Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5
Maybe you missed it in my post, but I said that there would be 30 000 people living and working right above the mall, only an elevator ride away. It's safe to assume that that would boost business.
|
Most of Metropolis' business and foot traffic comes from people who don't live in the area.
People who are only visiting specifically to go to the mall or people who are passing through using some of the transit interchanges on their way to or from home.
Is your assumption taking into account what the impact of any redevelopment (and shutdown on large parts of the mall) would have on these sources of revenue, even before that 30,000 people you estimate actually come to reality or fruition (which for a development of this magnitude would take anywhere between 7 to 20 years to complete)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5
I estimate the value of the property the mall sits on at around 5 billion (it's a huge site). Through rezoning you could build 10's of thousands of residential units and millions of square feet of office space. That's what gives the property its high value.
|
No, actually the property has it's high value NOW, because of what sits on it NOW, and what impact it has in the surrounding area because of all it does and brings to the area.
NOW.
Not because of what potential it holds in terms of what could be built there sometime in the future after god-knows how long.
That plays a part in it, yes, but not that high or as high a part as what impact the mall itself actually has on its value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5
Are you a top executive with Ivanhoe Cambridge? How could you possibly know what's being discussed? I know you laid out all your reasons why Oakridge is different but it's a large, successful mall that's being redeveloped.
|
No, I'm not a top executive with Ivanhoe Cambridge, but I do know what I do know based on the same way we know other things regarding their plans on redevelopment that haven't necessitated one being in the conference rooms to know they are actually considering them.
Things like the fact that they hope to build a Metro Office Tower IV and had for sometime wanted to build it where the bus loop currently sits but were shut down by the City who had no intention of transferring the loop to the other side of Beresford as IC hoped.
Or the fact that they too do plan on building a residential tower or more at the surface parking space they do own that sits just in front of the Superstore.
These are things that have been discussed to the degree that they've been talked about in the press and one doesn't have to be in boardroom meetings to know that they are things they have plans on possibly doing in the future.
If your argument is that one has to be a top Executive at Ivanhoe Cambridge to know exactly what they plan or plan not to do, or to be able to conclusively refute the idea or notion that they might not want to redevelop the mall following the plan of the city (as opposed to what they might want to do themselves that's different), then that's a really bizarre line of reasoning and logic that basically amounts to saying you believe they are going to do this and your proof is that I don't sit in the boardroom and therefore can't say for a fact that they don't plan on doing it.
So turning that around back at you.... and by the same logic, YOU too don't sit in the Ivanhoe Cambridge boardroom so how the hell would you know for a fact that this is something they definitely plan on doing (the redevelopment plans)?
My arguments were all based on the logic of the circumstances.
What are yours based on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5
In fact Oakridge is much more successful than Metrotown, it's the second most profitable mall in Canada, so there would actually be less incentive for Oakridge to redevelop compared to Metrotown. If the second most profitable mall in Canada does a full redevelopment, then why not Metrotown?
|
A lot of people tend to get that statistic completely wrong or at least misunderstand it.
Oakridge is NOT more successful than Metrotown unless you're measuring that by the basis they use to rank malls with, which is,
revenue generated per square foot of sales area - which just by math alone should tell you disproportionately punishes or unfairly ranks malls that sit on large area sites like Metropolis and gives more favorable standing to malls that sit on more densely packed smaller areas (like Pacific Centre or Oakridge).
Metrotown overall generates more revenue per year than Oakridge, but because the mall itself is about 3 times the area size of Oakridge (and a lot of its square footage area isn't necessarily service sales space), what do you think happens when you rank them based on revenue per square foot basis (as opposed to total revenue generated)?
Just do the math.
Put another way, in order to match the sales revenue per square footage number of Oakridge while sitting on a site that's roughly 3 times bigger, Metropolis would have to generate sales of 3 times as much as what Oakridge does which in itself means they'd have to have much more shops and sales spots in the same area than is reasonably or practically possible for them to actually have.
And that's also assuming they have just as many more customers or as much more increased foot traffic commensurate with, or to match the shops increased.
But don't take my word for it.
Let's let the math do the talking:-
These numbers come from the Retail Council of Canada (RCC) (
https://www.retailcouncil.org/research/canadian-shopping-centre-study-2018/) which did the study ranking malls in Canada and who are the ones responsible for using the "per square footage" number that tends to be misleading as to how malls perform, as well the the respective mall's site themselves (for their own area sizes):-
Metrotown (per 2018 figures) generated
$1,040 per square foot.
Total Retail Area (retail floor space) : -
1,783,005 sq ft
Total (Gross) revenue : -
$1,854,325,200
Oakridge Centre, (also per 2018 figures, and incidentally is the THIRD in Canada (after Toronto's Yorkdale and Pacific Center) and not second like you suggested) which generated ...
$1,594 per square foot.
Total Retail Area (retail floor space) : -
575,168 sq ft
Total (Gross) Revenue generated : -
$ 916,817,792
Allow me to translate that for you.
Metropolis generates close to $ 1 BILLION more in sales revenue per year than Oakridge.
That's Billion with a "B".
Does that really translate to you that Oakridge is,...as you put it,...
"much more successful" than Metrotown?
The question you don't seem to be bothering to ask yourself is, if Oakridge is that much more "successful" than Metropolis, then why did Ivanhoe Cambridge sell them off still and keep the "less successful" Metropolis rather than finding a development partner to work with to develop the mall with them remaining as owners of the mall?
Did you bother asking yourself this?
Prev
" is more than a little asinine.
IMG_5297
IMG_5301
IMG_5302
IMG_5303
IMG_5308
IMG_5310
IMG_5312
Linear Mode
