New land use policy for Rupert/Renfrew Stations

[Changing City]

In case anyone is interested in numbers, the Metro Vancouver Housing Data Book lists all the demolitions data for 2008 to 2018.

Ground oriented - 10 year annual average
Vancouver 793
Surrey 514
Burnaby 370
Richmond 287
Delta 118
N Vancouver District 115
Coquitlam 100
West Vancouver 100

Obviously some are replaced with new ground oriented homes, but many are redeveloped as apartments.

Apartment demolitions - 10 year annual average
Vancouver 218
Burnaby 101
City of North Vancouver 22
New Westminster 15
Coquitlam 13

So in the decade to 2018 it would seem that not that many apartments were redeveloped overall. That's probably a bit higher now, but Metro haven't published a Data Book since 2019.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Any new "talls" or even "shorts" proposed/U-C in Garden Village or Lochdale, like in Dunbar, Oak or Grandview-Woodland? Nope. They're rezoning a tiny chunk of Bainbridge Avenue for lowrises, and that's it.

What exactly do you mean by "talls" and "shorts". A mid rise building at 1649 east broadway is currently under construction. It will soon be the tallest building in the commercial-broadway station area if it isn't already. Does that count as a "short"?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by scottN

What exactly do you mean by "talls" and "shorts". A mid rise building at 1649 east broadway is currently under construction. It will soon be the tallest building in the commercial-broadway station area if it isn't already. Does that count as a "short"?

Doesn't really matter to me; could be as low as five floors or as high as thirty, as long as it offers more homes than the SFHs it pushes out and it's not tall enough that certain posters notice that it exists at all.

The point remains that the only city pushing density in those neighbourhoods is Vancouver proper. Burnaby will expand Metrotown to Grange and Imperial... and stop. Cold. Probably until 2050.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The point remains that the only city pushing density in those neighbourhoods is Vancouver proper. Burnaby will expand Metrotown to Grange and Imperial... and stop. Cold. Probably until 2050.

Instead of looking at Burnaby's town centres you should be looking at its urban village areas instead. That's where you'll see SFHs replaced with low rise possibly mixed use buildings.

[jollyburger]

removed

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Instead of looking at Burnaby's town centres you should be looking at its urban village areas instead. That's where you'll see SFHs replaced with low rise possibly mixed use buildings.

Okay, I'm looking at them, and with the exception of Burnaby Heights, Sixth Street and possibly Montecito (about a couple dozen SFHs each), pretty much all the residential getting densified is already "dense" to begin with.

It's progress, but it's the same thing as Metrotown: they've rezoned the low-hanging fruit, the walkups and attached homes, and left all the white picket fences untouched. Whereas Cambie Phase 3 basically takes everything between King Ed, Oak and 49th and says "all of this is now multifamily."

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Okay, I'm looking at them, and with the exception of Burnaby Heights, Sixth Street and possibly Montecito (about a couple dozen SFHs each), pretty much all the residential getting densified is already "dense" to begin with.

It's progress, but it's the same thing as Metrotown: they've rezoned the low-hanging fruit, the walkups and attached homes, and left all the white picket fences untouched. Whereas Cambie Phase 3 basically takes everything between King Ed, Oak and 49th and says "all of this is now multifamily."

This is where their house zoning strategy seems to be headed.

https://pub-burnaby.escribemeetings....edium=referral

Launch a multi-phase program to expand housing choices:
Phase 1:
• Small scale infill
• Introduce laneway homes and secondary suites in duplexes in R District neighbourhoods;
• Permit flex suites in all multi-family developments;
• Permit rowhomes in all R District neighbourhoods.
Phase 2 (in conjunction with the Official Community Plan (OCP) update):
• Medium scale infill -- Permit triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, rowhomes, low-rise apartments and other missing middle
housing forms in designated R District neighbourhoods; consider secondary suites in townhomes and rowhomes.
• Transition areas -- Designate transition zones between lower density areas and Community Plan areas, to feature a range of
missing middle housing forms, from fourplexes to low-rise and smaller mid-rise apartments.

The OCP update will also add more urban villages.

Though some councillors were exactly in the camp of don't mess up SFH neighbourhoods

https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...rategy-4839597

[Migrant_Coconut]

Thanks for the info. Although a plan that's basically "medium density to replace low-density res, laneways and basement units everywhere else" sounds awfully familiar...

Johnston, meanwhile, said he’s supportive of changing the types of housing stock in the city but fears some are resistant to that change and instead prefer having single-family neighbourhoods unaltered.

He also hinted that too much change in any direction could be political suicide come next year’s election and cause massive turnover around the council table.

“I don’t think we want to go that way. I don’t think that it’s good for the community, and I do think we need to make sure that the public is aware of the process and how it impacts their neighbourhoods,” Johnston said.

Both councillors were assured by planning staff that any substantive change – whether it be around laneway homes, duplexes or any other large policy shift – would come back before council and be subject to further public consultation.

Yeah, it's safe to say that in terms of de-suburbanization, Burnaby's just about where Vancouver was ten years ago.

[Feathered Friend]

As debate swirls around the future of the Millennium Line’s western terminus, the start of a process to reimagine the area around two of its #EastVan stations met a more subdued response. Still, as these comments show, there was a diversity of opinions.

Many of the 25 people we saw at the Thunderbird Community Centre were glad for the opportunity to ask staff questions in-person, & you still you have a chance to comment too. You can leave your thoughts, or attend a virtual event at the link below.

https://shapeyourcity.ca/rupert-renf...tion-area-plan

As for us, perhaps the most interesting thing we learned was that the blocks around the Expo Line's Nanaimo #SkyTrain station aren’t expected to undergo any change under this policy. Instead, they’ll be incorporated into another planning process sometime in the future.

https://twitter.com/City_Duo/status/...OvA8rUeIlZwkwQ

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Okay, I'm looking at them, and with the exception of Burnaby Heights, Sixth Street and possibly Montecito (about a couple dozen SFHs each), pretty much all the residential getting densified is already "dense" to begin with.

It's progress, but it's the same thing as Metrotown: they've rezoned the low-hanging fruit, the walkups and attached homes, and left all the white picket fences untouched. Whereas Cambie Phase 3 basically takes everything between King Ed, Oak and 49th and says "all of this is now multifamily."

Not entirely true. The Urban Village footprints in Burnaby are huge. Looking at the map of the city, the SFH proportion looks small, and is getting even smaller. By comparison, Vancouver's is way larger, even when you have Oakridge centre factored in. Burnaby itself has four huge town centres, and even though they butt against SFH areas, other multi-family and Urban Village zones more than make up for the desired densities.

As for those SFH areas adjacent to the town centres: when the latter are completely built up, there will be more acceptance for high density to encroach the low density neighbourhoods simply because the residents are already used to having high rises around. Not so much in Vancouver: even the mid-density residents are fighting tooth and nail to prevent more density to enter their hoods, as in the case of West Broadway, Commercial/Broadway, Kerrisdale, Kitsilano, and pretty much everywhere outside downtown.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Not entirely true. The Urban Village footprints in Burnaby are huge. Looking at the map of the city, the SFH proportion looks small, and is getting even smaller. By comparison, Vancouver's is way larger, even when you have Oakridge centre factored in. Burnaby itself has four huge town centres, and even though they butt against SFH areas, other multi-family and Urban Village zones more than make up for the desired densities.

As for those SFH areas adjacent to the town centres: when the latter are completely built up, there will be more acceptance for high density to encroach the low density neighbourhoods simply because the residents are already used to having high rises around. Not so much in Vancouver: even the mid-density residents are fighting tooth and nail to prevent more density to enter their hoods, as in the case of West Broadway, Commercial/Broadway, Kerrisdale, Kitsilano, and pretty much everywhere outside downtown.

No. Entirely true. There's no "comparison" to make: Burnaby's official town centre plans literally involve densifying all the walkups and warehouses and leaving the SFHs alone.

I do commend them for working up the guts to oppose the militant NIMBYs in Royal Oak, Bainbridge and Cascade Heights, and to zone for laneways whether or not locals want them... though they're about fifteen years behind Vancouver in both areas.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

No. Entirely true. There's no "comparison" to make: Burnaby's official town centre plans literally involve densifying all the walkups and warehouses and leaving the SFHs alone.

I do commend them for working up the guts to oppose the militant NIMBYs in Royal Oak, Bainbridge and Cascade Heights, and to zone for laneways whether or not locals want them... though they're about fifteen years behind Vancouver in both areas.

100% agree. In some aspects it's ahead (densifying around transit) BUT Burnaby is so far behind on all other aspects compared to Vancouver when it comes to densifying all other parts of the city or in making the city liveable. I didn't notice it till I moved into Burnaby but the contrast is nearly shocking - I took what Vancouver was doing for granted.

[Lexus]

2022, July 27

2500-2600 blk Renfrew Street west side

Untitled by Lexus LX570, on Flickr

Untitled by Lexus LX570, on Flickr

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

No. Entirely true. There's no "comparison" to make: Burnaby's official town centre plans literally involve densifying all the walkups and warehouses and leaving the SFHs alone.

I do commend them for working up the guts to oppose the militant NIMBYs in Royal Oak, Bainbridge and Cascade Heights, and to zone for laneways whether or not locals want them... though they're about fifteen years behind Vancouver in both areas.

Just look at this density map in the Lower Mainland:

https://www.sightline.org/maps-and-g...r-density2006/

Still think Vancouver is densifying more?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Just look at this density map in the Lower Mainland:

https://www.sightline.org/maps-and-g...r-density2006/

Still think Vancouver is densifying more?

Seeing as most of the dark orange (old and new) is clearly west of Boundary, and that it's only gotten darker since '06? Yes, absolutely.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Seeing as most of the dark orange (old and new) is clearly west of Boundary, and that it's only gotten darker since '06? Yes, absolutely.

If true, why is the city lagging in population growth rate compared to Burnaby?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...rior-1.6344994

If what you say is correct, that Vancouver is densifying more than other places, technically the population growth should be the highest since it has the largest population for the entire province. Yet stats say otherwise.


Just like Burnaby's Brentwood Town Centre, Rupert/Renfrew neighbourhood densification is also the conversion of industrial to commercial/residential. This is exactly the same as Olympic Village, Collingwood, River District and Marine Gateway.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

If true, why is the city lagging in population growth rate compared to Burnaby?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...rior-1.6344994

If what you say is correct, that Vancouver is densifying more than other places, technically the population growth should be the highest since it has the largest population for the entire province. Yet stats say otherwise.

Because Vancouver has a bigger population. It's been explained to you over and over again that growth rate mostly benefits cities with lower populations; if you read the full article, Vancouver gained 30,762 residents over five years... while Burnaby gained 16,370. That's 88% more actual growth in the CoV.

Yes, everybody's been converting commercial/industrial to mixed-used residential. It's just that Vancouver has the guts to convert existing SFH residential too.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Vancouver has more people. It's been explained to you over and over again that growth rate mostly benefits cities with lower populations; if you read the full article, Vancouver gained 30,762 residents over five years... while Burnaby gained 16,370.

Vancouver, being established as a city in the 1800s, as well as the commercial/trade/cultural centre in this area has a head-start to densify more than other districts, yet it is lagging behind now when it comes to the rate of growth today. Technically it should be able to attract more people to live in it: more so than other municipalities, and yet it isn't. That alone is a failure.

[GenWhy?]

"Rupert/Renfrew neighbourhood densification is also the conversion of industrial to commercial/residential."

It is not.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Vancouver, being established as a city in the 1800s, as well as the commercial/trade/cultural centre in this area has a head-start to densify more than other districts, yet it is lagging behind now when it comes to the rate of growth today. Technically it should be able to attract more people to live in it: more so than other municipalities, and yet it isn't. That alone is a failure.

Okay, now we're moving the goalposts to include "headstarts." Burnaby was founded in 1892, six years after Vancouver... and yet Vancouver is getting almost twice the growth that Burnaby is. By everybody's standards except yours, that's success.