The Urban Development Institute did a webinar on Translink’s 2050 planning process – including some polls along the way. Here’s one:
It might not be a surprise that the development community sees transit-oriented urban centres as best for office location – by a big margin. But look at the bottom choice: “Car-oriented sub-urban office parks that are not close to transit.”
Zero.
Talk about a redevelopment opportunity. But to what?
_____________________
UPDATE: The GVRD’s retired strategic planner Ken Cameron offered this Comment below – but it’s important to highlight it here:
It was evident 40 years ago that the suburban office park was the commercial development equivalent of the low-density single-family subdivision: single use, impossible to serve with transit, pedestrian-hostile, requiring a vehicle for every trip, reliant on taxpayers and individuals to pay all the external costs and very difficult to redevelop for more sustainable uses.
The development industry’s affection for these parks – and the inability of local governments to resist them as a means of providing land for employment – sapped the early development of the urban town centres in the suburbs that the industry now prefers. The result is a massive city-building problem for local governments and their taxpayers.
Planners of a certain age can be forgiven for quoting Arnold Schwarzenegger: “Listen to me now or hear me later.” It was evident 40 years ago that the suburban office park was the commercial development equivalent of the low-density single-family subdivision: single use, impossible to serve with transit, pedestrian-hostile, requiring a vehicle for every trip, reliant on taxpayers and individuals to pay all the external costs and very difficult to redevelop for more sustainable uses. The development industry’s affection for these parks – and the inability of local governments to resist them as a means of providing land for employment – sapped the early development of the urban town centres in the suburbs that the industry now prefers. The result is a massive city-building problem for local governments and their taxpayers.
If most business parks are in light industrial zoned areas, I could see consolidation of parcels and construction of larger footprint warehouses, addressing the shortage of industrial space.
The head office of Best Buy Canada has recently been announced as moving. They’re leaving an office park in Burnaby’s Big Bend (where they provide a company shuttle, in the absence of transit) and are moving to a new office building under construction in Vancouver’s Mount Pleasant commercial area, just north of Broadway and a block off Cambie Street. https://changingcitybook.wordpress.com/2017/12/04/425-west-6th-avenue/
One thing I noticed about the Daily Hive article is that the new Best Buy office won’t have a couple of other
office perks necessitated by the remote business park location – company cafeteria (ie subsidized) and free company gym. The Daily Hive article referenced a ‘partnership’ with a gym in the new building, but that usually means a special rate, not free.
These types of poll results are encouraging but suburban office parks are still far cheaper to build and lease in than denser, transit-adjacent areas. Of course that’s just the sticker price to the ‘buyer’ but it’s a massive advantage they still hold. Until the short term cost benefits of square footage out in the sticks are nullified, the business parks in Langley, Chilliwack, and South Surrey will continue to expand.
Exactly. The poll is not typical or only 6 people answered.
ALL types of offices will be in demand. Not everyone wants to go downtown or pay the premium for TOD.
Maybe its a fake poll with 6 participants only ?