Tsawwassen First Nation Updates

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Marshal

I'll disagree. I don't care at all about it being on potential farmland. It simply goes against the good parts of our region's planning objectives. It's easy to look at it and find some supporting conditions, and to shrug at the negatives stacked against it. What this says is simply that this mall isn't going to ruin the Lower Mainland. But, so what? It’s a mistake on every principled planning position.

They have a right to do it, they are, soon it will be part of our city, it won't destroy our city, it will succeed or fail, life will go on. But it’s an idiotic development that is 90 times wrong for every right it can claim.


As a nit pick: your 50,000 base population is a pittance relative to what they are building.

Yah I dunno I guess we'll see. I'm not as convinced as you are clearly. I don't think most people here have actually read the regional growth strategy as presented by Metro Vancouver.

They would quickly realize that by 2040 it is expected that Tsawwassen alone needs to grow by 30,000+ people. That would make South Delta have a population of over 125,000 people (when combined with what they expect Ladner and TFN to grow by). Is that reasonable? I doubt it. But right now there is little to no access to big-box retailers in South Delta. You have to go to Richmond or South Surrey. So today that's 50,000 people that have to jump in their cars and drive 15km+ to go shopping at the big box stores or basically what people are griping about with this development but in reverse.

So from the regional plan perspective, this isn't quite as insane as people are making it out to be.

If people are going to argue this is against the regional plan I think they should actually read it first. They'd also quickly realize that the TFN and Tsawwassen area are already slated by the regional plan to increase in population and add far more than 5,000 units. It isn't sprawl if it is in this supreme regional plan isn't it?

People can't be jumping up and down saying "BOO BAD SPRAWL" then in another sentence saying "THEY NEED TO STICK TO THE METRO REGIONAL PLAN!" because in respect to South Delta you're actually contradicting yourself.

So if you say this and the development in TFN is against principled regional planning then you're in essence saying the Metro Vancouver regional plan is 🞵🞵🞵🞵. If you are then OK valid opinion.

[cairnstone]

if you look at the growth patterns of the metro area. We will start to see the development of more housing in south surrey, white rock langley etc.

I was at airport outlet this morning working, and about 50 percent of the visitors were american dont forget the exchange rate makes out goods cheaper

[Pinion]

Like all malls it will come down to the quality of stores. I went to McArthurGlen once and never again because there's nothing there for me. But I happily drive 20-30 minutes to Metrotown because it offers things I can't get at any of the half dozen closer malls.

Driving and car-oriented retail will never go away, especially in places like Tsawassen.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Yah I dunno I guess we'll see. I'm not as convinced as you are clearly. I don't think most people here have actually read the regional growth strategy as presented by Metro Vancouver.

They would quickly realize that by 2040 it is expected that Tsawwassen alone needs to grow by 30,000+ people. That would make South Delta have a population of over 125,000 people (when combined with what they expect Ladner and TFN to grow by). Is that reasonable? I doubt it. But right now there is little to no access to big-box retailers in South Delta. You have to go to Richmond or South Surrey. So today that's 50,000 people that have to jump in their cars and drive 15km+ to go shopping at the big box stores or basically what people are griping about with this development but in reverse.

So from the regional plan perspective, this isn't quite as insane as people are making it out to be.

If people are going to argue this is against the regional plan I think they should actually read it first. They'd also quickly realize that the TFN and Tsawwassen area are already slated by the regional plan to increase in population and add far more than 5,000 units. It isn't sprawl if it is in this supreme regional plan isn't it?

People can't be jumping up and down saying "BOO BAD SPRAWL" then in another sentence saying "THEY NEED TO STICK TO THE METRO REGIONAL PLAN!" because in respect to South Delta you're actually contradicting yourself.

So if you say this and the development in TFN is against principled regional planning then you're in essence saying the Metro Vancouver regional plan is 🞵🞵🞵🞵. If you are then OK valid opinion.

Ok. You need to calm down an bit and then stop going down the road towards attacking people and insinuating yourself into their positions. Stick to attacking the arguments instead. Regardless, I don't seem to have the burning passion for the issues surrounding this development that you do. Afterall, it's already a fact of life. We will see soon enough how it fits into the whole.

Read my post more carefully. I did not refer to the "regional growth strategy," which is a document akin to the region’s OCP. So, don't imply that I have not seen or read this document. I have worked with it in detail several times professionally, including consulting with one of our local municipalities on how to align their new OCP with it. I know it very well, and even more, I know the political and legal context which surrounds it. These last two aspects can sometimes be more 'important' than the document itself.

You imply that I "should read it first." Well if you are up to teaching me about it, go ahead and give it a try. But fair warning, I bet you can't back up the arrogant tone of your post if you come up against someone who really knows what's what. Its posts like your recent ones that derail decent discussions and turn everything into a battleground. What's the point?

Go back for a second, and you will see that I don't reference the actual regional growth strategy or plan. I used the phrases "our region's planning objectives," and "principled planning position(s)" with careful intention. So, don't try to bully me around, when it’s you not reading what's in front of you, before going off like a petulant bottle rocket full of ill-aimed disagreement. And all this because some people question the wisdom of building a megamall at the ferry terminal. Come on. You don't seem to want to discuss the mall, so much as be pissed off at people because they oppose it.

How about calming down. If you disagree, do so. No need to get personal if your reasoning is good. You should try and let it stand on its own.

[yuanh]

hmm... again the architectural design is very very disappointed, they should be ashamed of themselves came up with such effort-less low quality eye-sore design in 2015. What a waste, I think the location could have had so much more potencial, now what this is just like a complete duplication of bellingham centre in the state. Tasteless.

[urbancanadian]

I'll just point out that all of Delta (north & south) is only expected to grow by about 20,000 people between 2011-2041. The TFN is expected to grow by about 7,800 in the same timeframe, but that will all be greenfield development. (Delta's growth will be through intensification.)

[hankthetank]

Good for them, they are building a complete community. All of the higher density residential is being built beside the mall and nice bike paths and pathways will be built. They have plenty of industrial land too for people to work. They also have a lot of farmland which is actually being used. The community as a whole will be a success in my opinion. If you worked in the industrial area you could live there and walk/bike to everything.

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by yuanh

hmm... again the architectural design is very very disappointed, they should be ashamed of themselves came up with such effort-less low quality eye-sore design in 2015. What a waste, I think the location could have had so much more potencial, now what this is just like a complete duplication of bellingham centre in the state. Tasteless.

While I agree this is no architecturall gem, it is a mall. What do you really expect? Is there such a thing (in vancouver) as a mall that is an example of beautiful architecture? Its been years since I've been inside surrey center mall, but I remember being kind of impressed by the roof details (on the inside), but other then that malls generally look like doo doo.

Its sort of like (in my opinion) demanding architectural beauty from a home depot, or a canadian tire or a costco etc.

[TourOdeon]

Originally Posted by yuanh

hmm... again the architectural design is very very disappointed, they should be ashamed of themselves came up with such effort-less low quality eye-sore design in 2015. What a waste, I think the location could have had so much more potencial, now what this is just like a complete duplication of bellingham centre in the state. Tasteless.

This architecture is the quickest to build and most cost efficient

[Marshal]

Perhaps the best thing about the "architecture," is that there isn't any. That and the fact that it is flat and low.

It is a difficult thing though, the design of structures like this confounds most architects. What do/can you do? Almost all mall architecture is terrible overall. Malls that have a strong design, using higher end materials, are generally no better than those that take the cheap box approach. And, no matter what they achieve, they all end up looking dated quickly. The exception, at least so far, are the clean unitary designs like Aberdeen Centre (even though its cohesion has broken down as it 'hobbled' towards the Canada Line). There is a mall on the fringes of London that tried to follow the spirit of the Crystal Palace. A ton of money was spent on this thing, but the best it does is being an oddity. But mostly it’s just a visual disaster. Other successes I've seen are in Paris and Berlin, but like everywhere, most of their malls are about as good as ours.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Ok. You need to calm down an bit and then stop going down the road towards attacking people and insinuating yourself into their positions. Stick to attacking the arguments instead. Regardless, I don't seem to have the burning passion for the issues surrounding this development that you do. Afterall, it's already a fact of life. We will see soon enough how it fits into the whole.

You read my post as a personal attack? Feel free to point out where I got personal toward you specifically.

Read my post more carefully. I did not refer to the "regional growth strategy," which is a document akin to the region’s OCP. So, don't imply that I have not seen or read this document. I have worked with it in detail several times professionally, including consulting with one of our local municipalities on how to align their new OCP with it. I know it very well, and even more, I know the political and legal context which surrounds it. These last two aspects can sometimes be more 'important' than the document itself.

I did. Read every post I respond to carefully. I quote from you "region's planning objectives." which is what you stated this is against. There is no region's planning objective other than the regional growth strategy. That is the only objective.

Anything else is just purely fantasy. So when you say this goes against the "region's planning objectives." (I quoted again) you can only be referring to the Metro Vancouver regional growth strategy or you are simply making things up. If you aren't referring to it then I apologize but your point is then moot.

You imply that I "should read it first." Well if you are up to teaching me about it, go ahead and give it a try. But fair warning, I bet you can't back up the arrogant tone of your post if you come up against someone who really knows what's what. Its posts like your recent ones that derail decent discussions and turn everything into a battleground. What's the point?

Not sure what you're talking about. It's not posts like mine that derail decent discussions, it is posters that declare things that are simply factual that do. Decent discussion only happens when both sides of the equation present opinions based entirely on fact. Again, as I just mentioned, you preface your entire point by saying it is against the "region's planning objectives" which to be factual means you are directly referencing again the only "regional planning objective" that exists and that is the Regional Growth Strategy.

I simply pointed out that your point is actually against the Regional Growth Strategy so that simply leaves your opinion on the side of unfactual.

Me pointing out holes in your point doesn't make it personal. Anyone who has read my posts for any length of time will know that as much as possible I go after points and claimed facts. I only make things personal if the person is simply being a troll. If you choose to take it personal that's your problem not mine.

Go back for a second, and you will see that I don't reference the actual regional growth strategy or plan. I used the phrases "our region's planning objectives," and "principled planning position(s)" with careful intention. So, don't try to bully me around, when it’s you not reading what's in front of you, before going off like a petulant bottle rocket full of ill-aimed disagreement. And all this because some people question the wisdom of building a megamall at the ferry terminal. Come on. You don't seem to want to discuss the mall, so much as be pissed off at people because they oppose it.

So what does that mean? What is our region's planning objectives? What is principled planning position(s)? If there was some universal planning position wouldn't every city on the planet look the same? Why is Edmonton planned differently then Calgary? Winnipeg different from Toronto? London different from Paris?

Sorry I read a lot of these "thou shalt plan a city like X and build a city like Y for it to be Utopia" but there is a big difference between what an graduate student writes in a paper at UBC or (insert awesome University here) and the real world.

Anyway let's address your concerns with the mall directly and I'll ask a few questions to understand your position.

1) Would this mall be any better if it were in downtown Vancouver?
2) Would this mall be any better if it were in downtown Vancouver with no parking lots?
3) Are all malls bad?
4) Are there any malls that you think are good?
5) Is it the aesthetics of this mall that you disagree with? Aka is it location, parking lots, all of the above?
6) Is it the mall itself that you don't like? Aka ignore the environment and parking lots.

Those are objective non-personal questions. Please do answer them.

How about calming down. If you disagree, do so. No need to get personal if your reasoning is good. You should try and let it stand on its own.

I didn't get personal unless getting personal simply means pointing out an attempt to qualify your opinion as being based in fact when it wasn't. If you have an opinion and you just hold that opinion because you feel like it or it is your opinion, then say so.

Editorials are opinion pieces not based in fact. That's perfectly valid and I respect people who say "I just don't like something because it is sucky." But again don't start throwing in regional planning etc etc which is completely made up and not expect to have a hole poked in your points.

*shrug*

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by yuanh

hmm... again the architectural design is very very disappointed, they should be ashamed of themselves came up with such effort-less low quality eye-sore design in 2015. What a waste, I think the location could have had so much more potencial, now what this is just like a complete duplication of bellingham centre in the state. Tasteless.

Not sure how architecturally amazing you an make a mall like this. If you really look at it you can only spruce up interior and exterior eye-level features like entrances and such. It is a mall though and it can be difficult to gloss up functionality.

That said given its scale I'm sure they also didn't want to spend too much and drive costs up. The more architectural oomph you put into something the higher your costs that ultimately need to be passed onto the customer which in this case are the tenants of the mall.

I wonder though if your negative viewpoint on the architecture is based on the fact many of the videos we see show an overhead view and rather aren't (other than the 1 recent video) eye level. Not sure if I am explaining fully but when you get a drone and fly it up 400 feet to see the overall project and your eye simply sees a large "box" with parking lots around, it dehuminizes the development and is easy to go "Look it is a giant box with parking lots" when the truth is, at eye level it may actually look pretty good. May meaning we won't know until it is actually done.

Does Guildford or Metrotown mall architecturally look amazing when you fly above it 400 feet is my question I guess? Then again you could think those malls look ugly too which is fine.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Perhaps the best thing about the "architecture," is that there isn't any. That and the fact that it is flat and low.

It is a difficult thing though, the design of structures like this confounds most architects. What do/can you do? Almost all mall architecture is terrible overall. Malls that have a strong design, using higher end materials, are generally no better than those that take the cheap box approach. And, no matter what they achieve, they all end up looking dated quickly. The exception, at least so far, are the clean unitary designs like Aberdeen Centre (even though its cohesion has broken down as it 'hobbled' towards the Canada Line). There is a mall on the fringes of London that tried to follow the spirit of the Crystal Palace. A ton of money was spent on this thing, but the best it does is being an oddity. But mostly it’s just a visual disaster. Other successes I've seen are in Paris and Berlin, but like everywhere, most of their malls are about as good as ours.

Very true. I'm not an architect but I'd imagine all you really can do from a "making it look nice" perspective is the interior and entrance pieces. It's the presentation rather than the overall project since truthfully people won't be flying over the mall 400 feet up on a regular basis looking at the entire project.

I kind of see malls as the middle child between industrial complexes and commercial developments. Caught between utility and form. They are mainly utility since the focus in malls are entirely internal but at the same time you want them to look good enough and inviting enough to people ground level. At the same time you don't want to spend toooo much on glitz and glamour because it just drives up costs hurting the bottom line.

Healthy balance of both.

That said to your point, I can definitely see why architecture would confound. Let's face it Brass Pro Shop will want the outside of their space to look like their brand. H&M will want their space to look like their brand. A mall is a mishmash of tenants that have their own disjointed brands. So for the architect it leaves I think just the entrances and interiors to work with but the overall mall is just a box.

Just look at Guildford Mall's recent renovations. The mall is effectively the same square boxes put together but they spent most of the time and money on the interior pillars, walls, paint, and entrances. Just changes to those drastically altered the look and feel architecturally of the mall tough the mall itself is basically the same.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Very true. I'm not an architect but I'd imagine all you really can do from a "making it look nice" perspective is the interior and entrance pieces. It's the presentation rather than the overall project since truthfully people won't be flying over the mall 400 feet up on a regular basis looking at the entire project.

I kind of see malls as the middle child between industrial complexes and commercial developments. Caught between utility and form. They are mainly utility since the focus in malls are entirely internal but at the same time you want them to look good enough and inviting enough to people ground level. At the same time you don't want to spend toooo much on glitz and glamour because it just drives up costs hurting the bottom line.

Healthy balance of both.

That said to your point, I can definitely see why architecture would confound. Let's face it Brass Pro Shop will want the outside of their space to look like their brand. H&M will want their space to look like their brand. A mall is a mishmash of tenants that have their own disjointed brands. So for the architect it leaves I think just the entrances and interiors to work with but the overall mall is just a box.

Just look at Guildford Mall's recent renovations. The mall is effectively the same square boxes put together but they spent most of the time and money on the interior pillars, walls, paint, and entrances. Just changes to those drastically altered the look and feel architecturally of the mall tough the mall itself is basically the same.

You make a lot of good points.

As for your response in post #211, I have seen a few disputes on this forum and they seem to often take the form of ours: two people arguing about arguing, needing facts, how to write properly, etc. I think we can stop where its at. I could answer each of your points, but we wouldn't get anywhere. I think we agree that the real subjet matter is where our interests are. I see there is a new thread for this, so I will move it over there.

[dleung]

How malls should look like:

Almere is a town of 190,000 that didn't exist until 1984. It is 10 feet below sea level. And they still figured out how to accommodate cars (located underneath all this) without dooming the area to a perpetual American hellscape.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Marshal

You make a lot of good points.

As for your response in post #211, I have seen a few disputes on this forum and they seem to often take the form of ours: two people arguing about arguing, needing facts, how to write properly, etc. I think we can stop where its at. I could answer each of your points, but we wouldn't get anywhere. I think we agree that the real subjet matter is where our interests are. I see there is a new thread for this, so I will move it over there.

Fair enough.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by dleung

How malls should look like:

Almere is a town of 190,000 that didn't exist until 1984. It is 10 feet below sea level. And they still figured out how to accommodate cars (located underneath all this) without dooming the area to a perpetual American hellscape.

The Netherlands is an oddity in the world. Not many places that are largely under sea level. I wonder how they swing it or is it just out of necessity? I actually don't know much about the Netherlands.

That said, building code here prohibits underground construction so you can't blame TFN for not being able to go underground. if you want to blame someone it would be the authority that prohibits it within the building code. That doesn't just affect TFN but like I said, many spots in Surrey, Delta, Richmond, and even New Westminster. Ever wonder why New Westminster developments low to the river always have over-ground parkades?

They are also prohibited from building under ground.

So the fact they are doing this in another country on the planet to me doesn't really matter except for understanding why they are AOK with doing it and those responsible for our codes in Metro Vancouver aren't.

[ryanmaccdn]

Originally Posted by dleung

How malls should look like:

Almere is a town of 190,000 that didn't exist until 1984. It is 10 feet below sea level. And they still figured out how to accommodate cars (located underneath all this) without dooming the area to a perpetual American hellscape.

You can't compare this mall to what they are building in Tsawwassen in any possible way.

The above mall has high end tenants and commands a high lease rate.

Tsawassen Mills is a low end outlet mall. The way the mall looks/amenities are pretty much all your goanna get out of the lease rate factory stores can give you.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by ryanmaccdn

The above mall has high end tenants and commands a high lease rate.

Those are some of the most mainstream tenants I've ever seen....

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Those are some of the most mainstream tenants I've ever seen....

Yep, and Tsawwassen Mills is getting a Saks Fifth Avenue, which is definitely higher-end than Nike or Esprit, both seen in the above image.