[Burnaby] The Amazing Brentwood | 15 Towers | 186m | 56 flrs | U/C & Proposed

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

Condo king Bob Rennie sues Vancouver developer, multi-billion-dollar pension funds for unpaid fees

Condo king Bob Rennie has been the target of many lawsuits, but for over four decades, the power broker says he has never taken action to sue anyone himself. Until now.

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news...ion-dollar-pension-funds-for-unpaid-fees

what ever happened to this lawsuit?

Wouldn't zero news about it since 2017 suggest it was settled?

[VarBreStr18]

Tower 3 is the cheaper version of T1 and T2, as a cost cutting measure I think, hence the cladding exterior is different. T1 and T2 are the same height, T3 only has 54 real storey. Not sure about T5, hope not same height as T1 because view of the penthouse level of T! will be blocked, a major pissed for T1 penthouse owner. Btw all remaining towers of AMB will have AC , in fact even their sister project City of Lougheed all have AC. As a condo owner myself, the exterior appearance of the tower is not important, what is most important is the lay out of the interior, practical appliances, AC ; with all these in place AMB will sell itself because there is no other better location than AMB. Just mho.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by SonyPS5

Visited that Gosvenor weekend block event (got a free tote bag 🙂). Just noticed Gosvenor and Anthem are planning communities here (6 towers each?). Brentwood's core is gonna look like cluster of tall towers in 20 years. Just that last block of land with the gas station and car dealer left in the core

....and it's going to sell for a gajillion bajillion dollars whenever they do decide to redevelop it.

[Changing City]

Did we know the existing mall redesign is headed to Public Hearing on Tuesday? London Drugs and ex-Zellers large format not included. As predicted, the fabric roof will be replaced with a flat roof with clerestory windows and rooflights.

[theKB]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Did we know the existing mall redesign is headed to Public Hearing on Tuesday? London Drugs and ex-Zellers large format not included. As predicted, the fabric roof will be replaced with a flat roof with clerestory windows and rooflights.

Interesting- I really don't understand this development and it's timing. A lot of storefronts that state "spring 2022" opening and supply chain/pandemic issues aside, it is surprising how kind of half baked this whole project is.

Going for a walk there today - not much to look at, you cross into the old mall and it is completely depressing with a few junky stores and some banks. The food court is obviously a draw but really it's nothing out of the ordinary. The rec room is a nice attraction and fun so points for that but overall I don't understand why the old mall wasn't just knocked down right out of the gate similar to how oakridge decided to close and knock everything down after trying to keep it somewhat open. I remember the LVMH (L Catterton) announcement for some phase of the project back in 2017 but it seems like any "luxury" wing of that development is years if not a decade off.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by theKB

Interesting- I really don't understand this development and it's timing. A lot of storefronts that state "spring 2022" opening and supply chain/pandemic issues aside, it is surprising how kind of half baked this whole project is.

Going for a walk there today - not much to look at, you cross into the old mall and it is completely depressing with a few junky stores and some banks. The food court is obviously a draw but really it's nothing out of the ordinary. The rec room is a nice attraction and fun so points for that but overall I don't understand why the old mall wasn't just knocked down right out of the gate similar to how oakridge decided to close and knock everything down after trying to keep it somewhat open. I remember the LVMH (L Catterton) announcement for some phase of the project back in 2017 but it seems like any "luxury" wing of that development is years if not a decade off.

I mean it makes sense with their initial retail mix to be mass market with shoes/H&M/sporting gear etc. I mean if they rebuild the mall and there's no interesting retail then I think you can pan their parternship with Cattterton but it seems premature at this point.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Did we know the existing mall redesign is headed to Public Hearing on Tuesday? London Drugs and ex-Zellers large format not included. As predicted, the fabric roof will be replaced with a flat roof with clerestory windows and rooflights.

Thanks for posting.
It looks similar to the last interior plans they published with that second corridor on the south side - presumably the backs of the units over looking the the atrium will be glass.

Lower Level

January 2020:



Current application:




Upper Level

January 2020:



Current application:
North side units are shallower, and there are a lot more smaller units towards the eastern end of the mall.
A couple of units have teardrop shaped patios. I think the smaller units will make up a food market.

[NetMapel]

I missed the public hearing unfortunately. Anybody here who participated and got anything to update? I really wished I knew about this earlier so I could put in some recommendations if possible. Namely I feel like parking stalls #111 is just not that needed since we got many other parking spaces now. Turn that parking into a nice little garden for now would be better. Also along that road there has very little shades or things to block pedestrians against the element so it’d be nice to have something for that there as well.

In fact, I don’t think some of the street parking on the boulevard itself is needed or causes more issues… especially the part where the old and new mall got a door connection. Cars parking there absolutely block visibility and no cross walk on the ground means cars don’t always slow down and check for pedestrians. People will run through that part since it’s the closest door-to-door connection.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by NetMapel

I missed the public hearing unfortunately. Anybody here who participated and got anything to update? I really wished I knew about this earlier so I could put in some recommendations if possible. Namely I feel like parking stalls #111 is just not that needed since we got many other parking spaces now. Turn that parking into a nice little garden for now would be better. Also along that road there has very little shades or things to block pedestrians against the element so it’d be nice to have something for that there as well.

In fact, I don’t think some of the street parking on the boulevard itself is needed or causes more issues… especially the part where the old and new mall got a door connection. Cars parking there absolutely block visibility and no cross walk on the ground means cars don’t always slow down and check for pedestrians. People will run through that part since it’s the closest door-to-door connection.

Seems like no one was there to speak about it and it just passed to whatever the next step is.

https://pub-burnaby.escribemeetings.com/...nda&lang=English&Item=13&Tab=attachments

[Vin]

Thanks for posting the contrasting old and new plans, Officedweller! The soul of a great mall lies in the indoor portion, and not necessarily the outdoor part. Hope they get this renovation going quickly to rejuvenate the very tired-looking original portion of the mall.

[SpongeG]

Stopped by today and noticed they have put up fencing and were putting up scaffolding around the Suit Supply space, so they must be getting ready to build it out now.

2022-08-10_05-23-08 by snub_you, on Flickr

Also if anyone is into tentree they will be having a warehouse sale starting August 19

2022-08-10_05-23-16 by snub_you, on Flickr

[officedweller]

By me Aug 19th.

Not sure if these have been posted before -
where design and regulation fail to agree / coordinate:





There were also a number of light strips in the paving near the LLBean that were not functioning.
The randomly blinking light squares in the paving were very cool though!

[GenWhy?]

That... guardrail is hilarious! ty for posting that

[LeftCoaster]

Yikes, that's one of those times where the code needs to be just a tiny bit flexible. No doubt that was a frustrating solution for the developer.

[jollyburger]

Anyone care to speculate on the regulation that they were trying to observe?

[LeftCoaster]

I'm no code consultant but I would assume width of stairway with no handrail. It met the code at the top but not the bottom.

[Zepfancouver]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Anyone care to speculate on the regulation that they were trying to observe?

I see a missing railing, shouldn't there be a fall through protection when railing is at the edge of a fall hazard? I'm not sure if that's the case here, If it was the concern I guess it was easier or cheaper to install a new set away from that edge instead of retro fitting the existing one?

Originally Posted by officedweller

By me Aug 19th.
Not sure if these have been posted before -
where design and regulation fail to agree / coordinate:

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Zepfancouver

I see a missing railing, shouldn't there be a fall through protection when railing is at the edge of a fall hazard? I'm not sure if that's the case here, If it was the concern I guess it was easier or cheaper to install a new set away from that edge instead of retro fitting the exiting one?

Definitely no fall hazard here, the landscaping follows the stairs. A toddler could walk under the railing directly onto the dirt.

For staircases elsewhere in the project that have real fall hazards, there are glass panes for fall through protection.

[Zepfancouver]

Thanks chowhou, I was unable to see dirt knoll in the dark.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

that railing. ugh. why, just why. codes are way too restrictive/over the top these days. baby proofing the world is a wasted endevour. things just need to be reasonable really.