Tsawwassen First Nation Updates

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

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.

No it's not, it's getting a Saks Off Fifth, which isn't even comparable to mainline Saks.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

No it's not, it's getting a Saks Off Fifth, which isn't even comparable to mainline Saks.

Okay, but I'd still put that at or above the level of Nike or Esprit.

[LeftCoaster]

I wouldn't, it's a discount store not much different than Winners or Marshalls. This is the interior of a typical Off Fifth location:


https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/dcI...G_0011_2.0.jpg

[djmk]

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.

that is what happens when 17 million people live in an area 25% bigger than vancouver island

[scryer]

Regarding the Dutch mall that was posted, it's both impressive and unsurprising that the Dutch engineered and designed something very forward-thinking. History shows that they have built amazing engineering projects before and they continue to be the forefront of the Engineering community today; with that said, Canada should take a page out of their book. Maybe get a sister-city with the great Amsterdam?

As someone mentioned before, malls are extremely hard to design well. Especially if it's located in a low-dense neighbourhood. I think that the mall that is being proposed is serving its purpose and that the interior is done well. And as someone else had mentioned before, Delta isn't expected to grow a lot in the next 20 years or so. So IMO, this mall's design is perfect for the people that it's serving, and for the remote suburban setting it's being constructed in. I would actually compare this mall to the Guildford Town Centre in Surrey. It's a really nice mall on the inside, but it looks awful on the outside.

To be honest, this mall is better designed than some of the ones out in some of the prairie cities; the only difference being that this one is more remotely located outside of a major metropolitan centre and the ones that I'm thinking of are located in the centre of the urban fabric (Portage Place, Polo Park, and St. Vital Centre come to mind). I'm not trying to put any city down but the point that I'm trying to stress here is that the suburbs of Vancouver do malls very well.

Back to the location, as mentioned this mall is in a more remote location. Central City, Metrotown, the Eaton Centre (in Toronto), are all examples of malls that are more dense and are in the middle of major metropolitan hubs. This mall is not in the middle of a major metropolitan hub.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by jhausner

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.

The bolded part is key. There's other ways to make the urban experience less defined by parking. Richmond is full of malls with multi-storey garages sitting on top of retail. Some commercial complex garages out there have flat floors linked with external ramps that can be eventually removed when increasing neighbourhood density and transit levels make it profitable to convert the parking to office or residential space.

This project didn't even try at all, because it didn't have to - no jurisdiction has say over what happens in First Nations land, even if it affects other areas negatively. There's a reason why this is the first major blight to go up in decades.

[SpongeG]

saks off 5th that i went to in california was really small in an outlet mall. Most of the clothes were not that designer, brands like calvin klein, tommy hilfiger, polo, michael kors, kenneth cole, guess. I was expecting more higher end brands. I found marshalls down there to be better shopping.

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by jhausner

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.

The only thing that prevents you from building under ground is money. It's not a code issue at all. Look at the new VANCOUVER house thread. The holes is about 100 feet below grade. And only 2 blocks offf false creek.

The land a TFN. Is dirt cheap so there is no reason to go to the expense. In new west you have 3 floors of parking as skytrain and the railyards are there. Would you like to look out. Your window at skytrain.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by cairnstone

The only thing that prevents you from building under ground is money. It's not a code issue at all. Look at the new VANCOUVER house thread. The holes is about 100 feet below grade. And only 2 blocks offf false creek.

The land a TFN. Is dirt cheap so there is no reason to go to the expense. In new west you have 3 floors of parking as skytrain and the railyards are there. Would you like to look out. Your window at skytrain.

Unfortunately you can believe it all you want but you're still wrong. Comparing Vancouver near False Creek geologically to most of South Delta is a bit silly sorry. If you base your knowledge of building codes on a "new VANCOUVER house thread." then there's not much else I can say. Not that long ago in this very thread I made a point about bring real life facts to a discussion if you want to sell your point as being factual and not purely "because I think so" opinion.

*shrug* I mean clearly the reason why the high rises in New Westminster along the Fraser River don't have underground parking is entirely because the rail yards are ugly. Clearly.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by dleung

The bolded part is key. There's other ways to make the urban experience less defined by parking. Richmond is full of malls with multi-storey garages sitting on top of retail. Some commercial complex garages out there have flat floors linked with external ramps that can be eventually removed when increasing neighbourhood density and transit levels make it profitable to convert the parking to office or residential space.

This project didn't even try at all, because it didn't have to - no jurisdiction has say over what happens in First Nations land, even if it affects other areas negatively. There's a reason why this is the first major blight to go up in decades.

I can't disagree. I posted earlier that fact that I think they could have built up or even on the roof to reduce the overall footprint of the surface parking lots since they can't build underground.

I think in that instance though it does come down purely to cost because while they could have built on the roof and they could have built car garages around, they cost more than simple surface parking as for roof parking you need to add a lot more structural integrity to the supporting sub-structure to hold the load of all the vehicles on top. They would have also needed to do a lot more preloading of the land around there to support not just the weight of the mall structure but again the combined structure + vehicles.

All adding $$$s to a venture I'm sure they wanted to build with as little capital as possible. Surface parking is easy. Flatten, pave, if a few spots start to sink, dig up, lay fill, flatten, pave again. Just have to look at the SFPR which had a lot of preload that sat in spots for years and there are multiple sections that still keep sinking. They fixed sections out near Tilbury already and only 6 months later a few are sinking yet again. I don't think most people actually understand the complexities of constructing on effectively a sand bar. Downtown Vancouver is largely rock. Delta, Richmond, and low lying areas of Surrey and New Westminster are sand because it is the Fraser River "delta."

So to that I absolutely agree, they didn't try. I'm not surprised, but much like you, I'd have to agree it would have been nice to see them try a bit more.

[Stingray2004]

Sigh... after reading the comments in this thread.

I have posted earlier on herein that I suspect that this mall will turn out to be a "dog".

I say same, without limitation:

1. I grew up in Tsawwassen, it's NIMBYville, and population has been declining with kids growing up and moving away over the decades;

2. Tsawwassenites already have 3 neighbourhood shopping centres for local needs... and Richmond Centre/Pacific Centre makes up the rest;

3. Ferry traffic heading to the terminal moves as fast as it can get to make the ferry... 120 km/hr+... have no interest in the proposed mall;

4. Ferry traffic heading from the terminal in ferry dumps wanna head away as fast as possible;

5. Unless the mall has specific draws unavailable in Metro Van elsewhere... doubtful that it will attract Metro Van traffic;

6. The GMT is a major bottleneck/headache most times of the day;

7. Am aware that a major developer is involved... am also aware about most major retail/shopping centre developments in SW BC over past 35 years... also with major retail developers behind same that turned out to be "dogs" - "wide-eyed and bushy-tailed" development teams behind same with wayyyyy too optimistic internal trade market area forecasts/studies;

8. Even was involved in/with family in a neighbourhood shopping centre anchored by Canada Safeway (still) and had all matters de-risked thereto (local trade market area, demographics, major intersection locale, etc.) and it's still a somewhat risky proposition IMHO - retail development in general that is (unlike residential for the most part);

I can go on and on.

In this instance... I still smell a "dog" in the making here. And, frankly, I hope that I am wrong.

[cornholio]

The less they invest now the sooner the mall can be potentially redeveloped in the future. Think of it as a place holder for the next 30 years instead of a mall that will need 60 years to get the desired return.

This mall will draw people from a wide region. Why should someone drive through traffic to Surrey central, Richmond central, Guildford, Oakridge, Metrotown etc. in to a increasingly congested urban area when they can drive against the flow and out towards this mall. A mall that will have everything they need in one convenient location where they can spend a few hours and do all their shopping in one go. This mall has no competition in the region and will draw people from South Vancouver to South Surrey and Langley and all of Richmond and even further out then that. The mall will do great. The Massey tunnel and 99 expansion will help allot of course and make this mall more accessible then any other mall in the region to more people.

To drive to this mall from Langley center is 30min with limited congestion. To drive to Surrey central is also 30 min with heavy and increasing congestion.

To drive from Knight street and Marine to this mall is just over 15 min soon with only congestion on the north arm bridges. To drive to Oakridge (a much smaller mall) is 10 min with heavy and increasing congestion.

To drive from White rock to this mall is 20min, to drive from white rock to any decent mall is significantly further. (Morgan crossing is not a mall and serves a different purpose and again is small).

I can go on and on...

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Unfortunately you can believe it all you want but you're still wrong. Comparing Vancouver near False Creek geologically to most of South Delta is a bit silly sorry. If you base your knowledge of building codes on a "new VANCOUVER house thread." then there's not much else I can say. Not that long ago in this very thread I made a point about bring real life facts to a discussion if you want to sell your point as being factual and not purely "because I think so" opinion.

*shrug* I mean clearly the reason why the high rises in New Westminster along the Fraser River don't have underground parking is entirely because the rail yards are ugly. Clearly.

Here we go again.

Building Codes do not dictate above ground / underground construction. If anything, that would be something a municipal government would try to do through their zoning by-law. Delta is one municipality that i have never worked with on a project. But I have with Richmond, New Westminster and the City of Vancouver. I mention them for their relevance to the TFN / South Delta situation. There is underground construction in Richmond, though not much. Why? Purely about cost. Foundations in Richmond are financially challenging enough. Talk to a geotechnical and structural engineer about it: you need to generate a lot of friction in the ground (friction piles) beneath a structure to survive an earthquake. And in contradiction to that, you need your structural bearing components to have 'access' to sufficient void space to evacuate water driven by the increased pressures that come with liquefaction. And, there is always the issue of waterproofing any spaces below ground and below the water table . . . which may be the same thing. Projects in Richmond are nowhere near big and profitable to allow for all of this in their budget / pro-forma.

They have taken care of all of these issues on a few projects in Vancouver. Vancouver House, though its excavation may be below the False Creek tideline, it is in solid ground. I don't see any special measures in the photos to deal with ground water. The towers between Main and Quebec Streets beside False Creek are a different matter. They are on the crappy fill of the False Creek Flats. While its not analagous, they are similar in many ways. For them, the excavated within a coffer dam, and then built a giant raft foundation, like a tub, in which the underground floors and tower foundations were constructed. That cost a lot.

There is an interesting case in New Westminster. The foundations for the Stewardson Way overpasses use giant hollow friction piles (steel, I think) which are perforated. Inside those, the constructed concrete post which transfer their load to the friction piles at the bottom. The posts are smaller than the inside diameter of the steel piles. The space between was carefully filled with crushed rock, such that the posts get the support they need, and the water has a place to go so the soil drains fast enough to either prevent or minimize the degree of liquefaction. That's a situation similar to Richmond and the rest of the delta.

The only reason New West has all that parking above ground, ruining its streetscapes, is money. The developers will do anything to save the costs of going underground. And the City is so stupid, that they allow themselves to be bullied because they fear no one would build there if they didn't allow it. So it is worked out, project by project, through development permit negotiations, in which the City gets a bit from the developers for their self-respect, and the developers end up with exactly what they, in private, targeted in the first place. Ta Da!

Please, no fights this time jhausner.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Marshal

The only reason New West has all that parking above ground, ruining its streetscapes, is money. The developers will do anything to save the costs of going underground. And the City is so stupid, that they allow themselves to be bullied because they fear no one would build there if they didn't allow it. So it is worked out, project by project, through development permit negotiations, in which the City gets a bit from the developers for their self-respect, and the developers end up with exactly what they, in private, targeted in the first place. Ta Da!

Please, no fights this time jhausner.

I can't speak to the buildings on the river side of the train tracks, but the buildings that surround the New West SkyTrain station have above-ground parking because of extensive underground utilities. Very little to do with the costs of going underground (unless you're suggesting that the only reason the utilities aren't moved is because of money).

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

In this instance... I still smell a "dog" in the making here. And, frankly, I hope that I am wrong.

I also predicted this above. For once I agree with Stringray2004.

Beware the ides of March!

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I can't speak to the buildings on the river side of the train tracks, but the buildings that surround the New West SkyTrain station have above-ground parking because of extensive underground utilities. Very little to do with the costs of going underground (unless you're suggesting that the only reason the utilities aren't moved is because of money).

I know the engineer from that project. He just told me that, yes they had to deal with some utility issues, but they were not big enough to dictate anything crucial regarding foundation or building layout. This is private land, the utilities were associated with the SkyTrain right of way. That right of way was something the design couldn't avoid anyway. But it did not prevent them from going underground. If not for the costs, which they avoided easily because the City folded on the issue, the parking could have been located underground. The only thing that makes sense of what you are saying is that the SkyTrain's division of the property also makes the resulting site dimensions even less economical to reconcile. Regardless, the above ground parking has everything to do with costs, especially here where the costs were already high because the geotech required. Quoting you: "extensive underground utilities" had "Very little to do with" it.

Lastly, even if you were correct, that still means a practical barrier, not a legal (Building Code) one.

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Unfortunately you can believe it all you want but you're still wrong. Comparing Vancouver near False Creek geologically to most of South Delta is a bit silly sorry. If you base your knowledge of building codes on a "new VANCOUVER house thread." then there's not much else I can say. Not that long ago in this very thread I made a point about bring real life facts to a discussion if you want to sell your point as being factual and not purely "because I think so" opinion.

*shrug* I mean clearly the reason why the high rises in New Westminster along the Fraser River don't have underground parking is entirely because the rail yards are ugly. Clearly.

I don't mind being called out but please indicate your background. I still say the main reason why we don't see underground parkades os do to cost. please show me in the building code where it indicates that you can't build below grade in Delta and New West. THere are several project in the same geological ground that do have underground parkades or structures. The engineering and design is different and takes into account the hydrostatic pressure and during construction dewatering is a part of the construction.

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by jhausner

I can't disagree. I posted earlier that fact that I think they could have built up or even on the roof to reduce the overall footprint of the surface parking lots since they can't build underground.

I think in that instance though it does come down purely to cost because while they could have built on the roof and they could have built car garages around, they cost more than simple surface parking as for roof parking you need to add a lot more structural integrity to the supporting sub-structure to hold the load of all the vehicles on top. They would have also needed to do a lot more preloading of the land around there to support not just the weight of the mall structure but again the combined structure + vehicles.

All adding $$$s to a venture I'm sure they wanted to build with as little capital as possible. Surface parking is easy. Flatten, pave, if a few spots start to sink, dig up, lay fill, flatten, pave again. Just have to look at the SFPR which had a lot of preload that sat in spots for years and there are multiple sections that still keep sinking. They fixed sections out near Tilbury already and only 6 months later a few are sinking yet again. I don't think most people actually understand the complexities of constructing on effectively a sand bar. Downtown Vancouver is largely rock. Delta, Richmond, and low lying areas of Surrey and New Westminster are sand because it is the Fraser River "delta."

So to that I absolutely agree, they didn't try. I'm not surprised, but much like you, I'd have to agree it would have been nice to see them try a bit more.

The builders wished they were on a sand bar. Basically the road is floating on a bog. Preloading is the first step and then half a mountain of pumice from washington was used along with styrofoam to float the road. PLus al the geofabrics. I still think it is a good highway, I m surprised that failure has started to happen. But then again Kiewit had failures before completion.

How much of the SFPR was densified by piles or was it just preloaded

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Here we go again.

Building Codes do not dictate above ground / underground construction. If anything, that would be something a municipal government would try to do through their zoning by-law. Delta is one municipality that i have never worked with on a project. But I have with Richmond, New Westminster and the City of Vancouver. I mention them for their relevance to the TFN / South Delta situation. There is underground construction in Richmond, though not much. Why? Purely about cost. Foundations in Richmond are financially challenging enough. Talk to a geotechnical and structural engineer about it: you need to generate a lot of friction in the ground (friction piles) beneath a structure to survive an earthquake. And in contradiction to that, you need your structural bearing components to have 'access' to sufficient void space to evacuate water driven by the increased pressures that come with liquefaction. And, there is always the issue of waterproofing any spaces below ground and below the water table . . . which may be the same thing. Projects in Richmond are nowhere near big and profitable to allow for all of this in their budget / pro-forma.

They have taken care of all of these issues on a few projects in Vancouver. Vancouver House, though its excavation may be below the False Creek tideline, it is in solid ground. I don't see any special measures in the photos to deal with ground water. The towers between Main and Quebec Streets beside False Creek are a different matter. They are on the crappy fill of the False Creek Flats. While its not analagous, they are similar in many ways. For them, the excavated within a coffer dam, and then built a giant raft foundation, like a tub, in which the underground floors and tower foundations were constructed. That cost a lot.

There is an interesting case in New Westminster. The foundations for the Stewardson Way overpasses use giant hollow friction piles (steel, I think) which are perforated. Inside those, the constructed concrete post which transfer their load to the friction piles at the bottom. The posts are smaller than the inside diameter of the steel piles. The space between was carefully filled with crushed rock, such that the posts get the support they need, and the water has a place to go so the soil drains fast enough to either prevent or minimize the degree of liquefaction. That's a situation similar to Richmond and the rest of the delta.

The only reason New West has all that parking above ground, ruining its streetscapes, is money. The developers will do anything to save the costs of going underground. And the City is so stupid, that they allow themselves to be bullied because they fear no one would build there if they didn't allow it. So it is worked out, project by project, through development permit negotiations, in which the City gets a bit from the developers for their self-respect, and the developers end up with exactly what they, in private, targeted in the first place. Ta Da!

Please, no fights this time jhausner.

Good post. I forgot about the false creek and main buildings, that ground is gross. Its all crap fill from the grandview cut and lumber remains. Only industrial or high end will pay the extra for the design and build. If I recall Hydro spec is 3 layers of water proofing. Liquid membrane or mirra drain, waterproof concrete example kryton and then an interior membrane. These are things a developer would not want to go through for a project if they can find an easier way.

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Sigh... after reading the comments in this thread.

I have posted earlier on herein that I suspect that this mall will turn out to be a "dog".

I say same, without limitation:

1. I grew up in Tsawwassen, it's NIMBYville, and population has been declining with kids growing up and moving away over the decades;

2. Tsawwassenites already have 3 neighbourhood shopping centres for local needs... and Richmond Centre/Pacific Centre makes up the rest;

3. Ferry traffic heading to the terminal moves as fast as it can get to make the ferry... 120 km/hr+... have no interest in the proposed mall;

4. Ferry traffic heading from the terminal in ferry dumps wanna head away as fast as possible;

5. Unless the mall has specific draws unavailable in Metro Van elsewhere... doubtful that it will attract Metro Van traffic;

6. The GMT is a major bottleneck/headache most times of the day;

7. Am aware that a major developer is involved... am also aware about most major retail/shopping centre developments in SW BC over past 35 years... also with major retail developers behind same that turned out to be "dogs" - "wide-eyed and bushy-tailed" development teams behind same with wayyyyy too optimistic internal trade market area forecasts/studies;

8. Even was involved in/with family in a neighbourhood shopping centre anchored by Canada Safeway (still) and had all matters de-risked thereto (local trade market area, demographics, major intersection locale, etc.) and it's still a somewhat risky proposition IMHO - retail development in general that is (unlike residential for the most part);

I can go on and on.

In this instance... I still smell a "dog" in the making here. And, frankly, I hope that I am wrong.

I also lived in Ladner and area. Shopping is Safeway or Saveon and London drugs or you go to Richmond, Burnaby, Surrey. I have spent many times being stuck in a ferry terminal and have nothing to do but pay for ferry priced food at the terminal. At lat at horseshoe bay you can sneak away for food or a beer and some shopping.

This mall will draw a from a huge area, may not all be from the city but it will get Americans and tons from the island.