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

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Redtruck

It was a huge mistake letting them change their plans and get rid of the indoor section of the mall. If I were on city council, I would not have allowed this. There needs to be more pushback, or time for new city planners that are not in bed with the developers. It is mind-blowingly dumb to think an outdoor mall will work in Vancouver’s climate. That being said, Isn’t Metrotown next on the chopping block?

Last I recall from one of the presentations they made of their overall plan at the mall, the actual breakup phases of the mall would happen farther down the road in the schedule timeline, with the initial phases focused more on starting the redevelopment on the surface parking lot that's fronting the Superstore and the one adjacent to the former Bay (probably now it would also include the Bay building portion itself as well, since that went bust).

While I believe part of the reason they did it this way was to give themselves flexibility in case they changed their minds or needed to tweak the masterplan, there are other countervailing issues that are likely forcing them to have to push breaking the mall apart farther back.
Like the length of the leases of some of the big anchor tenants that run all the way into the 2040's and 2050's.
Or the prevailing question of the Bus loop relocation (...or not) on the south side. ( I get the sense that Translink is not as opposed to relocating it now as they were a few years ago).

Or it could just be as simple as, they still want the mall as a steady revenue stream for as long as possible, while all the rest of the redevelopment around it is going on, until they absolutely have to break it apart.
This way they can also see how the other mall redevelopments (particularly the ones that have gone for the open air mall concept) shake out, and then make up their minds later on.

Remember the full build-out proposed timeline for this is in the 70-80 years (from start).
So even if they went ahead with it, they likely wouldn't complete until the literal start of the 22nd century.

Suffice it to say, a lot of us likely won't be around to see it when they do get to the stage to break up the mall if they decide to go full steam ahead, unless they change their masterplan schedule.

If I had to predict, I'd say they'll end up ditching the plan to fully break up the mall at some point down the road and instead opt for a drastic facelift makeover instead that retains majority of it under weather cover while reimagining how it currently functions.

Probably closer to the Oakridge model than the Amazing Brentwood approach.

[officedweller]

Note that the above is WRT Metrotown, not Brentwood.

[VarBreStr18]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Let that be a lesson to other prospective mall re-developers in the region.

The 'Open-air' mall concept simply doesn't work in this climate and locale.

There's only one Alberni and Robson streets respectively around these here parts, and you're not it.

The fact that it's this dead even in the summer with the weather as great as it is now, and when you'd expect people to want to be out and about says a lot about mall/retail culture and shopping habits here.

Down the road, you'll find the mall at Metrotown packed - with people going there to hang out and also if for no other reason, just to cool down in the mall A/C and get out from the hot weather.
Same case at Crystal Mall close by.

To be successful, there needs to be a mix of indoor and outdoor spaces. I have to say the outdoor plaza next to the fountain is very well utilized, it has the added benefit of well shaded in the afternoon. It draws crowd for a sense of community which I rarely see in other developments. A gathering place for watching soccer , dance or hanging around for coffee is just great. Even the covered plaza just outside of Sporting Life is great for rainy days. There definitely needs to have some indoor space as well, the old mall can be thoughtfully redeveloped , if Brentwood wants to live up to its name of being amazing.

[53064043]

Tim Hortons finally has their building permit for the 1920 Willingdon spot.

sharing the leasing brochure to give an idea of what rent looked like back when the Basil Box closed in 2024.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by 53064043

Tim Hortons finally has their building permit for the 1920 Willingdon spot.

sharing the leasing brochure to give an idea of what rent looked like back when the Basil Box closed in 2024.

Roughly $22k/mo if I'm reading that right? Impossible for a small business.

[53064043]

Originally Posted by mcj

Roughly $22k/mo if I'm reading that right? Impossible for a small business.

Not including labour, franchise royalties, supplies...

[djmk]

Originally Posted by mcj

Roughly $22k/mo if I'm reading that right? Impossible for a small business.

I would not call tim hortons a small business. I would not be surprised if this location can sell $1000 a day on just coffee alone

[kikin]

Originally Posted by 53064043

Tim Hortons finally has their building permit for the 1920 Willingdon spot.
....

people still go to Tim Hortons??

[mcj]

Originally Posted by djmk

I would not call tim hortons a small business. I would not be surprised if this location can sell $1000 a day on just coffee alone

Wasn't calling it that. Basil Box wasn't either, also a franchise. Just highlighting how impossible it is for anyone to start a business at new developments that isn't already a franchise (or someone without money to burn).

But yeah you'd need to be profiting nearly $1000 per day just to pay rent here, for what is really only space for a small restaurant.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by mcj

Wasn't calling it that. Basil Box wasn't either, also a franchise. Just highlighting how impossible it is for anyone to start a business at new developments that isn't already a franchise (or someone without money to burn).

But yeah you'd need to be profiting nearly $1000 per day just to pay rent here, for what is really only space for a small restaurant.

I think it can be hard to wrap one's head around business numbers, but that's really only 250 $3 coffees a day. Once you add in donuts and warm food, you might only be looking at no more than 150 customers throughout the day which, if this location is high traffic enough, might get spread out over 24 hours if they go 24 hour. That's only 6 customers an hour, with peaks at breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Other overhead probably isn't as much as rent, but let's say they need 8 customers an hour to be profitable. Does that sound so crazy?

[WarrenC12]

Rent is one of many expenses. There's a good reason these types of businesses have huge failure rates.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Rent is one of many expenses. There's a good reason these types of businesses have huge failure rates.

Does Timmies?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Does Timmies?

I don't know what their P/L looks like but your post is grossly oversimplifying running a business, even one that's relatively cookie cutter like Tim Hortons. You're talking about 9 customers an hour just to pay rent, nevermind anything else.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I think it can be hard to wrap one's head around business numbers, but that's really only 250 $3 coffees a day. Once you add in donuts and warm food, you might only be looking at no more than 150 customers throughout the day which, if this location is high traffic enough, might get spread out over 24 hours if they go 24 hour. That's only 6 customers an hour, with peaks at breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Other overhead probably isn't as much as rent, but let's say they need 8 customers an hour to be profitable. Does that sound so crazy?

Doesn't sound crazy when you do the math wrong (250*3 = 750) and you simplify all assumptions like assuming 100% profit on every item sold, sure.

An actual small business with no name recognition wouldn't be pulling in hundreds of people per day on day one either.

Also the "other overhead probably isn't as much as rent" is likely true, but you gotta admit from an economic perspective paying more in literal rent-seeking than you do in wages or production costs isn't a good thing.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by mcj

Doesn't sound crazy when you do the math wrong (250*3 = 750) and you simplify all assumptions like assuming 100% profit on every item sold, sure.

An actual small business with no name recognition wouldn't be pulling in hundreds of people per day on day one either.

Also the "other overhead probably isn't as much as rent" is likely true, but you gotta admit from an economic perspective paying more in literal rent-seeking than you do in wages or production costs isn't a good thing.

Someone else had the math wrong, $22000/30 is under $750 a day in rent not $1000. I don't take kindly to people calling my math wrong! And let's not pretend that coffee isn't close to 100% profit, the cost of a cup of coffee is the rent and labour, not the materials.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You're talking about 9 customers an hour just to pay rent, nevermind anything else.

6 to pay rent, probably around another 6 to cover labour costs and other overhead. Then profit. You all are acting as if the numbers don't make sense for these businesses, when they clearly do work.

EDIT: A little bit of internet research leads me to believe the average chain coffee shop in a high foot traffic area gets upwards of 500 customers a day or 21 customers an hour spread over 24 hours.

[teriyaki]

What is even being fought about here?
God forbid someone try to run a business profitably here in the city?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Someone else had the math wrong, $22000/30 is under $750 a day in rent not $1000. I don't take kindly to people calling my math wrong! And let's not pretend that coffee isn't close to 100% profit, the cost of a cup of coffee is the rent and labour, not the materials.

6 to pay rent, probably around another 6 to cover labour costs and other overhead. Then profit. You all are acting as if the numbers don't make sense for these businesses, when they clearly do work.

EDIT: A little bit of internet research leads me to believe the average chain coffee shop in a high foot traffic area gets upwards of 500 customers a day or 21 customers an hour spread over 24 hours.

So simplistic. Why are you on here when you could clearly be running an empire of coffee stores?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

So simplistic. Why are you on here when you could clearly be running an empire of coffee stores?

I've looked into it! My money is better put elsewhere. The math isn't all that complicated. Revenue minus labour minus supply costs minus rent and other overhead equals profit. If profit is positive then you're happy. If ROI is better than other options, you're really happy.

[kikin]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Does Timmies?

the one on Hornby was losing money for a long time and finally closed its doors

was sad because a decade ago it was 24 hours then they cut back to 12 hours then cut back to closing earlier and earlier and then closed completely

[djmk]

that being said, $105 + $27 is bloody expensive and is essentially the third coffee shop in this complex and 2nd doughnut shop (which also sells coffee). And 2nd american style fast food (McD's) (which also sells coffee).