[Burnaby] Concord Metrotown | 230.1m | 65,45,33 fl | U/C - Page 8

jollyburger · #**141** Posted **Nov 16, 2020, 4:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

So Vancouver is Awesome released an article on this project and state the tallest tower at 755f = 230.1m

Not sure if that is a typo or maybe the full height to the top of the crown??

To the crown:

723, 530, 385

Vin · #**142** Posted **Nov 16, 2020, 7:09 PM**

Love Phase 1, but they should scrap the other phases. 80 years of development for Burnaby to receive major downtown amenities in such a high-density neighbourhood is just way too long of a wait. Without the other phases contemplated, The City of Burnaby would be hard pressed to provide other cultural amenities, such as parks, museums and theatres elsewhere, rather than relying on Ivanhoe Cambridge to provide everything during the next 80 years at Metropolis.

Spr0ckets · #**143** Posted **Nov 16, 2020, 7:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

Love Phase 1, but they should scrap the other phases. 80 years of development for Burnaby to receive major downtown amenities in such a high-density neighbourhood is just way too long of a wait. Without the other phases contemplated, The City of Burnaby would be hard pressed to provide other cultural amenities, such as parks, museums and theatres elsewhere, rather than relying on Ivanhoe Cambridge to provide everything during the next 80 years at Metropolis.

Are you under the impression that the other phases of THIS project (Concord Metrotown) are going to take 80 years to see completion?

(and that they therefore should be scrapped?)

Where in the world are you getting that notion from?

The Metropolis Mall "Downtown Core" project proposal (by Ivanhoe Cambridge) has nothing (in the main) to do with this project (by Concord Pacific).
And while Concord seems to be playing nice in presenting some overtures to that proposal by seemingly suggesting that their project will tie into the "Downtown" grid of that proposal, I don't get the sense that they are tied in any way (timeline-wise, or otherwise) to that proposal or project.

Let's not forget that the two parties weren't even getting along not that long ago (if they even are now), on top of the fact that the City can't exactly (legally) tie either one of them down to the others schedule or timeline just to achieve what they hope for.

I still strongly (personally) believe that the Ivanhoe Cambridge proposal (to break up the mall in that 80 year timeline to accommodate a 'Downtown core grid) is not a "serious" proposal in the way many here think (or hope) it is, any more than it is a way to keep bean-counter eggheads at the city's Urban planning department happy, which in itself is to serve as a means to grease the wheels for their more immediate project priorities (getting a Metro office Tower IV off the ground as well as a Residential Condo high-rise project, possibly for the surface parking lot in front of the Superstore).
80 years is more than enough time for conditions on the ground to change and have plans be scrapped altogether and I'm still yet to be convinced that breaking up the biggest economic drivers in the region and one of the only malls still making money not just in the pandemic but in this post-Amazon era, is in anyone's best interest from Ivanhoe Cambridge themselves or in the city's own best interests (that loves tax dollars and good employment numbers).

logan5 · #**144** Posted **Nov 16, 2020, 8:03 PM**

Shopping malls are going to die off in the next 20 years. Amazon was just the first phase of shopping mall replacement. When it becomes super cheap to deliver goods via self driving cars, that will be the end for mega malls like Metrotown. So yes, 80 years is not realistic at all. More like 30 years or less.

WBC · #**145** Posted **Nov 16, 2020, 8:52 PM**

Why would Ivanhoe want to build Metro office Tower IV when
a) it took them forever to lease Tower III and they got saved by Metro Vancouver moving office sin the end
b) There is going to be at best dubious demand for office space past the pandemic

Spr0ckets · #**146** Posted **Nov 16, 2020, 8:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

Shopping malls are going to die off in the next 20 years. Amazon was just the first phase of shopping mall replacement. When it becomes super cheap to deliver goods via self driving cars, that will be the end for mega malls like Metrotown. So yes, 80 years is not realistic at all. More like 30 years or less.

And they've also been promising flying cars since I was a child, and we're yet to see those all over the place.

And even though we have self-driving cars now, the current level of proliferation and usage among the wider public (not to mention in the freight and cargo industry which would be pivotal to what you're suggesting) is such as to suggest that to think they'll be the main driver that will put the final nail in the coffin of brick-and-mortar malls and retail - and in 30 years no less - is just pure delusion.

The key phrase in your theory is "super cheap',....as in,....."When it becomes super cheap to deliver goods via self driving cars",
Not just 'cheap" but "super cheap" as to justify the end of foot traffic retail.
As well as the fact that it depends on whole host of other factors for it to become reality that the likes of Bezos and his ilk have no control over (Govt. legislation and laws,...for example, which STILL require a driver and alert in front of the steering wheel of a self-driving car, which, by itself defeats the whole cost-saving purpose on that end. And others like the proliferation of electric vehicles and non-fossil fuel transportation, Just too name a few)

Spr0ckets · #**147** Posted **Nov 16, 2020, 9:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WBC

Why would Ivanhoe want to build Metro office Tower IV when
a) it took them forever to lease Tower III and they got saved by Metro Vancouver moving office sin the end
b) There is going to be at best dubious demand for office space past the pandemic

You don't know any more or better than I do what the real estate market (particularly for office space) will be look like past the pandemic.

They also predicted that the pandemic and lockdown would have a devastating effect on the housing and RE market.

It barely put a dent in it, per the most recent home price and sales figures.
(certainly in BC and the GVA)

And they completed Metrotower III just as the superhot market at the time was cooling down fast.

But the fact that other developers in close proximity are actually including office space in a lot of their project (Thind with Highline next door and about 8 storeys of office in their podium, Station Square's last two towers in their podiums in addition to the already including office space in Twoer 2 and 3 podium) suggests that they're seeing something different in the numbers for office leasing space demand in the area than you or I might be privy to.

This isn't to say that it's a sure bet that they'll either build it at all or even be able to lease it out if they do.
At the end of the day, sure, their plans to do so could change and they could scrap a 4th office tower altogether if their reading of the market suggests it won't be a good bet, and instead replace it with a residential condo tower.

But if people are willing to accept that such relatively short(er) term plans regarding an office tower could be changed or scrapped altogether subject to prevailing economic/market conditions then what's the basis for the conviction in belief that their proposed plan on an 80 year timescale for breaking up the mall is any more solid and more set in stone and won't be similarly subject to the same sort of economic conditions and market forces that could lead to them equally getting scrapped?

jollyburger · #**148** Posted **Nov 16, 2020, 10:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

I still strongly (personally) believe that the Ivanhoe Cambridge proposal (to break up the mall in that 80 year timeline to accommodate a 'Downtown core grid) is not a "serious" proposal in the way many here think (or hope) it is, any more than it is a way to keep bean-counter eggheads at the city's Urban planning department happy, which in itself is to serve as a means to grease the wheels for their more immediate project priorities (getting a Metro office Tower IV off the ground as well as a Residential Condo high-rise project, possibly for the surface parking lot in front of the Superstore).
80 years is more than enough time for conditions on the ground to change and have plans be scrapped altogether and I'm still yet to be convinced that breaking up the biggest economic drivers in the region and one of the only malls still making money not just in the pandemic but in this post-Amazon era, is in anyone's best interest from Ivanhoe Cambridge themselves or in the city's own best interests (that loves tax dollars and good employment numbers).

The City of Burnaby isn't going to come in and start knocking down the mall if they don't come up with a plan. Look at every other shopping mall that is being "reinvented" and then ths Metrotown plan isn't that far fetched even though they are still doing well. If Metro Vancouver is economically successful then if anything the plans for redeveloping Metrotown will accelerate because the land will be too valuable than it's current single-format use.

Spr0ckets · #**149** Posted **Nov 16, 2020, 11:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollyburger

The City of Burnaby isn't going to come in and start knocking down the mall if they don't come up with a plan. Look at every other shopping mall that is being "reinvented" and then ths Metrotown plan isn't that far fetched even though they are still doing well. If Metro Vancouver is economically successful then if anything the plans for redeveloping Metrotown will accelerate because the land will be too valuable than it's current single-format use.

Okay, just two things on this....

Firstly, the general logic here seems to be of a more comprehensive kind of "Kill the goose laying the golden eggs to get even more gold/golden eggs from inside it" -type logic.
In other words, through some odd economic math (and magic) I don't quite get yet, the reasoning seems to be that breaking up the mall (which is already currently a major Economic driver for the region and a major source of tax revenue for the city itself, through property, sales and income taxes) to produce something more amenable to the city planners' desired downtown grid concept (city planners who have no direct vested economic interest or viability of the mall, in the way that IC do), will somehow produce a new entity that will be even more flourishing and more economically fruitful (somehow). Not that economics and 'dollars and cents' are the end-all and be-all,...but come on. Let's be real here.
The bottom line always rules everything.

But let's indulge for a second, that logic.
Carrying out this plan would mean eliminating considerable swathes and segments of what is part of the mall's current retail space (yes, the covered arteries are part of their overall "retail space" that factor into their tenant rent calculation) to create uncovered (public?) streets tying into the city grid, thus literally reducing a significant portion of what the mall uses to generate said sales revenue for the return of a(n arguably) more pleasant shopping inside/outside experience.

But take a look outside right now.

This condition only holds true for a good part of the year. A good and LARGE part of the year in Southern British Columbia.

Currently part of the draw of visiting the mall for non-local residents is being able to drive to the mall (or take the skytrain) in your light late summer/mid-fall civvies, doing your shopping, loitering around for a couple of hours (if you have those to kill) and then getting back into your car in the underground parking and getting back home without once ever having to take out a jacket or an umbrella.
All of that (appeal) goes away for a good portion of the mall with the "break-up" plan. And along with it, significant foot traffic and the concurrent sales revenue.
Okay, so some on here believe that that style of retail shopping is going away altogether in as little as 20 years (which completely overlooks the reason why people who go shopping this way actually choose to do so, even when said mall is a good long-ish drive away from where they live, but whatever.....), but then that doesn't explain how breaking up the mall reverses that trend if the idea is that big (covered) box shopping style malls are going the way of the dinosaurs.
Suddenyly I'm going to want to drop the Ipad and not order from Amazon anymore and go directly to the mall in person to pick up my shopping just because its broken up now, and I have to use an umbrella just to visit the stores I once used to like to visit?
That doesn't make sense.
At least not to me.

Secondly, is the assumption that the land will be too valuable (for the city too turn this down) for it's (current) single-format use - a belief predicated on the assumption economic success and flourishing in the region.
Again, as observed before, the mall's economic viability and success is contingent in many ways on its retail space and how the owners maximize that space to the generate the most revenue per square footage, and I'm still waiting for a convincing argument as to how reducing this space (or the adjacent "public" space outside it) aids this cause (or even enhances it).

You mentioned other mall redevelopments, and if you actually look at what's happening in some of the major mall redevelopments in the region, none of them resemble anything like what's being proposed for this situation and are thus not really comparable.
By which I mean, none are undergoing a sort of "breaking up" (with concurrent reduction of sales and retail space) like this proposal envisions. Most of the major mall redevelopments in the area (Brentwood, Lougheed and even Oakridge - even though it's not in the region) are occurring within the existing structures footprint and if anything augmenting to it by redeveloping neighboring lots and surface parking to connect to the newly redeveloped existing mall (talking about retail and amenities).

jollyburger · #**150** Posted **Nov 17, 2020, 12:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Okay, just two things on this....

Firstly, the general logic here seems to be of a more comprehensive kind of "Kill the goose laying the golden eggs to get even more gold/golden eggs from inside it" -type logic.

It'll be how much more money they can make from condos and then all those residents will turn into revenue for any replacement retail built under them. I mean everything is a case study on whether it would make any economic sense but using all that empty airspace above Metrotown is worth more than the roads they end up building to support it.

Even looking at their store list. I mean if they only kept their top 40 stores (excluding food) wouldn't they still end up ahead?

Spr0ckets · #**151** Posted **Nov 17, 2020, 12:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollyburger

It'll be how much more money they can make from condos and then all those residents will turn into revenue for any replacement retail built under them. I mean everything is a case study on whether it would make any economic sense but using all that empty airspace above Metrotown is worth more than the roads they end up building to support it.

Even looking at their store list. I mean if they only kept their top 40 stores (excluding food) wouldn't they still end up ahead?

Okay, I could see that.

I suppose it's still a bit of a gamble either way (in this case predicated on whether the condo market would be able to sustain the minimum sales you'd need to cover what you would lose from customers who no longer want to visit an open air mall - especially during the rainy periods of the year).
And also how many towers you'd need to build to get that minimum number of residents.

officedweller · #**152** Posted **Nov 17, 2020, 2:00 AM**

Another factor is the ability of a major commercial mall/retail to operate below a condo tower and whether the 2 can co-exist (with noise and traffic, etc.)

I think Amazing Brentwood will be a bit of a trailblazer in the Lower Mainland in that regard. The only others I can think of are International Village, Station Square (smaller scale) and to a lesser extent Electric Avenue (Scotiabank Theatre).

Metro-One · #**153** Posted **Dec 4, 2020, 1:46 AM**

So, expect some official heights for all three towers to be made public in the coming days.

All I can say is that they are satisfying!

Spr0ckets · #**154** Posted **Dec 11, 2020, 4:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

So, expect some official heights for all three towers to be made public in the coming days.

All I can say is that they are satisfying!

Is this what you were referring to?

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/concord-metrotown-burnaby

Quote:

"...One of the towers in the first phase of the eastern half of the Concord-owned property will carry the title of the region’s tallest tower. Standing at 755 ft in height with 65 storeys, the predominantly residential tower will be 96 ft taller than Living Shangri-La in downtown Vancouver, which has been the region’s tallest building since 2009."

It seems pretty official and also seems to corroborate the 755 ft (230m) height you had speculated it was before.
If so, then the thread heading probably needs updating.

Also, from the same article:.....

Quote:

"....Concord Metrotown’s pinnacle tower will also visually appear as much taller than it really is due to the site’s high elevation of 429 ft above sea level. For context, this is slightly taller than the peak of Queen Elizabeth Park, which is the tallest geographical point in Vancouver.

This means the tall tower will have a geodetic height (structural and elevation combined) of 1,181 ft, just slightly under the 1,214-ft height of Burnaby Mountain.

“Relative to the Lower Mainland landscape, it will appear extremely tall because the 755 ft height will be on top of what is a very highly elevated site, much more than Vancouver,” Peter Webb, the senior vice-president of development for Concord Pacific,"