[Burnaby] Gilmore Place | Phase I: 64fl 51fl 43fl | 214.8 | U/C

[officedweller]

Thanks, that's what I thought.

Should be interesting to see what they build down there - versus Brentwood and Solo up the hill on better soil.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Thanks, that's what I thought.

Should be interesting to see what they build down there - versus Brentwood and Solo up the hill on better soil.

The poor soil conditions are between Dawson Street and south toward the railway; its got peat and a high water table which makes underground parking largely infeasible. IIRC, the Anthem development to the South of this could only do one level of u/g parking and the rest is above grade. This site is probably okay as its higher up for the most part.

I did notice that the "Station Precinct" which surrounds the existing station at the lowest corner of the site (Gilmore and Dawson), doesn't contain any towers, so maybe it has worse soils...

[Vin]

Originally Posted by squeezied

Sorry that you feel offended. But when you repeatedly (unlike other forumers) post ridiculous comments I'm going to call you out.



That's just BS. How many large underutilized sites, similar in scale to Gilmore, around transit stations does Vancouver have? Not many. Any new development due to the size of the site can't be "self-contained". And that doesn't matter when there are amenities nearby and the neighbourhood is well integrated and connected with each other. The sites that are large enough such as Oakridge and Marine Gateway have mixed uses that you apparently aren't aware of.

You can't seem to acknowledge the finer grained and compact communities in Vancouver and the impracticalities of developing grand developments within these neighbourhoods. Burnaby on the other hand has many large underutilized sites in areas that can be arguably described as suburban wasteland. This is a blank canvas for Burnaby so they have the luxury of building large-scale developments without having to worry about how it implements into the existing community.

Looks like you haven't taken the skytrain to realize how many underutilized sites there are around the skytrain stations in Vancouver. ....Blank canvas for Burnaby you say? It's never 'blank' as you naively put it, it's just planned that way, just like how low density single family neighbourhoods were planned all over Vancouver, and people living in them still rejecting higher densities today. Anyway I should stop discussing about urban densities here.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Vin

Looks like you haven't taken the skytrain to realize how many underutilized sites there are around the skytrain stations in Vancouver.

Answer my original question: "How many large underutilized sites, similar in scale to Gilmore, around transit stations does Vancouver have?"

Secondly, what's your definition of underutilized. Anything that's under 60+ stories and without multiple levels of retail? There are other forms of building massing other than towering highrises that are appropriate for redevelopment at transit stations. Midrises along the Cambie Corridor are a fine example of adding density while being considerate and complimentary to the existing urban fabric. You have an unrealistic and narrow view that every transit station needs to look like a miniature downtown or town centre. Make no mistake, just because you see tall buildings doesn't make the neighbourhood dense. Burnaby has many "towers in the park" concepts; the overall density isn't as high as you'd think.

Originally Posted by Vin

....Blank canvas for Burnaby you say? It's never 'blank' as you naively put it, it's just planned that way, just like how low density single family neighbourhoods were planned all over Vancouver, and people living in them still rejecting higher densities today.

You would be the naive one to think whatever's being built in Burnaby can be realistically and sensibly done anywhere in Vancouver without considering the differences in the urban fabric of both cities.

Burnaby has considerably more large sites that are suitable for redevelopment in a grand scale than Vancouver. Many of these sites include car dealerships, warehouses in formerly industrial zones, existing malls or just plain vacant sites. The urban fabric in which these sites are located is vastly different to Vancouver's finer-grained grid layout. These sites are far from single family neighbourhoods (which is always the reason developments scale down near single family houses). When there is single family next to a large development site, i.e. NE corner of Brentwood Mall, development scales down to midrises. Large sites disjointed from single family neighbourhoods is essentially a blank canvas for large scale developments. And as I've said, Burnaby has luxury of building large-scale developments without having to worry about how it implements into the existing community.

Compare that to the Cambie Corridor. Your typical assembled site is 150'x180' located in a tightly compact (at least compared to Burnaby) single family neighbourhood. Your desire for a downtown-style condo is neither realistic nor sensible. And as I've mentioned before (which you conveniently ignored), where Vancouver does have large sites like Oakridge and Marine Gateway (also from single family houses) taller buildings have been built or are in the planning stages. So what are you complaining about? That it doesn't have a 65 story building like Gilmore?

I think the issue is you can't seem to appreciate the realities of sensible urban planning. You seem to think tall towers can go anywhere and everywhere.

Originally Posted by Vin

Anyway I should stop discussing about urban densities here.

Agreed.

[officedweller]

Article from the Georgia Straight - regarding City of Burnaby Open House:s to get comments on the plans posted by Phesto, below.

Next Tuesday (January 12), there will be two public open houses offering the chance for the public to offer input.

One open house takes place in the Burnaby City Hall foyer from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.; the other runs from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the lobby of Commerce Court (4180 Lougheed Highway).

http://www.straight.com/news/606896/...ilmore-station

[HomeBoy]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Article from the Georgia Straight - regarding City of Burnaby Open House:s to get comments on the plans posted by Phesto, below.



http://www.straight.com/news/606896/...ilmore-station

Here's a link to the info sheet that Burnaby sent out:
https://www.burnaby.ca/Assets/city+s...evelopment.pdf

[Klazu]

Global BC was mentioning that a 65-storey tower is planned that would be tallest in the region, surpassing Shangri-La at over 200 meters. Anyone have more details?

[red-paladin]

More detail, including the tonight's boards on pdf:

Doesn't mention the floor count though

https://www.burnaby.ca/City-Services...ster-Plan.html

[Sheba]

I filled in the survey. Seeing as there weren't any questions about it (and I had other things to say in the 'anything else you'd like to say' spot) I didn't write 'moar supertall towers!'

[vanman]

Delete.

[red-paladin]

Corrected link:

http://globalnews.ca/video/2450299/n...llest-building

[Coldrsx]

Boring plan from a high level perspective, expected.

My old office was ^in the west side of that south precast, good times Pattison, good times.

[Klazu]

Although I would love to see a new tallest in town, I find it sad if B.C.'s tallest will be a bland condo tower in the suburbs. Downtown needs to get its stuff together.

[Infrequent Poster]

I feel like its reports like this one (the news report) bringing attention to the fact that the tallest buildings are not being built downtown. That have the greatest chance of making something happen in terms of bringing some common sense to the whole viewcones debate.

[urbancanadian]

Is there an official height to the tallest building? Or for that matter, any of the buildings?

I wouldn't exactly consider Global a trustworthy news source.

[squeezied]

I'd prefer that Vancouver have the tallest tower in the region, but honestly it doesn't bother me that much if a suburb gets the tallest, at least not anymore. What's more important is the urban environment at pedestrian level. If the first 50ft is great, it doesn't really matter how high it goes.

Most people don't feel it's a shame that La Defence has taller buildings than Paris. Downtown Vancouver has a great urban environment and urban fabric and that's a lot more important than having the tallest tower.

[Klazu]

So did nobody participate in the town hall meeting yesterday? Any notes from that available to confirm about the heights?

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by squeezied

I'd prefer that Vancouver have the tallest tower in the region, but honestly it doesn't bother me that much if a suburb gets the tallest, at least not anymore. What's more important is the urban environment at pedestrian level. If the first 50ft is great, it doesn't really matter how high it goes.

Most people don't feel it's a shame that La Defence has taller buildings than Paris. Downtown Vancouver has a great urban environment and urban fabric and that's a lot more important than having the tallest tower.

I agree with this. I also want Vancouver to have the region's tallest tower, but if not, oh well. It has the nicest towers in the region, by far, and is the only part of the region that feels truly urban and not suburban. As big as Burnaby's towers are, the city is still a transit suburb and has a long way to go before it is a walkable, urban environment like Vancouver.

[TourOdeon]

The ultimate goal is to bring as many people possible, so the streets don't appear so dead at night time.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by TourOdeon

The ultimate goal is to bring as many people possible, so the streets don't appear so dead at night time.

...and the best way to achieve that is an attractive and walkable urban environment. Don't assume that tall buildings always equate to high density; the overall site has to be considered.

If your main concern is that streets don't appear dead at night, you're better off spreading the density across the site in the form of multiple midrises instead of a few highrises.