Oakridge Park | 13 Towers | 154m | 52fl | 5M sqft | U/C

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by squeezied

The developments between 41st and 49th that have been built or approved have CRUs at ground floor facing Cambie St.

I wouldn't have guessed. Seems so far set back from the street

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I wouldn't have guessed. Seems so far set back from the street

And they're crappy small CRUs that barely extend to 1/4 of the site, not including the setback. We'll be lucky to get some flower shops and salons.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I wouldn't have guessed. Seems so far set back from the street

Could be due to the Building Lines (setbacks for street widening) on Cambie Street, although VanMap doesn't show any on Cambie itself:

http://data.vancouver.ca/datacatalogue/buildingLines.htm

Or maybe it has to do with preserving the open space of the boulevard?

[officedweller]

G&M article by Frances Bula on the scaling back, and at her blog, a copy of Ivanhoe Cambridge's press release.

She hints that the community amenity contributions ($148M) demanded by the city were too high - though officially - "not a factor". I suppose the question is whether the scaling back would lower that expenditure (?).

... street [front] retail will be eliminated...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/brit...t-significantly-reduced/article28139865/

What? No Saks?

While this work was underway, Target, one of the centre’s anchor tenants, announced its departure from Canada. The retail component of the project was designed around a two-level mall with several two-level anchor tenants. Therefore, with only one two-level anchor tenant remaining in the project, the centre’s merchandising plan and layout needed to be reworked.

http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized...ruction-costs-retail-economy/#more-46476

[squeezied]

Nothing new, just another read

Just a little less than two years ago a split Vancouver city council agreed to an ambitious plan to massively densify Oakridge Centre. Nearly 3,000 residential units in towers up to 45 storeys would be built and the commercial retail space of the 60-year-old regional mall would be grandly expanded into the largest of its kind in the city.

But on Tuesday the landowner, Ivanhoe Cambridge, and its residential partner, Westbank Projects, signalled a retrenchment, a scaling back by as much as 25 per cent because of geotechnical issues underground and relationship issues above ground. Both issues would have stretched out the construction timeline and threatened to make the $1.5-billion project uneconomic.

Now the city says the proponents may have to go back to square one and make a new rezoning application, rather than simply amend the existing one. And that means a new public hearing, new plans and possibly the renegotiation of the existing $148-million community amenity benefits package promised to the city, all coming at a time when city staff are busy with other major projects.

"Our information is that it is of such a scale it would be a new application. We've got to redo this," said Jane Pickering, the city's acting director of planning. "This isn't just a small thing that we can alter as we go along. I think it is a fundamental shift in what the original development proposed."

The eight-block site is smack in the middle of Vancouver's new Cambie Corridor plan, a linear densification around Canada Line transit stations between King Edward Avenue and Marine Drive. By the city's standards, Oakridge would become the regional town centre. The project generated some controversy, particularly for the developers' plans to meet public benefit demands by placing a 3.6-hectare park on the top of a two-storey mall.

But Ivanhoe and Westbank say they now want to scale back the proposed 4.6-million-square-foot development by about 1.1 million square feet, including 800,000 square feet of retail space. They would drop up to 500 residential units, scrap two or three residential towers and cut back 2,400 parking spaces. The mall would be scaled to one storey, with one-third of the park now built at ground level.

They said they don't plan on altering the public benefits package, which includes the park, a 70,000 square foot community space, and 20 per cent of residential units designated as affordable housing. However, Pickering said the community benefits package could be renegotiated if a new rezoning application is required.

Paul Gleeson, Ivanhoe Cambridge's executive vice-president of global development, said the discovery of a larger-than-anticipated aquifer underneath the mall is complicating construction plans for a third level of parking, driving up engineering costs. At the same time, the company realized the scale of the project was just too large and would have hurt existing tenants, all of whom would have to be moved or close. The loss of retail giant Target, which abandoned Canada last year, also hurt. It was one of a pair of two-storey anchor tenants, the other one being Hudson's Bay.

"As we got into it, it became more and more challenging with the larger scheme. It was having just too much impact on the existing centre," Gleeson said. The existing retail tenants would have faced up to eight years of construction. "That is tough to sell to tenants, most of whom are in 10-year leases," he said.

Pickering said she can't remember the last time a major approved project was scaled back, and that this one comes at a difficult time for the city.

Planning staff are already busy with several major projects, including the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts, the Grandview-Woodland area plan, the next phase of the Cambie Corridor and the employment strategy for the False Creek flats," she said.

"If we have to go back and look at this particular application, we have other big things we are also trying to land," Pickering said. When the project was first proposed, the city negotiated a deal to be reimbursed more than $1.1 million in staff time. Pickering said that kind of a deal may be required again.

Westbank Projects owner Ian Gillespie said he doesn't think the community amenity benefits package needs to be altered, even though the project is being reduced in scope. Bringing part of the park down to street level is also a better idea, he said,

"I think this park is one of the most important aspects of this," said Gillespie. "I want this park to be what makes this project really special. I want people in Singapore writing about this park."

Gillespie said Ivanhoe and Westbank went back to the city late last year to initiate new discussions. They submitted a new design just before Christmas but have not yet heard back from the city.

Oakridge occupies a special place in the city's hierarchy of neighbourhoods. It is the only regional town centre outside the downtown core identified in Metro Vancouver's regional context statement. That, Pickering said, complicates any changes contemplated in city council's March 2014 rezoning approval.

"Outside of our downtown this is the next conglomeration of density in our city. This is of the scale and density and form of what a town centre would be," Pickering said. "That is what we measured the previous application on and that is what we accepted it on and this new one will have to meet the same sort of goals."

Gillespie said it made sense to reconsider the scale of the project.

When we discovered the extent of the aquifer, that was one hit. Then the second hit came when Target pulled out. And then when we looking at the phasing of how we were going to have to juggle retail tenants around to keep the mall open, all those things came together to show we had to come up with another plan," Gillespie said.

"We could solve all these things if you threw enough, hundreds of millions of dollars, at them, but if you do the plan starts to become uneconomic. It was getting to the point where the plan was becoming uneconomic." - See more at: http://www.timescolonist.com/news/b-c/am...aled-back-1.2149883#sthash.dcnT91rj.dpuf

So they had to cut back 1 level or 2400 parking spaces. Is there some minimum requirement for parking spaces for retail like there is for residential? It's too bad the bulk of the cut is in retail rather than residential, this would have been an ideal place for multi-level retail. With the increasing proportion of shoppers arriving by transit I would think there's less demand for parking.

[officedweller]

From VancouverMarket.ca:

We already knew about the mall being downsized to one storey.
With Hudson's Bay staying in the same location, I wonder how they'll change the mall configuration to accommodate a 2nd anchor store
(or if a 2nd anchor has been deleted)

Oakridge Centre Rezoning to be Revised

Posted on May 30, 2016

...

As was reported in the summer of 2015, the project faced a number of challenges since the rezoning approval, including:
◾technical complications of constructing lower parking levels due to an aquifer
◾accommodating continuous operation of the shopping mall during construction
◾the need to maintain The Bay store in its current location due to lease requirements

The new rezoning proposal is summarized as “shedding 20% of the total density and delivering all of the public benefits from the previous application”. The letter of inquiry from Ivanhoe and Westbank outlines the following proposed changes to the project under a revised application:

◾an overall reduction in the amount of new residential and commercial density,
◾maintaining the mall at one level with new mall space to be added at grade,
◾keeping The Bay store in its current location,
◾reconfiguration of the underground parking to avoid the existing aquifer,
◾a Civic Centre and park at grade with further rooftop park and open space,
◾comparable community amenities including affordable housing, and
◾building heights similar to the 2014 rezoning

The new rezoning application will require a new negotiation on public benefits, and will require a full rezoning process with new public consultation. The total cost of the new application is $1.5M, which will be covered by the proponent.

(red emphasis added)
http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2016/05/30/oakridge-centre-rezoning-to-be-revised/

[SFUVancouver]

I had a softball game at Columbia park yesterday (1 block southeast of 41st and Cambie); the towers of Oakridge are going to be very prominent from that vantage point. It will be a good place to take some on-going photography during the construction years. Also, it's a great park! It feels like one of the few that is big enough to handle multiple full-scale activities simultaneously (two baseball games were in progress) while still having generous space for other activities.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.223635,-123.1126478,1032a,20y,41.37t/data=!3m1!1e3

[s211]

Originally Posted by officedweller

From VancouverMarket.ca:

We already knew about the mall being downsized to one storey.
With Hudson's Bay staying in the same location, I wonder how they'll change the mall configuration to accommodate a 2nd anchor store
(or if a 2nd anchor has been deleted)


(red emphasis added)
http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2016/05/30/oakridge-centre-rezoning-to-be-revised/

I'm hearing the overall scale is being cut back, and not insignificantly.

[officedweller]

Oops - the VancouverMarket.ca article had a link to the Staff Report, but it's really just about the proposed review process.

http://council.vancouver.ca/20160601/documents/pspc8.pdf

[phesto]

I'm surprised that there's still no mention in any of the City staff reports about the contamination that has to be remediated prior to rezoning approval. The "technical complications" of constructing the lower levels of the parkade are purported to be based on an aquifer that they discovered just last year; coincidentally at the same time Ivanhoe filed a lawsuit in BC Supreme Court due to the potentially devastating costs associated with the clean up?

Here's the supreme court filing from 2015:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/283862681/Oakridge-lawsuit

I would bet good money that the lost density is coming from the retail, and not the residential.

[s211]

Originally Posted by phesto

I would bet good money that the lost density is coming from the retail, and not the residential.

It's upsetting to see the city think that the basket of CAC blackmail dollars won't change, but SOP for the POF (pound of flesh) department at city hall.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by phesto

I would bet good money that the lost density is coming from the retail, and not the residential.

I think that was previously acknowledged - no double decking of the mall.

800,000 sq ft deleted from the retail, 300,000 sq ft deleted from the residential

Originally Posted by csbvan

There will be a big decrease in the scope of this project:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/v...dential+developments/11646964/story.html

*************

A comment on Price Tags suggests that Ivanhoe Cambridge has put Oakridge Centre up for sale.
(i.e. Ivanhoe Cambridge just sold its interest in Bentall Centre)
https://pricetags.wordpress.com/2016/06/02/lets-talk-about-the-cambie-corridor/#comment-68418


*************

BTW - Here's my guess at the back story behind the Hudson's Bay debacle:

Hudson's Bay and the former Zellers space are under the old Woodward's lease.
I'll bet that HBC still holds the lease for the former Zellers space and was to sublease it to Target.

Consent from HBC to a new relocated store could have required termination of the old lease, or Ivanhoe Cambridge refused to proceed by way of lease amendment, or maybe the parties could not agree whether the amended or new lease covered all of the new Hudson's Bay space and/or additional space in lieu of the former Zellers (i.e. equivalency).

I suspect that HBC will open a Saks 5th Ave. in the former Zellers (avoiding Holts and Nordstrom downtown).

Termination of the old lease would /could have meant that HBC would have had to pay current market rents for a new Saks space at Oakridge (and even a relocated Hudson's Bay), not to mention delays in opening date for a Saks.
I'll also bet that HBC's Woodward's lease has strict terms for continued rights of access during redevelopment. So it could be HBC pushing that button too.

Did Woodward's own Oakridge when it was redeveloped in the early 1990s? It could have stuck favourable clauses into its lease prior to sale/redevelopment.

Sounds like HBC's refusal to move could be a smart move to minimize costs and open a Saks 5th Ave in the former Zellers at old lease rates.

HBC just announced a Saks 5th Ave. store for Chinook Centre in Calgary in 2018 (not downtown, either)
- maybe an announcement will come soon for Oakridge?

[SpongeG]

that would be a good spot for saks.

I wonder why the bay hasn't just taken over and use the space as an expansion, the store feels so cramped and dated. It has a good selection of brands and could be made to be more like the richmond store which is really nice now with the changes they did there.

I remember when it was woodwards, it was a really nice store and space. The basement has always felt kind of weird and awkward though.

[jlousa]

Back to top....

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Back to top....

??

[Genauso]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Back to top....

[phesto]

FWIW - There are rumours that Ivanhoe Cambridge has sold their interest in the property...

[jlousa]

ORLY?
I wonder who picked it up.

[s211]

Originally Posted by phesto

FWIW - There are rumours that Ivanhoe Cambridge has sold their interest in the property...

Ummm... what? Their entire 100% interest?

I'd say a spurious rumour, but would welcome evidence.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by jlousa

ORLY?
I wonder who picked it up.

Westbank?