[Burnaby] Concord Metrotown (Former Sears site) | 65,45,33 fl | 230.1m | U/C

[rofina]

Originally Posted by owenhujb

https://vancouversun.com/business/co...rtical-village

Main points: Approved, 2025 completion, taller than Gilmore Place, at 219.5 Meters. Good news, though I expected it to be in the 220 Meters range. Finally, the tallest building is returning to Metrotown.

Its going to be absolutely massive considering Metrotown topographical prominence in the region.

Its also absolutely genius that GilmoreStation wont have joy of talking about the tallest building being at Gilmore.

That being said - this seems pretty ambitious in the current market. I doubt 2025 happens.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by owenhujb

https://vancouversun.com/business/co...rtical-village

Main points: Approved, 2025 completion, taller than Gilmore Place, at 219.5 Meters. Good news, though I expected it to be in the 220 Meters range. Finally, the tallest building is returning to Metrotown.

I'm not sure what's going on in someone's mind - the master plan for the site only just made it to third reading (it sat at second reading for a year and a half). After it makes it to final adoption then we'll start seeing applications for each tower. That hasn't happened yet.

Combine that with the real estate frenzy calming down and I can't see this moving forward that quickly - I also doubt 2025 happens. I'll keep looking but I haven't seen anything about the lawsuit(s) being resolved either.

[djmk]

that is ambitious!

[owenhujb]

Originally Posted by rofina

Its also absolutely genius that GilmoreStation wont have joy of talking about the tallest building being at Gilmore.

I thought GilmoreStation’s account was suspended? Now I sort of want him to be unsuspended.

[Vin]

I think we all expect something like this, but it doesn't make it less exciting. The podium looks so large and hope it can house a massive food hall of sorts.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by owenhujb

I thought GilmoreStation’s account was suspended? Now I sort of want him to be unsuspended.

He will permanently encamp himself in this thread, commenting all the "nice" things regarding the Sears redevelopment. Brentwood mall can take a break from that.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by owenhujb

https://vancouversun.com/business/co...rtical-village

Main points: Approved, 2025 completion, taller than Gilmore Place, at 219.5 Meters. Good news, though I expected it to be in the 220 Meters range. Finally, the tallest building is returning to Metrotown.

That's what we need - a competition between Burnaby town centres for tallest.

[owenhujb]

Wait, is the projected 2025 completion date for the first phase or the entire development? This project is on the scale of TAB, can’t see it being completed in 6 years.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by owenhujb

Wait, is the projected 2025 completion date for the first phase or the entire development? This project is on the scale of TAB, can’t see it being completed in 6 years.

It's the first phase - three towers at the corner of Kingsway and Nelson. I can't see it being completed in six years due to all the paperwork that it'll have to get through. The initial proposal was in 2013 and the site master plan hasn't even reached final adoption yet. Then add on a few years for phase one to go through readings to final adoption so they can do the 'shovel picture' showing they're about to start construction.

That's assuming the two lawsuits have been sorted out - I can't find anything on them.

[Sheba]

From the BC Supreme Court: The crux of the lawsuits (edited for formatting)

Both Concord and Ivanhoe have been exploring redevelopment options for their respective properties, although they appear to have significantly diverging views on how to approach the matter. Ivanhoe contends that the terms of earlier operating agreements restrict Concord’s ability to proceed with any redevelopment of the Sears Lands. Concord disagrees, submitting that the restrictions in these agreements are not valid and enforceable or in any event, they are not enforceable against Concord as an assignee of those agreements.

This disagreement or dispute has spawned two separate proceedings. In mid-2015, Ivanhoe commenced an action against Concord and Sears for relief relating to the enforceability of the agreements. Concord and Sears commenced this petition proceeding in mid-2016, which also relates to the enforceability of a specific provision in an earlier agreement.

Ivanhoe contends that the filing of this petition is an abuse of process and that any issues that Concord and Sears raise in this proceeding should be addressed in the earlier action. Ivanhoe seeks a stay of this proceeding, or in the alternative, certain procedural orders to allow it rights of discovery against Concord and Sears.

As of Feb 2017 the judge agreed with Ivanhoe and Concord has appealed to try to keep it as two lawsuits - about the exact same thing. Meanwhile this doesn't make it look like Concord is going to come out of it too well.

It must be taken as uncontroversial that from no later than March 2015, Concord was well aware of the terms of the ROA and Amended ROA and also, potential difficulties facing it in the event that it was bound by those agreements. This is evident simply because Concord’s first choice in dealing with the matter was to attempt to obtain a written release and discharge of the ROA and Amended ROA from Ivanhoe under clause 4.4 of the APS executed in March 2015. Even more to the point, in June 2015 Sears assigned the ROA and Amended ROA to Concord and Concord expressly agreed to assume and be responsible for all of Sears’ liabilities, covenants and obligations arising under those agreements.

Concord relies on evidence from Matthew Meehan, a senior vice-president of a Concord affiliate. He deposes that absent a “prompt” determination of the matters under the Petition, Concord is exposed to risk of loss on its investment, in terms of missing the market and possible increased construction costs. Mr. Meehan also refers to irreparable harm to Concord’s “invaluable commercial reputation” if it cannot make good on its commitments to contractors and purchasers of units in the proposed development. There is no evidence of any such commitments being made.

Even so, Mr. Meehan’s evidence is to the effect that Concord is proceeding with rezoning efforts even in the face of the issues arising in the Action and Petition. In any event, I can only conclude that Concord was well aware of the issues arising under the ROA and Amended ROA when it bought the Sears Lands such that its protestations of delay and irreparable harm arise simply from its own actions. Concord was fully aware when it acquired the Sears Lands that any “cloud” arising from the ROA and Amended ROA already existed. Further, in my view, if Concord truly has made commitments in the face of uncertainty arising under the ROA and Amended ROA, any harm arising properly rests at Concord’s own feet.

Concord only has a few options here. Hope the lawsuit(s) are in their favour (not looking too likely), play nice and work together with Ivanhoe Cambridge, or wait until Sept 24, 2036 for the agreement to expire.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Sheba

From the ......

Concord only has a few options here. Hope the lawsuit(s) are in their favour (not looking too likely), play nice and work together with Ivanhoe Cambridge, or wait until Sept 24, 2036 for the agreement to expire.

Or they could double down and play hard ball ( harder.... ball?) and say they'll choose Option C and wait until 2036 for the agreement to expire (not as long a time away as most would think - especially for developers who already have a lot on their plate elsewhere between now and then).

And then in the meantime they make life utterly miserably for Ivanhoe, by shutting down all the surface and underground parking in front of the mall (thereby eating into their bottomline big-time, from prospective mall visitors who choose to stay away due to the lack of parking, ....and in so doing, force IC to come to the table to negotiate an exit agreement out of court.)

Concord would take a big hit from that, no doubt (they still make money from all that parking), but Ivanhoe would take an even bigger hit if such a situation were to be prolonged for a year or two (which is miniscule in the grand scheme of the 17 years left to for the entire agreement to expire) or longer.


The original agreement prevents, or prevented Concord from developing that land without Ivanhoe's significant input and say-so.
I don't think it stipulates anything about being obligated or forced to lease out that parking to Ivanhoe's mall customers.
(please correct me if I'm wrong).

It all depends on how badly Concord would really want to move with this.

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by owenhujb

https://vancouversun.com/business/co...rtical-village

Main points: Approved, 2025 completion, taller than Gilmore Place, at 219.5 Meters. Good news, though I expected it to be in the 220 Meters range. Finally, the tallest building is returning to Metrotown.

Great news. Another article excerpt:

"Onni Group’s 64-storey highrise at 2 Gilmore Place will be 708 feet from the lobby level to the top of the appurtenance. When it’s completed, it will be the tallest residential tower in Western Canada.

That will eventually be surpassed by Concord Pacific’s planned new 65-storey building on the old Sears site at Metrotown, which will hit 723 feet."

Source

[excel]

Exciting news. Hope it can actually come to fruition.

[Metro-One]

So that is 220.4? (And 215.8 for Gilmore?)

Some of the other numbers shown are a little off (The Stack’s previous proposed height, both the Butterfly and the Nelson proposals seem a little short, unless they are using crown / mechanical height for the other towers and occupied floor height for Butterfly & Nelson).

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Or they could double down and play hard ball ( harder.... ball?) and say they'll choose Option C and wait until 2036 for the agreement to expire (not as long a time away as most would think - especially for developers who already have a lot on their plate elsewhere between now and then).

And then in the meantime they make life utterly miserably for Ivanhoe, by shutting down all the surface and underground parking in front of the mall (thereby eating into their bottomline big-time, from prospective mall visitors who choose to stay away due to the lack of parking, ....and in so doing, force IC to come to the table to negotiate an exit agreement out of court.)

Concord would take a big hit from that, no doubt (they still make money from all that parking), but Ivanhoe would take an even bigger hit if such a situation were to be prolonged for a year or two (which is miniscule in the grand scheme of the 17 years left to for the entire agreement to expire) or longer.


The original agreement prevents, or prevented Concord from developing that land without Ivanhoe's significant input and say-so.
I don't think it stipulates anything about being obligated or forced to lease out that parking to Ivanhoe's mall customers.
(please correct me if I'm wrong).

It all depends on how badly Concord would really want to move with this.

So far Concord has tried to talk their way out of it - now they've put pay parking requirements on their parking (which is only surface parking). It doesn't seem to be having much effect on the rest of the mall so if they're trying to play hard(er) ball by doing that...

A new parking policy is now in effect for more than half of the ground-level parking spaces along Metropolis at Metrotown shopping mall’s frontage on Kingsway.

Ground-level lots numbered one to six now only offer a maximum of two-hours free parking during mall hours of business.

...

Only the ground-level lots in front of the former Sears building, food court, and Hudson’s Bay are affected by the change.

The Kingsway ground-level parking lots immediately in front of Chapters, Silver City, and Superstore, as well as other lots located within multi-level parkade structures and underground levels, are unaffected by the change of policy, which went into effect on May 1.

The parking changes also reflect Metropolis at Metrotown’s unique dual ownership; the parking changes are on the 8.9-acre portion of shopping mall property owned by Concord Pacific, which plans to redevelop the northeast corner of the mall with a significant mixed-use redevelopment with up to seven towers — reaching heights of up to 65 storeys. Ivanhoe Cambridge owns the remaining portions of the sprawling mall property.


Ground-level lots 1 to 6 at Metropolis at Metrotown shopping mall, where pay parking is in effect after two hours. (Metropolis at Metrotown)

Personally I think they'll try to wait it out and trying to make some money off the parking is a way to make a bit of coin while they wait. They can't build these towers until at least the lawsuit is sorted out. It's already taken a few years just to get to this point so I suspect it'll be a few more years (inc some attempted fast talking on their part) before anything happens on the legal front.

[Tetsuo]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Or they could double down and play hard ball ( harder.... ball?) and say they'll choose Option C and wait until 2036 for the agreement to expire (not as long a time away as most would think - especially for developers who already have a lot on their plate elsewhere between now and then).

And then in the meantime they make life utterly miserably for Ivanhoe, by shutting down all the surface and underground parking in front of the mall (thereby eating into their bottomline big-time, from prospective mall visitors who choose to stay away due to the lack of parking, ....and in so doing, force IC to come to the table to negotiate an exit agreement out of court.)

Concord would take a big hit from that, no doubt (they still make money from all that parking), but Ivanhoe would take an even bigger hit if such a situation were to be prolonged for a year or two (which is miniscule in the grand scheme of the 17 years left to for the entire agreement to expire) or longer.


The original agreement prevents, or prevented Concord from developing that land without Ivanhoe's significant input and say-so.
I don't think it stipulates anything about being obligated or forced to lease out that parking to Ivanhoe's mall customers.
(please correct me if I'm wrong).

It all depends on how badly Concord would really want to move with this.

Would be an interesting strategy.

Recently Concord changed the parking rules, requiring visitors to register their plates for 2 hr parking free, paid after that. The ones that got the heat for this on social media and casual conversation was not Concord but rather Metropolis Mall.

They also closed one entrance to underground parking (by the bus stop and walkway facing Kingsway)

[Klazu]

Ah, so that's behind the new pay parking. Makes more sense now and an interesting strategy.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by Sheba

So far Concord has tried to talk their way out of it - now they've put pay parking requirements on their parking (which is only surface parking). It doesn't seem to be having much effect on the rest of the mall so if they're trying to play hard(er) ball by doing that...



Personally I think they'll try to wait it out and trying to make some money off the parking is a way to make a bit of coin while they wait. They can't build these towers until at least the lawsuit is sorted out. It's already taken a few years just to get to this point so I suspect it'll be a few more years (inc some attempted fast talking on their part) before anything happens on the legal front.

Oh I wondered why there were parking pay machines in the parking lot when I went there a couple of weeks ago.

[jlousa]

Concord certainly has a reputation of not being a great partner. How many is that now? lawsuit with pinnacle in Richmond, Ivanhoe in Burnaby, CMP in Vancouver. Not to mention the lawsuits against the city of Vancouver and the constant demands to drop commercial requirements while getting variances to increase Residential density above previously agreed to limits. Hopefully Burnaby holds them to whatever is agreed to as I can see the commercial aspect either getting completely cut back or pawned off to someone else like they did to Henderson.

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Concord certainly has a reputation of not being a great partner. How many is that now? lawsuit with pinnacle in Richmond, Ivanhoe in Burnaby, CMP in Vancouver. Not to mention the lawsuits against the city of Vancouver and the constant demands to drop commercial requirements while getting variances to increase Residential density above previously agreed to limits. Hopefully Burnaby holds them to whatever is agreed to as I can see the commercial aspect either getting completely cut back or pawned off to someone else like they did to Henderson.

Dont forget the number of lawsuits internally between there various operating companies.

Also IC only owns portions of the remaining mall but is the overall property manager. Metro Vancouver owns a portion, there is a few other corporations that have an interest in the greater property. You will also see some one like shape partnering up with IC and make sure there first phase is larger than Concords.