Burnaby Updates

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WBC

I think that we are far, far away from any kind of retail squeeze. In fact one could claim the opposite. There is a ton of retail space outside of Metrotown mall that is either sitting empty or is underutilized or hosts revolving door of business that don't seem to last 6 months to a year. There is also a ton of street level space that is filled with local non profit outfits (which should really occupy office space).

When I moved to Metrotown 20 years ago you had London Drugs on one end and Shoppers on the other. London Drugs was busy with 3-4 registers regularly open. Nowadays, with two more Shoppers, one Rexall, and one Pharmsave open the same London Drugs has 1 maybe two registers open any given day and is largely empty (despite all the population growth). How all these places make any money is beyond me, but that is somebody else's problem I guess. The one thing that seems to have business no matter how many you open is Starbucks. A lot of local mom and pap coffee shops don't even come close to what Starbucks generates.

At the end of the day not every street and not every building needs retail. Some of that street facing space can be nicely used for townhouses (a form that is increasingly rare in Metrotown). For that matter, not ever building needs to be the same thing - a glass tower with a podium.

OK my bad, I should be more specific. Larger scale retail or higher quality units in mixed developments seem to be attracting the businesses these days and are well sought after. The ones you mention are mostly the shacks on Kingsway, some pretty far away from the high density residential nodes and major transportaion corridors.

I do agree that not all residences need retail, but I think that all residential towers in the vicinity of downtown Metrotown, especially those within a few blocks from skytrain stations ought to have retail. It only makes sense.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Why? It's surrounding the biggest mall in the region. Not everyone needs a nail salon and a coffee shop at the base of their building.

Because when there is a lot of retail space, that keeps the lease cost low and competitive, both inside and outside the mall. Or would you rather the retail situation be exactly the same as the residential situation where fixed-term leases and bidding-wars become the rule and not the exception?

Every building needs a commercial podium, even if it's just a 7-11 style mini-mart, and a coffee-shop. The "luxury" condo towers don't have these (instead they have gyms) because you want a place for the people who live in the tower and neighboring towers to congregate around.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Kisai

Because when there is a lot of retail space, that keeps the lease cost low and competitive, both inside and outside the mall. Or would you rather the retail situation be exactly the same as the residential situation where fixed-term leases and bidding-wars become the rule and not the exception?

Every building needs a commercial podium, even if it's just a 7-11 style mini-mart, and a coffee-shop. The "luxury" condo towers don't have these (instead they have gyms) because you want a place for the people who live in the tower and neighboring towers to congregate around.

It could be argued that the city planning departments have some blame to bear here.

They're the ones who usually insist on developers and architects including amenity space (and lots of it) in these new condo buildings, which turn out to be not very cost effective ( they have high maintenance costs, and usually end up not getting used that much since most of the residents of buildings like these will have their own membership at high-end gyms that they prefer to use, and also wouldn't typically use the party rooms in those amenity spaces for events and parties.).

So instead of a podium space or street level space that you can rent out to a Cafe or mini-mart or restaurant, you end up with mostly unused gyms or empty event rooms.

[VanK]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

It could be argued that the city planning departments have some blame to bear here.

They're the ones who usually insist on developers and architects including amenity space (and lots of it) in these new condo buildings, which turn out to be not very cost effective ( they have high maintenance costs, and usually end up not getting used that much since most of the residents of buildings like these will have their own membership at high-end gyms that they prefer to use, and also wouldn't typically use the party rooms in those amenity spaces for events and parties.).

So instead of a podium space or street level space that you can rent out to a Cafe or mini-mart or restaurant, you end up with mostly unused gyms or empty event rooms.

The amenity space in Burnaby is considered free density on top of the gross buildable square feet developers are allowed to build. as a results its not taking away from podium/street level space.

[VanK]

Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog

Noooooooooo. I was hoping for some damn commercial podiums. Instead I get this frigging "Tower in the Park" bs.

fyi they are building live work units along Imperial. so if you are looking for your neighbouhood nail or hair salon you may be in luck

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

No they aren't. That Amacon tower is the only place on Imperial zoned as "mixed use" and it's just residential.

[VanK]

Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog

No they aren't. That Amacon tower is the only place on Imperial zoned as "mixed use" and it's just residential.

Uh.. Yes they Are.

Copied and pasted from the Amacon "Imperial" Tower Application:

"establishing a four-storey residential component along Imperial Street. The fourstorey form is comprised of two-storey townhouses with two-storey flats above, in which the townhouses also include a minor live-work component at the ground level. The two-storey flats are connected to the residential tower via an east-west sky bridge.

It is acknowledged that an amendment to the Metrotown Town Centre Plan is required in order to include the live-work component, but it is considered minor and supportable given that it supports the existing and proposed commercial and mixed-use along the south side of Imperial Street (designated by the adopted Royal Oak Community Plan) by
providing a second half to the planned commercial street."

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

Originally Posted by VanK

live-work component, "

Wasn't sure if that was a townhouse entrance or commercial or office.

Great! I guess I can get my nails and hair done now!

[Klazu]

For being located in North Delta just past Alex Fraser Bridge, Sunstone Village sure has a nice view of Downtown Vancouver. Once again such a BS marketing...

http://fifthave.ca/listings/sunstone/

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

Don't worry, I sent Advertising Standards Canada a complaint.

Sunstone has clearly never seen an ASC ad on a bus before.

[rofina]

Holy sh*t!

Thats a brutal render!

They cut out over half of Metro Van in South direction.

Place looks like its built on top of Queen Elizabeth park!

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

I found this snapshot I took off somewhere on the internet. I forget where I found it again, maybe Colliers International?
Anyways, I found some interesting places where future towers could (highlighted in yellow).



This is where I believe the Bosa property is. It looks like they are buying up those old storybook houses. I hope they keep a few.



Knowing Concord Pacific, they will probably sit on those properties for a few years without doing anything.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog

I found this snapshot I took off somewhere on the internet. I forget where I found it again, maybe Colliers International?
Anyways, I found some interesting places where future towers could (highlighted in yellow).


This is where I believe the Bosa property is. It looks like they are buying up those old storybook houses. I hope they keep a few.



Knowing Concord Pacific, they will probably sit on those properties for a few years without doing anything.

That Bosa property is pretty much behind the Cactus Club, which will be moving. Hopefully Bosa picks it up along with the empty lots on Hazel St and has room to build it out properly for the area.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Sheba

That Bosa property is pretty much behind the Cactus Club, which will be moving. Hopefully Bosa picks it up along with the empty lots on Hazel St and has room to build it out properly for the area.

Pity such quaint houses will be demolished......

[burnaby_guy123]

Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog

I found this snapshot I took off somewhere on the internet. I forget where I found it again, maybe Colliers International?
Anyways, I found some interesting places where future towers could (highlighted in yellow).

Hi, are all these properties officially purchased by the developers there? Or is this future speculation?

I live in one of the apartments listed under BlueSky Properties. I wasn't aware the building had been sold. Will they be evicting us soon?

Thanks.

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

Those developers own those properties, though it doesn't mean they will right away demolish them. Bluesky's was put on hold I believe and I don't think anything will happen soon. I just posted that map as those properties weren't discussed earlier.

Sucks your place might be demolished.

Also I think this map is from 2013 or something so it's been a while.

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog

Those developers own those properties, though it doesn't mean they will right away demolish them. Bluesky's was put on hold I believe and I don't think anything will happen soon. I just posted that map as those properties weren't discussed earlier.

Sucks your place might be demolished.

Also I think this map is from 2013 or something so it's been a while.

odd to see a Bosa Development listed as I thought they were mainly south of boarder or developing in the childrens firms name.


Blue Sky is a division of Bosa Properties and buys up lots of rental stock and manage it till they decide the area is ready to build

[domusile]

I don't think this map is completely correct. The properties listed as Blue Sky are actually owned by Polygon (well one of them is).

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by domusile

I don't think this map is completely correct. The properties listed as Blue Sky are actually owned by Polygon (well one of them is).

The map is indeed incorrect and out of date (it's from 2013 and quite a few other towers not shown on it have since began construction or are in rezoning application)

Even the lot listed as being owned by Concord Pacific on Beresford next to Polygon's Moda is not really owned by them.

Unless things have changed, last I heard was that the owner(s) of those walk-ups didn't want to sell and wasn't planning on doing so anytime soon.

Things might have changed since then, but as of when the map was created, that lot was not owned by Concord Pacific, if I remember correctly.

It wouldn't surprise me though, if Concord Pacific were trying to not only acquire it but also the adjacent lots next door to Metroplace tower.
That's the last remaining really prime piece of real estate for redevelopment close to Metrotopolis and and the Skytrain station, and you have to imagine that the people who own those lots/walk-ups are sitting on gold mines (for whenever they decide to sell).

[vanman]

The Metrotown and Edmonds skyline taken by me earlier today.