[Burnaby] Metropolis at Metrotown Redevelopment (Downtown Burnaby)

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

But it's the convenience that's offered by having those other stores and outlets in the same place that draws people there rather than have to make the trips all over the place.
(and the fact that it's accessibly directly from Transit, ....obviously).

That's it in a nutshell (for malls) - convenience.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Snow_Wolf

I just have to disagree here. No other mall in the Lower Mainland really compares to it, in my opinion. I don't think I'm alone in thinking this either because every time I visit Metrotown it's completely full.

Which makes the comment right before yours even more confusing.

At a time when malls are supposed to be struggling, it continues to confound just how successfull Metrotown mall keeps being with all the foot traffic and packed crowds you'll find there on evenings and weekends, and the notion that Brentwood's rebuild has in anyway put a dent in that perception is laughable at its face.

Maybe one day The Amazing Brentwood will put Metrotown to shame as a mall and shopping destination when the development is fully built out and the old mall is redeveloped, but as of today, even without that renovation some think it needs, it's a joke to even suggest they're in the same league.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by officedweller

That's it in a nutshell (for malls) - convenience.

And that's what this redevelopment is largely going to destroy if they carry it out as is, which is why I continue to believe it will never get fully built out the way it's been proposed in these plans.

They'll change those plans a thousand ways from Tuesday (as happens with most developments) before they get to the major "break up" phases, a lot of numbers will be run by the bean-counters, and you'll end up with a finished product (or a build-out) that looks nothing like this.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Also, why would they be trying to replicate Pacific Centre?
Pacific Center succeeds precisely because it is a shopping center in the middle of a downtown.
Metroplace is, and always will be a mall in the suburbs.

Two totally different contexts.

The City of Burnaby wants to change that context - they want to create more of a downtown atmosphere, and they are well on their way to doing that as Metrotown will have a population density comparable to downtown Vancouver. It's already quite unique among suburbs, given its population density.

Pacific Centre has all of the stores and convenience Metrotown has, minus the huge parking lots that have a huge negative effect on the urban realm, Metrotown has no street life, so why not try to replicate Pacific Centre and downtown Vancouver. That's what Burnaby wants to do, and so does Ivanhoe Cambridge, and I'm with them on this.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by logan5

The City of Burnaby wants to change that context - they want to create more of a downtown atmosphere, and they are well on their way to doing that as Metrotown will have a population density comparable to downtown Vancouver. It's already quite unique among suburbs, given its population density.

Pacific Centre has all of the stores and convenience Metrotown has, minus the huge parking lots that have a huge negative effect on the urban realm, Metrotown has no street life, so why not try to replicate Pacific Centre and downtown Vancouver. That's what Burnaby wants to do, and so does Ivanhoe Cambridge, and I'm with them on this.

You're forgetting the one difference I pointed out between Downtown Vancouver and the presumed Downtown Metrotown and the one thing that the former has that the latter likely will never have that contributes to why Downtown (Vancouver) is the way it is and how it plays into Pacific Center's success. It's not just about population density, but rather what that kind of demographic that density implies.

You're not going to replicate Pacific Center's success or downtown Vancouver's atmosphere without that vital ingredient that most other places in the GVA simply can't generate, as they're not the employment center that Downtown Vancouver is.

Metrotown's success as a mall isn't built around that kind of demographic of shopper and visitor, but rather its ability to attract shoppers from the wider region.

This plan in large parts destroys that advantage by taking away some of the large reasons why those shoppers come to visit it from far and wide.

Downtown Vancouver doesn't have to work as hard to attract that kind of foot traffic to its shopping centers (and that's a large reason why leasing and rental costs for retailers are so high there).
People come there to work anyway.
Does the city of Burnaby's plan have a way of increasing the employment spaces and office spaces in Burnaby's downtown core?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah, that aligns with what I was thinking. If mass market retail (if clothing stores, etc.) can't survive under downtown office towers, I doubt they'll be able to survive under residential towers. That plays out in downtown south in Vancouver with retail spaces occupied by hairdressers, nail salons, spas, and dentists.

Overall, I think that the calibre of retailers would drop, but key to that is whether Ivanhoe Cambridge retains the retail spaces or sells them off over time to others (like One Bloor East's podium was sold to First Capital). If that's the case, you won't have the coordinated mix of tenants you see in a conventional mall. Anthem seems to have coordinated Station Square well, but those are mostly restaurants. How is the old retail plaza at the back doing (as an example of a smaller cluster of retail stores albeit with some anchors)?

I would assume there's likely to be two kinds of retail created with the redevelopment. There's everyday stores underneath the new residential blocks (T&T, Superstore, Shoppers Drug Mart, the dental and medical offices that are now in the mall, the banks and insurance brokers, the dollar store, the opticians. The usual 'high street' stores you find under residential towers on Granville or Robson. Maybe there could be a Winners, and/or a Homesense, and a Wholefoods. Those don't need to be in the mall, but would benefit from being mall-adjacent.

Then there's the mall which I assume fits between Connection Way, Kingsborough, Sussex and McMurray. That's a 350,000 sq ft footprint, so two, or even three floors (if malls are still viable at that scale when this all happens) could easily have the same floorspace for clothing, lifestyle and similar stores, with a Food Hall (and/or a food court).

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Which makes the comment right before yours even more confusing.

At a time when malls are supposed to be struggling, it continues to confound just how successfull Metrotown mall keeps being with all the foot traffic and packed crowds you'll find there on evenings and weekends, and the notion that Brentwood's rebuild has in anyway put a dent in that perception is laughable at its face.

Maybe one day The Amazing Brentwood will put Metrotown to shame as a mall and shopping destination when the development is fully built out and the old mall is redeveloped, but as of today, even without that renovation some think it needs, it's a joke to even suggest they're in the same league.

Except for the luxury component that they dreamed about I don't remember reading about Amazing Brentwood trying to put Metrotown out of business.

Metrotown simply has a better location than Brentwood in terms of a customer base.

But they're betting on redevelopment for the density on top of the existing mall. No one is saying Metrotown as it stands isn't a successful regional mall.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

You're forgetting the one difference I pointed out between Downtown Vancouver and the presumed Downtown Metrotown and the one thing that the former has that the latter likely will never have that contributes to why Downtown (Vancouver) is the way it is and how it plays into Pacific Center's success. It's not just about population density, but rather what that kind of demographic that density implies.

You're not going to replicate Pacific Center's success or downtown Vancouver's atmosphere without that vital ingredient that most other places in the GVA simply can't generate, as they're not the employment center that Downtown Vancouver is.

Metrotown's success as a mall isn't built around that kind of demographic of shopper and visitor, but rather its ability to attract shoppers from the wider region.

This plan in large parts destroys that advantage by taking away some of the large reasons why those shoppers come to visit it from far and wide.

Downtown Vancouver doesn't have to work as hard to attract that kind of foot traffic to its shopping centers (and that's a large reason why leasing and rental costs for retailers are so high there).
People come there to work anyway.
Does the city of Burnaby's plan have a way of increasing the employment spaces and office spaces in Burnaby's downtown core?

We'll get a good preview of how a retail set up like this would work. While Oakridge is not exactly the same, it should give us a pretty good idea of how a future Metrotown will look and perform.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by logan5

We'll get a good preview of how a retail set up like this would work. While Oakridge is not exactly the same, it should give us a pretty good idea of how a future Metrotown will look and perform.

That's a terrible example to compare to.

Oakridge is nothing like this plan is proposing.

The revamped Oakridge mall will mostly be an update and a refurbishment of what was there before but with the added residential and office towers and public park on top.
They're not breaking up the mall and adding street grids and vehicular accesss through the main mall mass like they're they're doing at Metrotown.

The shopping experience for a mall shopper will mostly be like it was before and like it currently is at Metrotown - which is, under an enlosed largely climate-controlled environment.


Why do you think they stuck to that model instead of exploring this new "breaking up the mall completely to introduce street grids" approach that Ivanhoe are pursuing?

It's not going to give a good idea of what this is going to be like.
At all.
Not even close.

It's also a terrible comparison for the added obvious difference that Oakridge sits on a much smaller overall footprint than the Metrotown mall does.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

That's a terrible example to compare to.

Oakridge is nothing like this plan is proposing.

The revamped Oakridge mall will mostly be an update and a refurbishment of what was there before but with the added residential and office towers and public park on top.
They're not breaking up the mall and adding street grids and vehicular accesss through the main mall mass like they're they're doing at Metrotown.

The shopping experience for a mall shopper will mostly be like it was before and like it currently is at Metrotown - which is, under an enlosed largely climate-controlled environment.


Why do you think they stuck to that model instead of exploring this new "breaking up the mall completely to introduce street grids" approach that Ivanhoe are pursuing?

It's not going to give a good idea of what this is going to be like.
At all.
Not even close.

It's also a terrible comparison for the added obvious difference that Oakridge sits on a much smaller overall footprint than the Metrotown mall does.

What would be your comparable?

Metrotown will still have an enclosed mall, unless I read the plan wrong.

There are some basic elements that are similar and that you eluded to, like the lack of office workers. Oakridge will be almost exclusively residential. The Provincially legislated Skytrain development area, plus the Oakridge wider area plan makes Oakridge Municipal Centre about the same size and population density as Metrotown (2 sq km's), and you have a towers on top of a mall. Comparable imo.

Anyways, it's so early in the process (for Metrotown), there is plenty of time to make design changes. Things that work for Oakridge could be incorporated into Metrotown. I'm certain the developers of Metrotown will pay attention to things that work in other developments that incorporate shopping malls. Richmond Centre is another (smaller) example.

[Metro-One]

As I have said countless times, the wise compromise would be to have the enclosed mall span several podium blocks, connected by second level walkways. You could even do unique and interesting things like have the food court built between two of the podiums on such walkways. A direct second level walkway should also exist between the mall and Metrotown station. Keeping it a proposer destination mall for the region.

An underground mall is a bad idea that doesn't make any sense without underground transit hubs / stations.

As for street level, all the new residents would populate and sustain that realm.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by logan5

What would be your comparable?

Metrotown will still have an enclosed mall, unless I read the plan wrong.

There are some basic elements that are similar and that you eluded to, like the lack of office workers. Oakridge will be almost exclusively residential. The Provincially legislated Skytrain development area, plus the Oakridge wider area plan makes Oakridge Municipal Centre about the same size and population density as Metrotown (2 sq km's), and you have a towers on top of a mall. Comparable imo.

Anyways, it's so early in the process (for Metrotown), there is plenty of time to make design changes. Things that work for Oakridge could be incorporated into Metrotown. I'm certain the developers of Metrotown will pay attention to things that work in other developments that incorporate shopping malls. Richmond Centre is another (smaller) example.

There isn't a comparison in the GVA that fits that mold and would allow for a 1-to-1 comparison (or even less).

I can't think of an example of an indoor mall that was broken up and converted to exterior/street-facing retail spaces insterspersed by a vehicular street grid. At least not in Western Canada. I could be wrong.

The closest examples I can think of in terms of what they're trying to achieve and convert it to, all exist mostly in Southern California.

Why they keep trying to replicate Californian models of (...in this case) open exterior retail experience, along with residential and urban planning models - all while missing the big massive difference that exists between the two areas that make those models work there and fail here - is beyond me.

Also, let's not forget that Ivanhoe Cambridge used to own Oakridge mall and were the ones that first came up with the plans to redevelop it before they decided to sell off to Quadreal when they couldn't make the numbers work into the what they were trying to achieve.
To me that suggests that they are unlikely to be paying attention or taking any lessons as to what happens with that redevelopment, as Quadreal probably went a different direction than what they wanted to do with it when they owned it.
Perhaps Quadreal and Wesgroup make it work and turn it into a success once it's fully built out in a way that Ivanhoe can take lessons from, but where both respective groups started from with each mall and what they're respectively trying to achieve are so different that I don't see useful lessons being taken either way or useful comparisons being made.

Metrotown mall used to and continues to generate considerably more revenue per square foot than Oakridge ever did while welcoming more foot traffic per year than any but two or other malls (both in Ontario) in the whole of Canada. As the starting point.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

As I have said countless times, the wise compromise would be to have the enclosed mall span several podium blocks, connected by second level walkways. You could even do unique and interesting things like have the food court built between two of the podiums on such walkways. A direct second level walkway should also exist between the mall and Metrotown station. Keeping it a proposer destination mall for the region.

An underground mall is a bad idea that doesn't make any sense without underground transit hubs / stations.

As for street level, all the new residents would populate and sustain that realm.

I agree that some form of a hybrid plan that preserved the continuous indoor shopping experience and covered overhead shopper movement areas and corridors, while intergrating these street grids they want to intergrate to break it up below, would have been a good direction to go.

And to be fair it's still early days. Their proposal and masterplan could still change to adopt some of these kinds of ideas as they get feedback from all over and specifically people who visit the mall.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

I can't think of an example of an indoor mall that was broken up and converted to exterior/street-facing retail spaces insterspersed by a vehicular street grid. At least not in Western Canada. I could be wrong.

There's Arbutus Mall and (soon to be) Lansdowne... both of which were/are already on the ropes. You're right - completely replacing it with a street grid is usually a last resort for a struggling mall, not the first pick for the ninth most profitable in Canada.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

There's Arbutus Mall and (soon to be) Lansdowne... both of which were/are already on the ropes. You're right - completely replacing it with a street grid is usually a last resort for a struggling mall, not the first pick for the ninth most profitable in Canada.

But this debate is on multiple different levels. Urban form, density, economics of condo/rental towers.. The City of Burnaby pushed their street network and Ivanhoe obviously did the math and want to build towers.

Everyone can debate the form of the development but I doubt even with their reconfigured retail that Metrotown will suddenly become #50 on the profitable mall list. If anything their per square foot sales might go up than down.

And all the people that don't like mall crowds, rain, car/truck vehicle interaction are all on shopping online.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

There's Arbutus Mall and (soon to be) Lansdowne... both of which were/are already on the ropes. You're right - completely replacing it with a street grid is usually a last resort for a struggling mall, not the first pick for the ninth most profitable in Canada.

I think it also has a lot to do with the form of the build site and if they want to keep a functioning mall during the redevelopment process and how they are phasing it.

#20 is next?

The vision for Guildford Centre is a complete, high-density neighbourhood with a mix of uses that will draw both residents and visitors to its streets and public spaces. The Guildford Mall property will remain the focal point of the town centre. Through redevelopment, it will transform from an enclosed shopping centre to a mixed-use precinct with commercial activities re-oriented along public streets and plazas. A new pedestrian focused high street will provide an exciting, vibrant, and dynamic heart to the town centre and offer a multitude of retail, entertainment, and cultural opportunities. Residential towers, the tallest in the Plan Area, will be located above multi-level commercial podiums.

https://www.surrey.ca/sites/default/files/media/documents/GuildfordPlanFinal.pdf

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Snow_Wolf

I sincerely hope this development never happens. If they wanted to redevelop like with Oakridge where they keep the mall portion I'd be fine with it, but making everything outdoors in a city known for rain doesn't make much sense to me... Not to mention climate change making things like heat waves more common, our public indoor spaces are incredibly valuable.

There's already countless outdoor areas, and while Metro Vancouver has a few malls, I'd say Metrotown is the best of them. I do like mixed-use developments with street-level retail, but are there not still a thousand strip malls and barely used parking lots that could be redeveloped first?

I'm totally with you on that.

Originally Posted by libtard

What’s so good about Metrotown? Every other store front is out of business or a bootleg store I’ve never heard of. Reminds me of Landsdowne mall in Richmond

Just like someone alluded to before: total nonsense, and absolutely out of touch with reality.
Tell that to the tens of thousands who go there to shop every year, and the thousands of business owners and their employees making their living in this mall.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Maybe he's confusing Metrotown with Tinseltown?

Or the rundown suburban strip mall he goes to?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

I'm totally with you on that.



Just like someone alluded to before: total nonsense, and absolutely out of touch with reality.
Tell that to the tens of thousands who go there to shop every year, and the thousands of business owners and their employees making their living in this mall.

Like you, I have no idea how many business owners there are associated with the mall, but there are only 353 stores, banks, services and restaurants in the mall. And there's no reason why the majority shouldn't be able to operate at Metrotown once it has been redeveloped.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

But this debate is on multiple different levels. Urban form, density, economics of condo/rental towers.. The City of Burnaby pushed their street network and Ivanhoe obviously did the math and want to build towers.

Everyone can debate the form of the development but I doubt even with their reconfigured retail that Metrotown will suddenly become #50 on the profitable mall list. If anything their per square foot sales might go up than down.

And all the people that don't like mall crowds, rain, car/truck vehicle interaction are all on shopping online.

This is actually an important point.

Their overall gross revenue generated might potentially go down if they end up losing some retail tenants - either through the loss of leasable tenant space to exterior streets, or just tenants leaving during construction and not coming back.

However, their revenue generated per square foot is likely to go up since their overall effective square footage will go down from the breakup of the mall.

With the break up leading to some of the current mall square footage getting converted to public streets, their overall square footage (along with the assessed value and concommitant property tax assessed) might go down.
(initially,.....for the taxes)

For the square footage that remains however, it won't just be retail revenue generating square footage left behind, since those parcels will now have residential (...and presumably some office) towers atop the retail space so the overall revenue generating capacity of each parcel or remaining square footage will go up many times over depending on how much residential space they sell or rent out and how much office space they lease out, assuming they max out or at least optmize their assessed FSR's.

There's is a sliver of a world in which they end up with much less square footage of mall area but which generates upwards of 5 times more revenue for them.
But man if not all things have to break exactly right for this scenario to work out (no real estate market crash any time in the near future, the retail spaces that remain continue to generate revenue at a very healthy if not robust pace, they end up with a high-spending clutch of residents in those towers that are happy to frequently spend in those retail spaces below....etc), which is likely why they've stretched it and phased it out as long as they have.

It gives them more flexibility to change things on the fly as conditions on the ground shift and change.