Burnaby Updates

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Burquitlaman

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.

One small thing which I think is worth considering; I grew up in a house that was wood framed as is the norm, but had concrete poured over the floor on each level because it was built with radiant heating. I'm pretty sure you could drop a bowling ball upstairs and you wouldn't hear it downstairs. I think it would be pretty neat if that became the norm for wood frame low/mid rises.

[kja384]

Yea the wood frame vs concrete has an insane difference. I used to live in a small 4 storey and man, it was genuinely awful. The concrete highrise life is the way to go, you don't appreciate the difference until you experience both sides.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by NetMapel

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

....

There's something really off about that first rendering.

Those towers look wildly out of scale relative to everything in their surrounding, and even in comparison to the second render image.

Either those four towers have tiny floorplates - smaller even than some of the lowrises around them and as small as some of those SFH's in their vicinity.

Or those are towers for really tiny people.

[jollyburger]

The cropped render on their website seems better with the scale.



https://boffo.ca/bassano/masterplan

Thought it does sound like some of the floorplates are kind of narrow.

In response to concerns about the height, the author of the staff report said the building is consistent with the city’s plan for Brentwood, and the design of floor plates visually decreases the width of the building.

“To minimize the impact of the development, as noted, the proposed building has a small footprint and slender profile that minimized the shadow width and allows the shadow to travel quickly across adjacent areas as the sun moves through the sky,” reads the repot.

https://www.burnabynow.com/real-esta...urnaby-3076428

[officedweller]

Tallest tower at Bassano is 45 storeys.
I suppose it is probably on a lower site than Concord Brentwood.

Originally Posted by officedweller

Bassano

Rendering from VancouverMarket.ca twitter:


https://twitter.com/vancouvermrkt/st...11325647147008


https://vancouvermarket.ca/2021/10/2...rentwood-site/


https://vancouvermarket.ca/2021/10/2...rentwood-site/


https://vancouvermarket.ca/2021/10/2...rentwood-site/

[jollyburger]

Bunch of Burnaby (and Richmond projects) recently visited by that Vancouver construction YouTube account:

https://www.youtube.com/@MetroVancou...ruction/videos

[officedweller]

Pic by me from Deas Island Park on Sunday:

[Migrant_Coconut]

Major civic project funding on the line as Burnaby saw $175M shortfall in developer money last year

The City of Burnaby took in $175 million less than expected in developer money last year – and that spells trouble for the future of the city’s major community amenity projects.

Burnaby expected to pocket almost $237.2 million from developers in 2023, but the city only took in about $62.2 million, almost three-quarters less than expected, according to the city’s annual municipal report.

The city took in $250.7 million in 2022.

Through its community benefit bonus program, the city funnels the developer money into its reserves dedicated to affordable housing and community amenities like recreation centres, cultural facilities and space for non-profit organizations.

The program is “essential” for the city to pay for new community amenities, according to Noreen Kassam, the city’s chief financial officer and deputy CAO.

It allows the city to serve its growing population without raising property taxes or incurring external debt, Kassam wrote in the annual report.

She noted the amount of developer cash fluctuates year to year, depending on development activity in the city and market conditions...

Link

So property taxes need to go up, or Burnaby has to start picking fights with the homeowners... either way, the Corrigan model is no longer sustainable.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Major civic project funding on the line as Burnaby saw $175M shortfall in developer money last year



So property taxes need to go up, or Burnaby has to start picking fights with the homeowners... either way, the Corrigan model is no longer sustainable.

FWIW, the Corrigan model was only sustainable because Corrigan spent absolutely nothing, anywhere, on anything.

Now with Corrigan gone and the current council starting to make big purchases, well, the city finances were never going to be able to support that without changes.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Major civic project funding on the line as Burnaby saw $175M shortfall in developer money last year

So property taxes need to go up, or Burnaby has to start picking fights with the homeowners... either way, the Corrigan model is no longer sustainable.

FWIW though, that chart still shows they took in more money than expected over the past 5 years so a 1 year shortfall shouldn't be a "sky is falling" problem. That said, I think it's been ridiculous how Burnaby funds community amenities - effectively they are making new homeowners pay for it all while keeping taxes low for everyone else.

This is also how they are approaching all new developments with their new ACC/DCC charges, they basically make it unprofitable to build a multiplex.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by ecbin

FWIW though, that chart still shows they took in more money than expected over the past 5 years so a 1 year shortfall shouldn't be a "sky is falling" problem. That said, I think it's been ridiculous how Burnaby funds community amenities - effectively they are making new homeowners pay for it all while keeping taxes low for everyone else.

This is also how they are approaching all new developments with their new ACC/DCC charges, they basically make it unprofitable to build a multiplex.

It seems like ACC/DCC are the new poison pill, unfortunately.

[BaddieB]

While I'm not a fan of the CAC and DCC method of keeping taxes low, I wish there was a region-wide charge for transit capital projects, if we are sticking to this system.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

While I'm not a fan of the CAC and DCC method of keeping taxes low, I wish there was a region-wide charge for transit capital projects, if we are sticking to this system.

There is.

https://www.translink.ca/about-us/ab...t-cost-charges

Not to mention the Translink property tax.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

doesn't it make sense to have new development pay for the new services required? the only reason services need to be expanded is because of the new developments.

why should existing residents be subsidizing developers/new residents?

[Migrant_Coconut]

"Expanded" often means newer, bigger and/or better (e.g. community/rec centres, parks, hospitals, etc), which everybody benefits from.

[BaddieB]

It's overused to subsidize existing residents by keeping property taxes low. Doesn't make housing any cheaper.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

doesn't it make sense to have new development pay for the new services required? the only reason services need to be expanded is because of the new developments.

why should existing residents be subsidizing developers/new residents?

The "expansion" is sometimes also a replacement of an older facility that needs an upgrade so a significant portion of the cost should be borne by those who currently use the facility. And more often than not these facilities (and other forms of infrastructure like sewer, sidewalks etc) have been underfunded so the city is passing on not just the cost of the new work but also passing on all the costs of catching up.

Infrastructure should never be built with only today's needs in mind but tomorrow's as well and much of it is intended to be around for 50+ years - charging only the new person who just showed up and who might only be around for 5-10 years is a bit absurd. The costs should be spread across all residents on an annual basis.

Finally, those new residents provide a new, bigger tax base, that funds not just the creation of new infrastructure but also the maintenance of all infrastructure.

Edit: In the article it lists several of the major projects the money is going towards:

But the city notes that money is fully allocated in its five-year, $2.6-billion capital plan, which invests in major civic projects, including the redevelopment of the Cameron Community Centre and Library, the Confederation Park Community Centre, and the Burnaby Lake Recreation Complex, as well as the RCMP Facility and city hall redevelopments.

I'm not sure why new residents are paying for a new City Hall or RCMP facility when both are outdated and which need serious upgrading regardless of whether the city grows or not - just because current residents haven't been paying their bills doesn't mean we should just punt to new residents.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

doesn't it make sense to have new development pay for the new services required? the only reason services need to be expanded is because of the new developments.

why should existing residents be subsidizing developers/new residents?

By this logic, every new BC Hydro project and every new Highways project and every new Translink project should be funded strictly by new residents and businesses in BC.

Cue the "taxation is theft" memes...

[Lexus]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

doesn't it make sense to have new development pay for the new services required? the only reason services need to be expanded is because of the new developments.

why should existing residents be subsidizing developers/new residents?

Most of the projects are just a replacements of existing projects being at the end of life span. Animal shelter is 50+ years old and in horrible condition. RCMP detachment is a former court building and doesn’t really meet the needs of RCMP. All of the rec centres are old as well. The current City Hall is old as well and doesn’t meet seismic requirements and it will be very expensive to bring it up to a modern code. It’s also small to fit all city staff, that’s why many departments are across the street at Deer Lake 1 and 2.

I can only think of one net new facility- hockey rink by Edmonds. And 2 fire hall around Burnaby Mountain.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Lexus

Most of the projects are just a replacements of existing projects being at the end of life span. Animal shelter is 50+ years old and in horrible condition. RCMP detachment is a former court building and doesn’t really meet the needs of RCMP. All of the rec centres are old as well. The current City Hall is old as well and doesn’t meet seismic requirements and it will be very expensive to bring it up to a modern code. It’s also small to fit all city staff, that’s why many departments are across the street at Deer Lake 1 and 2.

I can only think of one net new facility- hockey rink by Edmonds. And 2 fire hall around Burnaby Mountain.

It'll probably be more cost effective/less expensive to simply build a new one from the ground up rather than try to retrofit and upgrade the existing building that's at the end of its life span (actually over a decade past), to modern standards and requirements.

But let's not pick at that old wound again.

The current plan is the replace the exisitng building at its current location with a new building built to modern standards and specifications and also expanded to consolidate most city hall functions and staff.

And all of this does indeed count as "expansion" of services, and obviously the cost has to be shared by all residents rather than being lumped primarily on just newcomers.