to increase housing supply, as a possible means of tamping down rising housing and rental costs IS a way of trying to encourage people, or at least facilitate them to have more families.

Do you want more families or not?
Where are those families going to live if you're also against having more (affordable) housing to house them?

Originally Posted by Redtruck

The first step to fixing this problem is removing Trudeau. .

And there it is (Part II)

It's worth noting that this current housing and affordability problem throughout Canada PREdated Trudeau and the Liberals time in power, going as far back as Harper and his folks, and even before that.
You might have had a point if you had tried to pin it on Chrétien, but I doubt you're looking that far back.

But do go on,.......

Originally Posted by Redtruck

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/what-i...hows-1.6943736

Look at the graphs and tell me how this is healthy immigration, if this keeps up Canada will be Canandia pretty soon.

And there it is (Part III)

Next time I suggest you lead with those biases and save most people the time and effort to get through the rest of the drivel you're typing up to follow them.

[madog222]

This discussion can stop now. Any further posts will be removed.

[Changing City]

Burnaby has published their draft proposed zoning changes that would be their approach to a new OCP that responds to the Provincial TOD legislation.

Map here.

Vancouver Market helpfully published the categories of development area on the map.



A new Zoning Bylaw will introduce a “height-based development framework”. In future land use designations are based on height (measured in storeys) as opposed to density and Floor Area Ratio (FAR). There's a bonusing policy that allows a development to potentially move to the height of the next tier up (if there is one) in exchange for an on-site amenity or cash-in-lieu. There will also be policy overlays for Rental Tenure, Streamside Development Permit Areas, Statutory Rights-of-Way, and Special Study Areas.

[BaddieB]

Why does it seem like Burnaby went way above Provincial requirements to elicit a NIMBY response? This is a pretty good zoning map though, except that there is not enough commercial space spread out.

(Burnaby likes the walker-unfriendly "node" model)

[Migrant_Coconut]

Well, that's progress, but they're still barely trying for Willingdon and Gilmore. Are they going to upzone further when the SkyTrain comes along?

[logan5]

A lot to examine there. So they are not going with specific FSR, which is interesting. For a multiplex, you could easily get it to 1.5 FSR, or Probly more, unless they stipulate sizeable setbacks. I always thought 1Fsr for multiplex (like in the CoV) just isn’t enough to trigger enough multiplex development to truly fill in that missing middle.

[logan5]

As mentioned by Changing City, there's this as well, which is pretty huge actually...

The OCP land use designations describe intended heights of buildings; however, a parcel may be eligible for additional height, beyond what is considered “additional supported height”, in exchange for provision of an on-site amenity or cash-in-lieu of an on-site amenity (“Community Benefit Density Bonus”), so long as it does not exceed the permitted height of the next most permissive land use category (if there is one).
Density bonusing opportunities are identified for the High-Rise Apartment 1, 2, and 3 designations, and may be considered in the Low-Rise 1, Low-Rise 2, Midrise 1, and Midrise 2 designations subject to City policy and bylaws.
Similar to the “additional supported height” scenarios, for residentially designated properties, additional height may be supportable so long as it does not exceed the permitted height of the next most permissive land use category (if there is one).

Pretty much every development will opt for the density bonus. I wonder what the consideration will be for low rise and mid rise to get that jump up to the higher land use category. That would be big jump in density for those categories. Burnaby has been super development friendly so I won't be surprised if low rise and mid rise are allowed to make the jump up.

Burnaby has certainly set themselves up to compete with Vancouver in the development game. A lot of density up for grabs.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by logan5

As mentioned by Changing City, there's this as well, which is pretty huge actually...



Pretty much every development will opt for the density bonus. I wonder what the consideration will be for low rise and mid rise to get that jump up to the higher land use category. That would be big jump in density for those categories. Burnaby has been super development friendly so I won't be surprised if low rise and mid rise are allowed to make the jump up.

Burnaby has certainly set themselves up to compete with Vancouver in the development game. A lot of density up for grabs.

Pending or depending on the (impact of the) new ACC's, and updated DCC and CAC (CBB in Burnaby) rates that were just revised these past months

Not all developers are on board with those new updates.

And then there's the push for 100% adabtability in units, along with new taxes on Affordable homes (????).....

[mcj]

Michael Buble can now build a 6-storey house!