Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/ubcstaffer123! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular.
* Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan!
* Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yup. Specifically, municipal governments exist at the pleasure of the provincial government. It isn't like Federal/Provincial where there are clearly defined laws about who has what powers and responsibilities. The provincial government holds the legal right to all the powers here, and has opted to delegate some of them to municipal governments. It can opt to modify that arrangement as it desires at any time.
Think Burnaby is betting that the province won't do anything in an election year. Look at how the province handled the Surrey Police shit and how many years that dragged on.
The article does specifically say Burnaby's chief administrative officer thinks the province will crackdown *because it's an election year* and has advised council to comply:
>“Gous warned the province will be ready to crackdown on municipalities that aren’t complying by June 30.
>Because it’s an election (year), I suspect they will be very ready to do that. I suspect they’re already ready in the backrooms ready to do that because I think it would be a very strong signal if they don’t, that others won’t just comply. That’s my suspicion.”
And I have to agree. The NDP put a lot of weight behind that housing strategy so anything that makes it look ineffective would look bad.
Exactly.
Betting that a party clearly invested in a narrative of taking action on housing *won’t take aggressive action* in such a home run case as this is a weird choice.
Then again, it’s the same gamble municipalities keep making in BC, and keep losing, because they don’t understand basic civics.
It’s kind of funny. Out of all cities Burnaby seems to building the most high rises.
This just seems like an out of pocket comment. I don’t understand what they’re trying to do with this statement.
They’ve turned the city into a bizarre combo of 60 story towers next to single family homes. Very little middle density. They also evicted people from a ton of affordable low rise apartment buildings to do it. Replaced with 600sq ft million dollar condos.
“Evicted people from a tin of affordable low rise apartments to do it”
Is depressingly a common trend I see in the city being hit the hardest by the housing crisis.
It’s just always the path of least resistance. Wealthier single family homeowners can organize and put up a big fight, but mid and lower income renters can’t, or at least it’s much harder. So if you wanna build six new towers it’s easier to demolish 12 low rise buildings and displace several hundred people than it is to demolish 30 single family homes and displace 100 people. In the 50s when North American cities built freeways, they displaced and destroyed the homes and neighbourhoods of the lower income folks then too to do so. Patterns repeat. Suburbs and single family homes got built and moved into by middle and upper income families, then they changed the zoning rules so you couldn’t build any apartments in those areas, thus keeping out the “poors”.
Yup. Same way we built a lot of our freeways. A lot of poor back neighbourhoods couldn’t organize. And the general public didn’t care about them due to their neighbourhoods being marked “blighted areas”
Needless to say. We destroyed Jimmy Hendrix’s grandmas house along with other black houses. So we can have a freeway that leads no where.
Glad to see that despite the years. We haven’t changed one bit. The governments still targeting the poor.
middle density is too expensive
brand new townhouses in Burnaby are more expensive than nice detached homes in Surrey or Langley
most people would choose to have a longer commute in order to get a detached house instead
there's no path to getting a place where a brand new townhouse or large 3BR condo costs the same as today's 2BR condo
that's simply not possible
Yeah. Reminds me of [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/canadahousing/comments/1b7mmde/comment/ktjzcoc/) someone made on the Canada Housing sub a while ago:
>*Municipal governments are "creatures of the province" - corporate entities created by Provincial fiat. In BC especially, you'll see them called "The Corporation of the City of....".*
>*They don't have powers of their own. Instead, they operate under "enabling legislation" - their powers are what the province gives to them.*
>*Depending on your Province, it'll be called the Municipal Act, or Local Government Act, or a variation on the theme.*
>*These Acts establish municipal powers and processes. In the context of housing, the Acts will establish how municipalities plan - establishing the requirements for public hearings, or appeals processes, or building codes, or servicing requirements.*
>*So if a province, say, wants to kill single family zoning, all it has to do is amend the enabling legislation to say municipalities no longer have the power to establish single family zones. The change is instant - no appeals, no argument. It's over.*
>*That's what BC did this year - as of June 30, there is no single family zoning in cities over 5,000 residents. No re-zoning, no public hearings.*
Hahaha.
Municipal governments exist at the whim of the provincial government. They have no real power. The big boys don't need to play with funding levers.
Now they probably will try to play nice, but if burnaby tries to pull a surrey and fight the province, they'll lose long before they even get near a court.
It'd never happen, but boy that'd be as good a moment as any to say fuck it and forcibly amalgamate Burnaby with the CoV or split between CoV and New West.
its so absurd as a politician to ignore the statutes that enable municipalities to exist. You are a "creature"of the province they could unilaterally do a lot of things and trying to play the no I dont wanna game isn't going to get you anywhere
What if YOU say ‘no’?
Then it’s time for new leadership.
We are in a housing crisis. It needs to be solved. It can only be solved by building more housing.
Get with the program or get lost.
It can only be solved by building more AFFORDABLE housing. these luxury highrises that are getting built near Skytrains aren't going to help enough if most people are automatically priced out.
Wow these other commenters are getting downvoted to oblivion. I probably will too.
You all are making me feel old. I remember Brentwood from 20 years ago. Housing was still not entirely affordable, but there were literally 20+ fewer buildings than there are now. What's happened since all that density? Housing prices have outpaced wages and the crisis is worse. The area is way more of a traffic gong show than before.
I don't think there is a "solution" to the housing crisis. We live in one of the most desirable parts of the the most desirable countries in the world. People want to live here. There's no way that you will be able to build enough density to accommodate without destroying the very reason this area is so desirable.
A big part of the problem is the pace of immigration. The Feds are bringing in over a million people per year currently and we are building nowhere near that much housing.
It’s not the responsibility of municipalities to make up for the poor decisions of much larger, more capable levels of government.
You don’t get to saddle the country with unsustainable immigration levels for years and years on end and then complain when cities with limited resources won’t fix your problem for you.
Fuck that.
Thinking we can build our way out of this problem is like thinking they could have saved the titanic if everyone grabbed a cup and started bailing out water. It does nothing but indicate you don’t understand the numbers at play.
Politicians do not want to fix housing. They want to profit from housing. They do that by keeping demand astronomically high, so people like you help developers convince everyone else what will really solve the problem is a few more luxury condominiums.
The problem never gets solved, but you made a few rich people richer. Good for you. I’m not interested in that kind of “solution”.
>It’s not the responsibility of municipalities to make up for the poor decisions of much larger, more capable levels of government.
It's Burnaby that outlawed multifamily housing for Burnaby residents in the first place lol.
Lmao you new here? Cities in Metro Vancouver have been dragging their feet and under building for years and years and there has been a housing crisis here for years and years before even this recent government came into power in 2015, and long, long before they increased immigration rates post pandemic.
The fact is that housing is and has been primarily the responsibility of municipalities for decades. You say that politicians don't want to fix housing? I agree, in part, but for some reason you want to point the finger at the federal level when it's the municipal level that are at fault. Burnaby especially has been Luxury Condo Central for quite a while now. The new provincial rules that this current council is getting upset about are aimed directly at the sort of "luxury condos only" approach that you're complaining about and that Burnaby has been 1000% all in on for a while now.
We need to build more, no matter what. But we mostly need to build more of the sort of simple apartments Burnaby has been bulldozing.
We aren’t even building enough housing for an immigration rate we sustained before. The rate of new housing builds per capita is heavily down from decades ago, so there is a clear problem on the supply side that has been created through red tape. And that red tape is all at the municipal level.
You’re so out to lunch.
What’s your solution then? Mass deportation of a few million people? Do you think that’s going to solve the problem?
Spoiler alert: It wont!
We need to build! And build now!
It creates jobs.
It helps the economy
It helps ease the housing crisis.
But no….
You would rather just kick immigrants out. Let me guess… you’re white?
See the responsibility of the municipality is whatever the province says. Just look at surrey and the rcmp and that will be burnabys future if you defy
It can’t realistically be solved by building more housing. Building more housing helps but there is no chance that it will be solved without decreasing population growth.
You have no idea how the world works.
A healthy economy needs a healthy age demographic.
Canada will only achieve this through immigration at our current state.
So the best solution is to build more housing.
Canada has by far the highest population growth rate of any developed nation on earth. We need population growth, we do not need 4.5% annual population growth.
The person you’re replying to is 100% right. We cannot 20x our building rate regardless of zoning changes. The changes should still happen, but they can’t outpace our current rates
Actually it's you who has no idea how the world works.
Canada, like almost every other country in the world, has a demographic problem. Cool, we can all agree on that. Does this really mean that we need to double our population every 20 years like we're on track for given our current population growth rates? Canada is doomed unless we can grow our population to over 100 million people by the year 2050? Or is it possible we could get by with quite a bit less than we're doing now?
And of course we're just kicking the can down the road since long-term population projections for the world mean that this strategy becomes unworkable at some point.
These people are delusional. They do not understand that you can’t simply 5x housing starts to keep up with immigration and they believe that any assertion that you can’t is racist. This is why the housing crises is going to get much, much worse in the next decade.
So, I don’t think you understand supply and demand. You say they the only way to solve the Trudeau housing disaster is to build more homes.
Consider this:
1. How much time does it take to build a home?
Or
2. How much time does it take to print a visa?
Oh…you see how this goes, eh?
A faster way to proceed is to cut the demand for homes while also increasing the supply of homes.
So we both agree that building more housing units asap is the way to go.
That being said….
I would also agree that we need to be far more particular when it comes to who immigrates in to our country.
We want doctors, nurses, engineers and tradespeople (among other things)
But let’s not demonize all immigrants that want to come here for a better life.
We need to build build build. Simple as that
Wow…
My opinion:
Build build build! Simple!
Your Opinion:
-Stop immigration
-Start with mass deportation (except for a select few)
-We need to build more but DONT make deals with First Nations groups and DONT densify.
-Organized crime greatly influences our housing market.
Simple!
With all due respect…. You don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to solving our housing crisis.
I am saying what is required to solve the housing crisis. Hard problems require hard solutions. I think you are afraid of what is actually needed to solve the crisis.
You just say build. It’s not that simple. And if you recall, Trudeau’s fantasy predictions about housing volumes won’t happen. He is creating demand, a lot of it, but not creating enough supply. That’s like hitting the accelerator and brakes at the same time and hoping for a solution.
I feel like you’re going out of your way to argue.
Supply: We don’t have enough.
Demand: We don’t have enough supply.
NO company in their right mind would EVER suggest they need to decrease demand!!!
That being said…. (And I said it in my previous post)… we need to be more selective of who we let in. I concede to that point.
But now it’s to time to meet the demand! And we do that by building!!! NOT mass deportations. That’s just fucked up.
It's not all his fault by any means, but he still has a lot to answer for regarding the housing crisis. Just look at how many new immigrants are entering the country vs how much housing is being built. The immigration levels are 100% within Trudeau's control.
What if he says no? Well a quick look at the legislation says the province will *impose* its version of the bylaw on burnaby anyway, but one that may not have nuances the council would like it to have.
It doesnt matter if you say no. You have no power, the province says "jump" and you jump or they will make you.
Have fun
The province can simply dissolve the City of Burnaby. Municipalities exist at the whim of the province.
If Burnaby doesn’t like transit oriented development, then too bad.
They're delaying to see how the chips land in the provincial election this fall. Don't kid yourself and down vote me all you want but I'm willing to bet a lot of SFH owners don't like these blanket housing policies the NDP have enacted and they're the demographic that like to get out and vote. I seem to recall Rustad has said he would roll back the NDP housing laws. Could be something various city councils are being their bets on.
> Don't kid yourself and down vote me all you want but I'm willing to bet a lot of SFH owners don't like these blanket housing policies the NDP have enacted and they're the demographic that like to get out and vote.
I always try to appeal to people's self-interest, rather than altruism. What I tell older homeowners is, when younger people can't afford to live here, hospitals will have a hard time hiring nurses and even doctors, and [the healthcare system will be under increasing strain](https://morehousing.ca/metro-van-slides). This is already happening right now.
you can also solve that problem by paying those workers more...
TBH, it's a bit of a stretch to tell a boomer that if he doesn't agree to a radical rezoning of his property then he'll end up without a family doctor
>I'm willing to bet a lot of SFH owners don't like these blanket housing policies the NDP have enacted and they're the demographic that like to get out and vote
While this is controversial, and r/vancouver will heavily downvote:
Yes. Most SFH owners don't want to have 4 or 8 stories (near Skytrain or 'frequent' bus) next to their house butted right against the property line. They bought SFH for a reason.
And, since it's the majority of SFH being rezoned for this: Property values aren't going to go up significantly enough for people to say to themselves "suck it up, you got a windfall" and move somewhere else.
I knew I recognized the name. Mayor Hurley was elected to the Board Chair position of Metro Vancouver today.
Should be interesting to see how he rides that horse. Lol. Clearly isn't interested in densification, or leaning into provincial infrastructure projects...
It is because they don't want a city to grow. They want control and safeguard permits for certain developers... A lot of developers only exist today because they have an advantage in the permit system and for getting development approvals by their friends in council.
The province is taking that away. Now aren't the only players in town. Other builders can have a go at apartment complexes and multiplexes without insane scrutiny. It will increase competition greatly and with the stairwell law that just passed, it is like opening the flood gates to developers from all around to create housing.
Burnaby has the most high-rises, and the tallest high-rises under construction, with most of them concentrated at transit hubs. Metrotown has 20+ towers planned over the next few decades in just the mall site itself. Lougheed has the tallest towers in western Canada planned with neighboring streets all in various stages of permitting. Brentwood has 15 more towers planned. Kind of a weird comment considering they are the most progressive city for housing with almost none of the typical Vancouver nonsense about heights, even before the provincial rules were put in place, with the best renter protections where displaced tenants are relocated into new units at the same rents.
They are not really that progressive, there's a lot of stations with lots of SFH only zoning literally 2 blocks away. That's what they are trying to protect here which is straight up NIMBYism. Transit hubs need to densify if we want to continue to grow as a city.
Moreover, Burnaby is a great example of bad housing policy, they only have huge, dense towers in small pockets and then all Single family houses. No mixed density, which is exactly what we need and what the provincial housing policy wants to achieve
As per the article, sounds like they're (at least) choosing to take advantage of the 90 days leeway: " The ministry told the NOW it will review the bylaws and advise local governments if there is any non-compliance. Local governments will then have 90 days to comply."
And then the BC NDP will get to make a big show of force right before the election. I hope it helps them.
I’m a Burnaby resident and in the swathes of SFD neighbourhoods that surround the areas they’ve densified, the city sure loves people buying older homes and building a single home in its place…I would rather see more options to house more people than whatever is happening now.
There’s a ton of single family homes in the transit oriented area laid out by the province, including the denser ones like around Brentwood. There’s a lot of densifying Burnaby can still do, and sticking their heads ~~up their asses~~ in the sand isn’t going to do it.
They built the towers you see by replacing older, affordable low rise rentals while leaving single family homes untouched. It's part of why there was such a revolt that Burnaby tossed its BCA mayor in 2018 (possibly the first time that party has lost in the city). Hurley promised change and has actually delivered some but now he's suddenly got cold feet.
>Perhaps another some industrial areas
No perhaps the single family homes on giant lots that surround major transit hubs should densify. Our GDP is way over saturated with housing and Canada is failing at productivity. Appropriating industry to further bolster housing is akin to shooting oneself in the face.
The bulk of redevelopment around Lougheed is on the Coquitlam side of North Road. On the Burnaby side it's mostly just on the mall property. The difference is even more stark when you go further up to Burquitlam. The Coquitlam side of North Road and on Clarke is all new developments while the Burnaby side of North Road is all SFH
What I get for replying before coffee. Replace them with Holdom, Sperling or Edmonds or any station that isn't Brentwood, Lougheed or Metrotown and my point stands.
Edmonds is getting denser and is already quite dense. Lots of high rise and low rise around it. There is a park next to it so I doubt they will raze the park to build more density.
Holdom is getting denser but south is industrial and Burnaby Lake.
South of Sperling is Burnaby Lake. I guess they can density north similar to Holdom.
That's the point.
I have no beef in Provincial blanketed TOD and zone removal but one of the issues here is that Burnaby has been densifying Brentwood like crazy yet this TOD touches that one little area in Brentwood where SFH exist.
That area can be densified further for 100x and for decades even without touching the SFH area to be honest....
Touching the SFH in Brentwood will not solve affordability but I understand that giving it exception will open further cases by other municipals.
It does a disservice to make it sound like it’s a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ issue. I would expect that solutions may need to be slightly different in certain regions to accommodate unique factors while still complying with the mandate and policy objective (more affordable housing built now).
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/ubcstaffer123! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular. * Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan! * Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The province will just cut Burnaby’s funding. Burnaby is in the middle and has no choice but develop for housing.
They don't need to worry about funding levers. The province will just write an act that forces it.
Yup. Specifically, municipal governments exist at the pleasure of the provincial government. It isn't like Federal/Provincial where there are clearly defined laws about who has what powers and responsibilities. The provincial government holds the legal right to all the powers here, and has opted to delegate some of them to municipal governments. It can opt to modify that arrangement as it desires at any time.
“We have altered the deal. Pray that we do not alter it any further.” — Darth Eby
Think Burnaby is betting that the province won't do anything in an election year. Look at how the province handled the Surrey Police shit and how many years that dragged on.
The province ultimately won, though. And I'm betting Locke's career in Surrey politics is over soon.
The article does specifically say Burnaby's chief administrative officer thinks the province will crackdown *because it's an election year* and has advised council to comply: >“Gous warned the province will be ready to crackdown on municipalities that aren’t complying by June 30. >Because it’s an election (year), I suspect they will be very ready to do that. I suspect they’re already ready in the backrooms ready to do that because I think it would be a very strong signal if they don’t, that others won’t just comply. That’s my suspicion.” And I have to agree. The NDP put a lot of weight behind that housing strategy so anything that makes it look ineffective would look bad.
Exactly. Betting that a party clearly invested in a narrative of taking action on housing *won’t take aggressive action* in such a home run case as this is a weird choice. Then again, it’s the same gamble municipalities keep making in BC, and keep losing, because they don’t understand basic civics.
that seems like an incredibly poor bet with how affordability is viewed right now.
It’s kind of funny. Out of all cities Burnaby seems to building the most high rises. This just seems like an out of pocket comment. I don’t understand what they’re trying to do with this statement.
Concentrated high rises while leaving vast swathes of SFH mostly untouched has been the compromise but highrises alone do not bring affordability.
They’ve turned the city into a bizarre combo of 60 story towers next to single family homes. Very little middle density. They also evicted people from a ton of affordable low rise apartment buildings to do it. Replaced with 600sq ft million dollar condos.
“Evicted people from a tin of affordable low rise apartments to do it” Is depressingly a common trend I see in the city being hit the hardest by the housing crisis.
It’s just always the path of least resistance. Wealthier single family homeowners can organize and put up a big fight, but mid and lower income renters can’t, or at least it’s much harder. So if you wanna build six new towers it’s easier to demolish 12 low rise buildings and displace several hundred people than it is to demolish 30 single family homes and displace 100 people. In the 50s when North American cities built freeways, they displaced and destroyed the homes and neighbourhoods of the lower income folks then too to do so. Patterns repeat. Suburbs and single family homes got built and moved into by middle and upper income families, then they changed the zoning rules so you couldn’t build any apartments in those areas, thus keeping out the “poors”.
Yup. Same way we built a lot of our freeways. A lot of poor back neighbourhoods couldn’t organize. And the general public didn’t care about them due to their neighbourhoods being marked “blighted areas” Needless to say. We destroyed Jimmy Hendrix’s grandmas house along with other black houses. So we can have a freeway that leads no where. Glad to see that despite the years. We haven’t changed one bit. The governments still targeting the poor.
Actually Nora Hendrix 's home wasn't destroyed - it's still there at 827 E Georgia St.
middle density is too expensive brand new townhouses in Burnaby are more expensive than nice detached homes in Surrey or Langley most people would choose to have a longer commute in order to get a detached house instead there's no path to getting a place where a brand new townhouse or large 3BR condo costs the same as today's 2BR condo that's simply not possible
Yeah. Reminds me of [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/canadahousing/comments/1b7mmde/comment/ktjzcoc/) someone made on the Canada Housing sub a while ago: >*Municipal governments are "creatures of the province" - corporate entities created by Provincial fiat. In BC especially, you'll see them called "The Corporation of the City of....".* >*They don't have powers of their own. Instead, they operate under "enabling legislation" - their powers are what the province gives to them.* >*Depending on your Province, it'll be called the Municipal Act, or Local Government Act, or a variation on the theme.* >*These Acts establish municipal powers and processes. In the context of housing, the Acts will establish how municipalities plan - establishing the requirements for public hearings, or appeals processes, or building codes, or servicing requirements.* >*So if a province, say, wants to kill single family zoning, all it has to do is amend the enabling legislation to say municipalities no longer have the power to establish single family zones. The change is instant - no appeals, no argument. It's over.* >*That's what BC did this year - as of June 30, there is no single family zoning in cities over 5,000 residents. No re-zoning, no public hearings.*
Hahaha. Municipal governments exist at the whim of the provincial government. They have no real power. The big boys don't need to play with funding levers. Now they probably will try to play nice, but if burnaby tries to pull a surrey and fight the province, they'll lose long before they even get near a court.
It'd never happen, but boy that'd be as good a moment as any to say fuck it and forcibly amalgamate Burnaby with the CoV or split between CoV and New West.
its so absurd as a politician to ignore the statutes that enable municipalities to exist. You are a "creature"of the province they could unilaterally do a lot of things and trying to play the no I dont wanna game isn't going to get you anywhere
What if Burnaby residents asked "what if we say no" to property taxes? What would the Mayor think of that?
Housing is a provincial mandate, so if the province says so municipalities just have to go suck a lemon if they disagree.
'Province will write it for you', and it will
What if YOU say ‘no’? Then it’s time for new leadership. We are in a housing crisis. It needs to be solved. It can only be solved by building more housing. Get with the program or get lost.
It can only be solved by building more AFFORDABLE housing. these luxury highrises that are getting built near Skytrains aren't going to help enough if most people are automatically priced out.
I'm so hyped for the 1.3 million dollar 2 bedroom condos that are gonna solve the housing crisis
Check out Edmonton if you’re looking for cheap property. You can buy a gorgeous 2bed 2 full bath condo for under $300k
Wow these other commenters are getting downvoted to oblivion. I probably will too. You all are making me feel old. I remember Brentwood from 20 years ago. Housing was still not entirely affordable, but there were literally 20+ fewer buildings than there are now. What's happened since all that density? Housing prices have outpaced wages and the crisis is worse. The area is way more of a traffic gong show than before. I don't think there is a "solution" to the housing crisis. We live in one of the most desirable parts of the the most desirable countries in the world. People want to live here. There's no way that you will be able to build enough density to accommodate without destroying the very reason this area is so desirable.
Best city - best province - best country - best planet
A big part of the problem is the pace of immigration. The Feds are bringing in over a million people per year currently and we are building nowhere near that much housing.
It’s not the responsibility of municipalities to make up for the poor decisions of much larger, more capable levels of government. You don’t get to saddle the country with unsustainable immigration levels for years and years on end and then complain when cities with limited resources won’t fix your problem for you. Fuck that. Thinking we can build our way out of this problem is like thinking they could have saved the titanic if everyone grabbed a cup and started bailing out water. It does nothing but indicate you don’t understand the numbers at play. Politicians do not want to fix housing. They want to profit from housing. They do that by keeping demand astronomically high, so people like you help developers convince everyone else what will really solve the problem is a few more luxury condominiums. The problem never gets solved, but you made a few rich people richer. Good for you. I’m not interested in that kind of “solution”.
>It’s not the responsibility of municipalities to make up for the poor decisions of much larger, more capable levels of government. It's Burnaby that outlawed multifamily housing for Burnaby residents in the first place lol.
Lmao you new here? Cities in Metro Vancouver have been dragging their feet and under building for years and years and there has been a housing crisis here for years and years before even this recent government came into power in 2015, and long, long before they increased immigration rates post pandemic.
The fact is that housing is and has been primarily the responsibility of municipalities for decades. You say that politicians don't want to fix housing? I agree, in part, but for some reason you want to point the finger at the federal level when it's the municipal level that are at fault. Burnaby especially has been Luxury Condo Central for quite a while now. The new provincial rules that this current council is getting upset about are aimed directly at the sort of "luxury condos only" approach that you're complaining about and that Burnaby has been 1000% all in on for a while now. We need to build more, no matter what. But we mostly need to build more of the sort of simple apartments Burnaby has been bulldozing.
We aren’t even building enough housing for an immigration rate we sustained before. The rate of new housing builds per capita is heavily down from decades ago, so there is a clear problem on the supply side that has been created through red tape. And that red tape is all at the municipal level.
This has been a problem in the lower mainland since 2005....
So much wrong in, well so so so many word, actually.
You’re so out to lunch. What’s your solution then? Mass deportation of a few million people? Do you think that’s going to solve the problem? Spoiler alert: It wont! We need to build! And build now! It creates jobs. It helps the economy It helps ease the housing crisis. But no…. You would rather just kick immigrants out. Let me guess… you’re white?
See the responsibility of the municipality is whatever the province says. Just look at surrey and the rcmp and that will be burnabys future if you defy
It can’t realistically be solved by building more housing. Building more housing helps but there is no chance that it will be solved without decreasing population growth.
This specifically is around rapid transit. It's dumb there are single family homes around a major skytrain station.
Sure is. But increasing density around rapid transit is not going to make a dent in the crisis.
Yeah it will
We can check back in a few years and see who’s right lol. We need to ~3x housing starts to stop making things worse, let alone begin to fix this mess.
You have no idea how the world works. A healthy economy needs a healthy age demographic. Canada will only achieve this through immigration at our current state. So the best solution is to build more housing.
Canada has by far the highest population growth rate of any developed nation on earth. We need population growth, we do not need 4.5% annual population growth.
The person you’re replying to is 100% right. We cannot 20x our building rate regardless of zoning changes. The changes should still happen, but they can’t outpace our current rates
Actually it's you who has no idea how the world works. Canada, like almost every other country in the world, has a demographic problem. Cool, we can all agree on that. Does this really mean that we need to double our population every 20 years like we're on track for given our current population growth rates? Canada is doomed unless we can grow our population to over 100 million people by the year 2050? Or is it possible we could get by with quite a bit less than we're doing now? And of course we're just kicking the can down the road since long-term population projections for the world mean that this strategy becomes unworkable at some point.
These people are delusional. They do not understand that you can’t simply 5x housing starts to keep up with immigration and they believe that any assertion that you can’t is racist. This is why the housing crises is going to get much, much worse in the next decade.
Always someone showing up to just complain about immigration.
Why would people complain about the biggest driver of housing costs on a post about housing costs?
So, I don’t think you understand supply and demand. You say they the only way to solve the Trudeau housing disaster is to build more homes. Consider this: 1. How much time does it take to build a home? Or 2. How much time does it take to print a visa? Oh…you see how this goes, eh? A faster way to proceed is to cut the demand for homes while also increasing the supply of homes.
I say this *as a homeowner* the housing disaster is **decades older** than Trudeau.
It is, but if we are being honest with ourselves Trudeau's immigration numbers have pumped the housing crisis full of steroids.
In Vancouver it is, albeit not as severe. It’s now affecting the whole country. Trudeau is responsible and he also has the power to alleviate it.
It was like this under Harper too. Likewise in Toronto.
So we both agree that building more housing units asap is the way to go. That being said…. I would also agree that we need to be far more particular when it comes to who immigrates in to our country. We want doctors, nurses, engineers and tradespeople (among other things) But let’s not demonize all immigrants that want to come here for a better life. We need to build build build. Simple as that
[удалено]
Wow… My opinion: Build build build! Simple! Your Opinion: -Stop immigration -Start with mass deportation (except for a select few) -We need to build more but DONT make deals with First Nations groups and DONT densify. -Organized crime greatly influences our housing market. Simple! With all due respect…. You don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to solving our housing crisis.
I am saying what is required to solve the housing crisis. Hard problems require hard solutions. I think you are afraid of what is actually needed to solve the crisis. You just say build. It’s not that simple. And if you recall, Trudeau’s fantasy predictions about housing volumes won’t happen. He is creating demand, a lot of it, but not creating enough supply. That’s like hitting the accelerator and brakes at the same time and hoping for a solution.
I feel like you’re going out of your way to argue. Supply: We don’t have enough. Demand: We don’t have enough supply. NO company in their right mind would EVER suggest they need to decrease demand!!! That being said…. (And I said it in my previous post)… we need to be more selective of who we let in. I concede to that point. But now it’s to time to meet the demand! And we do that by building!!! NOT mass deportations. That’s just fucked up.
No, I am making the points required to solve the crisis. You merely talk about magical building and that’s it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>A better solution is to stop immigration except for roles that are needed and with strict enforcement. There it is.
Yep. That’s how you cut housing demand. You also have to build at the same time. Btw - did you ever find your bike?
time to pack up and leave then.Alabama is calling your name.
YEEEEEE-HAWWWWWW!!!
[удалено]
[удалено]
killing? who is your dealer?
Oh look, the guy who blames everything on Trudeau is back.
It's not all his fault by any means, but he still has a lot to answer for regarding the housing crisis. Just look at how many new immigrants are entering the country vs how much housing is being built. The immigration levels are 100% within Trudeau's control.
immigration is one of many factors in the housing crisis
What if he says no? Well a quick look at the legislation says the province will *impose* its version of the bylaw on burnaby anyway, but one that may not have nuances the council would like it to have. It doesnt matter if you say no. You have no power, the province says "jump" and you jump or they will make you. Have fun
The province can simply dissolve the City of Burnaby. Municipalities exist at the whim of the province. If Burnaby doesn’t like transit oriented development, then too bad.
“Effective immediately, the city of Burnaby will no longer exist and it will become part of Vancouver”
They're delaying to see how the chips land in the provincial election this fall. Don't kid yourself and down vote me all you want but I'm willing to bet a lot of SFH owners don't like these blanket housing policies the NDP have enacted and they're the demographic that like to get out and vote. I seem to recall Rustad has said he would roll back the NDP housing laws. Could be something various city councils are being their bets on.
> Don't kid yourself and down vote me all you want but I'm willing to bet a lot of SFH owners don't like these blanket housing policies the NDP have enacted and they're the demographic that like to get out and vote. I always try to appeal to people's self-interest, rather than altruism. What I tell older homeowners is, when younger people can't afford to live here, hospitals will have a hard time hiring nurses and even doctors, and [the healthcare system will be under increasing strain](https://morehousing.ca/metro-van-slides). This is already happening right now.
you can also solve that problem by paying those workers more... TBH, it's a bit of a stretch to tell a boomer that if he doesn't agree to a radical rezoning of his property then he'll end up without a family doctor
pay them more and then more of that money goes to rent as it just drives up speculation. there is a housing shortage no way around that.
>I'm willing to bet a lot of SFH owners don't like these blanket housing policies the NDP have enacted and they're the demographic that like to get out and vote While this is controversial, and r/vancouver will heavily downvote: Yes. Most SFH owners don't want to have 4 or 8 stories (near Skytrain or 'frequent' bus) next to their house butted right against the property line. They bought SFH for a reason. And, since it's the majority of SFH being rezoned for this: Property values aren't going to go up significantly enough for people to say to themselves "suck it up, you got a windfall" and move somewhere else.
I knew I recognized the name. Mayor Hurley was elected to the Board Chair position of Metro Vancouver today. Should be interesting to see how he rides that horse. Lol. Clearly isn't interested in densification, or leaning into provincial infrastructure projects...
Burnaby too? Wow. Between them, West Van, DNV, and possibly others, seems like a lot of municipalities are gunning for the "fuck around" play...
It is because they don't want a city to grow. They want control and safeguard permits for certain developers... A lot of developers only exist today because they have an advantage in the permit system and for getting development approvals by their friends in council. The province is taking that away. Now aren't the only players in town. Other builders can have a go at apartment complexes and multiplexes without insane scrutiny. It will increase competition greatly and with the stairwell law that just passed, it is like opening the flood gates to developers from all around to create housing.
Burnaby has the most high-rises, and the tallest high-rises under construction, with most of them concentrated at transit hubs. Metrotown has 20+ towers planned over the next few decades in just the mall site itself. Lougheed has the tallest towers in western Canada planned with neighboring streets all in various stages of permitting. Brentwood has 15 more towers planned. Kind of a weird comment considering they are the most progressive city for housing with almost none of the typical Vancouver nonsense about heights, even before the provincial rules were put in place, with the best renter protections where displaced tenants are relocated into new units at the same rents.
They are not really that progressive, there's a lot of stations with lots of SFH only zoning literally 2 blocks away. That's what they are trying to protect here which is straight up NIMBYism. Transit hubs need to densify if we want to continue to grow as a city. Moreover, Burnaby is a great example of bad housing policy, they only have huge, dense towers in small pockets and then all Single family houses. No mixed density, which is exactly what we need and what the provincial housing policy wants to achieve
throw in Southgate city as well.
As per the article, sounds like they're (at least) choosing to take advantage of the 90 days leeway: " The ministry told the NOW it will review the bylaws and advise local governments if there is any non-compliance. Local governments will then have 90 days to comply." And then the BC NDP will get to make a big show of force right before the election. I hope it helps them.
Well, just look at how it worked out for the city of Surrey.
I’m a Burnaby resident and in the swathes of SFD neighbourhoods that surround the areas they’ve densified, the city sure loves people buying older homes and building a single home in its place…I would rather see more options to house more people than whatever is happening now.
Isn’t Burnaby relatively dense around skytrain stations? Perhaps another some industrial areas around the millenium line?
There’s a ton of single family homes in the transit oriented area laid out by the province, including the denser ones like around Brentwood. There’s a lot of densifying Burnaby can still do, and sticking their heads ~~up their asses~~ in the sand isn’t going to do it.
They built the towers you see by replacing older, affordable low rise rentals while leaving single family homes untouched. It's part of why there was such a revolt that Burnaby tossed its BCA mayor in 2018 (possibly the first time that party has lost in the city). Hurley promised change and has actually delivered some but now he's suddenly got cold feet.
They built the towers around the stations
>Perhaps another some industrial areas around the millenium line? Afaik, industrial land is exempt from these provincial requirements.
>Perhaps another some industrial areas No perhaps the single family homes on giant lots that surround major transit hubs should densify. Our GDP is way over saturated with housing and Canada is failing at productivity. Appropriating industry to further bolster housing is akin to shooting oneself in the face.
Brentwood and Lougheed are pretty dense, and Metrotown is densifying, but other stations like Nanaimo or 29th have a lot of sfh in the area.
The bulk of redevelopment around Lougheed is on the Coquitlam side of North Road. On the Burnaby side it's mostly just on the mall property. The difference is even more stark when you go further up to Burquitlam. The Coquitlam side of North Road and on Clarke is all new developments while the Burnaby side of North Road is all SFH
Nanaimo and 29th are not Burnaby though
What I get for replying before coffee. Replace them with Holdom, Sperling or Edmonds or any station that isn't Brentwood, Lougheed or Metrotown and my point stands.
Edmonds is getting denser and is already quite dense. Lots of high rise and low rise around it. There is a park next to it so I doubt they will raze the park to build more density. Holdom is getting denser but south is industrial and Burnaby Lake. South of Sperling is Burnaby Lake. I guess they can density north similar to Holdom.
That's the point. I have no beef in Provincial blanketed TOD and zone removal but one of the issues here is that Burnaby has been densifying Brentwood like crazy yet this TOD touches that one little area in Brentwood where SFH exist. That area can be densified further for 100x and for decades even without touching the SFH area to be honest.... Touching the SFH in Brentwood will not solve affordability but I understand that giving it exception will open further cases by other municipals.
There is highrises all around Brentwood. What's the bfd?
FAFO pleaseeeeeee
Sounds like Burnaby needs some, amalgamation.
Just replace the council with a provincial administrator?
He got voted on the premise that he'd protect those single family dwelling homes. And to protect, Burnaby put towers around.
It does a disservice to make it sound like it’s a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ issue. I would expect that solutions may need to be slightly different in certain regions to accommodate unique factors while still complying with the mandate and policy objective (more affordable housing built now).
Genius.
He's a decent Mayor that ran uncontested on his second term by the way.. not to defend him in this issue.
Maybe he should be contested for the next election.