Burnaby Updates

[jollyburger]

The BCIT student housing project steel structure has advanced a lot

[Klazu]

Sure, Metrotown is my own hood, but honestly speaking, it has started feeling like a city in the last few years. There are now towers everywhere around you and even in the distance, and they are seriously tall and come in increasing variety of architecture.

There is also a constant flow of people especially along Kingsway during daytime and the area around the station is a big transit hub with buses and trains departing every few minutes. The area is also full of small non-chain restaurants and several hotels with visitors coming and going.

While it's not Downtown, man, has the area come a long way in the 12 years I have been here. I cannot imagine how busy and bustling it will be with truly towering skyscrapers in the next 5-10 years. Metrotown will definitely be rivaling many North American downtowns, that's for sure. If an event arena gets built, the second SkyTrain line arrives, plus maybe some art venues get established, Burnaby will have nothing to be ashamed of.

[officedweller]

Rendering of that BCIT wood tower.

Note that the BC wood tower (Brock Commons) had concrete cores.


https://www.bcit.ca/campus-plan/tall...udent-housing/

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Rendering of that BCIT wood tower.

Note that the BC wood tower (Brock Commons) had concrete cores.


https://www.bcit.ca/campus-plan/tall...udent-housing/

Hopefully the facade isn't too value engineered. Might look nice..

Interactive 3D model of the building here:

https://www.fastepp.com/portfolio/bcit-student-housing/

[Spr0ckets]

The City Hall Saga :

Round 2:-

'Extraordinary opportunity': Demolition of Burnaby City Hall recommended by staff
The current facility does not meet seismic, accessibility or sustainability standards, staff say.

https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...-staff-8165079

If only they had had the foresight (and political acumen) to have this staff report released prior to the leak of their plans to relocate and the ensuing doomed survey and public backlash.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

The City Hall Saga :

Round 2:-

https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...-staff-8165079

If only they had had the foresight (and political acumen) to have this staff report released prior to the leak of their plans to relocate and the ensuing doomed survey and public backlash.

Mike Hurley is such a weak leader and it's incredible how much his poor leadership has resulted in so many bungled announcements. Moving city hall to Metrotown, while expensive, is ultimately the right thing to do yet his lack of leadership made a mess of it.

I've heard he's very sensitive to how he is perceived people so he usually doesn't back something till the citizens he spends time with tell him to back it so every new project has to be promoted by city staff rather than by city leadership which is just pathetic.

He's more ineffective than Kennedy Stewart and at least Stewart can claim a fractured council - Hurley has free reign to do whatever he wants b/c he's got the senior members of council in his pocket.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Partly because Derek Corrigan got booted out for building whatever and ignoring the voters; Hurley got in because he said he'd listen more. Doesn't make it excusable, but it's easier to understand in that context.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

The City Hall Saga :

Round 2:-

https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...-staff-8165079

interesting, but no one should be surprised buildings from the 1950s suck.

Originally Posted by ecbin

Moving city hall to Metrotown, while expensive, is ultimately the right thing to do

disagree. the current location is nicer and more park-like. fits the City of Burnaby better than being in Metrotown. a 40 floor tower is also not ideal for what is essentially a business park. something like Apple Park is the ideal. about 4-6 floors, with lots of vertical connections to meet other departments.

even the CoV doesnt have a downtown city hall. why does Burnaby need one? keeping it where it is, is much better.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

interesting, but no one should be surprised buildings from the 1950s suck.



disagree. the current location is nicer and more park-like. fits the City of Burnaby better than being in Metrotown. a 40 floor tower is also not ideal for what is essentially a business park. something like Apple Park is the ideal. about 4-6 floors, with lots of vertical connections to meet other departments.

even the CoV doesnt have a downtown city hall. why does Burnaby need one? keeping it where it is, is much better.

Oh god no, I totally disagree! Look at surreys new city hall. Way better than their old one.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Oh god no, I totally disagree! Look at surreys new city hall. Way better than their old one.

what makes it way better?

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

what makes it way better?

More accessible and central to people.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

More accessible and central to people.

Deer Lake is pretty easy to access already. its also geographically centred in the city. there will be a lot of people in Brentwood, Lougheed. Metrotown is far from those. Lougheed is being built up quite a bit in the next 10, 20yrs. odds are it is cheaper to build a shorter building vs a 40 floor tower. the natural setting is nicer.

Burnaby is big into parks, nature, and having about 6,000 acres of parks means a more park-like city hall would fit into the city better than some tall tower on kingsway. it could be built to really embrace the forests of BC in a park-like setting. more than just another high rise in the concrete jungle.

with so many services now being online, most people dont even need to go to city hall much anymore. one could argue the people who use city hall the most are owners and not renters. so putting it closer to where people more own their property, vs rent, could be considered.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

Deer Lake is pretty easy to access already. its also geographically centred in the city. there will be a lot of people in Brentwood, Lougheed. Metrotown is far from those. Lougheed is being built up quite a bit in the next 10, 20yrs. odds are it is cheaper to build a shorter building vs a 40 floor tower. the natural setting is nicer.

Burnaby is big into parks, nature, and having about 6,000 acres of parks means a more park-like city hall would fit into the city better than some tall tower on kingsway. it could be built to really embrace the forests of BC in a park-like setting. more than just another high rise in the concrete jungle.

with so many services now being online, most people dont even need to go to city hall much anymore. one could argue the people who use city hall the most are owners and not renters. so putting it closer to where people more own their property, vs rent, could be considered.

Lots of problems with your thesis.
Let's see if we can unpack them....

First of all "Easy to access" is a relative term but we'll circle back to that.

Suffice it to say, "geographically centered" does not mean nor equate to "easily accessible" - particularly in this case (far from it). It's probably the reason why almost all the other city halls in the region for the other cities are located more close within the vicinity of major Transit hubs or major thoroughfares rather than at their respective regions' "geographical centres.

Vancouver, Surrey, Richmond, New Westminster, Coquitlam.....

All located within vicinity of a major skytrain stop or bus route/loop.

In fact, Burnaby remains and will continue to remain one of the only city halls not located anywhere close to any of its major transit hubs or (actually) easily accessible for non-drivers of cars.

Fact of the matter is that Metrotown is a Transit hub, which Deer Lake is not.
In fact, it's not just the biggest Transit hub in the region, but the arguably the second bigget Transit hub in the GVA after Waterfront - certainly the second-most trafficked after Waterfront.
So by definition, or at least that definition alone, it's more accessible than any other location you would compare it to, if you have to account for the reality that majority of people don't drive.

Secondly, Metrotown is not (that) far from Brentwood or even far at all.
And if and when the Purple line skytrain extension gets built connecting the two, they will be even closer than most places you'd have to drive to get to.
And the fact of the skytrain also likely means you can get from Lougheed to Metrotown faster than you might be able to get from Lougheed to Deer Lake using only bus service. But of course to see this point you'd have to accept the reality that most people don't necessarily drive or can't drive to get to where they need to.

Thirdly, I doubt very much that people visiting City hall on official business are doing so because they want to enjoy the nature, or surrounding woods.
Most people are visiting to have documents processed, permits assessed, and the sort of activity that suggests anything other than "leisurely outdoor trip at the woods".
But if that's what's really important to you, then having a City hall next to the biggest wooded park in the city should have been a selling point then, no?

Fourthly, if the assertion is that people don't even need to go to city hall that much anymore and that most services are online anyway, then what the hell are you arguing the above points for and what does it matter where it's located?

And I seriously hope you're not trying to argue that there are more homeowners in the Deer Lake vicinity than there are in the areas surrounding Metrotown, and indeed at Metrotown itself (condo owners are homeowners too, whether you like it or not)?

Not even to get into the problematic argument that a City Hall should be of more value (and therefore more accessible to) Homeowners than to renters - hence priortising accessibility for the former over the latter.
(which in itself also ignores the reality that a large majority of people visiting City Hall are business folk, tradespeople, professionals attending on city-related businesses (licensing, permits, applications,.etc) affecting their businesses and professions.)

But all of this is obviously a moot point since it's not being relocated anytime soon or ever.

Which begs the question of why expend so much effort in arguing to defend its current location over where it was supposedly going to be relocated to?

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by ecbin

Mike Hurley is such a weak leader and it's incredible how much his poor leadership has resulted in so many bungled announcements. Moving city hall to Metrotown, while expensive, is ultimately the right thing to do yet his lack of leadership made a mess of it.

I've heard he's very sensitive to how he is perceived people so he usually doesn't back something till the citizens he spends time with tell him to back it so every new project has to be promoted by city staff rather than by city leadership which is just pathetic.

He's more ineffective than Kennedy Stewart and at least Stewart can claim a fractured council - Hurley has free reign to do whatever he wants b/c he's got the senior members of council in his pocket.

I'd argue he's more "political animal" than "weak leader"
(though, admittedly the two are not mutually exclulsive.)

He was supposedly all for the relocation plans until they got out and public backlash caused him to do an about-turn and act like he too was outraged at the suggestion against people's wishes.

It's the stereotypical standard "stick your finger in the wind to see what direction the winds are blowing and where the crowd is leaning to so I can run ahead of them to pretend to be the one leading them in that direction" politicking and "leadership". The kind that are more easily swayed by the loud baying vocal minority rather than actually trying to do the right thing over the cost of looking bad or weak.

Case in point, his recent bellyaching about feeling "bullied" by the Provincial government in their new housing legislation proposals torpedoing SFH zoning protection to prioritise more transit-based housing close to Transit hubs, in an attempt to deal wtih the housing crisis,......all because SFH owners are the ones he hears the loudest and most from, rather than people suffering from lack of affordable housing.

It was laughable how they got cowed into backing away from this city hall relocation proposal and how he acted like that's how he felt all along, but that's politicians for you.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Lots of problems with your thesis.
Let's see if we can unpack them....

• Vancouver city hall was built outside downtown, far from access. didnt get SkyTrain for 74yrs.
• richmond city hall didnt get SkyTrain for at least 60yrs

only surrey city hall was built with SkyTrain access in mind. no other was. it just happened to happen. even vancouver didnt plan it until the Canada-line went down cambie, instead of the arbutus corridor.

unrelated note, i dont hear people say GVA much. very eastern.

most of the trades people you mention, drive. and i imagine being in metrotown would make it much harder for them to drive, park, etc. not many people carry engineered plans on SkyTrain, or tools, equipment, etc.

true, people visiting city hall probably dont care about the nature around it. but i would argue a city hall should do more than just provide bureaucracy. why not just build a bunker then. it would work just as well as another building. it should reflect the city, people, environment. burnaby very much being parks, greenery, nature, forests, lakes.

re not many people going and location relevance; see point how city hall should reflect the city.

nope, i wasnt. but burnaby is more than metrotown, and the home owners in capitol hill, the heights also need city hall. so geographic centre makes sense.

you may not like it, but city hall provides more services to home owners vs renters. thats just a fact. renters generally go through their landlord for things vs city hall directly. where as home owners go to city hall directly.

but, yes, you are right. city hall wont be moving, and that makes me quite happy. clearly the city, other people, thought similarly to myself.

you also glossed over the fact a low rise would probably be cheaper to build, generally cheaper to maintain, and provide better access to services without having to use elevators for all vertical movements. i have worked in offices with internal stairs, and without. the ones with are much, much better.

idk, youd have to ask yourself that. my original posts were all quite short. you responded with a wall of text and ended it with saying its all moot.

and now i have a wall of text. ugh. if it wasnt almost 1am, and i was wide awake; i wouldn't even bother responding.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

interesting, but no one should be surprised buildings from the 1950s suck.

disagree. the current location is nicer and more park-like. fits the City of Burnaby better than being in Metrotown. a 40 floor tower is also not ideal for what is essentially a business park. something like Apple Park is the ideal. about 4-6 floors, with lots of vertical connections to meet other departments.

even the CoV doesnt have a downtown city hall. why does Burnaby need one? keeping it where it is, is much better.

The current may be nicer and more park-like (and always will be) but a city hall is a place of business, not a community centre, and a place of business (and head of govt) should be located in where it's most accessible to its residents and businesses and the current city hall is anything but.

If you have a car it's pretty central but there are but 2 bus routes that run to it (110 and the 144/133). Those two routes run out of Metrotown and Lougheed leaving Edmonds and Brentwood out of the picture.

Metrotown is the designated downtown of Burnaby - it's easily expected to grow 5-10x over the next 100 years. Gov't should be inclusive, not exclusive and locating city hall in an inaccessible location like Deer Lake is an inconvenience to business owners and residents.

re: COV city hall - it may not have started that way but it's now part of downtown and moving Burnaby City Hall to Metrotown will have the same effect. It wouldn't be part of downtown Burnaby on day one but it will be by year 10.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

I'd argue he's more "political animal" than "weak leader"
(though, admittedly the two are not mutually exclulsive.)

He was supposedly all for the relocation plans until they got out and public backlash caused him to do an about-turn and act like he too was outraged at the suggestion against people's wishes.

I can see both though I think it's weak leader more than political animal in that the man never takes the lead on anything. It's always city staff that are proposing something that gets reported in the news and not "The Mayor is setting a vision/direction for the city...". His Twitter account is nothing more than pictures of him shaking hands which stands in stark contrast to Patrick Johnstone (NW)'s account where he shares his opinions and sets a direction. I'm not sure the Mayor is even aware of Burnaby's goals as a city (at least as laid out on their website).

Political animal tends to suggest either someone with a very strategic mind (Peak Clinton) or one who is sneaky/slimy (say Ken Sim) - I don't think Hurley is either, he's just a mild mannered guy who thinks his job is to be a custodian of Burnaby rather than a leader of Burnaby.

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Case in point, his recent bellyaching about feeling "bullied" by the Provincial government in their new housing legislation proposals torpedoing SFH zoning protection to prioritise more transit-based housing close to Transit hubs, in an attempt to deal wtih the housing crisis,......all because SFH owners are the ones he hears the loudest and most from, rather than people suffering from lack of affordable housing.

That felt, to me, like "old man yelling at the clouds" though I see your point - I'm just making a guess here at how he jumped to that conclusion. In this case, it can be both that he's a terrible leader (denying the reality of the housing situation) and a slimy political animal (bowing down to NIMBYs).

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

Deer Lake is pretty easy to access already. its also geographically centred in the city. there will be a lot of people in Brentwood, Lougheed. Metrotown is far from those. Lougheed is being built up quite a bit in the next 10, 20yrs. odds are it is cheaper to build a shorter building vs a 40 floor tower. the natural setting is nicer.

Burnaby is big into parks, nature, and having about 6,000 acres of parks means a more park-like city hall would fit into the city better than some tall tower on kingsway. it could be built to really embrace the forests of BC in a park-like setting. more than just another high rise in the concrete jungle.

with so many services now being online, most people dont even need to go to city hall much anymore. one could argue the people who use city hall the most are owners and not renters. so putting it closer to where people more own their property, vs rent, could be considered.

That makes no sense to me. It’s completely out of the way with next to no visibility. Realistically you need a car to get to it. And I don’t get the whole park thing you keep talking about.

[Migrant_Coconut]

I can't imagine any kind of parallel universe where it's only tradespeople visiting City Hall. No city staff, architects, engineers, developers, business leaders, consultants/advisors/panelists, lobbyists, volunteers or a whole lot of other people who'd likely benefit from better bus and SkyTrain access (and definitely from access to Metrotown during off-hours)?

And if online meetings are going to completely replace all the in-person stuff, why bother having a city hall in the first place? "Just" have city staff rent out an office tower in Metrotown, or build a new one (bringing us back to where we started) - sure, it's a little harder to get there from Lougheed or Hastings, but that problem all but disappears once the Willingdon extension opens.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I can't imagine any kind of parallel universe where it's only tradespeople visiting City Hall. No city staff, architects, engineers, developers, business leaders, consultants/advisors/panelists, lobbyists, volunteers or a whole lot of other people who'd likely benefit from better bus and SkyTrain access (and definitely from access to Metrotown during off-hours)?

And if online meetings are going to completely replace all the in-person stuff, why bother having a city hall in the first place? "Just" have city staff rent out an office tower in Metrotown, or build a new one (bringing us back to where we started) - sure, it's a little harder to get there from Lougheed or Hastings, but that problem all but disappears once the Willingdon extension opens.

Absolutely! It’s kind of like saying no one needs to go to libraries anymore cause it’s all online. These are places for gathering, places for civic engagement and involvement in the community etc.