New concept in urban living (morgan crossing)

[SpongeG]

Despite some lingering NIMBY (not in my back yard) opposition, development is proceeding at breakneck speed in South Surrey's evolving Morgan Crossing neighbourhood.

And as more land is cleared, more foundations poured and more housing nears completion, the acreage just east of King George Highway at 24th Avenue is being transformed into what has been billed as a new style of urban village - a lifestyle centre.

Think Yaletown meets Park Royal. Almost a million square feet of retail and commercial space - already almost fully leased - will introduce a broad spectrum of sophisticated urban amenities including a gourmet cooking school, New York-style wine bar, Indigo Bookstore, high fashion shopping, and a multitude of services all in a pedestrian-oriented village centre.

Surrounding it are residential opportunities of all descriptions - condominiums, townhouses and single-family detached houses in both freehold and strata variations.

The common theme is contemporary finishing details - granite counters, open floor plans, stainless steel appliances, soaker bathtubs - all the items that have become de rigueur for any developer expecting to sell new product.

But there are also sufficient differences to make this a neighbourhood that can accommodate a range of homeowners - first-time buyers, downsizing empty-nesters, families and singles - as well as a range of budgets.

Just released, Central may well be one of the most affordable condominium options with prices starting at $244,900 for a one-bedroom.

At the other end of the scale, Morgan Heights offers deluxe, three- and four-bedroom single-family homes starting at $795,900.

A collaboration between four builders - Park Ridge Homes, Benchmark Homes, Wallmark Homes and RAB Properties - Morgan Heights is already attracting buyers who want a more traditional elegance.

The only single-family detached strata development is Skylands. Three-bedroom homes will set you back $679,900 and up, but come with the convenience of a maintenance-free lifestyle - no need to mow the lawn, clean the gutters or do other routine upkeep.

Between the two lifestyles are an array of townhouse developments with architecture ranging from contemporary to colonial. Allure by Weststone Properties is selling briskly with three-bedroom floor plans priced from the low $400,000s and boasting a distinctive, fun-loving cosmopolitan outlook to their design.

Priced from the high $300,000s, the Brown-stones by Adera incorporates the look of Boston with plenty of brick, wrought iron railings, and covered front stoops - they are also designed to BuiltGreen standards for enhanced sustainability.

From Intracorp, the sister developments of Highland Park and Glenmore cater to buyers with larger budgets, as well as younger, growing families where pockets are not yet so deep. Prices start from $354,000 for a two-bedroom at Glenmore. This was also the site of an innovative marketing strategy affectionately known as the Space Race.

Four top interior designers - Alda Pereira Design, BYU Design, Insight Design Group and Toronto-based Cecconi Simone - created uniquely decorated showhomes based on a profile of the family who "lives" there.

http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/Lifestyle/2008/04/02/5167666-sun.html

[quobobo]

"Think Yaletown meets Park Royal"

That is is some grade A hyperbole right there. :D

Any idea how tall the condos are? Also, I'm not familiar with Surrey at all - is this near one of the Skytrain stations?

[SpongeG]

no its in south surrey near hwy 99 and the US border

[EastVanMark]

"Think Yaletown meets Park Royal"

That is is some grade A hyperbole right there. :D

Any idea how tall the condos are? Also, I'm not familiar with Surrey at all - is this near one of the Skytrain stations?

You caught that too huh.......Yup, when I think of South Surrey....I think "Yaletown meets Park Royal"....just don't remember either Yaletown or Park Royal having such "colorful" stores like "Gold and Guns" the way South Surrey does. :haha: :haha: :haha: (not to mention the low-brow seedy strip clubs, massage parlours, welfare office etc etc)...

[g35]

You caught that too huh.......Yup, when I think of South Surrey....I think "Yaletown meets Park Royal"....just don't remember either Yaletown or Park Royal having such "colorful" stores like "Gold and Guns" the way South Surrey does. :haha: :haha: :haha: (not to mention the low-brow seedy strip clubs, massage parlours, welfare office etc etc)...

Dude I hope you're kidding (being honest here, are you?). Because if not, you seem to know nothing about South Surrey.

[SFUVancouver]

^ Yeah, I'm lost at your references. Whalley, perhaps, but not South Surrey.

[SpongeG]

south surrey is nice

people from there make it a point to say they are from South Surrey

from the rendering it sort of looks like park royal village with residential above retail

[crazyjoeda]

You caught that too huh.......Yup, when I think of South Surrey....I think "Yaletown meets Park Royal"....just don't remember either Yaletown or Park Royal having such "colorful" stores like "Gold and Guns" the way South Surrey does. :haha: :haha: :haha: (not to mention the low-brow seedy strip clubs, massage parlours, welfare office etc etc)...

Uh, are you on crack?? Or just retarded?? :koko:
I live 5min from this Morgan Heights area; most of the detached homes are $1,000,000+. A 1 bedroom suite ranging from 634 to 733 square feet at Morgan Crossing starts at $244,900. There are no low-brow seedy strip clubs, massage parlours, welfare offices or any places like those anywhere near South Surrey. However, Yaletown does have strip clubs and at least massage parlour in the neighborhood.

I should take some pictures of the Morgan Heights development; it is one of the largest construction zones in the Lower Mainland. Crews are building around the clock.

[SFUVancouver]

^ Please do!

[Stingray2004]

You caught that too huh.......Yup, when I think of South Surrey....I think "Yaletown meets Park Royal"....just don't remember either Yaletown or Park Royal having such "colorful" stores like "Gold and Guns" the way South Surrey does. :haha: :haha: :haha: (not to mention the low-brow seedy strip clubs, massage parlours, welfare office etc etc)...

Woah.... When one thinks of South Surrey, one should really think Greater White Rock as the area is really White Rock expanding further outward into South Surrey.

South Surrey is completely disenjoined from Surrey proper by kilometers of farmland/flats. Don't let the "Surrey" in the "South Surrey" fool ya.

Besides, the demographics of White Rock/ South Surrey is heavily upper middle-class with a lot of wealthy westside Vancouverites moving out for the better quality of life over the past several years. Really!

[Blake]

My wife and I will be heading to Glenmore in Morgan Heights this weekend with chequebook in hand, ready to put a deposit on a 4 bedroom townhouse. Most of the buyers in this area are coming from places like the North Shore, Westside and Coquitlam/Port Moody seeking a similar lifestyle at a more affordable price.

This area when complete, in my opinion, will be the best suburban residential area in the Lower Mainland. An outstanding mix of housing, with the right mix of chain and boutique retail within walking distance. Great schools, close to recreation and about 1/4 of the rain as most of the Lower Mainland.

Those who paint Surrey (a city of 400,000) with the same brush need to get out more. This area is nothing like Whalley or the rest of Surrey. There is no way in hell I would choose this as a place to raise my family if it was.

[EastVanMark]

Uh, are you on crack?? Or just retarded?? :koko:
I live 5min from this Morgan Heights area; most of the detached homes are $1,000,000+. A 1 bedroom suite ranging from 634 to 733 square feet at Morgan Crossing starts at $244,900. There are no low-brow seedy strip clubs, massage parlours, welfare offices or any places like those anywhere near South Surrey. However, Yaletown does have strip clubs and at least massage parlour in the neighborhood.

I should take some pictures of the Morgan Heights development; it is one of the largest construction zones in the Lower Mainland. Crews are building around the clock.

Wow, homes for a whopping million dollars. Might want to put that into an envelope and mail it back to 1985 when such a stat would have been impressive. Also, $244,000 will you something about the size of a phone booth in either Yaletown or Park Royal areas. Both of these areas also boast high end shopping, a wide variety of restaurants and bars that are some of the things that make those respective areas so desirable. Neither of those exist in South Surrey. Also, I believe these:haha: denotes laughter, a joke etc. Something to pay attention to. Also somebody living in Surrey shouldn't talk about crack...glass houses sort of thing.;)

[EastVanMark]

Uh, are you on crack?? Or just retarded?? :koko:
I live 5min from this Morgan Heights area; most of the detached homes are $1,000,000+. A 1 bedroom suite ranging from 634 to 733 square feet at Morgan Crossing starts at $244,900. There are no low-brow seedy strip clubs, massage parlours, welfare offices or any places like those anywhere near South Surrey. However, Yaletown does have strip clubs and at least massage parlour in the neighborhood.

I should take some pictures of the Morgan Heights development; it is one of the largest construction zones in the Lower Mainland. Crews are building around the clock.

Wow, homes for a whopping million dollars. Might want to put that into an envelope and mail it back to 1985 when such a stat would have been impressive. Also, $244,000 will you something about the size of a phone booth in either Yaletown or Park Royal areas. Both of these areas also boast high end shopping, a wide variety of restaurants and bars that are some of the things that make those respective areas so desirable. Neither of those exist in South Surrey. Also, I believe these:haha: denotes laughter, a joke etc. Something to pay attention to. Also somebody living in Surrey shouldn't talk about crack...living in glass houses throwing stones sort of thing.;)

[98fb]

^ says the guy from East Van :yuck:

[GMasterAres]

You caught that too huh.......Yup, when I think of South Surrey....I think "Yaletown meets Park Royal"....just don't remember either Yaletown or Park Royal having such "colorful" stores like "Gold and Guns" the way South Surrey does. :haha: :haha: :haha: (not to mention the low-brow seedy strip clubs, massage parlours, welfare office etc etc)...


That area is called North Surrey. You should look at a map once in a while. It's kind of like mistaking East Vancouver for West Vancouver... ignorance is an amazing thing.

[cc85]

those condos are up to 4 storeys high. there are power lines running down the main street right next to all those quaint shops. every unit facing the street will be looking towards those lines. enjoy.:sly:

south surrey is an area for people who think they are rich and good enough for vancouver, but are not. for those that want to keep their d/t job, want the big back yard, the big house to make themselves feel good, but will never own in vancouver.

[canucks23]

South Surrey is awesome. When do you ever hear of any crimes there on the news? It makes perfect sense why people are willing to move from Vancouver to South Surrey/White Rock and are willing to add a 1.5 commute each way to Vancouver for work or school. On the other hand, once the Canada Line is complete and the new Rapid Transit line is in effect to Richmond, getting down town will be a breeze!:)

[Blake]

Most of the South Surrey / White Rock area residents I know are either owners of industrial businesses in places like Richmond, Langley or Annacis Island or are white collar professionals working within the local area.

Very few commute downtown.

[SpongeG]

most like to cross border shop to - nice to live within minutes of the border

south surrey has some good shops - choices, opened up last year, tommy hillfigger is there, pier 1 etc etc

will be interesting to see what the new development brings to the area

crescent beach is one the best kept secrets of the area - such a cute little beach town

[crazyjoeda]

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:
those condos are up to 4 storeys high. there are power lines running down the main street right next to all those quaint shops. every unit facing the street will be looking towards those lines. enjoy.:sly:

south surrey is an area for people who think they are rich and good enough for vancouver, but are not. for those that want to keep their d/t job, want the big back yard, the big house to make themselves feel good, but will never own in vancouver.



How would you know?? :shrug:

1. Most people in Vancouver are not rich. The average home in South Surrey costs as much as one Vancouver. The difference is that in South Surrey a person can buy property. If you want to live in Point Grey you can not find a home with a one or even quarter acre lot.

Your claim people in South Surrey could never own in Vancouver is both illogical and quite simply ignorant. :koko:

2. I live in South Surrey and I do not know anyone who works downtown. I know some people do but most do not. Most of my neighbors own their own business or work locally as professionals.

[crazyjoeda]

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/1356/img41602lc1.jpg
New Luxury Home on One Acre Lot

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/6191/img41612qz4.jpg
Less expensive town-homes are being built adjacent to the new shopping centres.

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/2139/img41622om6.jpg

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/5545/img41632sw9.jpg

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/1552/img41642lr0.jpg
Room for many more homes. The development of this area has just started. Six months ago this was hobby farmland.

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/6951/img41652ak1.jpg

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/8909/img41662ik1.jpg

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/8643/img41672xr3.jpg
This place is called Vinterra and actually has a small vineyard on the property.

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/2273/img41682lb7.jpg
These cows will undoubtably be homeless soon.

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/1152/img41692dd5.jpg
A few blocks down the hill from the Morgan Crossing area is a much more upscale development of huge homes.

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/8487/img41702dl8.jpg
Most have a view of the mountains and all of Surrey. On a clear day Central City and the Infinity Towers can be seen from here.

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/1962/img41712cl9.jpg

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/9239/img41722cp5.jpg

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/93/img41732lz9.jpg
Signs selling condos and town-homes.

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/9492/img41742iw7.jpg

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/3246/img41752ok5.jpg
This is South Ridge prep-school, it has been here for several years.

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/328/img41762fe1.jpg
Before the development this sports field backed onto a hay field.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/2032/img41772ql1.jpg
Across the street from South Ridge is The Morgan the largest condo at Morgan Crossing.

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/4181/img41782rs8.jpg
These Boston Style homes look out of place in South Surrey.

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/5337/img41792gy0.jpg
This is the centre of what will be the Morgan Crossing Shopping Centre.

http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/1342/img41802vp4.jpg

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/246/img41822ty9.jpg
Grandview Corners in another shopping centre across the street from Morgan Crossing. It will be the largest unenclosed retail development in British Columbia.

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/3474/img41812xd7.jpg
It will be open before Morgan Crossing

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/2799/img41832aj0.jpg
Eww. This monstrosity will be Canada's largest Wal-Mart. It is so large that I could not fit it into one photo. This Wal-Mart will be 2-3 times bigger than an average Wal-Mart. Behind it there is a Future Shop under-construction.

Grandview Corners Info (http://www.grandviewcorners.ca/)
Morgan Crossing Info (http://www.middleofeverywhere.ca/)

[flight_from_kamakura]

this kind of development should have been outlawed years ago.

[osirisboy]

agreed, although for a suburban development its better than a lot. although i cant stand the neighborhoods with those stupid 5000 sqft houses on an acre plus lots.

[GMasterAres]

I was going to post in response to cc85's ignorant quibbling but that would be feeding a troll.

this kind of development should have been outlawed years ago.

Which kind of development? The entire project for the region? Or the giant Wallmart. Could you be a bit more specific in qualifying your opinion? That's a rather general statement that is difficult to counter point in a discussion.

I enjoy reading these forums when people put forward opinions based on thought rather than just throwing out random opinions along the lines of "IT SUX LAWLZ CRAPPY."

:-P

Then again I guess since this is a sky scraper forum, I could deduce that a large amount of posters hate the idea of development other than giant towers.

What people outside the South of Fraser region forget or don't know, is that there has been an identity issue with the South Surrey area for as long as I can remember. Take the South Surrey Auto Mall for example. Half of the dealerships there are "White Rock X" where X is Nissan, Honda, etc.

They aren't even actually close to "White Rock" the city but they still use it because of some perceived ghettoness associated with the name Surrey region wise. That's changing, though slowly as is evident by cc85's comments, but in the past it was so much so that White Rock was attempting to use some sort of law that if a percentage of the region refered to an area not controlled by a city as that city, the city in question could annex that region.

Basically White Rock wanted to prove that because so many people referenced South Surrey as "White Rock" that White Rock could take it all from Surrey legally. That fell through I believe due to a council vote not passing the notion to follow it, but it still stands that the area has had this conflict in identity for a long time. Surrey wants to now bring it into the fold so to speak.

Unfortunately the region isn't fit for high density development and that's not where Surrey wants to focus the densification (and rightly so in my opinion) but they want to create a city center that helps bring an identity to that area once and for all. Not to mention serve as a commercial hub for cross-border traffic and also take away from the need to trek great distances to get at some of the services.

So from that standpoint, I don't mind the development. I like trees like anyone else but it's actually quite neat to see that area being developed. The last time I drove through it looked like a giant city being built from the ground up. I'm not going to argue the points of 'ugly' or 'stupid' as everyone will have different opinions on that based on where they live or how they were raised, but I can understand the drive by Surrey to want to solidify that part of the city.

As for the mega-Wallmart, I don't like Wallmart though they do have cheap rifle ammunition and fishing gear. My main beef is the amount of stuff they buy from China but we are a capitalistic nation so who am I to argue if people are willing to shop there. It would be nice if they wouldn't take up the same space as YVR though. And yes I know I called it "Wallmart" not Wal-Mart, you have to admit it looks like a massive walled fortress in that the posted picture above. :-P

[flight_from_kamakura]

i love some low rise - i think montreal's plateau area works wonderfully, sf's haight, cole valley, noe valley, mission etc areas are incredible, toronto's kensington market and annex areas are beautifully vibrant, and so forth. but to me, it's unconscionable in this day and age to build low-rise, car-centric exurban planned communities. i find it wasteful and ugly, and i mourn the loss of greenfield that might have been better used.

this said, honestly, power to everyone who feels this type of development represents the soul of their community. but from my perspective, this looks like a development out of edmond, oklahoma or san ramon, california or yakima, washington (or kamloops, bc, i might add).

[flight_from_kamakura]

^ this said, i appreciate your enthusiasm jhausner, and i don't mean to be senselessly insulting. it's more of a perspective-on-development thing. i just happen to disagree very much with this sort of thing. and i think history and most modern planning thinking is with me.

[Kwik-E-Mart]

Wow... is that how the developers try to "mimick" downtown by having brand-name stores to open in strip malls? That's a low point on sustainable planning in Metro Vancouver ever since New Westminster decided to let Dumb!Centres come west from Ontario.

[Blake]

The pictures don't do this area justice. For one the uber large homes on large lots are down the hill closer Morgan Creek (closer to 32nd Ave) and are part of an entirely different community plan put forth by the city. One that clearly does not value any urbanity whatsoever.

The residential areas in Morgan Heights (24th Ave) have impressive density considering what else could have been built there. Despite the big box retail and strip malls, the single family homes are well built 3000 sq/ft homes on smaller lots, the townhomes and condos are dense and appeal to a broad range of buyers. In the sales office at Glenmore we ran into many different family types, age groups and nationalities - which is a far cry from the usual homogenity of South Surrey's demographics.

Sure a Walmart, Superstore, Home Depot and rumours of a Costco are being brought into the area are not the best use of land. But people are choosing to shop at these stores and in the past have driven to North Surrey or Langley to do so. They aren't going away any time soon, and to at least incorporate them into a somewhat walkable and master planned community, despite being far on the suburban fringe shows more foresight than the alternative.

[SpongeG]

yeah - surrey roads are getting awful with traffic - if this keeps some of the south surrey people in their area to shop its gonna ease up the other areas

looks not too bad so far - haven't been in that area in ages might have to drop by

[Blake]

And for what it's worth, the article is specific to Morgan Crossing - which is a mixed use retail/residential lifestyle village located at Croydon Drive and 24th Ave. It's a bit of a cross between Park Royal Village in West Van and Newport Village in Port Moody. It has barely broken ground so you wouldn't notice it in these photos.

The photos shown are of Grandview Corners, a generic Smart Centres strip mall at the corner of 24th and 160th. It's obviously very suburban in nature, but nobody is saying otherwise.

[GMasterAres]

^ this said, i appreciate your enthusiasm jhausner, and i don't mean to be senselessly insulting. it's more of a perspective-on-development thing. i just happen to disagree very much with this sort of thing. and i think history and most modern planning thinking is with me.

No insult taken. I just wanted you to be a bit more clear on your statement as it was fairly open ended that was all.

I can agree with you on many parts. The main issue though is that as much as people argue against car-centric development, 90% of the Lower Mainland is still car-centric thanks to transit development over the last 10 years being nearly entirely focussed on Vancouver, Burnaby, and in small parts Richmond.

I live in Surrey and work in Ladner. By car in heavy traffic it takes me 22-25 minutes to drive to work. By bus it takes 1 hour and 45 minutes with 4 transfers. The same is true for the majority of people that live South of the Fraser unless they happen to live close to a major road being King George Highway, 104th, or Fraser Highway, or skytrain AND work downtown or along a skytrain route.

If I worked in Richmond for example, without the Canada line it could take an hour+ to get out there and trust me it would take FAR LESS time to drive even in the worst traffic. So while the argument against car-centric development is valid in some ways, it is just not possible right now given the transit system we're forced to live with south of the fraser. Had the Surrey mayor not stood up and yelled for over a month, we'd still be looking at what 2035 until we'd see transit service that matches, just matches, what Vancouver has today.

It's kind of a chicken and egg problem. Do you wait 25 years for the possible transit expansion and stop development? Or do you push forward with development now and make due with what you have?

[raggedy13]

I checked this area out for the first time since stuff has opened. It was an odd experience considering the last time I was there it was mostly empty fields. For the most part I didn't like it. Lots of surface parking and strip mall development. But at the same time it would be hard to imagine this area going straight from empty fields to proper urbanity over night. I suppose it's better than past suburban forms of development as at least the residential areas are a bit denser and some of the shopping areas try to mimic urbanity.

Starting off outside the Wal-Mart, looking towards the southern edge where some new building is being build next door (for what purpose I do not know)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3022/2960100297_9a1cd7a3a8_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3016/2960100435_a8084892b9_b.jpg

The rest are taken from a moving car, so please excuse the odd angles etc.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3022/2960100655_3d784c6e2a_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3212/2960942696_abfefb1c7f_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3280/2960100781_1c8c6613c1_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3228/2960100921_8b59ea20c7_b.jpg

More retail under construction across the street from these residences
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3074/2960943288_aaa07d04cd_b.jpg

Site of an upcoming park apparently
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3154/2960943434_80e062f1ab_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3223/2960943662_cac64ddd7f_b.jpg

Lots of construction still going on
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3018/2960943802_46ebaba0b8_b.jpg

And quite a few palm trees being used in this area
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3226/2960101705_3dd0220a58_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3061/2960101911_90b8fe8618_b.jpg

A lot of the typical mall-oriented stores going in
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3153/2960102087_4fd105d118_b.jpg

Everybody appreciates a well-placed liquor store, but does anybody here know what a "UL Liquor Store" is?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3215/2960102229_acdf019b1b_b.jpg

Here are the shops in the "urban" retail village area - a few places open already, but most not quite there yet
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3166/2960944574_394a353f09_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3250/2960102573_e61929b134_b.jpg

Their attempt at a sort of retail high street - could certainly be worse but why not put some residential/office above those store fronts and create a true mixed use "village"
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3200/2960102717_d5ba53578a_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3070/2960103003_e5a6386845_b.jpg

I like the street furniture at least
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3220/2960102855_ef6b685923_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3028/2960945252_1256e7f6f0_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/2960945386_5e7b0a19bd_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3137/2960945552_2ebfa368aa_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3034/2960103719_65c785dec1_b.jpg

Not easy to see but one of those logos is for the Steve Nash Sports Club - and one for Thrifty Foods surprisingly - I didn't think they really had Thrifties on the mainland
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3284/2960103473_36a465511a_b.jpg

Apparently lots more still to come
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3136/2960103991_5ac804d1ec_b.jpg

[ssiguy]

I live in South Surrey near White Rock and most people here HATE what is going on. WR/SS is a wonderful place and much of that is due to the local street shops.
Also most in SS/WR consider the area on the other side of HWY#1 as a different area.
Home prices rise between 15-20% on the original westside of HWY#99 as it has a more community feel and is pedestrian friendly................the new areas around all the new "power centre" stores are seen as just another suburb.
It is technically South Surrey but not seen the same way. To the greater WR area, the new developments on the other side of HWY#99 is just a glorified Metrotown.
People in those new developments may not like that view but it is the view of the people in the original South Surrey/WR area residents. Yes, many of the houses are beautiful and desireable but the new mass developments are seen as just nice places anchored by big-box stores.

It is NOT Yaletown meets Parkroyal but rather SS/WR meets suburbia. A nice suburban area definatly but still just suburbia.

[SpongeG]

reminds me of portland - streets of tanasbourne and tigard shopping malls

its just an outdoor mall as oppossed to being indoors

its going to be a regional draw not just for locals

i am sure a lot of people won't have to drive into guildford now which is a good thing as the roads between the two areas are awful

i am sorry but the rest of downtown white rock is pretty crappy - the mall is gross and there really isn't that much on that main drag to shop for - its quaint but not much else

i wonder are some of the duplicate stores closing down - there is already a winners and a tommy hilfiger at that other strip mall not too far away

[giallo]

Sigh....is it possible to reinvent the suburban dream with some sort of creativity? I realize that this sort of development is a huge draw for a lot of people, but damn is it ugly. That 'power' center looks absolutely awful. The paint isn't even dry and it still looks like it could have been built 15 years ago. Actually, it resembles every other strip mall development of the last 30 years. I abhor it. It's a throwaway development to a throwaway society. It offers nothing to the community besides shopping convenience. Would anyone ever hang out here if they didn't have something to buy?
When are we going to learn?

[osirisboy]

thanks for the pics. so wheres the social housing? It seems unfair that only developments downtown are forced to build non-market housing.

[Coldrsx]

mmm fabricated urbanity.

[WarrenC12]

Welcome to anytown USA.

Some days I'm happy I live in NIMBY-town Vancouver.

[Coldrsx]

the minute i hear 'lifestyle centre' i run....fast... the other way.

[dreambrother808]

It's rather Edmonton, but with some nicer details/quality and at least a small nod to the pedestrian experience. I guess my point is that it could be worse.

[Metro-One]

I feel people on this forum are a little too critical. No this may not be Yaletown or Coal Harbour but for a suburban development this is really quite nice. The fact that people in these new homes at some points have retail across the street is really quite positive. Not everyone can live in a tower, and these houses seem to be more densely placed together than most of Vancouver proper out of the downtown core. I think people in Vancouver tend to forget what real suburban sprawl looks like. When i was flying over Phoenix there is a freeway every 5 to 10 blocks, and these freeways are built out to nowhere, ending in the desert. And massive single detached housing developments consisting of hundreds, or even thousands of houses are built around the interchanges with no retail in sight. One would then have to drive for miles just to get out of the housing development and then many more miles to make it to the super wall mart. And that is all there is, the retail streets in the development above is 100 times more pedestrian friendly than the average ones found in many US and even Canadian suburbs. To believe that every development can be built to downtown standards is somewhat unrealistic. Even in Japan, with the densest cities one can imagine, they still have developments very similar to this one. It takes time to densify. As the area becomes more popular and more shops/houses/offices are built they will fill up the parking lots and underground parking will be creating. Densifying occurs in steps, and this development i think is a good example of a first step.

[phesto]

^Exactly. It's fair to criticize aesthetics, but in terms of layout, the planners and developers are just giving the retailers and residents/shoppers what they want. I'm not sure what some people's perception of South Surrey is, but the reality is that the market isn't there yet to support the higher-density mixed use developments that we're getting used to seeing elsewhere in the Lower Mainland.

If anyone want's to see a better example of a mixed-use development in South Surrey check out High Street by Grosvenor http://www.southpointlife.com which is comprised of residential above small retail CRU's leased primarily by local tenants as opposed to chains. Even here though, it was difficult to finance and construct, and the end product is still somewhat isolated because it's in the suburbs! You can't expect the whole area to change - it is still on King George Hwy and there is an auto dealership next door.

[NetMapel]

I say for all future low-rise development, it should either follow European style or no low-rises at all ;)

[SpongeG]

this one - Grandview Corners is strictly shops

the one going in next door - Morgan Crossing will be shops/restaurants etc below condos as well as some office space

[crazyjoeda]

This development is super ugly and lacks any class.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/2960945386_5e7b0a19bd_b.jpg
The architect who thought it made sense for the back of these shops to face the street should be shot. Its funny how they advertise this mall as pedestrian friendly when they design these impractical and ugly box stores. I hate Surrey for allowing this shit to be built so close to my house!

And Metro-One this is suburban Vancouver not suburban Phoenix, I expect better.

[Coldrsx]

^but but there are trees, 'walkable streetscapes', and TRELLIS'.... TRELLIS'!!!!!!!

[fever]

The only thing that really matters is how easy it is to reconfigure later on. This shit's not going to last that long anyway. It'll start looking decrepit in a decade or so, then value village will move in.

It won't be that long until Surrey has run out of greenfield sites. Once that happens, population growth will trail off, growth will pick up further out the valley, the kids will move out, taxes will rise. It'll be in much the same situation as other municipalities in Metro Vancouver that have run out of greenfield sites, with some significant disadvantages in location and built form. South Surrey and Cloverdale should do ok, though.

[Metro-One]

I say for all future low-rise development, it should either follow European style or no low-rises at all

Exactly what style of European are you talking about, because i found developments similar to this throughout metro Paris and metro London, so i guess it is European then? When living in Osaka i shopped and lived in a complex almost identical to this development.

Thank you for proving my point Crazyjoeda, this is not Pheonix, hence why this is 10 times better than most suburban developments you will find in Phoenix. Not every building in metro-Vancouver has to be a piece of art. Sometimes functionality is all that is needed. If you think this is ugly then i can guarantee you that you will hate 99.9 percent of developments in Japan. Despite the few flashy towers and old districts that are advertised, the vast majority of the structures in Japan are plain white/grey boxes with a sidewalk beside them. What makes it livable is that they are, for the most part, clean. And to me that is what truly madders in the end is this development looks clean.

Of course we can always strive to improve, but we should also remember that it is not always financially viable to create a masterpiece every development, as long as it is clean and functional is what madders.

[canucks23]

I just saw the palm trees the other day. Those are pretty sweet! cant wait to see that place next spring/summer when its warm, it'l feel like I'm in california.

[Metro-One]

At one point Vancouver was a green field suburb when New West was the core, so the end product isn't always doom and gloom.

[officedweller]

I agree that it's a progression - just like No. 3 Rd's strip malls are slowly being bulldozed in favour of buildings that reach to the sidewalk.

[cc85]

I was going to post in response to cc85's ignorant quibbling but that would be feeding a troll.

Then again I guess since this is a sky scraper forum, I could deduce that a large amount of posters hate the idea of development other than giant towers.

What people outside the South of Fraser region forget or don't know, is that there has been an identity issue with the South Surrey area for as long as I can remember. Take the South Surrey Auto Mall for example. Half of the dealerships there are "White Rock X" where X is Nissan, Honda, etc.

They aren't even actually close to "White Rock" the city but they still use it because of some perceived ghettoness associated with the name Surrey region wise. That's changing, though slowly as is evident by cc85's comments, but in the past it was so much so that White Rock was attempting to use some sort of law that if a percentage of the region refered to an area not controlled by a city as that city, the city in question could annex that region.

Unfortunately the region isn't fit for high density development and that's not where Surrey wants to focus the densification (and rightly so in my opinion) but they want to create a city center that helps bring an identity to that area once and for all. Not to mention serve as a commercial hub for cross-border traffic and also take away from the need to trek great distances to get at some of the services.




white rock is a piece, but its better than surrey in surrey residents' minds therefore they will do what they can to make themselves look better.

not quite, it's just that the majority of people here do not have an informed opinion on the positive and negative attributes of a particular style of development.

there is just weak political leadership in surrey. you cant do one thing in the city centre and then expect something subpar to be appropriate in south surrey farm country, regardless of what a NCP states.

^ this said, i appreciate your enthusiasm jhausner, and i don't mean to be senselessly insulting. it's more of a perspective-on-development thing. i just happen to disagree very much with this sort of thing. and i think history and most modern planning thinking is with me.

here here

I live in South Surrey near White Rock and most people here HATE what is going on. WR/SS is a wonderful place and much of that is due to the local street shops.
Also most in SS/WR consider the area on the other side of HWY#1 as a different area.
Home prices rise between 15-20% on the original westside of HWY#99 as it has a more community feel and is pedestrian friendly................the new areas around all the new "power centre" stores are seen as just another suburb.
It is technically South Surrey but not seen the same way. To the greater WR area, the new developments on the other side of HWY#99 is just a glorified Metrotown.
People in those new developments may not like that view but it is the view of the people in the original South Surrey/WR area residents. Yes, many of the houses are beautiful and desireable but the new mass developments are seen as just nice places anchored by big-box stores.

It is NOT Yaletown meets Parkroyal but rather SS/WR meets suburbia. A nice suburban area definatly but still just suburbia.

both sides of hwy 99 are not pedestrian friendly, nothing in surrey is pedestrian friendly. the new developments are just like the old developments, updated sprawl with new trim.

^but but there are trees, 'walkable streetscapes', and TRELLIS'.... TRELLIS'!!!!!!!

GOOO LANDSCAPING!!!!! cause u know its going to make up for the crappy misplaced, underutilized land uses!!!!
:rolleyes:

[geoff's two cents]

Slowly but surely, Whalley is becoming more pedestrianized, which should make it difficult in the future to generalize with impunity concerning "Surrey".

I was out by "Morgan Crossing" this evening. Personally, I found it extremely depressing. It would be one thing if this development entailed the bulldozing of some even less land-efficient development. As it is, it just adds to suburban sprawl in a city that needs - more than just about anything else, arguably - to density in order to be taken seriously. Some people like these types of developments, I suppose - It's not my cup of tea: Lots of parking, Canada's largest Walmart (with, you guessed it, wider shopping aisles), no residential development above the stores - ugh, that's not for me. It also bothers me that it's being touted as an eco-friendly alternative to the usual big-box sprawl. It's rather an insult to businesses that make a genuine effort to get people out of their cars, and consuming in a more sustainable fashion. Thankfully, I won't be returning, though I'll continue to be morbidly curious as to how many on this forum will defend Morgan Crossing as the latest in urban chic.

[SpongeG]

you were at Grandview Corners ;)

Morgan Crossing hasn't been constructed yet

I think the "lifestyle" thing is the first one that this company has done - they are usually doing "power centres"

its better than a big boxy mall at least - but lets face it all it is is a mall

[geoff's two cents]

Sorry, SpongeG. I will reserve my two cents for the real deal - though I think my verdict will be very similar.

[geoff's two cents]

Metro-One, I think functionality in the strictest sense is what is at issue here.

Why do people who don't live in these areas care what happens here at all? It's not aesthetics at all for most. In fact, on a purely aesthetic level, I should be glad that so many people have such poor taste; it would feed my own fashion ego, wouldn't it?

The answer most people like me care about developments like this in the middle of nowhere (I find "middle of everywhere" to be an interesting slogan) is that this type of development - spurred, of course, by the people who want it - has negative repercussions for everybody. Oxygen is extremely functional.

Sure, I made the choice to get rid of my car and live a lower-impact lifestyle, buy local whenever I can, support independently-owned businesses, walk whenever I can, live in a higher-density environment that discourages car use, etc. Does that mean I should simply acquiesce in the fact that precious green space is being bulldozed for what is so far a very auto-oriented development (again, my final two cents will be after I see the finished product)?

Part of me thinks that the growing trendiness of high-density living is having something of a reverse effect. High density is becoming a luxury, while the down-to-earth, more "functionally" inclined among us opt for the simplicity of the suburbs.

I'm not even sure many people realize suburban life is an aesthetic choice. When you factor in the cost of time in living farther from work, and in money for owning a car, city or town life starts looking a whole lot more "functional", doesn't it?

It's easy to forget sometimes that, prior to the automobile, most people had to live much more urban-oriented lives. Apartments were the best way to house large numbers of people and, although I prefer the way things were built to last, these extremely "functional" buildings did not necessarily have to be architecturally unique or award-winning. Suburbs, on the other hand, represented luxury, especially when they sprang up in areas so peripheral to where day-to-day business was done that a private automobile was a necessity in order to live in them.

Were it not for the adverse effect big-box development and related eye-sores (aesthetically-speaking) have on my quality of life (physically-speaking) in spite of the fact that I don't live terribly close to them, I wouldn't care much at all.

[officedweller]

The Village at Park Royal is another "lifestyle centre" and has a similarly odd feel to it. I would actually prefer a conventional mall over the streetscape lifestyle centre. i.e. the conventional mall is at least viewed as walkable across its entire length.

As a side note on the progression of commercial retail developments, look at Oakridge.

- Originally built as a outdoor shopping plaza in the 1950s.
- Fully enclosed and redeveloped with office, residential in the late 1980s.
- Condos built on the periphery in the 1990s.
- Set to be further densified into the future with the coming of rapid transit.

[Blake]

There is certainly some harsh criticism towards this development. A couple of things to keep in mind:

1. This thread was about Morgan Crossing. It somehow evolved into a thread about Grandview Corners, which is a completely separate shopping centre. Morgan Crossing is more unique, more pededstrian friendly and does integrate residential into the development. www.morgancrossing.ca for photos. Grandview Corners is just another suburban strip mall (albeit designed slightly better than the majority) and doesn't warrant it's own thread anymore than say the Langley Power Centre or Meadowtown Centre.

2. When complete, this development (Morgan Heights is the actual name of the entire community) will be it's own functional community. Morgan Crossing is the hub, with Grandview Corners, schools, office space, green space as well as a vast selection of housing: entry level condos, townhomes and million dollar single family homes. It's a much more complete community with something for everyone than anything that has ever been built on this side of the river.

3. There isn't much here that would draw somebody from say Vancouver or Burnaby to shop here, or even visit here, nor is that the purpose of it. Therefore having the typical forum poster borrow a Prius from the ride share program to drive out here to "check it out" and offer their two cents is completely unncessary and irrelevant. This neighbourhood's purpose was to bring retail and wide selection of housing options to an area that has been vastly underserviced for a number of years. Is it auto-centric? Certainly. But how is driving to Langley or Newton for these same shops and services any less auto-centric for the people of South Surrey / White Rock? This is what has been done in the past.

The design of the community is not intended to compete with chic-urban that you'd find in Yaletown or Coal Harbour. In fact, White Rock has plenty of boutique retail. There are plenty of palm readers and overpriced jewellery shops along Marine and Johnston if this is what you're after. It's an entirely different demographic, and the downtown crowd is not the target market.

4. Although a perfect little community with 10 similarly designed 28 story condos with a Starbucks and a sushi restaurant under each, and Smart cars and bicycles lined up along the metered alleyways would have been nice, White Rock and South Surrey has a stronghold by conservative demographics. The blue hair NIMBYs, farmers and the business community call the shots here whether you or I like it. No such project would have ever been approved, and one only needs to look at the Semiahmoo Mall re-development proposal to see that. The Semiahmoo Mall is run down and is much more suited to higher densities, and it is still seeing strong opposition. Surrey is not interested in playing political headgames while they are in the process of trying to attract higher density development to revitalize Whalley.

With all that said, this is a perfect community for some people. People like my family and I, who are looking for a reasonable space, for a reasonable price (1700 sq/ft, 4 bedrooms for the price of a 1 bedroom in DT Vancouver), with all amenities within walking distance, and do not have to worry about commuting to downtown, with the best climate in the Lower Mainland to boot.

I'm looking forward to when we move to our new home in the new year, and we can enjoy our weekends pushing the baby stroller across the street to pick up a coffee, grab lunch and pick up the grocieries while we leave the car at home. This to me (and many others apparently) is the perfect community, which at the end of the day is more important than having a retail centre that makes some sort of architectural statement.

[Blake]

And raggedy13, a the "UL Liquor Store" is just the name of this particular private liquor store.

I know it's affiliated with U Lounge, one of the committed retailers. I don't know what U Lounge is, but safe to assume a bar or restaurant...

[Metro-One]

It's easy to forget sometimes that, prior to the automobile, most people had to live much more urban-oriented lives

While i see that geoff's two cents has some very good points, the one above strikes me as quite odd. The truth is quite the opposite, a hundred years ago urban centers were very small and the majority of people in north america lived in rural areas. It is only in the last 50 years that urban has become the dominant life style. People also tend to forget that not everyone can live without a vehicle, for example - welders, gardeners, all types of craftsman, large families etc... Even in my job, video production, i have to transport many cameras, tripods, computers etc... on a regular basis and film in excluded areas where no transit services (and never would in even the most transit friendly environment). It is impossible to carry three cameras, three tripods plus extra to a wedding on transit.

Second, not everyone can live in a city. I remember one comment on this forum where someone said all people in metro Van should live around the downtown area. Impossible, and this is why...... The city needs food, farms are built outside of the city, the farmer needs to live close to his farm, if not he looses many hours of work a day commuting from the city that are vital to his production. Now that this farmer is living outside of the city he and his fellow farmers need someone to fix their farm equipment. It makes no sense for the farm mechanic to live in the city because why should her commute hours a day to reach the farms? So now the farmer and the mechanics live outside of the city. Soon you have so many farmers and mechanics in the rural areas that they need services, such as food, close at hand so they don't have to commute into the city to go shopping. An entrepreneur sees this opportunity and opens a store in the rural areas. This store needs employees, then these employees need their own services and the cycle continues until you have an entirely separate city in the Valley. Carpenters are needed to build the stores, hospitals are needed to be built and staffed and all these people need somewhere to live and shop, the city continues to grow. Railways need to be serviced for the shipping corridors etc... This is why it is impossible logic for everyone to live in downtown Vancouver. Not to mention not everyone can afford the ridiculously high prices for condos and houses in Vancouver. Of course there are some people who can afford and do work downtown who should live downtown and don't need a car, but this is not the case for everyone.

I also find that many people at University i know who say they don't need a car and cars are useless often bum rides off of friends who have cars or their family. So in the end they do not own a car but they still use cars and are a leach.

[canucks23]

^
I also find that many people at University i know who say they don't need a car and cars are useless often bum rides off of friends who have cars or their family. So in the end they do not own a car but they still use cars and are a leach.

K, you have a point, but its also called car pooling which is good for the environment. Plus when you don't have a car, you are driving a vehicle way less then you would if you had a car. And most people I talk to who have a car begin driving for pointless reasons when they could walk or take transit, and they waste a lot of money that way.

[Metro-One]

:previous: Not true, i own a car and only drive about 40% of the time. I use transit for the remainder. On average i use a tank of gas every 3 to 4 weeks.

[canucks23]

Well I guess it depends a lot where you live

[geoff's two cents]

The truth is quite the opposite, a hundred years ago urban centers were very small and the majority of people in north america lived in rural areas. It is only in the last 50 years that urban has become the dominant life style.

You're right on this point, Metro-One. I suppose I was referring to the fact that suburbs as we know them today, and as they have existed especially since the 1920s, and moreso the 1950s, are a new phenomenon. They are a product of the automobile, and would not exist were it not for this technology.

People also tend to forget that not everyone can live without a vehicle, for example - welders, gardeners, all types of craftsman, large families etc... Even in my job, video production, i have to transport many cameras, tripods, computers etc... on a regular basis and film in excluded areas where no transit services (and never would in even the most transit friendly environment). It is impossible to carry three cameras, three tripods plus extra to a wedding on transit.

You have a point here as well. I'm not for getting rid of private automobiles entirely, though I'm a firm opponent of the mass car culture we all know and love. I think cars can have a place in an ideal world in rural areas, and serve a - albeit highly regulated and restricted - function in cities.

Not to mention not everyone can afford the ridiculously high prices for condos and houses in Vancouver. Of course there are some people who can afford and do work downtown who should live downtown and don't need a car, but this is not the case for everyone.

It's unfortunate in my view that downtown living has become so trendy. While it represents a welcome change from the "cities are inherently dirty and dangerous" mantra of the 70s and 80s, it also makes living a more environmentally responsible lifestyle the preserve of the - relatively speaking - elite.

I also think, however, that the unaffordability of the city is often exaggerated. How much of the space in those giant new homes in Langley and Surrey that sell for over 4 or 500,000 (which would buy a perfectly livable, maybe even brand new, accommodation in a more urban area, albeit lacking a front yard and a two-car garage) is actually needed by the people who buy them? How much of the monetary difference between suburban and urban housing is eaten up by financing, fueling, maintaining, insuring and fixing a car? How much of this difference is actually spent on the disproportionate cost of building, maintaining and widening roads (that would otherwise be much smaller, or altogether unnecessary)? How much of the difference goes to heating and/or cooling a large detached home less efficiently than an apartment in a complex would be? What about the social and environmental costs of this lifestyle that cannot always be precisely measured in dollars?

The fact that the provincial government is pumping more investment dollars into affordable, family-oriented housing in an urban setting will help make the difference in price even less of an issue.

I also find that many people at University i know who say they don't need a car and cars are useless often bum rides off of friends who have cars or their family. So in the end they do not own a car but they still use cars and are a leach.

I recently rented a car for a vacation. Given that I'm not necessarily against automobiles entirely, I don't see any conflict here. In this case, the fact that I had to rent the car ensured that I would not use it any more than was absolutely necessary.

canucks23 wasn't talking about your driving habits specifically. It's commendable, Metro-One, that you manage to use transit so much in your line of work. I think it's a fair generalization, however, to say that most people who own cars frequently use them when it would be perfectly feasible to walk or take transit instead.

[Blake]

Geoff, what you're missing is that when complete, Morgan Heights will be self sustaining and walkable community. How many people actually choose to walk remains to be the seen but that is the purpose of it.

Likewise, I know several people who live downtown who would rather drive 10 blocks than walk or take transit.

You're also assuming that everyone in the suburbs commutes downtown. There is a growing trend to work at or closer to home, and most people I know in S. Surrey either work from home or are professionals in the local area. Very few commute long distances. Contrast this to the commuting patterns of say Abbotsford or Maple Ridge, and I think you'd see a huge difference.

At the end of the day, you can't legislate or socially engineer lifestyles upon people. Whether you hate it or not, some people with children value yard space, some people need cars for business, and some people just prefer the lifestyle that a quiet, less populated areas offer. You need to give people options and hope they make responsible choices. Adding a commuter rail to the area and building walkable communities like Morgan Heights in the suburbs is a start.

What we don't need, is the downtown crowd preaching from their ivory towers saying that we're parasites to the environment and the world.

[fever]

You're also assuming that everyone in the suburbs commutes downtown. There is a growing trend to work at or closer to home, and most people I know in S. Surrey either work from home or are professionals in the local area. Very few commute long distances. Contrast this to the commuting patterns of say Abbotsford or Maple Ridge, and I think you'd see a huge difference.

This just isn't true. South Surrey and White Rock have among the longest average commutes of any bedroom communities in Metro Vancouver. These are not self-sustaining communities and some fancy strip malls aren't going to change that.

This map shows median commute distances by census tract for Metro Vancouver
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/analysis/pow/maps/CMA-CT/CommuteDistance/VancouverPOW_CommunteDist_ec.pdf

[crazyjoeda]

And raggedy13, a the "UL Liquor Store" is just the name of this particular private liquor store.

I know it's affiliated with U Lounge, one of the committed retailers. I don't know what U Lounge is, but safe to assume a bar or restaurant...

I found some information on U Lounge, http://raj.jp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/infamous_may_2008.pdf (Read the article Sub-Luxe half way down.)


"ULounge is an ambitious project, promising a glamorous resto/lounge experience unparalleled outside Vancouver, and is positioning itself as the premier destination for the suburban adult professional. The concept is a swank, upscale venue of several “lounges within lounges,” all brought together with an open-concept floor plan. "

[geoff's two cents]

Geoff, what you're missing is that when complete, Morgan Heights will be self sustaining and walkable community. How many people actually choose to walk remains to be the seen but that is the purpose of it.

Likewise, I know several people who live downtown who would rather drive 10 blocks than walk or take transit.

You're also assuming that everyone in the suburbs commutes downtown. There is a growing trend to work at or closer to home, and most people I know in S. Surrey either work from home or are professionals in the local area. Very few commute long distances. Contrast this to the commuting patterns of say Abbotsford or Maple Ridge, and I think you'd see a huge difference.

At the end of the day, you can't legislate or socially engineer lifestyles upon people. Whether you hate it or not, some people with children value yard space, some people need cars for business, and some people just prefer the lifestyle that a quiet, less populated areas offer. You need to give people options and hope they make responsible choices. Adding a commuter rail to the area and building walkable communities like Morgan Heights in the suburbs is a start.

What we don't need, is the downtown crowd preaching from their ivory towers saying that we're parasites to the environment and the world.

Unless there are enough jobs in the Morgan Heights development for the people who live there - ie. a balanced ratio of commercial to residential space - it won't be self-sustaining or complete, though I suppose it might encourage some people to do their non-commuting related activities (dining, hair dressing, grocery shopping, doctor appointments, etc.) close to home. Again, as I admitted above, I can't judge this development until it's finished. My beef is with mass car culture generally.

As far as legislating or social engineering, I agree, though I think it's easy to forget how heavily car culture is subsidized. The onset of private automobility in the first half of the twentieth century required a great deal of social engineering, aided greatly, of course, by private-sector advertising.

As far as personal preference goes, it wasn't long ago, for instance, that people preferred to smoke cigarettes on buses, in movie theatres, and in restaurants. Presumably, they would have continued to do so if government would not have stepped in - with, of course, the approval of a significant minority or bare majority of voting constituents.

There is a significant proportion of people aware of how severe the consequences are of suburban sprawl and an automobile-centred culture. With any luck, we will see the same "social engineering" that has gradually phased out smoking indoors, and that worked assiduously decades ago towards promoting automobility in the first place, eventually turn against the social, economic and environmental chaos wreaked by mass car culture.

In any case, I haven't forgotten how important personal choice is, and I'm not interested in living under a dictatorship (though one wonders how much our current political system resembles a "tyranny of the majority" with regard to environmental ethics).

I have a right to my voice though, don't I?

I don't see this as an "ivory tower" position to take. Nor, having gone through grad school myself, do I have any illusions about the moral superiority of academic types. I'm concerned about my own welfare, and that of my children, and their children. I don't care what people do in their bedrooms or what television shows they like to watch, if they like wearing plaid with stripes, etc. This is something I see happening around me that has had a negative impact on my quality of life. I'd be something of a dud if I didn't exercise my right to free speech, wouldn't I? The people who protest the carbon tax certainly do. . .

Nor do I think everybody who lives in the suburbs is a mere parasite. That's a simplification of my position. I suppose that their repeated insistence on spending more and more tax money to bolster a notoriously inefficient mode of transportation might be seen as parasitic, but, given that I'm currently visiting my parents in the Cloverdale area, it would be somewhat disingenuous of me to claim that everybody who lives a suburban lifestyle should crawl back under their rocks.:)

I share your cautious optimism with regard to giving people more options and hoping they do the right thing. I wouldn't hold my breath for efficient transit networks covering the entirety of south of the Fraser sprawl though. Rapid transit just doesn't work as well in such sparsely-populated areas. The sheer tax dollars that would be required to send trains or rapid buses out to the farthest-flung neighborhoods of Surrey and Langley would be mind-boggling.

[Metro-One]

:previous: Good points above, but i do believe even downtown has some problems in the near future as well, with mass reverse commuting starting to occur. Downtown has sacrificed too much land for condos that all of the offices and industrial areas, where people work, now have to be located far from downtown where land is cheep enough to build such facilities. This is why i am against the "converting" of all industrial lands to condo play parks. Vancouver desperately needs to encourage more office space downtown and any parcel of land that is designated industrial currently should remain so in the future. If this causes a shortage of land for condos then they will just have to fuck the stupid view cone regulations and build them taller! Dare i say that Vancouver has had too much of a good thing and height regulations are causing a condo sprawl, destroying office and industrial lands?

No one get me wrong i love downtown and i strongly believe in condos and dense urban areas, but Vancouver's growth has to be more properly managed because soon everyone will be commuting out to the suburbs for work!

Mix use also causes problems in downtown areas, hence why we do not have a times square style district, because all of the people living above the stores complain about noise and lights. So what happens is we get suburban feeling shopping areas downtown because of all of the bi-laws set in place to protect the residences. When i go downtown to a commercial areas i want to see jumbo lcd screens, flashing advertisements, street performers, pubs and clubs the are open late and restaurants that never close! This atmosphere truly makes shopping fun.

[geoff's two cents]

Having been a reverse commuter for several months a couple years ago, I agree that land is not being used optimally downtown.

Hopefully, though, this will continue to spark commercial development in the other "downtowns" scattered across the region. Assuming that a more diversified (sub)urban downtown leads to a more desirable (sub)urban experience, the commuting issues might eventually work themselves out if commercial and residential development achieves a balance in these areas outside downtown Vancouver.

[SpongeG]

Unless there are enough jobs in the Morgan Heights development for the people who live there - ie. a balanced ratio of commercial to residential space - it won't be self-sustaining or complete, though I suppose it might encourage some people to do their non-commuting related activities (dining, hair dressing, grocery shopping, doctor appointments, etc.) close to home. Again, as I admitted above, I can't judge this development until it's finished. My beef is with mass car culture generally.

As far as legislating or social engineering, I agree, though I think it's easy to forget how heavily car culture is subsidized. The onset of private automobility in the first half of the twentieth century required a great deal of social engineering, aided greatly, of course, by private-sector advertising.

As far as personal preference goes, it wasn't long ago, for instance, that people preferred to smoke cigarettes on buses, in movie theatres, and in restaurants. Presumably, they would have continued to do so if government would not have stepped in - with, of course, the approval of a significant minority or bare majority of voting constituents.

There is a significant proportion of people aware of how severe the consequences are of suburban sprawl and an automobile-centred culture. With any luck, we will see the same "social engineering" that has gradually phased out smoking indoors, and that worked assiduously decades ago towards promoting automobility in the first place, eventually turn against the social, economic and environmental chaos wreaked by mass car culture.

In any case, I haven't forgotten how important personal choice is, and I'm not interested in living under a dictatorship (though one wonders how much our current political system resembles a "tyranny of the majority" with regard to environmental ethics).

I have a right to my voice though, don't I?

I don't see this as an "ivory tower" position to take. Nor, having gone through grad school myself, do I have any illusions about the moral superiority of academic types. I'm concerned about my own welfare, and that of my children, and their children. I don't care what people do in their bedrooms or what television shows they like to watch, if they like wearing plaid with stripes, etc. This is something I see happening around me that has had a negative impact on my quality of life. I'd be something of a dud if I didn't exercise my right to free speech, wouldn't I? The people who protest the carbon tax certainly do. . .

Nor do I think everybody who lives in the suburbs is a mere parasite. That's a simplification of my position. I suppose that their repeated insistence on spending more and more tax money to bolster a notoriously inefficient mode of transportation might be seen as parasitic, but, given that I'm currently visiting my parents in the Cloverdale area, it would be somewhat disingenuous of me to claim that everybody who lives a suburban lifestyle should crawl back under their rocks.:)

I share your cautious optimism with regard to giving people more options and hoping they do the right thing. I wouldn't hold my breath for efficient transit networks covering the entirety of south of the Fraser sprawl though. Rapid transit just doesn't work as well in such sparsely-populated areas. The sheer tax dollars that would be required to send trains or rapid buses out to the farthest-flung neighborhoods of Surrey and Langley would be mind-boggling.

so by that way of thinking

everyone in the west end lives above or within 2 minutes of where they work??

[officedweller]

Yeah, just like the merchants of Cambie Village derive all their customers from the surrounding neighbourhood - and suffered when on-street parking and car access were disrupted by Canada Line construction.

[Blake]

Unless there are enough jobs in the Morgan Heights development for the people who live there - ie. a balanced ratio of commercial to residential space - it won't be self-sustaining or complete, though I suppose it might encourage some people to do their non-commuting related activities (dining, hair dressing, grocery shopping, doctor appointments, etc.) close to home. Again, as I admitted above, I can't judge this development until it's finished. My beef is with mass car culture generally.


You make some great points.

I believe the plan for Morgan Heights is to have a fairly equal number of jobs vs. workers residing in the area. However, buyers of those $850,000 custom built homes aren't going to be paying those mortgage payments with the service and retail jobs that are available at Grandview Corners or the Walmart.

Talking to realtors and developers active in the area, alot of self-employed professionals have been buying up in the area, many of which are primarly home based. Realtors, developers, mortgage brokers, insurance, consultants etc. My wife and I both fall into this category. Therefore there is likely less demand for job creation than there may be in a more entry level neighbourhood.

With that said, the City of Surrey also has plans for additional business parks and professional office space along Hwy 99 further south of 24th and along Croydon Drive. It may not be walkable, but at least provides more high paying corporate and management jobs to not only Morgan Heights, but SS/WR as a whole.

[Blake]

I found some information on U Lounge, http://raj.jp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/infamous_may_2008.pdf (Read the article Sub-Luxe half way down.)


"ULounge is an ambitious project, promising a glamorous resto/lounge experience unparalleled outside Vancouver, and is positioning itself as the premier destination for the suburban adult professional. The concept is a swank, upscale venue of several “lounges within lounges,” all brought together with an open-concept floor plan. "


Cool article, thanks.

I mentioned that ULounge will be a high quality, high fashion atmosphere - with high prices to support that.

Said that a business casual dress code will be enforced, and hosts will use discretion at the door as to who is welcome, and that preference will be given to those 25+.

Interesting concept for the burbs, and with over $5 mill invested, I hope for the owners sake it works out. I'll probably check it out, but it doesn't sound like the kind of place I'll be visiting on a regular basis.

[slide_rule]

geoff's two cents, and a bunch of others have already made the good points. i've skimmed through the thread. morgan crossing isn't a new concept, it's just a well-marketed and fashionable suburban development.

morgan crossing ISN'T much different from a host of other suburban 'lifestyle centers' out there. it's still an incremental improvement over the previous archetype of an even lower density shopping/office district surrounded with surface parking. but that's hardly something to celebrate. morgan crossing is built far from the city, and is intended to provide the highest yield on investment. any other goals are subordinate.

as for providing a well-balanced lifestyle which minimizes car usage; it's difficult to take seriously. very similar developments in other similarly sized cities haven't resulted in less auto use. while theoretically residents may walk to shopping and work, many residents will simply travel further for shopping and work. many of morgan crossing's retail and office workers will commute from other areas of town. arguably the biggest difference between morgan crossing and previous suburban commercial developments will be morgan crossing's up to date aesthetics.

that's not to say morgan crossing is inherently bad. but with relatively few exceptions, the vast majority of development in north america is centered around the suburban automobile lifestyle.

[SpongeG]

You make some great points.

I believe the plan for Morgan Heights is to have a fairly equal number of jobs vs. workers residing in the area. However, buyers of those $850,000 custom built homes aren't going to be paying those mortgage payments with the service and retail jobs that are available at Grandview Corners or the Walmart.

Talking to realtors and developers active in the area, alot of self-employed professionals have been buying up in the area, many of which are primarly home based. Realtors, developers, mortgage brokers, insurance, consultants etc. My wife and I both fall into this category. Therefore there is likely less demand for job creation than there may be in a more entry level neighbourhood.

With that said, the City of Surrey also has plans for additional business parks and professional office space along Hwy 99 further south of 24th and along Croydon Drive. It may not be walkable, but at least provides more high paying corporate and management jobs to not only Morgan Heights, but SS/WR as a whole.

there was a study done that showed within a certian range of the new malls that the average income was equal to that of west vancouver/park royal area

it's home to one of the weathiest communities in the lower mainland alongside west vancouver, point grey etc.

[SpongeG]

geoff's two cents, and a bunch of others have already made the good points. i've skimmed through the thread. morgan crossing isn't a new concept, it's just a well-marketed and fashionable suburban development.

morgan crossing ISN'T much different from a host of other suburban 'lifestyle centers' out there. it's still an incremental improvement over the previous archetype of an even lower density shopping/office district surrounded with surface parking. but that's hardly something to celebrate. morgan crossing is built far from the city, and is intended to provide the highest yield on investment. any other goals are subordinate.

as for providing a well-balanced lifestyle which minimizes car usage; it's difficult to take seriously. very similar developments in other similarly sized cities haven't resulted in less auto use. while theoretically residents may walk to shopping and work, many residents will simply travel further for shopping and work. many of morgan crossing's retail and office workers will commute from other areas of town. arguably the biggest difference between morgan crossing and previous suburban commercial developments will be morgan crossing's up to date aesthetics.

that's not to say morgan crossing is inherently bad. but with relatively few exceptions, the vast majority of development in north america is centered around the suburban automobile lifestyle.

and how many people commute from commercial drive to UBC? or from the west end to UBC? or marpole to downtown vancouveR?

those distances are just as equal as south surrey/white rock as far as having to commute or drive etc

[slide_rule]

^i didn't say morgan crossing was WORSE than the rest of the sprawl out there. i said it ISN'T a new concept. its aesthetics are up to date and it has an incrementally higher density than older developments. but that's about it. until we develop a more comprehensive PT system, and upzone for higher density in general and much higher density around transit, we'll just have more of the automobile lifestyle.

no developer can change these patterns. but that won't stop them from promoting it as something fresh and walkable and somehow different from what we're used to.

[SpongeG]

it's new for the lower mainland though as far as a lifestyle mall goes a la Park Royal - there is nothing else like the Village Park Royal at the moment anywhere else in Vancouver

Seattle and Portland have a few like it

California is bursting with them

[slide_rule]

^it's a win for marketing. it'll be packed full of shops selling more items we generally do not need. but it won't really change anyone's lifestyle.

malls became passe several years ago. in their place arose outdoor lifestyle centers. give it another few years. if the economy recovers, we'll see the next development of retail. it's not necessarily BAD. just that it's really the same development pattern, but with nicer packaging.

[SpongeG]

i agree but at least morgan crossing is taking the standard mall or strip mall and mixing in housing, office and food and using space better

it could have ended up like its neighbour grandview corners without the housing component

anyway it will at least give those in the far flung area an excuse to shop closer to home instead of going to robson street or metrotown

[slide_rule]

^that's how the developers sell it. the overall density is still pretty sparse. if the developers of morgan crossing truly believed in 'self contained' development, they'd add a lot more residential development to more fully exploit all that commercial space. but they won't, as morgan crossing's residents will overwhelmingly rely on the car. any extra development would result in traffic congestion.....

[SpongeG]

yeah but who wants south surrey white rock to be dense?

it doesn't fit surreys vision

would make no sense

[cc85]

yeah but who wants south surrey white rock to be dense?

it doesn't fit surreys vision

would make no sense

thats why Surrey is screwed up. You don't go half ass like we are seeing now. You either keep it rural or dense it up.:banana:

[slide_rule]

yeah but who wants south surrey white rock to be dense?

i have no doubt morgan crossing will pay off financially for its developers. anyone can see why developers dream about morgan creek and similar developments. but is it really something to celebrate? it's the whole anti-density, anti-urban attitude amongst many homebuyers which gets to me. i realize many people may be wary of the city's imperfections and may even be paranoid of the grit and crime. but why would you choose to live in a metropolitan area, AND pay good money for something that's as far away from the core as possible?

[Metro-One]

Now i am going to play devil's advocate here, but the city core isn't the core of everyones life slide_rule. I choose to live in a tower because i personally enjoy city life, hence why i always complain Metro-Van needs more commercial areas because i miss the density and festive spirit of Japan, New York, London and even Toronto. But many people who live in the suburbs do not care to go downtown, for example my mother and father who live in Maple Ridge have not been downtown Vancouver for over a year. This is simply because they wish to be closer to rural farm areas than the city core. My sister is the same, her and her husband enjoy hiking, mountain biking and horse back riding. If those are one's primary hobbies then living in the city makes no sense because you will have to do lots of reverse commuting to get to the back country. Yes the north shore is nice but to them even those outdoor recreational areas are too crowded and commercialized compared to areas such as Golden Nears Park. People should remember that everyone has a different idea of pleasure. To many people the city core is an area they will never go.

[dreambrother808]

A friend's mother lives in Burnaby and she recently went downtown for the first time in 10 years. She was rather surprised to see how much it had changed. ;)

Someone else I know who grew up in Delta thought that the Burrard Inlet was an arm of the Fraser River while we were driving up the Barnet one day. He had never been there before.

So I guess if I have a point, it's to chime along with what Metro said, we live in a diverse region where people often choose to live and remain in their own pockets that may make little sense to one another.

[SpongeG]

i know loads of people who hate going downtown - my parents avoid it at all costs for instance

If i had all the money in the world i would love to live on an acreage in Langley township - i have some friends who live out there and its nice and quiet yet close to the city

[geoff's two cents]

so by that way of thinking

everyone in the west end lives above or within 2 minutes of where they work??

That's being a tad facetious, but I won't hold it against you. I didn't say anything about the west end, I don't reside there, and I'm certainly not on familiar terms with every resident, so I couldn't tell you for sure.

A hunch, however, would be that a large percentage of residents there, who are by definition willing to pay the more costly rent or mortgage rates of that part of town, probably work downtown, close to skytrain or somewhere else well-connected by transit. I'm sure there's at least one resident who lives downtown and drives to Squamish, Surrey, Langley or even Chilliwack, but I'd bet on the percentage of long-distance commuters being extremely low. One good thing about the west end though is that residents there would be a comfortable walking - and even more comfortable cycling - distance from employment centers downtown, or from efficient transit connecting them to areas outside of the core.

[slide_rule]

originally posted by metro-one
Now i am going to play devil's advocate here, but the city core isn't the core of everyones life slide_rule. I choose to live in a tower because i personally enjoy city life, hence why i always complain Metro-Van needs more commercial areas because i miss the density and festive spirit of Japan, New York, London and even Toronto. But many people who live in the suburbs do not care to go downtown, for example my mother and father who live in Maple Ridge have not been downtown Vancouver for over a year. This is simply because they wish to be closer to rural farm areas than the city core. My sister is the same, her and her husband enjoy hiking, mountain biking and horse back riding. If those are one's primary hobbies then living in the city makes no sense because you will have to do lots of reverse commuting to get to the back country. Yes the north shore is nice but to them even those outdoor recreational areas are too crowded and commercialized compared to areas such as Golden Nears Park. People should remember that everyone has a different idea of pleasure. To many people the city core is an area they will never go.


your analogy would make more sense if these residents actually stayed inside their areas and didn't venture downtown, or more likely, go into other suburbs. unfortunately the commuting patterns of far off suburban residents contradict your argument. i'm sure there are a few exceptions. but the vast, VAST majority of residents move about. think of the median gasoline usage in morgan creek vs. more centrally located areas? then there are residents of other areas driving vast distances to morgan creek's commercial space for work and recreation. by definition, metropolitan residents go to other parts of the city for work, school, shopping, etc.

the purported self-sufficiency of PUDs/NU/fill in the fashionable suburban trend/etc. isn't a new argument. andres duany garnered big money, fame, and the everlasting gratitude of the development community when he used a watered-down version of NU to market claims about self-contained new towns. seaside's residents DID form a cohesive, self-contained community, as it was situated in the middle of nowhere. yet subsequent efforts, like celebration, cornell, and legacy in far off suburban orlando, toronto, and dallas respectively resulted in their residents being wholly dependent on the car. morgan crossing is very similar to these aforementioned developments, in that it's billed as a new concept, and offers walkable conveniences. but in reality, it's a well-marketed, suburban development.

let's not compare morgan crossing with the west end. they're not completely dichotomous, but they certainly have their differing qualities. if you're going to compare morgan crossing with anything, compare it to other suburban/exurban developments.

[nickinacan]

Funny, when I was living in the West End, I would get ready for work, look out my window and see a massive line of cars trying to exit downtown... Myself included.

[fever]

In case you missed it the first time, median commute distance in Metro Vancouver by census tract: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/analysis/pow/maps/CMA-CT/CommuteDistance/VancouverPOW_CommunteDist_ec.pdf

Most people who live in Downtown Vancouver, Central Broadway, most of North Van City, parts of North Van District and north Richmond, and one census tract in Langley City commute less than 5 km. Most people who live in south Surrey, Tsawwassen, Anmore, and Belcarra commute more than 15 km. Most people who live in these census tracts don't work in their own communities

On a side note, you can see concentric rings at the 5 km, 10 km, and 15 km cutoff radii more clearly in similar maps of other Canadian CMAs. This pattern isn't apparent in Richmond, Burnaby, north Surrey, and Langley because jobs are more dispersed into the regional centres and these communities are more self-sustaining.