[Richmond] IKEA Expansion | Completed

[jlousa]

Looks like the opening will be Apr 25. Haven't passed by it in a while, does it appear ready to go?

[Zassk]

Yes, it looks ready. Based on the trucks outside, they are clearly stocking it up inside at the moment. The "clearance" sale for the old store is already underway.

The main unfinished work is the direct entrance from Knight Street - it looks like there is no way they can have this finished in time for the store's opening day. I don't know what the specific holdup is, but I've seen no signs of recent work on it. Perhaps they will surprise me with some paving machinery in the next week or two.

[whatnext]

A shot of the old Ikea beign demo'd, and one of the new store (mine):

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by whatnext

A shot of the old Ikea beign demo'd, and one of the new store (mine):



...

Can they just use the included Ikea Hex Wrench to take the old building apart?

[djh]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Can they just use the included Ikea Hex Wrench to take the old building apart?

I was a little flabbergasted when I realised what Ikea Canada was doing. Could they have not just expanded the existing Ikea into the land on which they built a totally new Ikea? After all, it is literally adjacent to the old site. And what is an Ikea more than just a huge box with a huge parking lot? The architecture is hardly complex or unique.

Just seems like a huge waste of perfectly good working resources.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by djh

I was a little flabbergasted when I realised what Ikea Canada was doing. Could they have not just expanded the existing Ikea into the land on which they built a totally new Ikea? After all, it is literally adjacent to the old site. And what is an Ikea more than just a huge box with a huge parking lot? The architecture is hardly complex or unique.

Just seems like a huge waste of perfectly good working resources.

You kind of answered your own question. Ikea wanted to bring the Richmond store up to modern size and standard and it was more cost effective to demolish and rebuild from scratch then to overhaul and modify the existing building. Moving the building over to the Southeast also gave them the opportunity to vastly increase the number of parking stalls and improve access, while not having to interrupt their sales during the transition (ie. they were able to keep the store open rather than shutting down to renovate).

[officedweller]

My guess would be that the new store provides an extra level for parking (like the Coquitlam store) - otherwise, a multi-storey parkade would have been required.
Also, adding onto the existing store (and building a parkade) would probably have impacted operations during construction more than building a new store.
The new store probbaly also incorporates modern, efficient building systems, etc.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by phesto

You kind of answered your own question. Ikea wanted to bring the Richmond store up to modern size and standard and it was more cost effective to demolish and rebuild from scratch then to overhaul and modify the existing building. Moving the building over to the Southeast also gave them the opportunity to vastly increase the number of parking stalls and improve access, while not having to interrupt their sales during the transition (ie. they were able to keep the store open rather than shutting down to renovate).

Yep. Keeping revenue coming in while building a new store is key. Often renovations and expansions are very costly... if not short-term, definitely long-term.

[djh]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Yep. Keeping revenue coming in while building a new store is key. Often renovations and expansions are very costly... if not short-term, definitely long-term.

OK. All good points, and I'm sure that the team there were fastidious in checking which would have been the cheaper/best option before start. However, public perception is just as important. Here's a possible scenario they could have run with:

- Surely, moving the existing "old" Ikea's parkade across the street (to the site of the "new" Ikea) would have been fine. Now there's loads of development space, right?
- With that newly-freed potential development space, they could have built the expansion - i.e., a whole new "Ikea Phase 2" - just like they did across the road, but built abbutting the existing "Phase 1" Ikea. No customers in Phase 1 would be affected because the store would stay open.
- Once the Phase 2 was finished they could have just removed the separating walls so the "New Ikea" would be the combination of Phase 1 and 2, with little or no impact on shoppers during construction and no need to rip down the old-but-perfectly-functional building
- The only disadvantage: Customers now have to walk *across the road* to their car! Wow!

Obviously this is a simplification of an engineering and logistical process. But the costs of doing that must be less than the costs of a knockdown and re-build, no?

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by djh

- The only disadvantage: Customers now have to walk *across the road* to their car! Wow!

I take it you've never bought a huge piece of furniture and put it in your own car?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by djh

I was a little flabbergasted when I realised what Ikea Canada was doing. Could they have not just expanded the existing Ikea into the land on which they built a totally new Ikea? After all, it is literally adjacent to the old site. And what is an Ikea more than just a huge box with a huge parking lot? The architecture is hardly complex or unique.

Just seems like a huge waste of perfectly good working resources.

Apparently Ikea owns quite a few of the two story industrial buildings adjacent to the site, so they may well develop the old store site into something similar.

Given the building was 30+ years old, I'm sure the new one has much more efficient systems etc.

[officedweller]

Also, there's apparently a Phase 2 for expanded warehouse space to the south of the new store.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by djh

I was a little flabbergasted when I realised what Ikea Canada was doing. Could they have not just expanded the existing Ikea into the land on which they built a totally new Ikea? After all, it is literally adjacent to the old site. And what is an Ikea more than just a huge box with a huge parking lot? The architecture is hardly complex or unique.

Just seems like a huge waste of perfectly good working resources.

The new and the old Ikea aren't exactly what I would call close to each other either. The new Ikea starts past where the old one's parking lot ended. So if it was a parkade, it would be a LONG walk to the old building. Also, there isn't much land directly east of the old Ikea, not enough for any kind of linear expansion. The building would have to curve, and have a narrow chokepoint between 2 halves. Not exactly Ikea's style.

Plus I absolutely hated the old Ikea there and never went. Its layout was horrible (the exits and entrances) and parking sucked. I preferred the way the Coquitlam Ikea was built, and it's parking, and always went there.

Parking under a building takes up a lot less space than a building and an adjacent parking structure or parking lot. So, while you see careless waste of building materials, with the new Ikea I see a carefully planned use of a much more limited resource: land.

[SpongeG]

its much better - the old one was cramped and poorly layed out, they did try their best with it for many years, they even moved the warehouse out of the store to an adjacent building so they could put in a proper self-serve warehouse

[Zassk]

The old IKEA had been expanded twice, was of terrible build quality, and was essentially at end-of-life. Such buildings are typically replaced after 40 years or so.

There was also a master plan to re-align Sweden Way that required the removal of the old building, but I don't know if that's still going ahead, since the city just spent money improving the intersection at Bridgeport a year ago.

[ryanmaccdn]

Originally Posted by djh

OK. All good points, and I'm sure that the team there were fastidious in checking which would have been the cheaper/best option before start. However, public perception is just as important. Here's a possible scenario they could have run with:

- Surely, moving the existing "old" Ikea's parkade across the street (to the site of the "new" Ikea) would have been fine. Now there's loads of development space, right?
- With that newly-freed potential development space, they could have built the expansion - i.e., a whole new "Ikea Phase 2" - just like they did across the road, but built abbutting the existing "Phase 1" Ikea. No customers in Phase 1 would be affected because the store would stay open.
- Once the Phase 2 was finished they could have just removed the separating walls so the "New Ikea" would be the combination of Phase 1 and 2, with little or no impact on shoppers during construction and no need to rip down the old-but-perfectly-functional building
- The only disadvantage: Customers now have to walk *across the road* to their car! Wow!

Obviously this is a simplification of an engineering and logistical process. But the costs of doing that must be less than the costs of a knockdown and re-build, no?

You also have to remember stores are built to "visual standards" and having a store that old/small and simply expanding it wouldn't give the same effect.

All IKEA's built in the last decade requires 10,000 ft of empty space+ escalator at the entrance of the building... just like IKEA Coquitlam/Calgary/Edmonton ect.. have. Richmond was one of the last few not to have this, and many many other elements all new stores have.

If Richmond didn't rebuild new and incorporate these same visual display fundamentals you risk brand damage and diluting your customer base.

I live in Richmond but would choose to shop at the Coquitlam location due to it's brand presence.

[Skyhigh8]

I noticed they opened the highway to make a direct entrance to the new building.

[SpongeG]

Finally, been waiting for that to happen

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Skyhigh8

I noticed they opened the highway to make a direct entrance to the new building.

I remember seeing new asphalt and paint while riding the 407 down the Knight Street bridge before exiting to Bridgeport. AFAIK the last time I was riding my bike up Jacombs on my way to work (Night Market) there seemed still to be a lot to work to do regarding the connection from the highway to Jacombs - unless I'm seeing it all wrongly and the connection is not to Jacombs through a now-cleared parking lot.