Burnaby Updates

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

that looks like the kirmac location.

Well the address is the same

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Proposal for 5180 Lougheed Highway (Springer & Lougheed)


http://brentwoodstation.blogspot.ca/

Sweet!

[officedweller]

Metrotown mall owners sue developer over proposed mixed-use towers
Concord Pacific's proposed new development would include retail, offices and residential

By Maryse Zeidler, CBC News
Posted: Mar 04, 2017 9:00 AM PT| Last Updated: Mar 04, 2017 12:18 PM PT

...

But a dispute, outlined in a recent B.C. Supreme Court judgment between two giant real estate developers, over a 30-year-old agreement neither of them signed but both inherited, is threatening to pull the project apart in an area the City of Burnaby is considering turning into its "true downtown."

The rift is between Ivanhoe Cambridge, the owners of the Metropolis at Metrotown shopping centre, and Concord Kingsway, a subsidiary of real estate developer Concord Pacific, the new owner of a Sears Canada store and the land on which it sits.

Concord says it could lose money on its hefty investment, while, on the other hand, Ivanhoe says Concord is pushing forward the project without abiding by their long-standing agreement to work in partnership.

In 2013, Sears Canada issued a news release describing its intentions to turn the site into a massive mixed-use development that would include residential and office high-rise towers with retail on the ground floor, including a new store for Sears.

Two years later, according to court documents, Concord Kingsway and Sears closed a $100 million deal for to enter into a joint venture to develop the site.

Now, Metropolis owner Ivanhoe Cambridge is taking Concord and Sears to court, claiming the company can't develop the site without its permission.

Agreement crux of dispute

At the crux of the issue is a long-standing agreement signed in 1986 that neither party was originally privy to, but which the judge said both inherited through various means when they took over their respective properties.

Sears and Concord argue the wording of the agreement is vague.

The agreement states the two properties "are intended to be operated, supplied, maintained, repaired, altered and reconstructed as a unified, first class, integrated, regional shopping centre," according to the judgment.

To redevelop the site, Sears would need to give 15 months' notice and couldn't build anything deemed "incompatible with the existing shopping centre." It also couldn't close the Sears store for more than 150 days.

But the judgment says Ivanhoe's "first warning signs of trouble" was when Concord wrote Ivanhoe to say that, as the new owners, it wasn't bound by the agreement.

Retail increasingly mixing with residential

Sears submitted a rezoning application to the City of Burnaby planning department in 2013, which is currently under review. Concord has since taken over the application.

At first glance, the redevelopment appears to fit in with the city's draft plan for the Metrotown area, which includes increasing services and residences in the transit-friendly neighbourhood already on a SkyTrain line.
...

The judgment does mention that Ivanhoe has also been "exploring redevelopment options," and the city's draft plan for the area lists redevelopment of both Sears and the Metrotown shopping centre as part of the neighbourhood's revitalization.

Ivanhoe refused to comment on the matter. Concord Pacific did not respond to requests for comment.

Meanwhile, a different lawsuit over the matter that started two years ago is still unfolding in B.C. Supreme Court.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...wers-1.4007739

[officedweller]

Here's the judgment - have a good read:

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/...17BCSC0282.htm

...
[7] Between 1984 and 2002, Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (“Manulife”) owned and operated Metrotown, having purchased the site from Sears in 1984. As part of that sale to Manulife, Sears retained for itself the Sears Lands. At this time, Sears operates the Sears Lands as a Sears-branded store.

[8] A Memorandum of Agreement dated May 30, 1988 between Manulife and Sears (the “Memorandum of Agreement”) governed the operation of the entire Metrotown site between 1988 and 2001.

[9] In 2001, Sears and Manulife entered into a Restated Agreement (the “ROA”) relating to, inter alia, the on-going operation of their respective interests in Metrotown and the Sears Lands. Sears and Manulife intended the ROA to replace the Memorandum of Agreement.

[10] Ivanhoe, Concord and Sears all agree that the ROA is the key agreement and source of the dispute between them. The relevant terms of the ROA are as follows:

a) the term of the ROA commenced on September 25, 1986 and terminates on September 24, 2036 (the “Term”) (Article 2);

b) the Sears Lands and the Metrotown mall are intended to be operated, supplied, maintained, repaired, altered and reconstructed as a unified, first class, integrated, regional shopping centre. Sears and Manulife will cooperate in all reasonable ways to achieve this objective (Article 24);

c) Sears covenants to operate a department store on the Sears Lands, comprising three floors of the Sears Retail Store and 160,000 square feet of selling space (Article 10(a));

d) Sears must give 15 months’ written notice prior to terminating the operation of a department store on the premises of the Sears Retail Store (the “Sears Termination Notice”) (Article 10(a));

e) in the event that Sears gives the Sears Termination Notice, and at the same time notifies Manulife of its intention to redevelop the Sears Lands (the “Sears Redevelopment Notice”), Sears has the right to redevelop the Sears Lands in its discretion, provided that: the redevelopment is not incompatible with the existing shopping centre; the Sears Retail Store is replaced by a major full line department store of not less than 160,000 square feet of selling space; Sears must fully operate a major full line department store in the new department store building for the balance of the Term; and, the time from the Sears Termination Notice until the major full line retail department store is fully operating is not, subject to force majeure, to exceed 150 days (Article 10(b));

f) in the event that Sears gives the Sears Termination Notice, but did not give the Sears Redevelopment Notice, Manulife has the option to purchase the Sears Lands at fair market value based on retail use only (the “Option”) (Article 10(d));

g) other than pursuant to a Sears Redevelopment Notice, Sears is prohibited from redeveloping the Sears Lands during the Term (Article 12); and

h) the ROA shall enure to the benefit of and be binding on the parties in respect of successors and assigns and each party shall ensure that it shall be binding on successors in title or successors in interest (Article 28(a) and (b)).

[11] Ivanhoe is not a party to the ROA, since Ivanhoe acquired Metrotown from Manulife the following year, in early 2002.

[12] On January 21, 2002, an Assignment and Amendment of Restated Operating Agreement (the “Amended ROA”) was entered into between Manulife, as assignor, Ivanhoe, as assignee, and Sears. The Amended ROA was part of Manulife’s sale of Metrotown to Ivanhoe, and provided for an assignment of Manulife’s rights and obligations under the ROA to Ivanhoe.

[13] The relevant terms of the Amended ROA are as follows:

a) Manulife assigned, transferred and set over to Ivanhoe all of its rights, title and interest in and to the ROA (Article 2(a));

b) Manulife covenanted and warranted to Ivanhoe that the ROA was the entire and operative agreement between it and Sears and that it was in full force and effect and enforceable against Sears (Article 5(a));

c) Sears covenanted and warranted to Ivanhoe that the ROA was the entire and operative agreement between it and Manulife and that it was in full force and effect and enforceable against Manulife (Article 6(a)); and

d) the Amended ROA shall enure to the benefit of Ivanhoe and Sears and their respective successors and assigns and shall be binding upon Manulife and Sears and their respective successors and assigns (Article 10).

[14] Ivanhoe contends that although the Amended ROA partially amends the terms of the ROA, the ROA otherwise continues as the governing operating agreement concerning the Sears Lands. As I will discuss below, Ivanhoe and Sears disagree.

...

[18] On June 8, 2015, by an Assignment and Assumption of Metrotown Operating Agreement, Sears assigned its rights under the ROA and Amended ROA to Concord and Concord assumed all liabilities of Sears under the ROA and Amended ROA.

[19] Subsequent to Concord’s purchase of the Sears Lands, Ivanhoe wrote to Sears seeking assurances that Concord would assume and be bound by all of Sears’ covenants under the ROA and Amended ROA and that the terms and conditions of the ROA and Amended ROA would continue in force.

[20] On July 15, 2015, Concord’s solicitors wrote to Ivanhoe, confirming that Sears and Concord had entered into the Assignment and Assumption of Metrotown Operating Agreement, as required by Article 28 of the ROA. However, the first warning signs of trouble, from Ivanhoe’s point of view, arose from the following further statement in this letter:

It is Concord’s position that because the assignment and assumption agreement was a two-party contract between Concord and Sears, there has been no novation of the ROA and there is no privity of contract between Concord and Ivanhoe. However, Concord has instructed us to advise you that they will be prepared to enter into a revised operating agreement with Ivanhoe at the appropriate time.

[21] Ivanhoe took Concord’s solicitor’s July 15, 2015 letter as asserting that Concord was not bound by the ROA or Amended ROA. That was a correct interpretation of the letter, as now clearly evidenced by Concord’s position in this proceeding and in the earlier action commenced by Ivanhoe.

[22] Concord’s expressed intention, apparently from the time it acquired the Sears Lands, was to redevelop the Sears Lands after rezoning, to include both residential and commercial development. Indeed, later in March 2016, Sears assigned to Concord all of its rights in a rezoning application that Sears had made in 2013. Despite some preliminary discussions between Ivanhoe and Concord on the matter of redevelopment, Concord concluded that their respective plans conflicted. Accordingly, from the time of its acquisition of the Sears Lands, Concord has continued its redevelopment efforts of the Sears Lands without any involvement of or cooperation by Ivanhoe.

[23] Ivanhoe submits that Concord cannot proceed without regard to the terms of the ROA and Amended ROA, which Ivanhoe says restrict redevelopment of the Sears Lands, save in accordance with their terms, or otherwise with its agreement.
...

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/...17BCSC0282.htm

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Here's the judgment - have a good read:

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/...17BCSC0282.htm


http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/...17BCSC0282.htm

Oh man,...
That's gonna get messy real quick. (if it hasn't already).

I originally thought the hold-up for this redevelopment project centered around easement rights and issues (which it kinda partially does) but that prior pre-existing agreement (ROA) throws a whole level of monkey wrench into the works.

It's sad but I can actually see it from both sides of the issue.

On the one hand if you're Concord, why in the hell would you want to have your development be beholden to some agreement that was signed long before you came into the picture (like two generations before), and whose major implication is that you have a partner in your development project that you never asked for (Ivanhoe Cambridge) and whose aspirations for the site conflict wildy with your own, and most importantly (it seems) without whose say-so you can't do anything?

But on the flip side if you're Ivanhoe Cambrige, you're faced with a significant loss of revenue not just from the construction itself which will cut off Kingsway along with most of the parking space that currently services the mall, in addition to shutting down one of the biggest tenants (I don't really know if Sears are tenants to the overall mall or if they're their own entity since they, or rather Concord, own the land they sit on).
Add to all that, is the fact that you could end up with a development of towers and high-rises that not only hurt the overall view and character (as Ivanhoe Cambridge see it) of your existing mall, but which might also negatively impact its operation (depending on how well its integrated with the mall itself in terms of access, easement passageways.
Worst case scenario, they're completely cut off from Kingsway by this new retail podium complex that has nothing to do with the mall itself in terms of access and throughways. And worse still, depending on what retail components go into those podiums, they could end up offering more (unwanted) competition to the mall's actual retail tenants.

But then again, it's not like they don't stand to benefit from a development that could put as many as 7-10 towers (with as many residents and potential customers) right at their doorstep.

Hard to say who to root for here.

That stretch of Kingsway badly needs redevelopment from all that surface parking and to improve that streetscape character (which this project could potentially do, .......IF handled correctly).
But the only way of getting there it seems, is by adding the one thing that most people slate the mall for - i.e. yet another humongous mass or buildings further cutting off Kingsway from Central Boulevard and the Skytrain station.

[officedweller]

Personally, I think that if Ivanhoe Cambridge gets a say in how Concord Pacific develops its lands - that'll be better for the final product.

You just have to look at the quality and design of the "Eaton Centre Metrotown" underground parkade to see how high the standards are for Ivanhoe Cambridge. i.e. they are at commercial / office standards, not residential standards.

It would be a nightmare for Ivanhoe Cambridge if Concord built:
- underground parkade connections with poor turning radii, narrow aisles, etc.; or
- retail space that was parcelled into small Parker Place / Aberdeen expansion sized commercial retail strata units.

Another wrench in the works I can see is the City of Burnaby's Metrotown Plan - since it suggests roadways through and along the southern edge of the Concord Pacific site - effectively forcing the contractually required department store to be standalone - separate from the mall corridor - or accessed by a skybridge. That in itself could force a breach of the agreement (though that could be a force majeure item at the hands of government action).

If that were the case, if I were Ivanhoe Cambridge, I would be apt to convert the mall corridor leading to Sears into an anchor location and effectively cut off the Concord site from the mall (other than exterior doors through the anchor).

Hopefully Concord realizes that a good interface with the mall is also to its benefit.

This map from the plan shows the property boundaries - I've outlined the Concord site in red
- note the new roads under the Metrotown Plan.


https://eagenda.burnaby.ca/sirepub/v...s&fileid=69597

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Metrotown mall owners sue developer over proposed mixed-use towers
Concord Pacific's proposed new development would include retail, offices and residential

That explains the deafening sound of silence we've heard on this. I can't see it being resolved anytime soon.

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Oh man,...
It's sad but I can actually see it from both sides of the issue.

Are you a Gemini?

Originally Posted by officedweller

Another wrench in the works I can see is the City of Burnaby's Metrotown Plan - since it suggests roadways through and along the southern edge of the Concord Pacific site - effectively forcing the contractually required department store to be standalone - separate from the mall corridor - or accessed by a skybridge. That in itself could force a breach of the agreement (though that could be a force majeure item at the hands of government action).

If that were the case, if I were Ivanhoe Cambridge, I would be apt to convert the mall corridor leading to Sears into an anchor location and effectively cut off the Concord site from the mall (other than exterior doors through the anchor).

Yeah Burnaby's plan to chop up the whole area adds a whole 'nother level of gore to what's already potentially a massively messy divorce. From what I saw of the old proposal, it looked like Concord wanted it to be towers with retail podiums and at best only one of them would be connected to the mall.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Personally, I think that if Ivanhoe Cambridge gets a say in how Concord Pacific develops its lands - that'll be better for the final product.

But that's just the thing, though.
The lands belong to Concord Pacific now, and they were not party to the original agreement that spelled out how the lands (and the store) would be redeveloped if it came to that.

I think the question (that's before the court) is whether they should be held to that agreement (the ROA) which would make Ivanhoe Cambridge a de facto partner on any design going forward, with veto power, effectively.

Personally I believe that if it came to that and they lost the court ruling Concord Pacific would instead opt to shelve the project and sit on the land for the next 20 years (as long as the original agreement needs to expire) if needs be, and then proceed to redevelop it as they wish. They can afford to do that, especially with with all the projects and megaprojects they have going in Brentwood and other places.
Land value prices tend to go only upwards in GVA (barring a real estate market crash or correction).

Ivanhoe Cambridge would then be totally screwed in that case.

Originally Posted by officedweller

You just have to look at the quality and design of the "Eaton Centre Metrotown" underground parkade to see how high the standards are for Ivanhoe Cambridge. i.e. they are at commercial / office standards, not residential standards.

It would be a nightmare for Ivanhoe Cambridge if Concord built:
- underground parkade connections with poor turning radii, narrow aisles, etc.; or
- retail space that was parcelled into small Parker Place / Aberdeen expansion sized commercial retail strata units.

It might come to that if things hit an impasse.
I think it would be in everyone's best interest (especially the city) if they were able to work this out and come with an agreement that all parties can live with considering how big a money-maker the mall is for the city (from taxes and sales revenue taxes, jobs etc).

Also given how vital the site is in terms of the city's overall "Metrotown downtown" plan.

Originally Posted by officedweller

Another wrench in the works I can see is the City of Burnaby's Metrotown Plan - since it suggests roadways through and along the southern edge of the Concord Pacific site - effectively forcing the contractually required department store to be standalone - separate from the mall corridor - or accessed by a skybridge. That in itself could force a breach of the agreement (though that could be a force majeure item at the hands of government action).

If that were the case, if I were Ivanhoe Cambridge, I would be apt to convert the mall corridor leading to Sears into an anchor location and effectively cut off the Concord site from the mall (other than exterior doors through the anchor).

That would be suicide (for Ivanhoe Cambridge, IMHO), since that would mean effectively cutting themselves off from Kingsway completely and any parking and direct access to that side of the mall.
I don't think they want to do that considering the number of their major anchor tenants that rely on access to Kingsway. (Silvercity and Superstore just to name the main ones.)

Originally Posted by officedweller

Hopefully Concord realizes that a good interface with the mall is also to its benefit.

Agreed.
But I also think if it comes down to it, Concord Pacific need Ivanhoe Cambridge less than the other way around, but there's obviously some realization that even the city will not look too kindly on a proposal or plan that's hostile or negative to Ivanhoe Cambridge and that could affect getting such a project through to permit.

Unfortunately when there's a lot of money involved in cases such as these, courts usually end up having to have the last say.

Potential and forecast for lots of suits and countersuits coming down the pipe.

[jlousa]

I get a kick out of Concords argument about not believing they need to adhere to a stipulation they didn't sign to. When you purchase something with preexisting conditions those conditions are part of the purchase. Perhaps they are so used to getting their way that they didn't think they would be held to them. I agree for the best of site as a whole it's important that Ivanhoe gets to steer things, if Concord can't make the numbers work then they should've done their due diligence beforehand, or let Ivanhoe pick it up for it's actual worth.
I'm optimistic that they will work things out...but given what transpired with Concord and the Porteau Cove deal I wouldn't be surprised either way.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Sheba

......

Are you a Gemini? .

I'm actually a Libra.
Gemini's close cousins (what with the scales and the balance and decision-making and seeing both sides and all that)

Originally Posted by Sheba

......Yeah Burnaby's plan to chop up the whole area adds a whole 'nother level of gore to what's already potentially a massively messy divorce. From what I saw of the old proposal, it looked like Concord wanted it to be towers with retail podiums and at best only one of them would be connected to the mall.

I think the city's plan is the least of anyone's concerns at this current juncture.
I mean, it's obviously more significant to any proposal that's put forward by Concord Pacific since their site sits right on Kingsway, but until this issue is resolved one way or another, the city's plan (like any city's long-term vision, or plans) are like pie-in-the-sky wishlists of what they hope to achieve but which really acts as a driver for how to guide developers as to what they prefer going forward.

What I did find interesting in those reports is the little-mentioned (but more or less well-known) tid-bit that Ivanhoe Cambridge have their own redevelopment plans for the mall that are a factor in all this.

I imagine those plans have to do with adding a 4th office Metrotower on the southern side of the mall roughly where the current bus loop sits.
The city shot down that initial proposal (to move the bus loop to south of Beresford, as a means of accommodating this) since they had their own vision to make Beresford a more pedestrian-friendly streetscape in line with the Skytrain station renovations and expansions.
(the architects who did the Skytrain re-design actually got into a bit of trouble for posting that particular design proposal option on their website if I remember correctly).
Ivanhoe Cambridge seemingly shelved that plan for the moment, but I could still see them tearing down the old Zellers/Target space and putting Metrotower #4 there and offering Accent@home a different space while it gets built.
All speculation on my part obviously, but I don't really see how any of it would affect the current issues with Concord Pacific on the Kingsway side.
I just found it interesting that it came up at all in that court hearing.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I get a kick out of Concords argument about not believing they need to adhere to a stipulation they didn't sign to. When you purchase something with preexisting conditions those conditions are part of the purchase.

Exactly

For reference I pulled up a couple old articles (both June 5, 2013)

Sears reveals big plans for its Metrotown site

"Sears is committed to working with the City of Burnaby staff in determining the appropriate neighbourhood needs, and to designing an iconic mixed-use development, appropriate for this important gateway location," said Stephen Champion, vice-president of real estate for Sears Canada, in a letter of intent to council.

The preliminary conceptual master plan consists of a new flagship department store for Sears, high-density residential and office towers above a commercial-retail podium, and public realm improvements, including plaza areas along Kingsway and Nelson Avenue, as well as internal plazas.

The plazas are expected to be part of the redevelopment proposal, which will be characterized by urban elements such as public art, seating areas and special paving.

"Such plaza areas could potentially be programmed for a variety of active and passive daytime and night-time uses through the year," the report states.

The 8.9-acre site redevelopment aims to include provisions to support greater pedestrian and bicycle access that extend south from Kingsway to Central Boulevard, with links to SkyTrain and the bus loop, according to a city report.

"This corridor should be enhanced as a stronger primary pedestrian promenade, in keeping with the notion that pedestrians should not be treated secondary to vehicles," the report states. "In order to achieve this objective, pedestrian and vehicular corridors within the subject redevelopment site will be designed in consideration of its eventual extension and connection to Central Boulevard, with the potential future redevelopment of the adjacent Metropolis at Metrotown site."

$1 BILLION METROTOWN MALL REDEVELOPMENT SPEARHEADED BY SEARS CANADA

Sears Canada has submitted plans to redevelop its owned 8.9 acre parcel at Burnaby BC's Metropolis at Metrotown. The estimated redevelopment cost will be about $1 billion. The project will include five residential towers and two office buildings over a retail component that will include a new Sears store. The site currently includes a 217,283 square-foot Sears department store, a 37,422 square foot Toys "R" Us store and acres of parking.

...

The Globe & Mail reports that the current 140,000 square foot Metrotown Sears store will be demolished and a 100,000 square foot replacement store will be built as part of the new project. Review of Metrotown leaseplans, however, show Sears as being over 217,000 square feet. Plans submitted by Sears state that a replacement Sears store will be a "flagship" location. Flagship locations usually indicate a store that is larger than most in its chain and which carries all or at least most product lines. We're not sure if a 100,000 square foot replacement Sears store could meet the definition of a "flagship" location given these qualifications.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

I imagine those plans have to do with adding a 4th office Metrotower on the southern side of the mall roughly where the current bus loop sits.
The city shot down that initial proposal (to move the bus loop to south of Beresford, as a means of accommodating this) since they had their own vision to make Beresford a more pedestrian-friendly streetscape in line with the Skytrain station renovations and expansions.
(the architects who did the Skytrain re-design actually got into a bit of trouble for posting that particular design proposal option on their website if I remember correctly).
Ivanhoe Cambridge seemingly shelved that plan for the moment, but I could still see them tearing down the old Zellers/Target space and putting Metrotower #4 there and offering Accent@home a different space while it gets built.

Would it be possible to build an office tower above the bus loop, kind of like what's at Production Way Skytrain Station?

A tower where Target was would be interesting. What would happen to that hallway - would it join up with the tower? Also what would happen to T&T and the underground parking in that area?

The Accents@home has bounced around a few times now. The lower level of Target that they're in now is obviously a temp space for them (they've done absolutely no work on the space).

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Yeah Burnaby's plan to chop up the whole area adds a whole 'nother level of gore to what's already potentially a massively messy divorce. From what I saw of the old proposal, it looked like Concord wanted it to be towers with retail podiums and at best only one of them would be connected to the mall.

Thanks for the insight.

So that also potentially sets up Ivanhoe Cambridge against the City of Burnaby.

That plan is also similar to what is proposed to the Sears site at Richmond Centre - plow through a road to create a separate block.

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

But that's just the thing, though.
The lands belong to Concord Pacific now, and they were not party to the original agreement that spelled out how the lands (and the store) would be redeveloped if it came to that.

Yeah, no mention of the agreement being on title, and presumably, it was an asset purchase rather than a share purchase (of a holding company bound by the agreement).

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

That would be suicide (for Ivanhoe Cambridge, IMHO), since that would mean effectively cutting themselves off from Kingsway completely and any parking and direct access to that side of the mall.
I don't think they want to do that considering the number of their major anchor tenants that rely on access to Kingsway. (Silvercity and Superstore just to name the main ones.)

I doubt many pedestrians enter the mall through Sears at present anyways.
The main Superstore / SilverCity frontage is to the west of the Concord site and Ivanhoe Cambridge will likely be developing that itself with office towers in the future.

The new streets (if required by the City) would provide pedestrian access behind Concord's buildings.

There's probably an existing easement / right-of-way agreement registered on title for access to the Metrotown underground parking across the Concord site (since the mall and Sears were always separately owned parcels).

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

What I did find interesting in those reports is the little-mentioned (but more or less well-known) tid-bit that Ivanhoe Cambridge have their own redevelopment plans for the mall that are a factor in all this.

I read that as Ivanhoe Cambridge's long future plans for the Kingsway frontage.

My guess is that Ivanhoe Cambridge has grand office plans for the parking lots in front of Superstore/SilverCity integrated with the mall,
and having Concord subdivide the area into small blocks may set a precedent with the City forcing Ivanhoe Cambridge to do the same in front of Superstore/SilverCity (notwithstanding that the City probably wants that anyways independently of Concord's plans).

i.e. Ivanhoe Cambridge would be forced to extend the street initiated by Concord - thin edge of the wedge / slippery slope.
An office tower that's integrated with the mall is more leasable than one across the street.

Originally Posted by jlousa

I get a kick out of Concords argument about not believing they need to adhere to a stipulation they didn't sign to. When you purchase something with preexisting conditions those conditions are part of the purchase. Perhaps they are so used to getting their way that they didn't think they would be held to them. I agree for the best of site as a whole it's important that Ivanhoe gets to steer things, if Concord can't make the numbers work then they should've done their due diligence beforehand, or let Ivanhoe pick it up for it's actual worth.
I'm optimistic that they will work things out...but given what transpired with Concord and the Porteau Cove deal I wouldn't be surprised either way.

If it's an asset purchase, and the agreement was not specifically assigned to Concord as a term of the purchase and sale of the lands, and if the agreement does not run with the land (not registered on title) then you are not necessarily subject to it.

The contract is between corporate entities - there would be no privity of contract.
If they weren't smart enough to register it on title so it would run with the land and bind successors, then there are consequences.

Imagine if two strata condos sharing a fitness facility didn't register an operating / cost-sharing agreement on title - that's exactly what's happening here.
(i.e. The Infinity condo in Surrey (Phase 1) was supposed to use the fitness centre in Phase 2 - but when Concord bought the Phase 2 project (which became Park Place?), it wasn't bound to provide fitness facility services to the condo owners in Phase 1 (Infinity), so from what I understand, the Phase 1 condo residents have no fitness facility.)

[jlousa]

I think this is a little more complicated as you are dealing with parties involved in the industry and with a higher then normal knowledge of the legal system. In cases like that the system tends to hold them to higher standards then Joe Average. Concord would've or at the very least should've been aware of the clauses on the property. I think the lawyers will be arguing semantics on this for a while.

[officedweller]

I do find it strange that the agreement was not assigned.
An omission like that could signal an intention of the parties as easily as an implied obligation. i.e. get it in writing.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I do find it strange that the agreement was not assigned.
An omission like that could signal an intention of the parties as easily as an implied obligation. i.e. get it in writing.

Originally Posted by officedweller

[18] On June 8, 2015, by an Assignment and Assumption of Metrotown Operating Agreement, Sears assigned its rights under the ROA and Amended ROA to Concord and Concord assumed all liabilities of Sears under the ROA and Amended ROA.

That makes it sound like the agreement was assigned. We'll have to wait and see if that's true.

I haven't checked back on the previous lawsuit before the BC Supreme Court, but I would suspect that's about Sears trying to do it's redevelopment and now this one is about Concord trying to do the same thing. Does anyone have more information on this?

[officedweller]

Thanks!
I should read more closely - if the agreement was assigned to Concord, they'd be bound by it.

[burnaby.]

Originally Posted by VanK

It is still owned by some subsidiary of Telus. it will go to market to be sold.

Just noticed today that the Telus site has hit the market.
https://flic.kr/p/RuKyZ5

[towerseeker101]

Originally Posted by burnaby.

Just noticed today that the Telus site has hit the market.
https://flic.kr/p/RuKyZ5

Good find, that "14-acre residential sale" is definitely a good sign that the previous commercial/industrial plans were shelved.

[burnaby.]

Originally Posted by Sheba

It's not one of the four designated town centres (aka where towers live) in Burnaby so yes it will remain some variety of low rise.

What happens on the Dairyland site will depend on how it's 'future zoned'. Burnaby has been moving a lot of it's industrial to the Big Bend area and what has been happening is that as these relocations happen, then the old site becomes new residential. You can see a lot of that happening along the Expo Line between Edmonds and Royal Oak stations.

Yikes! Just noticed that the Telus site is now listed by Colliers.