[Burnaby] The Sun Towers| 42 - 26 fl | Completed

[Klazu]

Funny tidbit from a New Condo Guide article:

"Located at 4458 Beresford Street, Sun Towers sits on the Metrotown Plateau where views are stunning. It's not well known, but the site is 135 meters above sea level. So if you drew a line from the front lobby, you'd be at the equivalent of the 27th floor in Brentwood or the 41st floor in Coal Harbour."

With that note, me living on the 46th penthouse level next door in Metroplace (141 meters), I must be then some 260-265 meters above the sea level or ~85th floors above Downtown Vancouver. And that's how it also feels like.

[Marshal]

. . . boasting in two threads even . . .

[SkyboxInvestment]

SUN Tower sales office closed - 95% sold - $1200/sq ft basically.
It does have the only pool amenity club other than MET 2 completing this summer.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by SkyboxInvestment

SUN Tower sales office closed - 95% sold - $1200/sq ft basically.
It does have the only pool amenity club other than MET 2 completing this summer.

Is that just (almost) sold out for the first tower alone or for both of them?

[Homeowner]

Originally Posted by SkyboxInvestment

SUN Tower sales office closed - 95% sold - $1200/sq ft basically.
It does have the only pool amenity club other than MET 2 completing this summer.

It seems insider got most of the units. My friend had some interest and his realtor put in a request. Never got any updates from developer and only when it was published in the papers that it was 90% sold, then he got an email indicating price & selection.

[VarBreStr18]

Eventhough I do not have stats to back this up, I bet those overseas buyers are Hong Kongers with Canadian passports. The wave of Hong Kongers are ready to come back to Canada because of political uncertainty in Hong Kong and extreme pressure in bringing up the next generation. Their offsprings are ready for higher education . By comparison $1200 CAD/sf is still a real deal vs $~2000+ CAD /sf in HK, especially now the exchange rate is so low.

[SkyboxInvestment]

Originally Posted by VarBreStr18

Eventhough I do not have stats to back this up, I bet those overseas buyers are Hong Kongers with Canadian passports. The wave of Hong Kongers are ready to come back to Canada because of political uncertainty in Hong Kong and extreme pressure in bringing up the next generation. Their offsprings are ready for higher education . By comparison $1200 CAD/sf is still a real deal vs $~2000+ CAD /sf in HK, especially now the exchange rate is so low.

That sounds about right.

FYI one beds went for $600-700k so basically $1200/ft. Sales manager were still selling some remaining 1BR and 2BR last week, but basically slim pickings.
PC closed last weekend.

Just tower one so far.

[Klazu]

A group of "activists" just defaced the old boarded-up building that is waiting to be torn down with graffiti this afternoon. Slogans around "stop killing the poor" and BS like that now decorate the building. Police just sat in their cars, letting them vandalize the neighbourhood.

Fortunately this project is likely to move ahead very quickly, as it is almost sold out. Can't wait to see the demolition to begin and the old building to take the hammer.

http://www.straight.com/news/917171/...ldings-burnaby

[sburnaby33]

Originally Posted by Klazu

A group of "activists" just defaced the old boarded-up building that is waiting to be torn down with graffiti this afternoon. Slogans around "stop killing the poor" and BS like that now decorate the building. Police just sat in their cars, letting them vandalize the neighbourhood.

Fortunately this project is likely to move ahead very quickly, as it is almost sold out. Can't wait to see the demolition to begin and the old building to take the hammer.

http://www.straight.com/news/917171/...ldings-burnaby

I am an educator that teaches in the area. I see the stress our speculative market has had on citizens and the ramifications of poverty. Disgusting comment. Why not put them on a boat and sink it? Seems what most capitalists and the silver spoons want to do. The crisis is real and will eventually destroy our city.

[Klazu]

Nobody is denying the crisis, but vandalizing other people's property (even if a tear-down owner by a corporation) is not "activism" or a "demonstration". It's just vandalisim. I won't enjoy looking at the building on my way to work every day until it gets demolished (hopefully soon).

It is also quite ironic to call people moving into new condo towers being "silver spoons", when in reality people living in these old rental walk-ups have been the privileged ones enjoying incredibly cheap living in a landmark location. Times have changed and old entitlements don't apply forever. They have been lucky to avoid the reality for this long.

Also, the number of actual "silver spoons" living in these new buildings is fairly limited. At least in our building next door most of the occupants are your regular students, young professionals and urban families. There is only a handful rich sportscar-driving kids among the 500+ people that live in this big bad tower.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by sburnaby33

I am an educator that teaches in the area. I see the stress our speculative market has had on citizens and the ramifications of poverty. Disgusting comment. Why not put them on a boat and sink it? Seems what most capitalists and the silver spoons want to do. The crisis is real and will eventually destroy our city.

What a bunch of hyperbole. He's against people vandalizing the neighbourhood he lives in. That hardly equates to him wanting them killed by drowning.

[sburnaby33]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Nobody is denying the crisis, but vandalizing other people's property (even if a tear-down owner by a corporation) is not "activism" or a "demonstration". It's just vandalisim. I won't enjoy looking at the building on my way to work every day until it gets demolished (hopefully soon).

It is also quite ironic to call people moving into new condo towers being "silver spoons", when in reality people living in these old rental walk-ups have been the privileged ones enjoying incredibly cheap living in a landmark location. Times have changed and old entitlements don't apply forever. They have been lucky to avoid the reality for this long.

Also, the number of actual "silver spoons" living in these new buildings is fairly limited. At least in our building next door most of the occupants are your regular students, young professionals and urban families. There is only a handful rich sportscar-driving kids among the 500+ people that live in this big bad tower.

Where are they supposed to go? Most of the people in the area are recent immigrants to the city and do not have the means to support themselves in the new developments. There needs to be a variety of options for them in the city and replacement rental units, a policy that we do not have given that we lost 492 rental units in the last few years.

There needs to be development where there is demand, such as Commercial Dr. Idiocy at its finest that that area has yet to have increase in density. However, in a situation like this balance needs to be found to ensure that these residents can find accommodations in the city. I cant tell you how many families in the area have searched in vain for an affordable place in Burnaby, only to have to uproot their families time and time again.

EDIT: Being poor is not a privilege. Far from it. I see it on a daily basis and it is quite revealing. I consider anyone who is able to afford and stay in these places, where a one bedroom is going for close to 600000 privileged. I make what would should be considered a decent salary, but still had to stay at home and save like crazy to afford a one-bedroom in Brentwood. Did not want to leave where I grew up. Hope the government does the right thing and gives its employees the raises they deserve. Same with the vast majority working in the private sector. Given the cost of inflation most have not gotten a real raise in decades. In other words, when supposedly middle class professions only get you a place in Port Coquitlam or Pitt Meadows than you know that the future has been sold for the present.

Good comic on privilege: http://www.upworthy.com/a-short-comi...-ive-ever-seen

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by sburnaby33

Where are they supposed to go? Most of the people in the area are recent immigrants to the city and do not have the means to support themselves in the new developments. There needs to be a variety of options for them in the city and replacement rental units, a policy that we do not have given that we lost 492 rental units in the last few years.

Write your stupid mayor... Corrigan hasn't done much to mitigate this despite being an NDP hack. He's pretty laissez faire for a socialist. Burnaby has no homeless shelters, next to no protected rentals, and considerably less social housing requirements than Vancouver. I honestly can't think of any new co-ops that have built around South Burnaby since I grew up there.

It's not the developers job to build non-market housing. That's the governments.

[GenWhy?]

All most 500 condo units replace about 105 rentals. This does not include the office and retail component of the structure. With other developments, in many Canadian cities, the anger is towards those that own/buy and redevelop the land, and not towards the structure of policy/bylaw, governance/politics, and zoning that are driving the development in the first place. Burnaby having a higher focus of "x" percent of family-orientated units, "x" percent of affordable (includes the many categories under this term) units, a stronger tenancy relocation and protection policy would aid many people now and those who will be looking for homes.

The question now is... what are citizens in Burnaby willing to do to make these changes happen and make life more affordable and less tumultuous?

[Spr0ckets]

It's easy to how this is a bit of a double-edged sword and two-sided issue.

On the one hand we can all agree that it's not ideal when we have all these (often-times, high-end) Condo developments sprouting up and replacing affordable housing with units that are out of reach in terms of affordability for the average middle-class family (or what used to be 'middle-class. I don't really know where the line is nowadays). Especially when the city doesn't have a set policy for replacing or providing more affordable or rental housing units for those that can't afford to buy in these Condo developments.

On the other hand it's equally undeniable that these development projects often times bring along with them benefits to the local areas they're built in, in the form of everything from improvement to the streetscape and surrounding environs (typically in the form of concessions that the city draws from the developers to get more FSR allowance), to added retail and office components to their podiums which bring more convenience and also jobs (which in turn means more taxes, and more money for the city to (theoretically) use in other areas that require funding but can't outright charge for it (Seniors' centres, Community and recreation centres, Libraries, etc)).
It's why cities and municipal councils tend to love these developers and developments when they happen in their areas.

But obviously it would be better if they had a more responsible and forward-looking policy that sought to replace the kind of affordable housing that these developments eliminate either in new developments (as part of larger projects) or outright as projects of their own.
That's where Burnaby clearly falls short in relation to the other cities. (And also why Developers are loving building in Burnaby these days).
And it's going to catch up with them sooner rather than later.

At the end of the day it's kind of pointless being angry at the people who can afford to, and do end up buying these condos any more than it makes sense venting that anger at developers who are simply responding to a market need by providing a product that clearly sells, in what's an otherwise volatile market with clear demand.
More than anything it's a policy problem and as someone else rightly pointed out, the people to be angry at, are the gatekeepers and the ones responsible for the policies that see the city fall short in providing or ensuring housing and affordability for people not on the upper end of the income scale.
Because, at the end of the day, who's going to work at those London Drugs, Shoppers Drug mart, Save On's, Starbucks, when you've made the area nigh impossible to afford to live in for the type of people who take those jobs?
Not everyone can commute in from Coquitlam, Mission or Abbortsford.

But then again, maybe that's why the elections turned out the way they did (not that NDP seem to have any more of a clue as to what to do than did the Liberals).

[sburnaby33]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Write your stupid mayor... Corrigan hasn't done much to mitigate this despite being an NDP hack. He's pretty laissez faire for a socialist. Burnaby has no homeless shelters, next to no protected rentals, and considerably less social housing requirements than Vancouver. I honestly can't think of any new co-ops that have built around South Burnaby since I grew up there.

It's not the developers job to build non-market housing. That's the governments.

I agree. He has done nothing for this. It is not the market that is responsible. If it can it will. Developers are there to make money. That is their role. And, they are adding much needed density. But, there needs to be policies in place to mitigate the worst of what is happening. I think there must be a better way to do this.

[Klazu]

So what ended up happening is that the developer painted over all the slogans within few hours, installed a fence around the whole perimeter and hired a 24h security guard on site. So there was no impact to anything from this stupid stunt except that the big bad developer ended up with a $10,000 bill from the extra cost. I hope the bill is being sent to the activists.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Klazu

So what ended up happening is that the developer painted over all the slogans within few hours, installed a fence around the whole perimeter and hired a 24h security guard on site. So there was no impact to anything from this stupid stunt except that the big bad developer ended up with a $10,000 bill from the extra cost. I hope the bill is being sent to the activists.

I have to say - starting to get a little annoyed with all the complaining around here.

I can definitely see the argument behind lack of social housing, etc, etc.

I get it.

To state that is one thing, to attack everyone else because they can afford to buy is ridiculous.

I bought in Brentwood, not because I'm rich, or had family money, or won the lotto. I worked my ass off. 6 days a week. 50-60 hours a week. I missed out on a whole ton of fun when I was younger to secure my future.

I'm not looking for sympathy, or congratulations, I'm not at all unique. Everyone I know has worked their ass off to be a success, thats what it takes, and its damn hard.

There is this perverted sense of what wealthy people are - some tech billionaire that doesn't work and has a Ferrari and private jet. Yah. Sure - they exist. Couple people out of 100million. The rest of wealth? Small business owners, lawyers, accountants, professionals that work really, really hard to be a success.

I agree that we all need to pitch in and find a solution to the problems facing the region, but you're not going to make me feel sorry for you by disguising criminal acts as activism.

Get smart. Get organized. Find funding and fight the City to get housing. Im all for that, fight for what you want like the rest of us do by working hard for what we want.

Rant over. Sorry.

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

Originally Posted by sburnaby33

I am an educator that teaches in the area. I see the stress our speculative market has had on citizens and the ramifications of poverty. Disgusting comment. Why not put them on a boat and sink it? Seems what most capitalists and the silver spoons want to do. The crisis is real and will eventually destroy our city.

Originally Posted by sburnaby33

Where are they supposed to go? Most of the people in the area are recent immigrants to the city and do not have the means to support themselves in the new developments. There needs to be a variety of options for them in the city and replacement rental units, a policy that we do not have given that we lost 492 rental units in the last few years.

If you can't afford to live in Vancouver or Burnaby, don't live here, Move, go somewhere else. No one goes to Manhattan or Beverly Hills and complains of it being too expensive. Also, Immigrants should not be receiving welfare or free housing. You're not a citizen, you don't get the benefits. Move to your own country if you want cheap housing. We don't need to be importing poverty.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog

If you can't afford to live in Vancouver or Burnaby, don't live here, Move, go somewhere else. No one goes to Manhattan or Beverly Hills and complains of it being too expensive. Also, Immigrants should not be receiving welfare or free housing. You're not a citizen, you don't get the benefits. Move to your own country if you want cheap housing. We don't need to be importing poverty.

That's really uncalled for.

What does any of this have to do with immigrants receiving welfare or free housing?

You act as if there are no Vancouver born-and-raised poor or middle-class folks who receive that sort of public assistance and who are the ones being impacted the housing and real estate mess right now.

Let's not play this xenophobic "blame the immigrant or the outsiders for all our problems" game that's infected our cousins south of the border with their political situations that's seeing them become a pariah on the world stage.

You don't know the identity of the people* who vandalized those buildings any more than you can say with any certainty that the activists behind this movement are immigrants or poor ones at that.
Since when has blaming immigrants ever solved any problems of any country on this planet as opposed to starting problems (And wars). Particularly for a country that's heavily reliant on immigration and immigrant populations as Canada obviously is.
They're easy targets; I get that.

But it's wrong either way (even when blaming immigrants on the other side of the wealth line for causing the housing crisis by foreign money).

I mean, "importing poverty"???

Come on, man.
We're supposed to be better than that.

I mean, what you going to do next? Say that we build a wall?

Geeez.


(* and if you do know their identities then you should report them to the police, and stop playing amateur police detective on the internet)