HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Metro Vancouver & the Fraser Valley

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2581  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2019, 6:59 AM
Tetsuo Tetsuo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
I forgot to mention that it was Ivanhoe Cambridge, (who own Metrotown Mall) that sold Oakridge to developers a couple years ago.
Its quite telling that IC sold Oakridge and are looking to sell Guidford (after massive renovations) yet have no interest in doing so with Metrotown, going as far to even engage in a legal fight with Concord to protect their asset
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2582  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2019, 6:06 PM
scryer scryer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 989
I'm no architect or engineer but if I was going to re-develop Metrotown, it would be done very slowly. As in I would section off a certain part of the mall to be demo'd (if need-be) and then redeveloped into a huge tower and then re-opened. And I would only do it one section at a time after it re-opens as to not disrupt the revenue too much in the mall. That would be the only way that I can see Metrotown redeveloping; and I honestly think that it will happen but it would take like 30 years.

If Metrotown was to be redeveloped, it would need to have a grand vision that would give the West Edmonton Mall a run for its money lol.
__________________
Smart Living Vancity Blog
Skytrain for Surrey
Raise awareness and follow SmartVancity on Twitter.

There is a housing crisis, and we need to speak up about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2583  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2019, 8:41 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 33,865
whatever happens a restaurant on top of a tower would be great, a public viewing deck of some sort would be great too.
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2584  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2019, 5:40 AM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 5,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by scryer View Post
I'm no architect or engineer but if I was going to re-develop Metrotown, it would be done very slowly. As in I would section off a certain part of the mall to be demo'd (if need-be) and then redeveloped into a huge tower and then re-opened. And I would only do it one section at a time after it re-opens as to not disrupt the revenue too much in the mall. That would be the only way that I can see Metrotown redeveloping; and I honestly think that it will happen but it would take like 30 years.

If Metrotown was to be redeveloped, it would need to have a grand vision that would give the West Edmonton Mall a run for its money lol.
Metrotown's downtown can develop much faster after clearing all those walk-ups and industrial warehouses around. The City just needs to rezone those lots to become mixed development or commercial rather than purely residential.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2585  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2019, 7:58 AM
Spr0ckets Spr0ckets is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
Maybe you missed it in my post, but I said that there would be 30 000 people living and working right above the mall, only an elevator ride away. It's safe to assume that that would boost business.
Most of Metropolis' business and foot traffic comes from people who don't live in the area.
People who are only visiting specifically to go to the mall or people who are passing through using some of the transit interchanges on their way to or from home.

Is your assumption taking into account what the impact of any redevelopment (and shutdown on large parts of the mall) would have on these sources of revenue, even before that 30,000 people you estimate actually come to reality or fruition (which for a development of this magnitude would take anywhere between 7 to 20 years to complete)?



Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
I estimate the value of the property the mall sits on at around 5 billion (it's a huge site). Through rezoning you could build 10's of thousands of residential units and millions of square feet of office space. That's what gives the property its high value.
No, actually the property has it's high value NOW, because of what sits on it NOW, and what impact it has in the surrounding area because of all it does and brings to the area.
NOW.
Not because of what potential it holds in terms of what could be built there sometime in the future after god-knows how long.
That plays a part in it, yes, but not that high or as high a part as what impact the mall itself actually has on its value.


Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
Are you a top executive with Ivanhoe Cambridge? How could you possibly know what's being discussed? I know you laid out all your reasons why Oakridge is different but it's a large, successful mall that's being redeveloped.
No, I'm not a top executive with Ivanhoe Cambridge, but I do know what I do know based on the same way we know other things regarding their plans on redevelopment that haven't necessitated one being in the conference rooms to know they are actually considering them.
Things like the fact that they hope to build a Metro Office Tower IV and had for sometime wanted to build it where the bus loop currently sits but were shut down by the City who had no intention of transferring the loop to the other side of Beresford as IC hoped.
Or the fact that they too do plan on building a residential tower or more at the surface parking space they do own that sits just in front of the Superstore.
These are things that have been discussed to the degree that they've been talked about in the press and one doesn't have to be in boardroom meetings to know that they are things they have plans on possibly doing in the future.

If your argument is that one has to be a top Executive at Ivanhoe Cambridge to know exactly what they plan or plan not to do, or to be able to conclusively refute the idea or notion that they might not want to redevelop the mall following the plan of the city (as opposed to what they might want to do themselves that's different), then that's a really bizarre line of reasoning and logic that basically amounts to saying you believe they are going to do this and your proof is that I don't sit in the boardroom and therefore can't say for a fact that they don't plan on doing it.

So turning that around back at you.... and by the same logic, YOU too don't sit in the Ivanhoe Cambridge boardroom so how the hell would you know for a fact that this is something they definitely plan on doing (the redevelopment plans)?
My arguments were all based on the logic of the circumstances.
What are yours based on?

Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
In fact Oakridge is much more successful than Metrotown, it's the second most profitable mall in Canada, so there would actually be less incentive for Oakridge to redevelop compared to Metrotown. If the second most profitable mall in Canada does a full redevelopment, then why not Metrotown?
A lot of people tend to get that statistic completely wrong or at least misunderstand it.
Oakridge is NOT more successful than Metrotown unless you're measuring that by the basis they use to rank malls with, which is, revenue generated per square foot of sales area - which just by math alone should tell you disproportionately punishes or unfairly ranks malls that sit on large area sites like Metropolis and gives more favorable standing to malls that sit on more densely packed smaller areas (like Pacific Centre or Oakridge).

Metrotown overall generates more revenue per year than Oakridge, but because the mall itself is about 3 times the area size of Oakridge (and a lot of its square footage area isn't necessarily service sales space), what do you think happens when you rank them based on revenue per square foot basis (as opposed to total revenue generated)?
Just do the math.

Put another way, in order to match the sales revenue per square footage number of Oakridge while sitting on a site that's roughly 3 times bigger, Metropolis would have to generate sales of 3 times as much as what Oakridge does which in itself means they'd have to have much more shops and sales spots in the same area than is reasonably or practically possible for them to actually have.
And that's also assuming they have just as many more customers or as much more increased foot traffic commensurate with, or to match the shops increased.

But don't take my word for it.
Let's let the math do the talking:-

These numbers come from the Retail Council of Canada (RCC) (https://www.retailcouncil.org/resear...re-study-2018/) which did the study ranking malls in Canada and who are the ones responsible for using the "per square footage" number that tends to be misleading as to how malls perform, as well the the respective mall's site themselves (for their own area sizes):-

Metrotown (per 2018 figures) generated $1,040 per square foot.

Total Retail Area (retail floor space) : - 1,783,005 sq ft

Total (Gross) revenue : - $1,854,325,200

Oakridge Centre, (also per 2018 figures, and incidentally is the THIRD in Canada (after Toronto's Yorkdale and Pacific Center) and not second like you suggested) which generated ...
$1,594 per square foot.

Total Retail Area (retail floor space) : - 575,168 sq ft

Total (Gross) Revenue generated : - $ 916,817,792

Allow me to translate that for you.
Metropolis generates close to $ 1 BILLION more in sales revenue per year than Oakridge.
That's Billion with a "B".
Does that really translate to you that Oakridge is,...as you put it,..."much more successful" than Metrotown?

The question you don't seem to be bothering to ask yourself is, if Oakridge is that much more "successful" than Metropolis, then why did Ivanhoe Cambridge sell them off still and keep the "less successful" Metropolis rather than finding a development partner to work with to develop the mall with them remaining as owners of the mall?
Did you bother asking yourself this?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2586  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2019, 8:27 AM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 4,637
Curious what you think the Metrotown Mall property is worth, because I calculated that number using the allowable density for residential, and to a lesser extent, commercial.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2587  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2019, 2:30 PM
cairnstone cairnstone is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 485
Considering the bay is going to be the next department store to shut down that leaves a fair size property on the east side for redevelopment that will tie nicely into the Sears development. And malls are evolving and changing. Metrotown is plagued with poor systems that struggle to keep up with the volume of people that use it every day. There is typically 2 escalators down for service everyday. And IC is one of the owners of the mall there are other stakeholders. And the mall is starting to show its age so dont be surprised a phase 1 starts next time a big anchor pulls out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2588  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2019, 3:08 PM
MetroYVR MetroYVR is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 18
the land value of all of these parking lots will need to be unlocked somehow
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2589  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2019, 6:53 PM
Spr0ckets Spr0ckets is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
Curious what you think the Metrotown Mall property is worth, because I calculated that number using the allowable density for residential, and to a lesser extent, commercial.
I'm not really sure what the point in this would be - so no, I don't really have number in mind for this.
I took your $5 Billion number as fairly reasonable given how much gross revenue the site currently generates for the mall owners.

Besides which, I'm likewise uncertain as to how reliable it would be to calculate the property value based on an allowable density number for a Usage that the property is most certainly not (currently) zoned for.

Any residential project applying to be built anywhere on the mall site would have to apply for rezoning to get either mixed use or high density residential zoning, which would change the property value assessment.
For obvious reasons.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2590  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2019, 9:30 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 3,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
Curious what you think the Metrotown Mall property is worth, because I calculated that number using the allowable density for residential, and to a lesser extent, commercial.
Sprockets makes complete sense. Contrary to City Hall logic, property value is calculated as what the land is worth now, NOT what it could be worth.

Metrotown's existing value comes from being one of the highest-performing malls in the country; being unproven, replacing it with a Mall 2.0 would remove that value until it and its new towers recouped that performance (if ever, having spent a decade or two under construction and losing customers). Can't blame IC for playing it safe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2591  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2019, 11:00 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 5,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Which WILL be gone sometime in the future, perhaps as early as next year. Bad analogy.
I'd be sure to revisit what you just said next year. Perhaps we can all have good laugh at it then.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2592  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2019, 11:33 PM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 4,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Sprockets makes complete sense. Contrary to City Hall logic, property value is calculated as what the land is worth now, NOT what it could be worth.

Metrotown's existing value comes from being one of the highest-performing malls in the country; being unproven, replacing it with a Mall 2.0 would remove that value until it and its new towers recouped that performance (if ever, having spent a decade or two under construction and losing customers). Can't blame IC for playing it safe.
Why do you think those old walk-ups in Metrotown are worth so much money? Or why houses along Cambie were going for twice their normal value? All of Metrotown Mall could burn to the ground (wishful thinking), and the land would still be worth billions of dollars because of what you can build on it. Developers bought Oakridge so they could redevelop it. If all the value of the Oakridge Mall property was in the mall itself, why in the world would they tear it down?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2593  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2019, 2:31 AM
Spr0ckets Spr0ckets is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
Why do you think those old walk-ups in Metrotown are worth so much money? Or why houses along Cambie were going for twice their normal value? All of Metrotown Mall could burn to the ground (wishful thinking), and the land would still be worth billions of dollars because of what you can build on it. Developers bought Oakridge so they could redevelop it. If all the value of the Oakridge Mall property was in the mall itself, why in the world would they tear it down?
The answer to your question lies in the question itself.

Those walkups are worth more than their actual value - or the realistic market value - because of their proximity to the mall - which, artificially accentuates and amplifies the value of virtually all property sitting around it just because of that proximity.

And yes, the Mall could burn down and the land would still be worth billions of dollars, but that's because of how Real Estate property values work, and not because of what you're assuming.

Land property values very rarely ever depreciates even when the influencing factor or object that artificially appreciated their value gets taken out of the picture. It's why Real Estate is one of the best ways and best places to invest one's money (aside from gold). It almost never loses value and it typically takes catastrophic-level type events to make depreciation happen - things like wars or Chemical spills that take years to clean up, geological disasters that make construction unstable and untenable, or things of that level or nature.

Consider the fact that even a world-shaking event like 9/11 and the Twin Tower destruction didn't put a dent in the high property value potential of land in Manhattan Island in the area around where the towers used to stand any more than it even dissuaded developers from building tall towers or tall high-end residential towers in that vicinity where property values in the ensuing almost 20 years since have only continued to rise and climb steadily and remain among the highest in the United States.

And they're not tearing down Oakridge mall.
They are redeveloping it part by part in a phased development which will still leave it functional partially as this is going on.
Of course it's risk and a bet that they're making in that they WILL lose some customers and foot traffic during this time. But the bet is that the redevelopment will bring in even more customers once it's complete.

But the thing to note, not just about Oakridge but all those other malls being redeveloped that you or someone else brought up, is that mall-owners don't redevelop their malls unless they see their foot traffic and visitorship beginning to drop and their tenants struggling for business.
I can certainly say for a fact that Lougheed Mall and Brentwood most definitely, both fell in this category before the plans for Lougheed City or Amazing Brentwood were ever unveiled.

And the easiest way to tell is just to visit the mall and see how many stores are closed down and boarded up due to lack of business.
Metrotown has never suffered from this problem - at least not in the last 20 years.
Even when they had large anchor tenant spaces vacant like the old Zellers now occupied by Walmart, the rest of the mall still had a vibrant and healthy enough level of foot traffic and business to enable IC to wait it out until a suitable anchor tenant came along.

I don't know for a fact or for comparison how Oakridge was performing in terms of their foot traffic (aside from that RCC survey and ranking that showed healthy enough revenue to rank third in Canada), but for me just the fact that IC preferred to sell them off to someone else who would redevelop rather than find a development partner themselves (something that even Sears did with their dying kicks before eventually selling off completely to Concord Pacific at Metrotown) should speak volumes as to what they were seeing in projections regarding whether the investment and hassle was worth it for them.

Developers can afford to wait out poor and anemic performance in mall properties they own while building out their developments on said mall properties.
Mall owners can't. They operate on a different scale of economics.
And consider the fact that Ivanhoe Cambridge are the biggest mall owners in all of Canada and among the biggest in all of North America.
I'm just saying.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2594  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2019, 4:19 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 3,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spr0ckets View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
Why do you think those old walk-ups in Metrotown are worth so much money? Or why houses along Cambie were going for twice their normal value? All of Metrotown Mall could burn to the ground (wishful thinking), and the land would still be worth billions of dollars because of what you can build on it. Developers bought Oakridge so they could redevelop it. If all the value of the Oakridge Mall property was in the mall itself, why in the world would they tear it down?
(very well thought out and 101% correct explanation)
In addition, Oakridge and Cambie had other factors going for them: the newly-built Canada Line boosting value, the Cambie Corridor Plan mass-rezone permitting much more density, and a metro-wide real estate megaboom that showed no signs of stopping (same reason why every run-down SFH in the middle of nowhere is now worth a cool million). All of which prompted every resident to sell - and every developer to buy - which obviously drives prices up too.

Now that the market's cooled down, there's a chunk of people that think Oakridge's new owners may now be holding a white elephant.

Why don't Brentwood, Edmonds and Lougheed have the same land value as Metrotown? Because unlike them, it's doing well, and it's raising the value of everything around it - people want to live near a successful mall, no matter what the build form is. Close it for a few years, you're going to lose shoppers that might come back, in exchange for residents that might want to live near a mall that's now in decline. Better to play it safe and build towers on the parking lots instead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2595  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2019, 4:29 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 3,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
I'd be sure to revisit what you just said next year. Perhaps we can all have good laugh at it then.
"As early as next year" - whether or not you like it, even after Vision gone, City Hall is working on a demolition plan. That's a fact.

Trying to make me (for some reason) or the bureaucracy commit to a specific date and then going "Gotcha! SEE? The viaducts are here to stay forever!!! " is more than a little asinine.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2596  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2019, 4:37 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is online now
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,127
Be very careful before using Oakridge as an example of a successful redevelopment.... Wait a few years and then ask Quadreal about it. Think they'll understand completely why the previous owners sold.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2597  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2019, 10:49 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 29,073
Bordeaux

By City of Rain Aug 18th:

Quote:
Originally Posted by City Of Rain, post: 1478179, member: 70034
IMG_5297 by Hung Lam, on Flickr
IMG_5301 by Hung Lam, on Flickr
IMG_5302 by Hung Lam, on Flickr
IMG_5303 by Hung Lam, on Flickr
IMG_5308 by Hung Lam, on Flickr
IMG_5310 by Hung Lam, on Flickr
IMG_5312 by Hung Lam, on Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2598  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2019, 5:55 PM
Spr0ckets Spr0ckets is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 594
Aoyuan Brentwood Master Plan - 'The Grove'

The Grove

An update for a project that had once been posted here way back before (it was in a very preliminary schematic stage then). They've been revisions and updates for the rezoning application.

Posted over at Vancouvermarket site, and it's an application for a 5 tower, phased project for the lot just south of the Carter site in Brentwood, at the corner of Willingdon and Dawson and by Aoyuan developers.










Project page source:-

http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2019/0...-2-million-sf/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2599  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2019, 8:15 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 29,073
Thanks!

I hadn't realized the north bordering street is Dawson
- so there will be retail on that edge (the above rendering) - a good thing.
Looks like retail with 2 floors of office above.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2600  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2019, 8:15 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toroncouver
Posts: 11,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spr0ckets View Post
I'm not really sure what the point in this would be - so no, I don't really have number in mind for this.
I took your $5 Billion number as fairly reasonable given how much gross revenue the site currently generates for the mall owners.

Besides which, I'm likewise uncertain as to how reliable it would be to calculate the property value based on an allowable density number for a Usage that the property is most certainly not (currently) zoned for.

Any residential project applying to be built anywhere on the mall site would have to apply for rezoning to get either mixed use or high density residential zoning, which would change the property value assessment.
For obvious reasons.
Careful using sales as a proxy for revenue to the landlords. Your above assessment of Oakridge being a less valuable asset than metrowtown is correct, however revenue of those sales go to the tenants, landlords only get rent,a additionals, and possibly a small percentage of sales in the form of percentage rent. Another important point is $1,080 is the CRU sales per square foot, and does not include LNM or anchor tenants, so you need to multiply the $1,080 by a much smaller number than 1.78m square feet.

My guess on a valuation of the existing asset would be $4.25 billion based off a 3.75% cap... but that's a swing in the dark since there are so many unknowns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Metro Vancouver & the Fraser Valley
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:38 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.