Shopping center built forms

[Sheba]

I figured I'd start this as some threads (esp TFN) seem to be getting caught up in what the building looks like vs does it work.

For something in a suburban setting like TFN, I would have preferred to see it as two floors with a level of parking underneath (assuming the ground there can support that). That way even with some surface parking, the mall would have a much smaller footprint and they could have built more (community / rec center, housing, etc) on the same amount of land.

In a more urban location, I like what's being planned for Oakridge and is being built at Station Square. There's less land and a higher population, so retail with towers above it. These are also more likely to be renos as opposed to new builds.

What are your preferences?

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I figured I'd start this as some threads (esp TFN) seem to be getting caught up in what the building looks like vs does it work.

For something in a suburban setting like TFN, I would have preferred to see it as two floors with a level of parking underneath (assuming the ground there can support that). That way even with some surface parking, the mall would have a much smaller footprint and they could have built more (community / rec center, housing, etc) on the same amount of land.

In a more urban location, I like what's being planned for Oakridge and is being built at Station Square. There's less land and a higher population, so retail with towers above it. These are also more likely to be renos as opposed to new builds.

What are your preferences?

Not sure if that would work out in TFN. It is all sand out in TFN so you cannot build underground. You can't have basements in many parts of Tsawwassen and you can't in Ladner for that same reason. Most of South Delta is actually below sea level. Richmond has many of the same problems thus why their more "dense" malls need to build parkades beside them. You simply can't build underground. So that would mean all the parking would need to be surface level regardless and to get it "underneath" the mall would need to be built on stilts above the parking. Certainly doable I'd imagine but also given the "sand" foundation, likely quite expensive and i don't think, at ground level, it would be better aesthetically and on the contrary I think it would look far worse and provide a logistics nightmare for a mall this size. Every entrance is a ramp or elevator and how would you handle the big-box retailers around?

So what you'd trade in for a smaller footprints would to me be far worse. Imagine Metrotown for example on stilts and all the parking at ground level along Kingsway.

The TFN mall is unfortunately stuck to surface or over-ground parking by virtue of geography and the land under it (all sand and below sea level).

I wonder though if the inverse could have happened meaning the mall is on the ground like what is being built and the parking is actually on the roof. From the ground you then wouldn't see any surface parking. They do that in many urban malls around the world.

I keep reading how good urban planning is supposed to be "friendly on a human level" meaning when you are walking around everything is supposed to be eye-level comfortable. That means a development shouldn't just look good from the distance or in a render but when you're actually standing beside it. Elevated buildings on top of parking to me don't really tick that off, think Super Store on 104th Ave in Surrey or Ikea out in Richmond/Coquitlam. If you were walking by all you'd see if cars in a parking lot with a building on stilts towering above you. Doesn't really scream inviting to me even if the "footprint" is more compact.

Just my thoughts.

[GMasterAres]

Sorry to answer your question though I'd actually prefer a hybrid approach in urban settings. So underground parking or even parking along the surface but in the middle of the development. That way the cars are "hidden" from pedestrian view and the outside perimeter can be ground level retail.

Think of a donut where the mall/commercial space is the donut and the parking is in the hole. Even from a parking standpoint I think it would actually be more efficient because the benefit of surface parking around a mall is that you can park as close to the entrance you want to shop at. The donut design would be the inverse because the mall would be around the parking and as a parkade maybe going up 2-3 storeys or higher, you wouldn't necessarily need to go up loads of escalators or elevators like you need to in traditional underground parkades (like Metrotown).

You could then accommodate parking which large mall will be able to get away from (even Pacific Center has a lot of parking underground around it) while allowing the building itself to be architected nicely.

Only negative I could see is that a donuts like mall of this type would have a large block footprint unless you really went high which the higher you go, the costlier things become and the worse the business case becomes. That's why you don't see a lot of 4 or 5 storey malls around the world and why the majority of malls in Metro Vancouver are at most 2 storeys high.

Instead a lot of malls, even in urban environments, seem to build the parking on the outside.

Take a look at Bellevue Square as an example.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Swa...727450!6m1!1e1

It is smack dab in the middle of urban Bellevue center yet if you look all the parking (even though they are parkades to reduce footprint) are around the edges. If you take "street view" and zoom down you will find other than the center street, from a pedestrian's standpoint it is pretty poor. Large blocks of just entrances and parked cars and you have to traverse uninviting vistas to access the mall itself.

If the parking was in the middle and mall itself around, then the mall could interface on all sides of the block directly for pedestrians and the cars would be "hidden from view." I just wonder why it isn't done more often or maybe it is (anyone have examples?) and this is just a largely North America trend.

Even Guildford Mall which had some upgrades recently is largely a mall in the middle of parking. Heck Metrotown isn't much different. It is starting to be redeveloped but until recently most sides of Metrotown were flanked by surface parking or parkades. Oakridge in its current state is largely the same with only really 1 entrance accessible by pedestrians without need to cross parking lots.

Pacific Center Mall to my knowledge and experience is really the only urban mall, and maybe mall period, in Metro Vancouver that is pedestrian focused friendly.

[Marshal]

As to your questions,jhausner:
1. To put it downtown would be conceptually impossible. If you mean, build the same space for the same tenant types, but all connected by a mall, it would be silly.

2. Downtown with no parking: that would be more silly.

3. Malls are not bad. They are a natural consequence of our urban culture: the size, scale, organization and infrastructural layout of our cities, along with how our commercial/retail industry operates, and the manner of our transport. We are also getting much better at conceiving/designing/redesigning/redeveloping them. The possibilities of malls, especially in terms of what else can be incorporated into them, is remaking them into more complete and integrated parts of the city.

4. Are there any good malls? Yes. Even if a mall has significant flaws, it can also provide positives to the community. Decades ago, it was the thing to do for architects and urban planners, to criticize malls as agents of urban ruin. They would finish that off with how our urban culture was in decline (which in many ways it was) and all the giant malls would eventually die as dinosaurs. Instead, our cities continue to develop in both good and bad ways. The same goes for malls. The redevelopment of many malls in Vancouver is heading in a new direction while re-establishing a richer form for everything. I am an architect that would shudder if everything was the object of high design. Much of our cities are prosaic and utilitarian. Malls lie in a middle ground. Their architecture is less important than their urban form. But, as central focal points within the city, the better their architecture, the better their place.

5. Is it the aesthetics of this mall that you disagree with? (You sure you read what I have already posted?) For me, the aesthetics of this mall are peripheral. It’s going to be a stripped down, cheap assemblage of boxes with ridiculous kitschy retail fronts stuck on where demanded. At least for a while it will look shiny new. The parking lots are absurd throwbacks to the 1950-60’s. But then, the whole thing is a reinvention of the original suburban fringe malls. Again, for me it isn’t my preference in terms of planning or form, or as a resident consuming my way through all the stuff we rich westerners consume, it’s not the retail or urban experience I want in my life. It is what it is. I don’t care too much, mostly I am curious as to how it will work out.

6. Is it the mall itself that you don't like? Aka ignore the environment and parking lots. Like I said, it’s not so much about not liking it, as it is amazement that such a formal type, successful in many other places, is being built here, where every other mall is working towards redeveloping away from this.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Not sure if that would work out in TFN. It is all sand out in TFN so you cannot build underground. You can't have basements in many parts of Tsawwassen and you can't in Ladner for that same reason. Most of South Delta is actually below sea level. Richmond has many of the same problems thus why their more "dense" malls need to build parkades beside them. You simply can't build underground. So that would mean all the parking would need to be surface level regardless and to get it "underneath" the mall would need to be built on stilts above the parking. Certainly doable I'd imagine but also given the "sand" foundation, likely quite expensive and i don't think, at ground level, it would be better aesthetically and on the contrary I think it would look far worse and provide a logistics nightmare for a mall this size. Every entrance is a ramp or elevator and how would you handle the big-box retailers around?

So what you'd trade in for a smaller footprints would to me be far worse. Imagine Metrotown for example on stilts and all the parking at ground level along Kingsway.

The TFN mall is unfortunately stuck to surface or over-ground parking by virtue of geography and the land under it (all sand and below sea level).

I wonder though if the inverse could have happened meaning the mall is on the ground like what is being built and the parking is actually on the roof. From the ground you then wouldn't see any surface parking. They do that in many urban malls around the world.

I keep reading how good urban planning is supposed to be "friendly on a human level" meaning when you are walking around everything is supposed to be eye-level comfortable. That means a development shouldn't just look good from the distance or in a render but when you're actually standing beside it. Elevated buildings on top of parking to me don't really tick that off, think Super Store on 104th Ave in Surrey or Ikea out in Richmond/Coquitlam. If you were walking by all you'd see if cars in a parking lot with a building on stilts towering above you. Doesn't really scream inviting to me even if the "footprint" is more compact.

Just my thoughts.

TFN may not be able to have underground parking, but my opinion for areas that do still stands. I grew up SoF and while I don't think all surface parking needs to be eliminated, I think suburban areas need to move forward and put a level of underground parking in and have two floors to their malls. Sprawly groundscrapers with vast fields of parking lots around them are a huge waste of potentially usable space.

I actually don't mind some buildings being on stilts. Warehouses, big box stores and large scale grocery stores aren't made to be friendly human scale buildings with lots of windows. Ikea is a big box store on top of a warehouse. When I was young and the only Ikea around was the original Richmond location, we rarely went as you had to get there first thing in the morning or you'd be stuck parking at the far end of the lot and have to walk across fields of concrete just to get to the store. Now the store is on stilts with a lot of the parking is underneath. Sure it's not pretty, but it solves a problem.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Sorry to answer your question though I'd actually prefer a hybrid approach in urban settings. So underground parking or even parking along the surface but in the middle of the development. That way the cars are "hidden" from pedestrian view and the outside perimeter can be ground level retail.

Think of a donut where the mall/commercial space is the donut and the parking is in the hole. Even from a parking standpoint I think it would actually be more efficient because the benefit of surface parking around a mall is that you can park as close to the entrance you want to shop at. The donut design would be the inverse because the mall would be around the parking and as a parkade maybe going up 2-3 storeys or higher, you wouldn't necessarily need to go up loads of escalators or elevators like you need to in traditional underground parkades (like Metrotown).

How would the cars get to this center parking area? If there's only one entrance / street, it had better be a pretty small mall or there would be lineups to get to the parking and road rage could get crazy. I think it's an interesting idea but the logistics need to be worked out.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Marshal

The redevelopment of many malls in Vancouver is heading in a new direction while re-establishing a richer form for everything. I am an architect that would shudder if everything was the object of high design. Much of our cities are prosaic and utilitarian. Malls lie in a middle ground. Their architecture is less important than their urban form. But, as central focal points within the city, the better their architecture, the better their place.

True - malls are more utilitarian boxes than high fashion. If you were to create a mall, how would you put it together?

[officedweller]

As a mall's land use intensifies over time, the need to build a multi-storey parkade increases.

You see that at places such as Metrotown (next to the former Zellers), Oakridge, Park Royal, and even at Richmond Centre (which may have similar geology to Tsawwassen Mills) (Richmond Cnetre also has rooftop parking).

Over time many of the suburban malls will see development to the sidewalks - like being built at Brentwood.

Metropolis at Metrotown will eventually see a phase of office towers along Kingsway. More immediately, Sears sold off its site (separately owned due to its historical warehouse site) to Concord Pacific which will redevelop that part of the Kingsway frontage.

On a smaller scale, small strip malls that formerly dotted many city corners are being replaced with more intensive mixed use buildings (Crossroads at Cambie and Broadway replaced a plaza of the same name; there was a strip mall at Broadway & Oak that's being replaced with an office mid-rise; King Edward Canada Line Station (and condos being built above) replaced strip mall with a Baskin Robbins; and countless old school Safeways and other supermarkets have been replaced with mixed use developments).

It just takes time.

[Vin]

Really dislike a single storey suburb mall that has such a huge footprint like the TFN. I guess it has to be that way with the soil conditions, etc, but still think it can be better designed, like Morgan Crossing or even Uptown in Victoria/Saanich.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Vin

Really dislike a single storey suburb mall that has such a huge footprint like the TFN. I guess it has to be that way with the soil conditions, etc, but still think it can be better designed, like Morgan Crossing or even Uptown in Victoria/Saanich.

How long will it take for more suburban areas to build up from one story retail to two? Surrey Central and Guildford are two stories (and not brand new) so it has made it across the Fraser - apparently not all that far across though...

Not technically a mall, but the Southgate plans call for "200,000 SF of Commercial Space".

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by officedweller

You see that at places such as Metrotown (next to the former Zellers), Oakridge, Park Royal, and even at Richmond Centre (which may have similar geology to Tsawwassen Mills) (Richmond Cnetre also has rooftop parking).

Over time many of the suburban malls will see development to the sidewalks - like being built at Brentwood.

Metropolis at Metrotown will eventually see a phase of office towers along Kingsway. More immediately, Sears sold off its site (separately owned due to its historical warehouse site) to Concord Pacific which will redevelop that part of the Kingsway frontage.

I wonder how long the 'Zellers parkade' will last. The Station Square one is being removed (admittedly there is going to be some retail parking under the towers). There used to be rooftop parking there as well and now it's gone too.

I haven't heard anything about the Sears plans since their initial letter for redevelopment (before they sold the site). I wouldn't bet Concord are in any hurry to build office towers, considering Metrotower 3 is still half empty.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Marshal

As to your questions,jhausner:
1. To put it downtown would be conceptually impossible. If you mean, build the same space for the same tenant types, but all connected by a mall, it would be silly.

My question was more along the lines of trying to determine your position and context of judgement aka is it location, form, design, concept, etc. I've gotten into debates with people about malls and other developments in the past and they take a massive negative or positive viewpoint on the project simply because it is in X city. Aka a tower in Coquitlam they see as horrible not because the tower itself is horrible but because they don't like Coquitlam.

When I discuss things with people I need to know their true position and basis. Thus the question. I know realistically it is ridiculous to put something this size downtown. Hope that makes sense. Either way you answer enough for me.

2. Downtown with no parking: that would be more silly.

I think you're in the minority though, it seems most people against developments like this fall squarely on the cars are evil and anyone with out should be banned form the Earth. You clearly aren't that way so much easier to discuss.

3. Malls are not bad. They are a natural consequence of our urban culture: the size, scale, organization and infrastructural layout of our cities, along with how our commercial/retail industry operates, and the manner of our transport. We are also getting much better at conceiving/designing/redesigning/redeveloping them. The possibilities of malls, especially in terms of what else can be incorporated into them, is remaking them into more complete and integrated parts of the city.

Very good points. I've found people that see malls as negative entirely miss out on some of the positive results of malls. If built right with a good useful mixture of tenants, they can actually be more efficient from a shopping and environmental perspective. As an example, due to my time commitments in life between work and family, my wife and I tend to do our large shopping on a single day.

With regular big-box or smaller retail locations scattered through a city like say Langley, it means driving to 5-10 different locations, parking, getting out, shopping, getting back in with our daughter (in her car seat) driving somewhere else, etc. etc. A well designed mall could instead mean we go to 1 location, do all our shopping, then leave which surprisingly enough would result in far less environmental impact because we'd be driving less in addition to just simply saving us hours of time jumping from Winners to Canadian Tire, to Home Depot, to Michaels, to Super Store, etc.

The other negative people often state is that malls are incompatible with the 'new world" meaning the online world where online shopping is taking a front seat. The unfortunate truth is that there are a lot of things you simply can't buy online efficiently. Clothing for example, I don't know anyone actually who has purchased clothing online and has since sworn off it and gone back to "try before you buy." And if they do end up buying something online it is because they went into a location first to try something and are simply looking for the deal.

See the same in other "online friendly" purchases like electronics and computer parts. We had a discussion in the Surrey Retail thread about Best Buy being great to go look at TVs before you shop around online for better deals. Still need that retail location to go to.

So looks like we're on the same page that they definitely have their positive affects.

4. Are there any good malls? Yes. Even if a mall has significant flaws, it can also provide positives to the community. Decades ago, it was the thing to do for architects and urban planners, to criticize malls as agents of urban ruin. They would finish that off with how our urban culture was in decline (which in many ways it was) and all the giant malls would eventually die as dinosaurs. Instead, our cities continue to develop in both good and bad ways. The same goes for malls. The redevelopment of many malls in Vancouver is heading in a new direction while re-establishing a richer form for everything. I am an architect that would shudder if everything was the object of high design. Much of our cities are prosaic and utilitarian. Malls lie in a middle ground. Their architecture is less important than their urban form. But, as central focal points within the city, the better their architecture, the better their place.

I've always felt that the discussion about malls being agents of urban ruin surrounds the notion that malls kill small business. For example, the TFN mall has had a lot of hype around it in Delta negatively by the small businesses in Tsawwassen and Ladner. Many have argued not that the mall is bad for the citizens but that it is bad for their small businesses.

Unfortunately I find though that this point is often sold as actually being bad for citizens aka small business is the pinnacle of society when that's simply not true. It's more accurately an argument against change.

Good point though that the more central, the better their architecture and place.

5. Is it the aesthetics of this mall that you disagree with? (You sure you read what I have already posted?) For me, the aesthetics of this mall are peripheral. It’s going to be a stripped down, cheap assemblage of boxes with ridiculous kitschy retail fronts stuck on where demanded. At least for a while it will look shiny new. The parking lots are absurd throwbacks to the 1950-60’s. But then, the whole thing is a reinvention of the original suburban fringe malls. Again, for me it isn’t my preference in terms of planning or form, or as a resident consuming my way through all the stuff we rich westerners consume, it’s not the retail or urban experience I want in my life. It is what it is. I don’t care too much, mostly I am curious as to how it will work out.

Interesting thing is that I don't agree that the parking lots are throwbacks to the 50s and 60s. Maybe in Metro-Vancouver, but malls like the one in TFN are being built around the world even today and I'd be surprised if there aren't more that have been built today than in the 50s or 60s. Yes the concept started back then but if you build a car today with a feature from the 50s does it make it a throw back?

I think for Metro-Vancouver, the TFN mall is an oddity because we've not really had the space or locations to do anything of this type. Metro-Vancouver is a unique animal with our ALR basically slapped on all the empty space between the cities blocking nearly any and all development. TFN comes along, gets their land through treaty, and then magically there is land outside the ALR to build something like this.

Outside Metro-Vancouver though these malls have been built everywhere. Heck Seattle Outlet Mall is not much different. I went to a mall very similar to this in Salt Lake City Utah, near Portland Oregon, and even south of Seattle in Westfield Southcenter. Heck even Bellis Fair which a lot of people swore by when our dollar was worth more is basically the same thing though a smaller scale.

Of note, I am fairly certain all of the above mentioned malls opened their doors between the late 80s and present day with the exception of Southcenter open in 1968.

From the perspective of building an urban community around a mall like this though I would absolutely agree with the position that it doesn't do a good job of it. Similar to Disney Land not really connecting with the community around it given it is surrounded by walls on 3 sides and massive parking lots on the other.

That's where I think your point goes that in Metro-Vancouver at least, the majority of our malls are actually within urban (or trying to be urban) centers so are needing to change. Brentwood, Metotown, Oakridge, Guildford, Surrey Central, Coquitlam Center, Lougheed, etc. All are right in urban centers and all have been been evolving and changing to fit the new prominence in urban centers.

That said all are "evolving" meaning they all started life not so amazingly designed.

6. Is it the mall itself that you don't like? Aka ignore the environment and parking lots. Like I said, it’s not so much about not liking it, as it is amazement that such a formal type, successful in many other places, is being built here, where every other mall is working towards redeveloping away from this.

I'd then ask that is the design of this mall in your opinion purely economics or is a factor contributing to its design simply the nature of it being "in the middle of nowhere" like people keep pointing out.

I think in context though you have a good point that if TFN is looking to build a new thriving community with residences, commercial space, and industrial land, that given the "future", purhaps they should have designed it with that in mind to start rather than building it for today.

Similar to the concept of transit oriented development. Transit oriented development doesn't necessarily mean transit is there already rather it also accounts for developing in such a way that is friendly and oriented toward transit/pedestrians.

If that's what you're articulating then I don't disagree.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Sheba

How would the cars get to this center parking area? If there's only one entrance / street, it had better be a pretty small mall or there would be lineups to get to the parking and road rage could get crazy. I think it's an interesting idea but the logistics need to be worked out.

You'd still have entrances and exits but it would be no different than malls with large parking lots.

Look at Surrey Central. It has large parking lots at the front and effectively 4 (2 off King George, 1 off 100th, 1 off 102nd) entrances and exits. Parkades effectively have 2 or 3 entrances and exits and work fine. It's not like surface parking lots have 10 or 20 entrances to the roads surrounding them.

Even Guildford Mall along 152nd which is its largest parking lot has 2 entrances and exits and only 1 is bi-directional. They would simply interface between the roadway and the inner parking lot as if it were a road cutting through. The only difference between having the "parkade" in the center and having it underground or on the peripheral is that the "roads" connecting would be longer. So in an underground parkade you go through 1 of a few entrances and the parking lot is right there. If it was in the center you'd have a longer lane before you hit the parking lot. I actually think in practice this would help with congestion because I often experience in malls like Metrotown a situation where the entrance is clogged up because the parking is right at an entrance and you have 15 cars coming from 15 different directions to a small entrance that has a stop light (on Kingsway) then when the light turns green everyone is confused "which one of us 15 goes first????" and nothing moves.

Hopefully that makes sense, without drawing something it is a bit more difficult to articulate what's in my head.

[officedweller]

Bellevue Square has similar access points to midblock multi-level parkades.

Originally Posted by Sheba

I wonder how long the 'Zellers parkade' will last. [/URL].

Good question.

The Zellers parkade (originally Woodward's parkade) was built in the first phase of Metrotown Centre because the mall was a conversion of the former Sears warehouse into a retail mall (with Sears at one end and Woodwards at the other end (including a food floor needing adjacent car parking for easy grocery loading, which I guess the existing T&T still needs for big shoppers). There was no underground parking under the original building.

However, when the mall was expanded with the Hudson's Bay wing, some underground parking was built under that wing.

Conceivably,
(1) Concord Pacific's redevelopment of the Sears site will include some underground retail parking; and
(2) the Zellers parkade could be demolished and redeveloped, with some underground parking below, connected to the Hudson's Bay wing underground parking.

********

Oakridge's issues with its aquifer (preventing more underground parking - seemed like a big enough "deficiency" that it cancelled plans to double-deck the mall.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Sheba

How long will it take for more suburban areas to build up from one story retail to two? Surrey Central and Guildford are two stories (and not brand new) so it has made it across the Fraser - apparently not all that far across though...

Not technically a mall, but the Southgate plans call for "200,000 SF of Commercial Space".

Surrey Central is not _really_ 2 storeys if you look at it closely. I mean it is 'technically' but I'd argue it is more 1 storey than 2 as the majority of the mall is actually a single storey. It is really just the original mall facing King George that is two storey.

http://www.centralcity.ca/directory/ Just look at the fooprints of the "Lower Level" for reference.

Guildford is truly 2 storey as a mall as is Coquitlam Center, Lougheed Mall, and Brentwood, and Metrotown is technically 3 storeys though it is mainly 2. That really leaves Willowbrook as the 1 storey mall title holder in the suburbs until you hit Abbotsford which is outside Metro-Vancouver technically.

Any others I'm missing? So to me outside of this new TFN mall, only really Willowbrook is still an entirely 1 storey mall (though again I'd debate Surrey Central a bit).

So to answer your question, hasn't it already happened, that they've already built up to 2?

Edit: Sorry I completely forgot Richmond dur. Richmond Center, much like Surrey Central, I'd argue is still 1 storey. Lansdown is 1 storey but Aberdeen Centre is 3 stories.

I think that point is interesting seeing as Richmond is arguably one of the more urban cities in Metro Vancouver, so why are two of its larger malls still effectively 1 storey?

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by Sheba

True - malls are more utilitarian boxes than high fashion. If you were to create a mall, how would you put it together?

Good question? I am going to stick with the real world on this one. I think that is more interesting than utopian thinking in this context. I have never come close to considering the design of malls. So this is just first level thinking.

For the TFN site: what can you do? I would argue to simply not do that there, but that's not an architect's job. Accepting that it is simply a bad idea all around, what they are building is what the client wants, and 'thinks' they need.

If I were to create a mall, that made commercial sense, I would simply begin the design process with the scope and arrangement that we see in numerous Lower Mainland mall redevelopments. It would be a bonus if the site bordered on a successful existing commercial area. Then we would develop an architectural strategy, something like a governing aesthetic and technical 'skin' along with a strategy for dealing with various scales of massing of parts (how they go together, how/if they are expressed, how individual would they be and where, and so on...). Then, while keeping all this in mind, the design would become an urban design challenge. Instead of ignoring its surroundings, the topography, surrounding land uses and layout would be one layer of info used to define the project at a larger scale. The idea would be for the mall to actually respond positively to its surroundings. The design would extend and bolster the existing commercial area. The geometry which would dictate the mall's overall form would follow the layout of the area, balanced with the programmatic requirements provided by the client. Parking would be placed below grade, or second best, above everything else. Density would be key, and natural urban usage would be reflected. Office and residential components would be worked above the retail areas and be located where public spaces enlarge into key crossroads and enlarged 'squares.' Retail/entertainment would anchor the public realm. Multiple levels are good, though they are a challenge in the sense that their inter-connection needs to be careful handled so that there is a strong interconnectivity to it all. Isolating/dead-ending would not be acceptable, loops and main axis would be. A careful balance would be established between indoor and outdoor public space. They would need to work together such that they enforce each other’s layouts and hierarchies of interest (use). Outdoor public space would be designed with rain cover, but the primary form of this would either be a by-product of the building forms, or be through large scale, high glass structures specifically for this. Awnings would be a secondary aspect in order to design the spaces to feel as open as possible in good weather.
I gotta go, that should be enough.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Vin

Really dislike a single storey suburb mall that has such a huge footprint like the TFN. I guess it has to be that way with the soil conditions, etc, but still think it can be better designed, like Morgan Crossing or even Uptown in Victoria/Saanich.

Morgan Crossing is all 1 storey and has a giant parking lot in the middle. It is higher density only because there has been residential built on top and they do have the option of underground for the residential units as that part of South Surrey is well above sea level. If that's what you mean though aka putting residential on top of the TFN mall then we run into again the logistical issues with not being able to put underground parking. Where would the residents park their vehicles? Out in a massive parking lot?

Personally I feel the only way they could have reduced the parking lot footprint is to attempt to build on the roof and move everything else around closer. I actually thought at one point they could have done like Tsawwassen Springs across the street. Their condo buildings going up have the parkade effectively at grade but they built up the landscaping around such that is appears to be underground with respect to the building.

So the parkade is dug in about 1/4 deep if that then they build up the land so it is higher up and call that "ground level." At the scale of this mall though I think that would have made interfacing far more difficult and quite frankly to bring in that much fill would have been a bit ridiculous. So I kind of ruled that idea out in my head.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Good question? I am going to stick with the real world on this one. I think that is more interesting than utopian thinking in this context. I have never come close to considering the design of malls. So this is just first level thinking.

For the TFN site: what can you do? I would argue to simply not do that there, but that's not an architect's job. Accepting that it is simply a bad idea all around, what they are building is what the client wants, and 'thinks' they need.

If I were to create a mall, that made commercial sense, I would simply begin the design process with the scope and arrangement that we see in numerous Lower Mainland mall redevelopments. It would be a bonus if the site bordered on a successful existing commercial area. Then we would develop an architectural strategy, something like a governing aesthetic and technical 'skin' along with a strategy for dealing with various scales of massing of parts (how they go together, how/if they are expressed, how individual would they be and where, and so on...). Then, while keeping all this in mind, the design would become an urban design challenge. Instead of ignoring its surroundings, the topography, surrounding land uses and layout would be one layer of info used to define the project at a larger scale. The idea would be for the mall to actually respond positively to its surroundings. The design would extend and bolster the existing commercial area. The geometry which would dictate the mall's overall form would follow the layout of the area, balanced with the programmatic requirements provided by the client. Parking would be placed below grade, or second best, above everything else. Density would be key, and natural urban usage would be reflected. Office and residential components would be worked above the retail areas and be located where public spaces enlarge into key crossroads and enlarged 'squares.' Retail/entertainment would anchor the public realm. Multiple levels are good, though they are a challenge in the sense that their inter-connection needs to be careful handled so that there is a strong interconnectivity to it all. Isolating/dead-ending would not be acceptable, loops and main axis would be. A careful balance would be established between indoor and outdoor public space. They would need to work together such that they enforce each other’s layouts and hierarchies of interest (use). Outdoor public space would be designed with rain cover, but the primary form of this would either be a by-product of the building forms, or be through large scale, high glass structures specifically for this. Awnings would be a secondary aspect in order to design the spaces to feel as open as possible in good weather.
I gotta go, that should be enough.

Good points especially regarding the interface with the surrounding area. That's where I think the TFN mall is getting a lot of true negative points. The interface is parking lots especially in an area that prides itself on being eco sensitive and nature oriented. I've mentioned multiple times now the challenges with the logistics of parking on a sand bar, but I do side with the opinion that they could have likely done something else that would have been far more pleasing than just paving lots for cars. I understand it (economically) but it could have done better.

I also wonder if that was the case if the mall would be seen in a better light overall. Some people will always be against any building "out in the burbs" especially this far out in the "middle of nowhere" just look at the anti-Skytrain in Surrey "Surrey has no density" opinions that get thrown around all the time on these forums.

But I think you've likely touched on the key failure, good interface with the surrounding area.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Outdoor public space would be designed with rain cover, but the primary form of this would either be a by-product of the building forms, or be through large scale, high glass structures specifically for this. Awnings would be a secondary aspect in order to design the spaces to feel as open as possible in good weather.

That's a problem I foresee with some of these indoor malls being turned into outdoor malls. They're being designed with summer in mind, ignoring that we live in a temperate rainforest. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of awnings, much less 'high glass structures'.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Some people will always be against any building "out in the burbs" especially this far out in the "middle of nowhere" just look at the anti-Skytrain in Surrey "Surrey has no density" opinions that get thrown around all the time on these forums.

Only some people? I find most people north of the Fraser see everything south of the Fraser as 'the boonies' and somewhere they would never go unless their life depended on it (and even then they'd have to think about it). It's as if the Fraser River is some kind of impenetrable border.