Burnaby Updates - Page 84

Vin · #**1661** Posted **Jul 24, 2017, 3:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sburnaby33

Agreed. I am in favour of densification as it is better for the environment because it makes it easier for retail to get a foothold in an area. Indeed, large scale grocers like Save On and Whole Foods will find an area with this type of development more appealing. This is why I choose Brentwood to live as a I can walk from my future home to a grocer or to grab a cup of coffee in a few minutes. It is exciting seeing what is happening in all the four quadrants.

However, the way Vancouver is developing outside the Downtown core there is virtually no multiplier effect in the city. The type of developments being proposed-low rise, townhouses, and laneway houses- do not allow for this. It seems the city is stuck in small town mindset. You cant leave density on the table because of NIMBYism (Hello Grandview-Woodlands) or trying to keep the city quaint. A few hundred units here, a couple of hundred there add up to thousands of potential homes never being able to be sold. In a region like ours you have to maximize housing opportunities.

Can't agree with you more. However, I think the Mayor of Vancouver is starting to wake up from the long slumber. Watch Global News today.

But yeah, small town mindset is right.

Or village mentality.

VanK · #**1662** Posted **Jul 25, 2017, 3:34 PM**

The Metrotown Plan was adopted last night:

http://globalnews.ca/news/3621613/demovi...-metrotown-plan-goes-to-burnaby-council/

Sheba · #**1663** Posted **Jul 25, 2017, 5:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanK

The Metrotown Plan was adopted last night:

http://globalnews.ca/news/3621613/demovi...-metrotown-plan-goes-to-burnaby-council/

While I'm not wild about everything about the Metrotown Plan (esp the lack of new rental buildings, which is a problem all over Burnaby), but this comment...

Quote:

McGowan said he’s not against development, but argues the city has failed to truly consult residents, and is trying to sneak the plan through at the last council meeting of the summer, while many people are on vacation.

Seriously? This is not HGTTG where the plans were so hidden away that no one had any idea until work began. Anyone interested could have looked up the info and e-mailed the city about it. I have the draft plan on my computer and it's dated Nov '16 - and that wasn't the start of the consultations.

whatnext · #**1664** Posted **Jul 25, 2017, 8:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheba

While I'm not wild about everything about the Metrotown Plan (esp the lack of new rental buildings, which is a problem all over Burnaby), but this comment...

Seriously? This is not HGTTG where the plans were so hidden away that no one had any idea until work began. Anyone interested could have looked up the info and e-mailed the city about it. I have the draft plan on my computer and it's dated Nov '16 - and that wasn't the start of the consultations.

Would submitting an opinion have mattered anyway?

It's laughable that the hypocrite Corrigan, with a wife in the NDP gov't, cares so little for the lower middle class worker that he's stripped thousands of rental units out of Burnaby in favour of high-priced condos geared for offshore money. How does that blowhard keep getting elected in Burnaby?

Vin · #**1665** Posted **Jul 25, 2017, 8:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanK

The Metrotown Plan was adopted last night:

http://globalnews.ca/news/3621613/demovi...-metrotown-plan-goes-to-burnaby-council/

Great news! I would, however, like the City to incorporate affordable rental units to go with the new skycrapers coming in, to replace the old walk-ups that were or will be torn down. That should be able to placate everyone.

BobLoblawsLawBlog · #**1666** Posted **Jul 26, 2017, 6:25 PM**

I am so tired of everyone there acting so surprised about how their places are slated for demolition.

YOU HAD A TWENTY YEAR NOTICE

Burnaby said that that area would eventually get rezoned and demolished since 1997 or so. It's like no one there was paying the slightest attention of the neighbourhood's densification. It's pretty much as bad as people buying houses next to railways (like in New West) and then complaining that it's too noisy. Renting in Maywood and Marlborough is like buying a house on an eroding coastline. MOVE!

(However, if there had been no plans on developing the neighbourhood and then overnight a finalised plan had been established then I would side with the residents)

djmk · #**1667** Posted **Jul 26, 2017, 7:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog

I am so tired of everyone there acting so surprised about how their places are slated for demolition.

YOU HAD A TWENTY YEAR NOTICE

Burnaby said that that area would eventually get rezoned and demolished since 1997 or so. It's like no one there was paying the slightest attention of the neighbourhood's densification. It's pretty much as bad as people buying houses next to railways (like in New West) and then complaining that it's too noisy. Renting in Maywood and Marlborough is like buying a house on an eroding coastline. MOVE!

(However, if there had been no plans on developing the neighbourhood and then overnight a finalised plan had been established then I would side with the residents)

twenty years goes by pretty fast. I'm sure there are quite a few people in those buildings that have been there longer. Plus, these are people's homes in a rental environment that is really challenging. I'm sure this is causing serious stress for some people.

Sheba · #**1668** Posted **Jul 26, 2017, 9:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog

I am so tired of everyone there acting so surprised about how their places are slated for demolition.

YOU HAD A TWENTY YEAR NOTICE

Burnaby said that that area would eventually get rezoned and demolished since 1997 or so. It's like no one there was paying the slightest attention of the neighbourhood's densification. It's pretty much as bad as people buying houses next to railways (like in New West) and then complaining that it's too noisy. Renting in Maywood and Marlborough is like buying a house on an eroding coastline. MOVE!

(However, if there had been no plans on developing the neighbourhood and then overnight a finalised plan had been established then I would side with the residents)

The original plan goes back to 1977 - almost a decade before the mall was built (they were planning for it back then). So people have had at least a thirty year notice.

Pinion · #**1669** Posted **Jul 26, 2017, 9:26 PM**

Pretty sure the average joe doesn't know what an OCP is. FSR etc is difficult to parse even if you do. Even worse, a shocking amount of people don't even know how to read a map.

Ignorance is no excuse and they should've at least noticed the huge new towers everywhere but I think we're being a bit elitist here.

I'm just surprised the complaining in Burnaby didn't start earlier. My area's been fighting every tower proposed from at least the 21st century onwards - not sure why they didn't fight as hard in the 60s/70s when the first tower boom started.

Vin · #**1670** Posted **Jul 27, 2017, 1:32 AM**

If people want stability in housing, they should strive hard to own their own unit. 30 years should give most people ample time to build up enough equity, even if they earn minimal wages. Everyone knows that if you rent, there's no guarantee that you will be in the place forever. I thought this is common knowledge? I wonder why some folks feel that they are entitled to cheap housing forever. Many of those crumbling walkups should've been torn own ages ago. Woodframes don't age too well.

sburnaby33 · #**1671** Posted **Jul 31, 2017, 3:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

Can't agree with you more. However, I think the Mayor of Vancouver is starting to wake up from the long slumber. Watch Global News today.

But yeah, small town mindset is right.

Or village mentality.

He has woken up and decided to pump out 72,000 homes in the next 10 years. Demand has not been an issue because of foreign buyers, one of the main reasons why we have outrageous prices, and low interest rates. Adding a 37,500 loan in the mix offered by the provincial government does not help matters. Supply has not followed suit, so need to pump out buildings like crazy, especially when a region has experience 6.5% population growth in five years. That is fairly substantial for a city this size and with many geographical constraints. Hope to hear about more developments in Burnaby in the near future to help with this growth.

SpongeG · #**1672** Posted **Aug 2, 2017, 6:43 PM**

I wonder how they would go about deconstructing the mall while trying to keep shoppers and retailers.

Metropolis at Metrotown shopping mall could be redeveloped under Burnaby's approved master plan

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/burnaby-metrotown-downtown-plan

djmk · #**1673** Posted **Aug 2, 2017, 6:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpongeG

I wonder how they would go about deconstructing the mall while trying to keep shoppers and retailers.

Metropolis at Metrotown shopping mall could be redeveloped under Burnaby's approved master plan

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/burnaby-metrotown-downtown-plan

The population of Burnaby is going to increase almost 50% to 345K in the next 24 years!?! OMG.

Vin · #**1674** Posted **Aug 2, 2017, 10:50 PM**

A dumb idea to force the mall to break up into a street grid neighbourhood. They can always start a new downtown neighbourhood south of the skytrain guideway. Metropolis is doing well: just leave it to run its course. Sometimes I question the sanity of our planners.

Sheba · #**1675** Posted **Aug 2, 2017, 11:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

A dumb idea to force the mall to break up into a street grid neighbourhood. They can always start a new downtown neighbourhood south of the skytrain guideway. Metropolis is doing well: just leave it to run its course. Sometimes I question the sanity of our planners.

Old news. I told them the plan is monumentally stupid when I filled in their questionnaire. The Sears portion may (eventually, after lawsuits are settled) be redeveloped but the rest of the mall... not likely anytime soon. It isn't that old and has been kept up.

Quote:

"But this redevelopment vision is highly preliminary as the City notes a separate, rigorous master plan process for the shopping centre property, in addition to site specific rezoning applications, will likely be required."

One of the bits I find funny from that Daily Hive article is: "It is all part of the City’s long-term vision to break up the large city block that supports the suburban shopping centre into a “finer grained”, more grid-like street and smaller city block pattern that allows for better connectivity." Then you look at the images of the Maywood neighbourhood just south of the mall with it's long blocks - and all they're planning on adding are some walkways. I'm not a driver and I think not adding a cross street through that area is stupid (it can be local and not connect with Willingdon).

Btw maybe your Harrod's dream can live on in the old Target location - it's still waiting for something to move in...

LeftCoaster · #**1676** Posted **Aug 2, 2017, 11:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

A dumb idea to force the mall to break up into a street grid neighbourhood. They can always start a new downtown neighbourhood south of the skytrain guideway. Metropolis is doing well: just leave it to run its course. Sometimes I question the sanity of our planners.

No one is being forced to do anything Vin.

Vin · #**1677** Posted **Aug 2, 2017, 11:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheba

Old news. I told them the plan is monumentally stupid when I filled in their questionnaire. The Sears portion may (eventually, after lawsuits are settled) be redeveloped but the rest of the mall... not likely anytime soon. It isn't that old and has been kept up.

One of the bits I find funny from that Daily Hive article is: "It is all part of the City’s long-term vision to break up the large city block that supports the suburban shopping centre into a “finer grained”, more grid-like street and smaller city block pattern that allows for better connectivity." Then you look at the images of the Maywood neighbourhood just south of the mall with it's long blocks - and all they're planning on adding are some walkways. I'm not a driver and I think not adding a cross street through that area is stupid (it can be local and not connect with Willingdon).

Btw maybe your Harrod's dream can live on in the old Target location - it's still waiting for something to move in...

If you look at the OCP, they did not include the commercial precint to go the entire block south or Beresford, or beyond Rumble, which they can easily do. My question is, why target the mall area when they can just designate the area south to become commercial or mixed-use development? Both mall side and the old walk-up neighbourhood are of equidistance to the skytrain station. They can always come back to focus on the mall area once it is time for it to be demolished decades from now.

As for Harrod's, the current Target location is way too small. If they were to demolish that wing and build a multi-storey department store, I'm not even sure if Burnaby would let them with the new street-grid OCP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

No one is being forced to do anything Vin.

So we don't need to follow OCPs anymore? That's something new

What if Metropolis wants to demolish part or all of its 2-storey structure and build a 5-storey mall instead? Can they with the new OCP?

LeftCoaster · #**1678** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 12:01 AM**

Vin it's a master plan, it provides guidance.

Ivanhoe can continue to run, improve and expand its mall and work with planners to do so.

The exact same plan was created for Richmond with roads running right through Richmond centre. This does not mean every piece or work that occurs at the mall is now subject to a complete rebuild of the centre.

If the centre were to be rebuilt this would then be used as a guiding document.

GilmoreStation · #**1679** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 1:51 PM**

It's too late now for Metrotown to redevelop itself. It's too costly to demolish Sears and the underground parking underneath to buiild a condo in that tight spot.

If anything, maybe start from Target, but that's not currently owned by Concord.

osirisboy · #**1680** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 3:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GilmoreStation

It's too late now for Metrotown to redevelop itself. It's too costly to demolish Sears and the underground parking underneath to buiild a condo in that tight spot.

If anything, maybe start from Target, but that's not currently owned by Concord.

"Tight" spot? It's massive. They could fit way more than one tower in there