Thursday, June 28, 2007

MEC comes to Burlington

Awesome and exciting news! Burlington is getting its greenest building to date in the form of a 20,000 square foot Mountain Equipment Co-op.

Snippet from their release.

""Sustainability is a driving force at MEC, and the Burlington store will be developed to our rigorous green building standards," said Robinson.

MEC plans to construct its greenest building to date and to meet at least the gold standard of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) greenbuilding rating system."

The location is not ideal - but it is still accessible by walking and biking and is close enough to downtown to make transit an option.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is fantastic news for the City of Burlington and the west GTA.

MEC will get my business but I have to think that Tumblehome on Brant street has got to be worried.

Anonymous said...

I am really excited to see MEC move closer than ever. However I have to say that their choice of location really stinks, especially for a store that is supposed to promote sustainable development.

This location is mostly accessible by car. True, it is relatively close to transit but you can bet your life that a large percentage of their customers are going to arrive by car. I am willing to bet (though I might be totally wrong) that they will have more square footage dedicated to parking than they will to retail space. Time will tell, and I'll be sad if that is truly the case. You can build as green as you want, but none of that will matter when you encourage all of your customers to drive to your store in low-occupancy vehicles.

Here is a more detailed article about why the Burlington Mountain Equipment Co Op location and a detailed breakdown of their press release which shows why the Burlington MEC location is a bad choice.

Anonymous said...

In regards to MEC's newest "green" building local, we'll have to give them a bit of a break on this one. The lack of infastructure is a problematic situation the city of Burlington has developed all on it's own. Burlington has allowed itself to be over-developed and continues to do so, without first developing a proactive plan towards infastructure. Remember, MEC has a reputation and one that shares its space kindly with it's suroundings! Maybe, Burlington and other companies will be able to learn a few "be kinder to our bioshpere" applications from this more thoughtful retailer.

Anonymous said...

"The lack of infastructure is a problematic situation the city of Burlington has developed all on it's own."

All the more reason for them to choose a location (and if necessary, a city) that can provide a sustainable location. There is more to making a sustainable building than the building itself. If the only feasible way to get there is by car, then the net result is going to be pretty un-green. Try cycling or walking on any of the streets in Burlington that cross the QEW... what a nightmare.

A compelling argument for a different location here:
MEC should locate in Hamilton instead of Burlington

Anonymous said...

Sustainable location, mmmm, possibly persons looking to fire up Hamilton's allure. Tactile aside,Burlington was the only sensible choice as it offers accessibility from all travel directions. Yes, like or not, via roads travelled by cars. This is how we have allowed ourselves to be developed and for the sake of money. Further, if not MEC, it could have been another IKEA which now has the same sense of business ethics since their restructuring as Walmart. We'll look forward to MEC, thanks very much. Once again, local aside, give them a chance to provide some proactive attention to our infastructure problems.

Anonymous said...

it's not about hamilton versus burlington. it's about their choice to:

a) build a new building rather than use an existing one.

b) locate such that driving is the easiest way to get there.

I guess since "like it or not" we live in a single-occupancy-vehicle culture, we should just roll over and take whatever's coming down the highway? Well, like it or not, mec puts on a green face and then slaps us with this location. If they didn't spout such rubbish about the greenness of this spot, there wouldn't be such an argument against it.

I'm really interested to see what kind of parking they offer there... I have a distant hope that they will refrain from overloading the site with surface parking but something tells me that over 50% of the land area will be parking. Sad.