Burnaby Updates

[logan5]

If they follow their 3 to 1 ratio rule for residential space to office space, there should be a significant amount of office towers - 1 office tower for every 3 apartment towers, which you would think would break up the monotony of residential towers.

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

I think don't think that rule is super accurate, because there can be three very large residential buildings and one small office building the size of the Staples Building. I'd rather have something like 9 units : 2000 sqft office. That would make about 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 square feet of office space, enough to build ourselves our own Brookfield Place (Calgary).

The problem is we need to get Vancouver to direct office space to Burnaby. It sounds like an odd way to put it but it will help spread out jobs across the region and shape Metrotown.

It like to also see thicker residential floor plates in towers with 3 bedrooms or more. We need more apartments like those for families.

[MetrotownMary]

Reading through the Metrotown Development Plan Draft I noticed in the section on future plazas and squares that privately owned 'public spaces' would have "unrestricted public access", maintained through a variety of means. The full quote I'm referring to reads :

"Unrestricted public access would be secured through various legal instruments, including statutory rights-of-way, covenants, and easements. It is important to
note that these public spaces are to be indistinguishable from those that are publicly owned and maintained."

I'm curious if anyone on the forum knows more about what this means and could describe those legal instruments for me... does this mean that things like public demonstrations and protests would be able to happen in these spaces without the private owner being able to remove people from the site? Just thinking about the future democracy of the public realm

[Vin]

Burnaby should not kill a golden goose. Break up Metrotown mall? Insane to say the least. Just build the grid downtown part of Metrotown a little bit away from the mall area. Bulldoze the entire area south of the skytrain guideway, yes, meaning the walk-ups. There should be plenty of space there to develop Metrotown's fledgling new downtown.

[Spr0ckets]

How would that work anyway with rights-of-way and easement issues?

Wouldn't Ivanhoe Cambridge have to be fully on board with this plan as the Mall's landlords, in terms of breaking up their property to facilitate this?
And I don't even see what the incentive or upside would be for them to agree to this.

And how do the various mall ownership and easement issues work anyway given Sears/Concord Pacific own pretty much all the land and parking lots fronting Kingsway including the store, and Hudson's Bay on the other side of the mall own that part of the mall (or do IC own it?)?

Is it like Ivanhoe Cambridge are the overall landlords with the final say of what happens inside the mall proper? And does the city itself have any say at all.

I didn't really understand this part of the proposal and how it would work given how the rights are spread out right now.

It's bad enough that Concord Pacific will probably have to jump through all manner of hoops to get their own Sears residential project off the ground; now you through in the city of Burnaby with their downtown proposal and it just seems like an unwieldy mess.

And let's not even forget that Ivanhoe Cambridge for their part still would have preferred to move the Bus loop to South of Central Boulevard on Beresford (which the city rejected) - ostensibly to put another office tower (MetroTower IV) where the current Bus Loop sits.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by MetrotownMary

Reading through the Metrotown Development Plan Draft I noticed in the section on future plazas and squares that privately owned 'public spaces' would have "unrestricted public access", maintained through a variety of means. The full quote I'm referring to reads :

"Unrestricted public access would be secured through various legal instruments, including statutory rights-of-way, covenants, and easements. It is important to note that these public spaces are to be indistinguishable from those that are publicly owned and maintained."

I'm curious if anyone on the forum knows more about what this means and could describe those legal instruments for me... does this mean that things like public demonstrations and protests would be able to happen in these spaces without the private owner being able to remove people from the site? Just thinking about the future democracy of the public realm

Actually I now realize that this part of the quote is the (partial) answer I was looking for in the previous post I posted. I should have read your post first.

But even reading it leaves me with even more questions as to how it would work.
Unless there's some form of eminent domain (assuming it were even possible) I still don't see how they would get everyone to get on board and play ball with that proposal.

It almost makes it sound more simplistic than it seems it would be to achieve it.

[MetrotownMary]

I think its overly simplified and idealistic to imagine everyone getting on board for this too... it seems more realistic to me that there would have to be more incentive for Ivanhoe Cambridge to want to redevelop the site because, as it stands now, why would they? The mall is already an incredible money maker for them.

As I see it, a master plan of the site that maintains portions of the existing mall (cutting it up to create some roads and breaking it into blocks) and infilling the surface parking and parkade areas with new podiums is more realistic. That's how they're doing it at Brentwood and even Lougheed, if you look closely at the plans you can see where portions of the existing mall are left.

That way Ivanhoe Cambridge can retain the profit made by the mall, develop the site with more density, and also make the city of Burnaby happy by creating "fine grained systems of streets". Of course other amenities could also fit into this as well.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Vin

Burnaby should not kill a golden goose. Break up Metrotown mall? Insane to say the least. Just build the grid downtown part of Metrotown a little bit away from the mall area. Bulldoze the entire area south of the skytrain guideway, yes, meaning the walk-ups. There should be plenty of space there to develop Metrotown's fledgling new downtown.

Oh I know. I'd like to see lowrise office-type space along Imperial (instead of lowrise residential) and the taller buildings along Willingdon between Imperial and Beresford to have retail / office podiums. Also for any new buildings along Kingsway to be retail / office / civic with residential the next block over. Why isn't Burnaby city hall being moved to the Metrotown area?

I don't mind if they redo 'the edges' of the mall area. Station Square is changing and eventually there'll be the Sears redevelopment - I wouldn't mind if The Bay space was included in that (and move The Bay to the old Target space). If they partly reopen the old road space (although I think it was loading bays) between the Eaton's and Metrotown Centre sections it would join up with McKercher on the Kingsway side (and tie in with the Sears redevelopment) and between Sussex and Dow on the Central Blvd side. The mall would lose part of the lower hallway but not the upper (which wouldn't be too bad with escalators in place).

Why is there no road connecting Beresford to Central (say arround where Sussex is). That cuts off the neighbour more than the mall blocking them from a direct route to Kingsway.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Wouldn't Ivanhoe Cambridge have to be fully on board with this plan as the Mall's landlords, in terms of breaking up their property to facilitate this?
And I don't even see what the incentive or upside would be for them to agree to this.

And how do the various mall ownership and easement issues work anyway given Sears/Concord Pacific own pretty much all the land and parking lots fronting Kingsway including the store, and Hudson's Bay on the other side of the mall own that part of the mall (or do IC own it?)?

Originally Posted by MetrotownMary

I think its overly simplified and idealistic to imagine everyone getting on board for this too... it seems more realistic to me that there would have to be more incentive for Ivanhoe Cambridge to want to redevelop the site because, as it stands now, why would they? The mall is already an incredible money maker for them.

Yeah this seems like wishful thinking on Burnaby's part. What are they going to do - refuse mall redevelopment plans? The only group that would affect is Sears and they don't seem to be in any hurry. I wonder if the city talked to Ivanhoe Cambridge about it (who I tweeted a link of the draft plan too, so if they didn't know about it, they do now).

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Oh I know. I'd like to see lowrise office-type space along Imperial (instead of lowrise residential) and the taller buildings along Willingdon between Imperial and Beresford to have retail / office podiums. Also for any new buildings along Kingsway to be retail / office / civic with residential the next block over. Why isn't Burnaby city hall being moved to the Metrotown area?

What? Are you suggesting moving the centre of Metrotown along Imperial? If so that sounds like a terrible idea. I also don't like the idea of office podiums. Just put all the office space into one large building.

Originally Posted by Vin

Burnaby should not kill a golden goose. Break up Metrotown mall? Insane to say the least. Just build the grid downtown part of Metrotown a little bit away from the mall area. Bulldoze the entire area south of the skytrain guideway, yes, meaning the walk-ups. There should be plenty of space there to develop Metrotown's fledgling new downtown.

That would look really odd having the centre be in Maywood. Maywood is still going to be developed, just not in the same way. The mall's demolition won't happen soon and the mall will probably still be there underground, like Montreal and Pacific Centre. Parking of those buildings will probably be above ground, hidden in the podiums, that's all right.

I heard the term "donut city" used to describe places like Metrotown where there is development all around the centre, except actually inside the centre. Burnaby probably wants to avoid doing this.

[WBC]

Originally Posted by MetrotownMary

I think its overly simplified and idealistic to imagine everyone getting on board for this too... it seems more realistic to me that there would have to be more incentive for Ivanhoe Cambridge to want to redevelop the site because, as it stands now, why would they? The mall is already an incredible money maker for them.

As I see it, a master plan of the site that maintains portions of the existing mall (cutting it up to create some roads and breaking it into blocks) and infilling the surface parking and parkade areas with new podiums is more realistic. That's how they're doing it at Brentwood and even Lougheed, if you look closely at the plans you can see where portions of the existing mall are left.

That way Ivanhoe Cambridge can retain the profit made by the mall, develop the site with more density, and also make the city of Burnaby happy by creating "fine grained systems of streets". Of course other amenities could also fit into this as well.

Their incentive would be of course real estate. They are an investment company not a mall company per say. There are parts of the mall that have been sitting empty for a long long time (Zellers/Target and TGI Fridays come to mind) with a lot of being parking garages or parking lots, so it's not like there is a pent up demand for more retail space. All the city has to do is let them zone for high-rises and they would most likely gladly build 60 story towers with retail podiums and perhaps and overpass or 2 to link all that in some sort of mall. Whether that is good or not is another question.

The other thing is that this is a city vision document. If you looked at all the various city vision documents and initiatives (not just Burnaby's, but in general) the reality in the end differs significantly from what was originally "envisioned" (see for example Vancouver's vision for False Creek Flats "technology" center)

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

How would that work anyway with rights-of-way and easement issues?

Wouldn't Ivanhoe Cambridge have to be fully on board with this plan as the Mall's landlords, in terms of breaking up their property to facilitate this?
And I don't even see what the incentive or upside would be for them to agree to this.

The land the mall sits on must be extremely valuable being zoned at 5 FSR residential plus 6 FSR commercial, for a total of 11 FSR.

I can only guess the cost of rebuilding the mall underground would cost around a billion dollars, but if the land over top of the mall is worth 2 billion, maybe it's worth it. On top of that, the space in the mall would be more valuable.

It seems like mammoth undertaking, but I hope it happens.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog

The mall's demolition won't happen soon and the mall will probably still be there underground, like Montreal and Pacific Centre.

There's nothing about shopping going underground in the draft - the only comments about it have been here. Aside from how to access parking, it's all about on and above ground.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Why is there no road connecting Beresford to Central (say arround where Sussex is). That cuts off the neighbour more than the mall blocking them from a direct route to Kingsway.

Isn't that the new road that cuts through the mall?

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

Also McKay and Telford are going to cut through Central Boulevard.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Isn't that the new road that cuts through the mall?

Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog

Also McKay and Telford are going to cut through Central Boulevard.

Man you have to size the image pretty large to see where they have roads cross Beresford to Central.

I think TransLink wanted a bus only street around McKay when they wanted to move the bus loop. It's odd to see it there now 'cause it'll drive a lot of traffic through Maywood (which they want to keep primarily quiet residential). I don't know how they think they're going to get Telford through - that's where the Skytrain east entrance is now and where escalators will be once the renovation finally happens.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

Draft Metrotown Plan:

https://burnaby.civicweb.net/filepro...?preview=16934 (109 mb)

Map and legend from VancouverMarket.ca:


http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2016/1...raft-released/


http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2016/1...raft-released/

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Yeah this seems like wishful thinking on Burnaby's part. What are they going to do - refuse mall redevelopment plans? The only group that would affect is Sears and they don't seem to be in any hurry. I wonder if the city talked to Ivanhoe Cambridge about it (who I tweeted a link of the draft plan too, so if they didn't know about it, they do now).

The Sears/Concord site appears to be divided (by roads) into 4 parcels.
It'll be interesting to see if the proposed development adheres to that.

[Metro-One]

It isn't just the dividing up of the mall, but how tiny they want to make the blocks.

Was just looking at the Lougheed city plan again, both Lougheed and Brentwood are taking a better approach to redeveloping and evolving their malls than this plan (from what we can see so far).

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

I wouldn't say they're small. In fact, they are quite the standard size for a downtown, if not slightly smaller. But hey, this is not a real downtown.
Vancouver

Calgary

Toronto

The blocks appear to be larger compared to Midtown Manhattan.