hw621
Senior Member
The opposing parties said the City gave the 40 - 50K new resident number in the 2nd public meeting, after being specifically asked. Now that number is not correct? If yes what is the correct number and the source?
- Thread starter canarob
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
Agree, more or less; except, I don't see why redevelopment can't retain a comparable mall (retail GFA) at the same or higher rates, in a more optimal form with a phased rebuilding plan.
If Markville were retained in a rebuilt form (4 floors instead of 2) and optimally reshaped to occupy roughly the south-east quadrant of the site, there would be much more to gain for both the community and CF (more towers, and an urban form that would be more attractive and get higher $ per ft2 in rent/sales.)
canarob
Senior Member
I believe the 40-50K number would have been for the secondary plan area, which is more than just the mall property.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
But why would CF take the only thing generating revenue on site out of service for an indefinite amount of time? The mall already exists and it already has customers. If CF's interest is primarily pecuniary, why would they sell the golden goose (only to presumably need to buy a newer goose, one costing more money than the current, extant, model, down the line)? Also, a retail unit on the 4th floor of a North American mall will almost always have lower rent than one on ground or 2.
Again, there's the conflation of what ideologically could or should be done on site, and what is going to generate the most profit. We all know CF couldn't care less about the former, and are focused on the latter. Markham is bound to evaluate the application based on the planning merits laid out in the Planning Act. Nothing more, nothing less.
hw621
Senior Member
Yes, and the lawn sign groups are opposing the whole Secondary Plan, not just the CF project. So their number is not far off. I am not sure why the other post said it is.
Northern Light
Superstar
They wouldn't. You build the new mall Phase 1 on what is now surface parking, integrated with towers, the existing mall keeps humming along.
You then have your choice how to achieve the remaining ft2; on a well laid out site, (phase 2) and can either demo the eastern 1/2 of the mall (now replaced); but you have no connection to remaining mall temporarily.
OR, you build the rest simultaneously, (replace the entire mall in one go, but you lose more parking temporarily).
The outline above is actually close in area to the entire mall from SportChek to the north.
At just 3 floors you could replace the almost the entire existing retail GFA within that one corner, at 4 floors you would.
TEC holds pretty good per ft2 numbers across levels 0, 1 and 2. There is a decline on 3, understandably, because there is no connection to the anchor store at the north end there, so cross traffic is lower.
That's a design choice, for which there are remedies.
No question. I still think there's far more long term profit in full mall redevelopment.
We're talking 8ha/20 acres of land, and while some of that would be lost to roads/parks etc; most of that would be recovered through optimized site layout.
But hell, let's apply a discount to what you could build on that, there's at least 7 net new towers, and 4,000+ units of density and the retail underneath is worth more because you just drove up the immediate customer catchment by at least 6,000 people.
There's no disagreement here on what they're obliged to do; there is my clear statement that every single person, business and government should always aspire to do more than the bare minimum, and indeed should actually aim for maximum achievement. Mediocrity is a sin, even if it is lawful.