[Burnaby] Solo District | 45fl, 48fl & 48fl Complete | 52fl U/C - Page 3

jlousa · #41 Posted **Jan 13, 2012, 6:05 PM**

I agree, the treatment to Dawson is almost criminal, and I would expect the city makes them correct that.

Metro-One · #42 Posted **Jan 13, 2012, 7:11 PM**

So i noticed it said anticipated start to phase one this year? So is this becoming a very serious proposal then or still another far off pipe dream?

officedweller · #43 Posted **Jan 13, 2012, 9:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Just a small observation from the pamphlet, but kind of weird that they labelled the Sears at Brentwood as The Bay...

It's labelled as Sears in the text.

Agreed that they need to fix the Dawson frontage to add retail. The project is at the heart of the regional town centre, so it can't have a front and back approach as if it only fronted onto one main street.

mr.sandbag · #44 Posted **Jan 13, 2012, 10:33 PM**

its not that they have given up on Dawson rather the property only goes to the laneway and not to Dawson, look at the page 16. They must know whats coming because it would be odd to have the green space butt up against a laneway.

hollywoodnorth · #45 Posted **Jan 13, 2012, 10:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr.sandbag

its not that they have given up on Dawson rather the property only goes to the laneway and not to Dawson, look at the page 16. They must know whats coming because it would be odd to have the green space butt up against a laneway.

ya I noticed that also. What do you people want retail in the Laneway?

pic from >> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-X9Q-pRqC_-...erhead+map.JPG

jlousa · #46 Posted **Jan 13, 2012, 11:11 PM**

There should be a connection thru to the lane which will ultimatly connect thru to the Dawson when the other properties are developed. Placing a cul da Sac in a property of this size is short sighted, imo.

officedweller · #47 Posted **Jan 13, 2012, 11:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr.sandbag

its not that they have given up on Dawson rather the property only goes to the laneway and not to Dawson, look at the page 16. They must know whats coming because it would be odd to have the green space butt up against a laneway.

Thanks for pointing that out!

Sumas is proposed as a through street with a circle driveway for drop-off and pick up to one side - that'll be very useful for the condo towers and prevent Sumas being backed up with cars waiting for someone to get buzzed down.

officedweller · #48 Posted **Jan 19, 2012, 12:04 AM**

Article in the Burnaby NewsLeader, too - it says a July 2012 construction start:

http://www.burnabynewsleader.com/news/137316038.html

Metro-One · #49 Posted **Jan 19, 2012, 2:59 AM**

Burnaby is going to become the battle of the two skylines!

We are lucky in Metro-Vancouver, i can't think of many other North American cities where the suburbs give us so much action!

Any idea what the heights are of these towers?

The first around 130 and the second maybe over 150 meters?

Canadian Mind · #50 Posted **Jan 19, 2012, 5:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Burnaby is going to become the battle of the two skylines!

We are lucky in Metro-Vancouver, i can't think of many other North American cities where the suburbs give us so much action!

Any idea what the heights are of these towers?

The first around 130 and the second maybe over 150 meters?

Toronto is the only one I can think of.

If only Slurrey would get it's act together.

officedweller · #51 Posted **Jan 19, 2012, 6:15 AM**

Seattle and Bellevue are ahead of us.

Metro-One · #52 Posted **Jan 19, 2012, 6:19 AM**

really, to me Metrotown seems far more impressive then Bellevue.

Especially when you consider Metrotown is also competing with Brentwood, Holdom, Lougheed Town Centre, Edmonds, New Westminster, Downtown Coquitlam, Ioco, North Van, West Van, Surrey downtown, Richmond downtown, etc...

Fact is, the sheer amount of suburban skylines (and the current rush of activity, nearly all of them having just completed, currently building, or soon to start their tallest) in Metro-Vancouver is insane, especially given its population of only 2.5 million...

But again, any word on official heights or likely hood of proceeding this summer?

logan5 · #53 Posted **Jan 19, 2012, 6:55 AM**

It'd be nice to see some 3d models of Metrotown and Brentwood on Google Earth.

Anyway, Bellevue has an impressive office district and skyline for a suburb - 4 towers over 400 feet - but from a pedestrian standpoint it is pretty cold. It looks like Metrotown and Brentwood will catch up though, albeit in the form of residential towers, whereas Bellevue has nicer looking office towers.

vanman · #54 Posted **Jan 19, 2012, 9:30 PM**

Quote:

really, to me Metrotown seems far more impressive then Bellevue.

Bellevue seems more upscale than Metrotown, and the buildings look of higher quality. The houses toward Lake Washington in the surrounding area are very high end. Basically if you placed Metrotown next to Deer Lake with the surrounding mansions you'd have Bellevue.

Metro-One · #55 Posted **Jan 19, 2012, 9:41 PM**

I am talking the look of the skyline (or silhouette have you). I know it is more upscale. But my point is also that while Seattle has Bellevue and Vancouver has Metrotown, Vancouver also has Brentwood, downtown New Westminster (which is a true urban setting), Lougheed town centre, downtown Richmond (which is also quickly becoming an impressive dense core), downtown Coquitlam, the North Shore, Ioco, etc... All this in a metro with fewer people than metro Seattle. (I personally don't find Tacoma to be part of metro Seattle, it would be akin to Abbotsford to Vancouver).

Again, i don't know anywhere else in North America that has been able to do this with so few people 9and again, many of these town centres are currently building, proposing or just finishing their new tallest).

vanman · #56 Posted **Jan 19, 2012, 9:49 PM**

^ Yeah I agree that the sheer amount and height of suburban skylines in metro Vancouver completely blow Seattle out of the water.

Metro-One · #57 Posted **Jan 19, 2012, 9:58 PM**

And for me this has always made Vancouver feel much larger than it is, the fact you can ride the skytrain out of downtown and travel through so many other urban cores with high towers. just think of taking the M line from Waterfront, you leave downtown, you go through the towers of joyce, then Metrotown, then Edmonds, then through Downtown New Westminster, then Lougheed Town Centre, then the rapidly growing Holdom / Brentwood / Gilmore stretch. just amazing IMO. This makes Metro-Vancouver feel a little more asian in layout than North American for me, all the multiple hubs.

And then of course the fact that Vancouver has 3 true metro lines, and we are about to build our fourth, while Seattle only has the mono rail and their new single line LRT, makes Vancouver feel larger as well IMO.

The only thing Seattle has that makes them feel larger is their interstates, and the Gateway program will be closing a bit of this gap.

Alex Mackinnon · #58 Posted **Jan 19, 2012, 11:40 PM**

I don't if Seattle will ever catch up to Vancouver in terms of appearing dense. Metro Seattle is geographically spread over much larger of an actual area and has so much energy put into suburban style development that I don't think things will really backtrack to give the appearance of a much denser city.

If we took Metro Van and mirrored it on an East-West axis with downtown acting as the center you would have a similar pattern of land for development. Seattle's geographic barriers are relatively small compared to ours and it permits a lot more sprawl that is still within a reasonable distance of the main city. If we spread all the growth happening in Vancouver over all that area I doubt it would seem nearly as impressive as it currently does. With Vancouver growing faster proportionally as a city, I don't think Seattle will ever catch up in appearing to be or acting like a dense city unless we somehow hit a bottleneck.

officedweller · #59 Posted **Jan 20, 2012, 1:29 AM**

In terms of Regional Town Centres (not skylines), Bellevue is far more of a "complete city" than any town centre around Vancouver, which are largely comprised of condo towers. Bellevue has already achieved what Surrey is aspriring to be.

If you compare Bellevue and Metrotwon - Bellevue has an office district and growing street life distinct from its major mall (Bellevue Square) with towers about the same size as Vancouver's office towers. The Neiman Marcus is blocks away from Bellevue Square. At Metrotown, most commercial activity (office and retail) is centred at the mall.

Metro-One · #60 Posted **Jan 20, 2012, 1:39 AM**

What about New Westminster?? I feel it has a very urban fabric, especially at street level, with a beautiful mix or historical and modern building stock, not to mention a metro line running right through the heart of it.
Also Bellevue's tallest are 137 meters each, and Metrotown is currently building 2 towers taller than that. so things will be changing... And Metrotower 3 will make it so Metrotown has 3 office towers over 100 meters (and a few others over 50 meters), not that bad for a suburb as well. And again, mass transit (which Bellevue may be getting soon as well, but for now they don't)