[Burnaby] The Amazing Brentwood | 15 Towers | 186m | 56 flrs | U/C & Proposed

[NewfBC]

The Sporting Life space is 44k sq ft. They must be reciving a sweetheart deal to stay there. I can't imagine the store has ever been profitable. I bet when they signed the lease there they were given the impression that TAB would be similar to Yorkdale. LOL

If they were to shut that one and wanted to stay in Vancouver.. a store in part of the Nordstrom space would be ideal.

Ron.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by VarBreStr18

TAB is still an up and coming mall, still at a stage of development. Phase one is doing really well, the plaza by the fountain is full of life when the weather is nice. It really has a sense of community to see people dancing and singing , or even simply relaxing having coffee and visiting . No other similar condo project has this kind of vive. The Mills is just a sprawling shopping mall out of reach of most people, has no character as a community.
Having said that TAB really need to rethink their mix of retailers, some retailers are destined to fail such as Basil box or that Sherbet/ice cream place at the corner. This may be good news in disguise though. St Germaine bakery
would be an ideal replacement in the Basil Box location, TAB is truly in need of a proper cake shop instead of 5 coffee shops as a temporary fix. Get rid of the high end retailers that does nothing to draw middle class people, make this a great master planned community for real people to love and enjoy.

It's pretty disjointed today with too much outdoor space for our climate. It was fun to see NFL football on the big screen when I was there a month or so ago, but not comfortable enough to hang around.

Pay parking is a non-starter too.

[WarrenC12]

When Oakridge "re-opens" I imagine the high end mall retailers will just go there instead.

[Redtruck]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

It would cost so much to stick a grocery in that unit, I seriously doubt that is in the cards. Probably makes more sense in a new CRU that is designed with the requirements of a grocery store.

I doubt sporting life will close. I was in there on Saturday and it was super busy... In my opinion its a good store better than Sportscheck and perfect for the location. Once more people start finding out about it and the population is only going to increase with all the new developments coming online, so I can see it doing quite well.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by VarBreStr18

Your are jumping to assumption yourself. Never come across my mind renters are lesser people. I was a renter myself for a long time. Moreover earning power of renters has no correlation to being responsible renter what so ever. However renters are transient with turn over of 1 to 3 years generally, they have no pride of ownership or sense of commitment to the place they rent. All they care is a decent convenient place to live close to transit and daily necessities of living. Does not matter one bit where they rent, being in the periphery TAB is not like they are living out in the never land. Don't jump all over and be over protective . Putting them in the prime space is depriving people who truly want to make TAB their home. True there are strata owners who rent out their home , usually due to personal situations. Definitely not 350 strata units all for rent at one time. Besides more and more people find it not financially profitable to rent out their luxury units. Gone are the days of buying a condo to make a quick appreciation profit. Need to encourage people to buy and live in TAB for the long term survival of this mega project.

I think those numbers you're estimating and working with are out of step with reality, as others after you have clearly pointed out.

You're already living among more renters than you realize.

And it's not about "financial profitability" nowadays with the housing and affordability situation being what it is today - certainly not for the renters and increasingly so even for the people who own the units that are renting them out.

Also this notion you have that people renting will feel less a sense of commitment to the place they rent - even while you consider the fact that for the time they're living there and renting there, it is their home, for all intents and purposes - I think that that just speaks for itself.

If TAB needs more people to buy (over having more renters or renters living there at all, and who STILL contribute to the retail and commercial components of it, by spending there) for its long term survival, then perhaps it was never that viable a project to begin with.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Redtruck

I doubt sporting life will close. I was in there on Saturday and it was super busy... In my opinion its a good store better than Sportscheck and perfect for the location. Once more people start finding out about it and the population is only going to increase with all the new developments coming online, so I can see it doing quite well.

Good to hear.

[Klazu]

Did the dead tree in the middle of the fountain ever get replaced or did they manage to revive it? I have to say that I have not been to TAB in a year, so I have no clue. Pay parking is a big deterrent to visit for fun.

I was however at Tsawwassen Mills on Sunday and the parking lot was busier than ever. I only visited one of the restaurants, so didn't check how crazy it was inside, but the mall seems to do fine.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Did the dead tree in the middle of the fountain ever get replaced or did they manage to revive it? I have to say that I have not been to TAB in a year, so I have no clue. Pay parking is a big deterrent to visit for fun.

I was however at Tsawwassen Mills on Sunday and the parking lot was busier than ever. I only visited one of the restaurants, so didn't check how crazy it was inside, but the mall seems to do fine.

Looks like it was replaced.. TAB still has free parking over by the London Drugs.

[VarBreStr18]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

It's pretty disjointed today with too much outdoor space for our climate. It was fun to see NFL football on the big screen when I was there a month or so ago, but not comfortable enough to hang around.

Pay parking is a non-starter too.

A mall can be a mix of outdoor and indoor space. If I were the developer, I would build residential towers on top of the old mall space and make the old mall one connected podium for all 4 towers, this provides indoor plaza for the winter, may be even indoor play area for youngsters. A mall has to be livable space for summer and winter. Just because the initial plan was suppose to an all outdoor mall does not mean it cannot to changed to a mixed outdoor and indoor space so that more shoppers are happy.

[VarBreStr18]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Do you think the move to a food and beverage focus is viable, or something that needs to be worked through over time to see if it will work?

It would be a shame if London Drugs left for another location (if there's no replacement space in the redevelopment).

If Sporting Life closes, it would be a prime big box for a large supermarket like CityMarket or TandT (is there a Loblaws presence nearby?) or Winners/Homesense.

People needs to eat and wants to eat too. Food and beverage focus always viable, just take a look at Crystal mall which is a mix of eateries and grocery , and is always busy. Food always draws people be it restaurant or supermarket. There are too many sports retails in TAB already, and I lost count of how many salons. A bakery shop such as St Germaine is the best replacement for the Japanese pancake venue which closed.

[Klazu]

Crystal Mall also thrives thanks to the cash-only business all stores there do, which I am sure helps "alleviate" the amount of tax many stores pay. I would love to see some investigative reporting on it...

On the topic of why outdoor malls are not a great idea, besides snow and rain in winter, also the smoke season in summer is expanding, making being outdoors less enjoyable or even healthy. Indoors is definitely the way to go.

[VarBreStr18]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Crystal Mall also thrives thanks to the cash-only business all stores there do, which I am sure helps "alleviate" the amount of tax many stores pay. I would love to see some investigative reporting on it...

On the topic of why outdoor malls are not a great idea, besides snow and rain in winter, also the smoke season in summer is expanding, making being outdoors less enjoyable or even healthy. Indoors is definitely the way to go.

Exactly why there should be a mix of both outdoor and indoor. On a nice day you cant beat the liveliness of an outdoor concert with people dancing and singing, cant possibly do it with only indoor like Metrotown. Btw the fountain outdoor plaza in Brentwood is especially blessed with shade in the afternoon well into sunset, also surrounded by restaurants with outdoor patio. I find it warm and inviting. There also need to be indoor plaza in the winter, hence an enclosed podium in the old part of mall with condos on top would make excellent living environment . with children play area similar to the children playground in Lougheed town center.

[VarBreStr18]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Crystal Mall also thrives thanks to the cash-only business all stores there do, which I am sure helps "alleviate" the amount of tax many stores pay. I would love to see some investigative reporting on it...

On the topic of why outdoor malls are not a great idea, besides snow and rain in winter, also the smoke season in summer is expanding, making being outdoors less enjoyable or even healthy. Indoors is definitely the way to go.

Very easy to do with investigators posing as customers.

[VarBreStr18]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

I think those numbers you're estimating and working with are out of step with reality, as others after you have clearly pointed out.

You're already living among more renters than you realize.

And it's not about "financial profitability" nowadays with the housing and affordability situation being what it is today - certainly not for the renters and increasingly so even for the people who own the units that are renting them out.

Also this notion you have that people renting will feel less a sense of commitment to the place they rent - even while you consider the fact that for the time they're living there and renting there, it is their home, for all intents and purposes - I think that that just speaks for itself.

If TAB needs more people to buy (over having more renters or renters living there at all, and who STILL contribute to the retail and commercial components of it, by spending there) for its long term survival, then perhaps it was never that viable a project to begin with.

Concord Brentwood, SoLo , Gilmore Place do not have rental only tower and they do very well. So the argument that a strictly only rental tower does not stand. Unless Shape having problem selling T6 which is sad and therefore has to make the next tower rental .

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by VarBreStr18

Concord Brentwood, SoLo , Gilmore Place do not have rental only tower and they do very well. So the argument that a strictly only rental tower does not stand. Unless Shape having problem selling T6 which is sad and therefore has to make the next tower rental .

SoLo was approved in 2006, before Burnaby's Rental Use Zoning Policy had been introduced. Concord Brentwood will have a 27 storey non-market rental tower. Gilmore Place will have a rental tower (with 20% affordable units) and it has to be approved and a construction contract in place before any of the Phase 2 strata buildings can receive an occupancy permit. Concord Metrotown has a rental tower, and non-market rental in the podiums of three of the towers.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by VarBreStr18

Concord Brentwood, SoLo , Gilmore Place do not have rental only tower and they do very well. So the argument that a strictly only rental tower does not stand. Unless Shape having problem selling T6 which is sad and therefore has to make the next tower rental .

I never made that argument (having a strictly rental only tower).

My only point was that having rental towers in a development - even in the "prime" locations you feel should be reserved for the strata towers, does not insinuate a lowering of the quality of the overall development, any more than having renters living in these developments - as opposed to owners - means a less than optimal situation for either the developer or the other residents.

At the end of the day, despite the lack of rental (only) towers in those developments you listed above there, you STILL have renters living in some of the units in them rented out by owners who have them as "investments" or otherwise.

And chances are they don't "feel any less a sense of commitment to the place they rent, and live in (and call their homes) than their unit-owning neighbours.
They spend money in the retail components of those developments that have them or will have them - which in turn helps in the long-term viability of those developments - certainly more than having units owned by home owners but which for the most part sit empty for most of the year.

EDIT : I see Changing City corrected your erronous claim that none of those developments had rental only towers (with the exception of Solo District which was approved before the Rental Use Zoning policy.

So yeah, you're looking at living with or among renters in virtually any major development around the major town and city centers with the new housing zoning policies in place, and good luck trying to dictate to any developer where they should dump their rental only tower in their site or where they should confine the renters in the towers that have rental components.

[VarBreStr18]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

I never made that argument (having a strictly rental only tower).

My only point was that having rental towers in a development - even in the "prime" locations you feel should be reserved for the strata towers, does not insinuate a lowering of the quality of the overall development, any more than having renters living in these developments - as opposed to owners - means a less than optimal situation for either the developer or the other residents.

At the end of the day, despite the lack of rental (only) towers in those developments you listed above there, you STILL have renters living in some of the units in them rented out by owners who have them as "investments" or otherwise.

And chances are they don't "feel any less a sense of commitment to the place they rent, and live in (and call their homes) than their unit-owning neighbours.
They spend money in the retail components of those developments that have them or will have them - which in turn helps in the long-term viability of those developments - certainly more than having units owned by home owners but which for the most part sit empty for most of the year.

It is a fact that this T7 rental tower displaces people who want to invest in TAB as their home. Potential buyers will have to wait for the next tower which will be 5+ years after T7, besides T4 which is east of T3 was slated to be a all rental tower already. Why not develop T4 instead by increasing its height, SE view of T4 already blocked by Concord Brentwood anyway. Like I said renters do not give a damn about partial view . Btw last time I check T7 was suppose to be 55 level max, now developer increases its height to 56 which is not fair to T2 and T3 towers who bought thinking the towers in front only 55 level. T1 is on the periphery of TAB , same with T4 which is in the south east periphery, I dont see what is so unfair to renters by not being right in the core of TAB.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by VarBreStr18

It is a fact that this T7 rental tower displaces people who want to invest in TAB as their home. Potential buyers will have to wait for the next tower which will be 5+ years after T7, besides T4 which is east of T3 was slated to be a all rental tower already. Why not develop T4 instead by increasing its height, SE view of T4 already blocked by Concord Brentwood anyway. Like I said renters do not give a damn about partial view . Btw last time I check T7 was suppose to be 55 level max, now developer increases its height to 56 which is not fair to T2 and T3 towers who bought thinking the towers in front only 55 level. T1 is on the periphery of TAB , same with T4 which is in the south east periphery, I dont see what is so unfair to renters by not being right in the core of TAB.

No, it is not a "fact" that T7 is displacing anything at all because logically speaking, you can't displace something that doesn't exist (...yet), and you yourself don't know for a fact that Shape's plans for the site involved anything other than a rental tower for that spot. You don't know what numbers they're looking at with regards to the health of the condo market versus the viability of a rental tower in that spot that would make them change their plans if they had decided any differently prior.
You simply don't know anything beyond what they put out there publicly.


So no.
Not a "fact".
Just pure speculation on your part.

Secondly how is it unfair to people who've already made their decision as to where they want to live in, are (presumably) comfortable with that decision regardless of what's coming after?

That would be like me complaining that someone went and got a latest model iPhone than mine, at a better price than I got my more expensive and less featured version for, and that it's totally "unfair" for Apple to do that to me and not release their better version earlier when I bought mine, or for them not to release a less feature-filled model for the person getting to pay less than I did.


If they wanted to live in taller towers and knew that taller towers where coming down the pike, then they could have just waited.
Alternatively buy a unit in Gilmore Place down the road and live in the tallest tower (.....or a while), if it's that important to them.

Furthermore, if they had delusionally bought thinking that their views would never be blocked and never anticipated a taller tower being built that would block views they coveted,.......well,.....welcome to the world of buying condo units in an dense or semi-dense urban or suburban area.
Your view is only as good as the time you're buying the unit, and it would be foolish to expect that nothing will ever be built to block it.

That's why waterfront properties sell for such a premium.

Your arguments honestly don't make much sense.

[VarBreStr18]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

No, it is not a "fact" that T7 is displacing anything at all because logically speaking, you can't displace something that doesn't exist (...yet), and you yourself don't know for a fact that Shape's plans for the site involved anything other than a rental tower for that spot. You don't know what numbers they're looking at with regards to the health of the condo market versus the viability of a rental tower in that spot that would make them change their plans if they had decided any differently prior.
You simply don't know anything beyond what they put out there publicly.


So no.
Not a "fact".
Just pure speculation on your part.

Secondly how is it unfair to people who've already made their decision as to where they want to live in, are (presumably) comfortable with that decision regardless of what's coming after?

That would be like me complaining that someone went and got a latest model iPhone than mine, at a better price than I got my more expensive and less featured version for, and that it's totally "unfair" for Apple to do that to me and not release their better version earlier when I bought mine, or for them not to release a less feature-filled model for the person getting to pay less than I did.


If they wanted to live in taller towers and knew that taller towers where coming down the pike, then they could have just waited.
Alternatively buy a unit in Gilmore Place down the road and live in the tallest tower (.....or a while), if it's that important to them.

Furthermore, if they had delusionally bought thinking that their views would never be blocked and never anticipated a taller tower being built that would block views they coveted,.......well,.....welcome to the world of buying condo units in an dense or semi-dense urban or suburban area.
Your view is only as good as the time you're buying the unit, and it would be foolish to expect that nothing will ever be built to block it.

That's why waterfront properties sell for such a premium.

Your arguments honestly don't make much sense.

Why is it not a "fact"? Do you even understand what is time line? If Mr Smith moves in from out of country and wants to buy in TAB, none available because of rental only tower, Mr Smith has to either look elsewhere or wait for something available . I don't even know what is your point of playing with words to suit your narrative.
Shape did put out a master plan model about height distribution of towers with the idea of sloping towards SFH to the north. Unless Shape sold out to another developer, I hope they would adhere to their master plan.

[madog222]

Mr. Smith from out of country can’t buy anything. On the other hand Mr. Smith would be more than welcome to rent at T7.

As for saying rental housing displaces people, that is just completely laughable. You need to get your head out of your ass.