PDA

View Full Version : Surrey/South Fraser Updates


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

nickinacan
Feb 24, 2012, 6:56 PM
I don't think that it should be excluded just because it skews the numbers. We don't exclude million-plus dollar houses and penthouses when calculating the average cost of housing, nor do we exclude 100% off-limits land like watersheds when calculating our region's density. It is embarrassing that Surrey has had the Asian Centre sit empty for so long but it's a fact.

Very true, but it also isn't the city's fault. It is solely the fault of the owner of the building who has refused to do anything with it or to even attract any tenants. From what I have read in the past (Correct me if I am mistaken), the owner is based in Phoenix and has been known to be incredibly hard to deal with. I honestly think, though a shame it might be, that it should be torn down and sold to make way for more high density housing or even a mixed use development.

GMasterAres
Feb 25, 2012, 3:52 PM
Yes I think that is why it gets excluded. If it was any other tenant it would have been full 10 years ago. But the previous owners and the current owner are very very very very very picky and from what I have heard, nearly impossible to deal with or sign a contract with. Fraser Health was the last and they at the end walked away because of the pure difficulty.

I think they've tried to land dozens of large tenants and with that reputation unless the building is sold to someone new I have my doubts it will get filled. If a business is interested in moving in the first thing they will do is ask everyone who has tried in the past what their opinion is then after that go "forget it!"

red-paladin
Feb 26, 2012, 1:35 AM
It's too bad, it's a handsome building. It would be good for a university / college campus.

theQ
Mar 8, 2012, 8:54 PM
The "Connect", on the corner of 132nd and Old Yale Road, opened their presentation centre this week.

They are advertising 0% down and studio/dens from 118k! I haven't seen too much activity at their presentation centre (I live in the Fuse across the street), but hopefully it'll pick up... We were very glad to see the 5 old abandoned homes disappear a few months back!

http://www.connectliving.ca/

I also noticed that the Rize's presentation centre is coming along nicely... They're working hard on it, it'll be much more than a portable trailer. They're building it like a permanent structure with full foundation and everything.

Whalleyboy
Mar 12, 2012, 4:57 PM
news on the 54 storey tower for central at civic surrey

http://www.civicsurrey.com/2012/03/12/new-details-on-centurys-54-storey-tower/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook

apparently the developing company it is moving its head office into the building

nickinacan
Mar 12, 2012, 8:19 PM
news on the 54 storey tower for central at civic surrey

http://www.civicsurrey.com/2012/03/12/new-details-on-centurys-54-storey-tower/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook

apparently the developing company it is moving its head office into the building

Their business website say 55-storeys. That is one whole floor more! :D

http://www.cotterarchitects.com/#/projects

invisibleairwaves
Mar 12, 2012, 11:58 PM
Ironically, the development itself does not seem to include a commercial component. The project will be composed of a 54-storey residential tower, along with a 160 room hotel and ground level restaurant.

...what?

Track
Mar 13, 2012, 9:58 PM
Early renders of the area showed two buildings instead of one:

http://www.civicsurrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/4383133015_94c2216d25_o-500x500.pnghttp://www.civicsurrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/4383133843_a57ab8008c_o-500x287.png
(from http://www.civicsurrey.com/2012/01/16/54-storey-tower-joining-city-hall-soon/)

In addition, the initial proposal for this project mentioned commercial and retail space. So I imagine that, if the original plans still hold, the commercial component will go in the smaller building next to the high rise. Though it is also possibly that they just axed the commercial aspect altogether.

theQ
Mar 27, 2012, 7:57 PM
Rize has opened a display unit INSIDE Central City mall! They have 3 actors living in there, and people can sit and watch them living in a real-size 2 bedroom and den unit! There are two girls who are doing Yoga most of the time, and a guy... It's an interesting concept...

They are streaming it live on their website.
http://www.waveliving.ca/

Many of the walls in the unit are sliding walls that can be opened or closed to make certain areas bigger. It's quite unique! I think it's time that this project gets it's own website too....

officedweller
Mar 27, 2012, 8:07 PM
Two bedroom and den in 615 sq ft?!?!

CoryHolmes
Mar 27, 2012, 11:32 PM
It sounds like an interesting idea... but I can't imaging a more personal hell for myself. Stuck going through my daily routine while total strangers watch and observe? With utterly zero privacy at all?

Hell. No.



All that being said, it's a nifty idea and I wish them the best for it. It's certainly a unique form of promotion.

CoryHolmes
Mar 27, 2012, 11:32 PM
Two bedroom and den in 615 sq ft?!?!

Yeah, but with only 1 bathroom. Still, very cramped.

memememe76
Mar 28, 2012, 2:05 AM
The presentation centre is located right next to the Tim Hortons and given the lineups, there will always be an audience. I was there this afternoon. I have to say that the prices were very impressive, and it seemed bigger than 615 sqft. But maybe with all the glass walls, it makes the space look bigger?

webster
Mar 28, 2012, 4:08 PM
The presentation centre is located right next to the Tim Hortons and given the lineups, there will always be an audience. I was there this afternoon. I have to say that the prices were very impressive, and it seemed bigger than 615 sqft. But maybe with all the glass walls, it makes the space look bigger?

prices?

Whalleyboy
May 6, 2012, 2:15 AM
so development of rice world at the corner of 140th street and 104 ave is moving along
its in the upcoming city council meeting big building with street facing retail stores along 104 ave
I like the thought of keep separated retail along 104 ave and also having quibble creek green way built into it
for anyone interested in reading about it
http://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/PLR_7910-0193-00.pdf

heres some photos
full view
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/riceworld1.jpg
view along 104 ave
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/riceworld2.jpg

CoryHolmes
May 6, 2012, 3:33 AM
Question for Peeps In The Know (tm) here:

Are there any 3 bedroom plans currently under development in any of the proposed towers in Surrey? Yeah, there are the townhouses at the base of the buildings (Wave, Ultra, etc.), but are there any units in the towers themselves?

The closes I've seen is the 2 bedroom + den in Wave, which is nice but not exactly what I'm looking for.

Thanks in advance.

GMasterAres
May 6, 2012, 6:32 AM
Question for Peeps In The Know (tm) here:

Are there any 3 bedroom plans currently under development in any of the proposed towers in Surrey? Yeah, there are the townhouses at the base of the buildings (Wave, Ultra, etc.), but are there any units in the towers themselves?

The closes I've seen is the 2 bedroom + den in Wave, which is nice but not exactly what I'm looking for.

Thanks in advance.

Not that I'm aware of. Paul from CivicSurrey may know a bit more from some of the projects not yet "released to the public" like the Park Avenue development from Concord or that 46 storey tower behind. But I haven't heard anything on the 3 bedroom front outside of ground level townhouses.

I too am looking for something in the 3 bedroom range in central Surrey. My girlfriend works downtown right next to Waterfront Station so living right along the SkyTrain line is ideal and seeing as I work South of the Fraser with no transit option to my work (no reasonable transit option) we want to stick SoF. Basically means we need to live in and around the 3 main stations here since I won't live around Scott Road as I dislike the neighborhood and it feels like living in an industrial wasteland.

But so far everyone I've talked to only says "In the townhouses sure" and the biggest is like you said, 2 bedrooms + a den. Closest may be penthouse suites in a few of the towers but $$$$$.

BodomReaper
May 6, 2012, 8:08 AM
Question for Peeps In The Know (tm) here:

Are there any 3 bedroom plans currently under development in any of the proposed towers in Surrey? Yeah, there are the townhouses at the base of the buildings (Wave, Ultra, etc.), but are there any units in the towers themselves?

The closes I've seen is the 2 bedroom + den in Wave, which is nice but not exactly what I'm looking for.

Thanks in advance.

As jhausner said, I don't believe there are any 3 bedroom units currently planned/under construction, but Access (adjacent to Gateway station) is one of the nicer buildings in the area and has a couple for sale: http://www.condosurrey.com/access-10866-city-parkway-surrey

Diet Butcher
May 6, 2012, 4:29 PM
Here's a new development on Fraser Highway within walking distance to King George Skytrain http://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/PLR_7911-0228-00.pdf

invisibleairwaves
May 7, 2012, 3:06 AM
so development of rice world at the corner of 140th street and 104 ave is moving along
its in the upcoming city council meeting big building with street facing retail stores along 104 ave
I like the thought of keep separated retail along 104 ave and also having quibble creek green way built into it
for anyone interested in reading about it
http://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/PLR_7910-0193-00.pdf

heres some photos
full view
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/riceworld1.jpg
view along 104 ave
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/riceworld2.jpg

Actual streetfront retail along 104th? Wow. I think overall it's still kind of strip-mall-ish, but by Surrey standards this looks like a surprisingly good project.

GMasterAres
May 7, 2012, 3:33 PM
I think given the location it's probably the best that will ever be possible there. The use of green space + parking lot under the power lines makes sense. You simply can't construct a building under the power lines and they sweep the building over enough that from the perspective of 104th it will street front well. The big issue are the power lines through that stretch making it very difficult to build anything. Not impossible, just difficult.

SpongeG
May 7, 2012, 11:52 PM
seems to be the little asia town of surrey along that stretch, lots of korean, filipino etc stores in that area now

invisibleairwaves
May 8, 2012, 2:35 AM
I think given the location it's probably the best that will ever be possible there. The use of green space + parking lot under the power lines makes sense. You simply can't construct a building under the power lines and they sweep the building over enough that from the perspective of 104th it will street front well. The big issue are the power lines through that stretch making it very difficult to build anything. Not impossible, just difficult.

Yeah, that's true. I'm just not wild about using the space for a parking lot. Some residential on top of the retail building would have been nice too, although I wonder if the power lines are preventing that from happening too...

GMasterAres
May 8, 2012, 4:05 AM
Yeah, that's true. I'm just not wild about using the space for a parking lot. Some residential on top of the retail building would have been nice too, although I wonder if the power lines are preventing that from happening too...

Yah not sure what the building regulations are under power lines. I'd imagine building period right under isn't permitted due to the right-of-way. I'm not sure if you'd get many people interested in living near those lines either. There's a lot of controversy regarding health and living around those types of lines.

I don't know if I believe it all but why take the chance, I know I'd shy away from living right near the lines. Probably a similar reason why if you look in Morgan Crossing, they built the parking lots under the power lines. Same deal, need parking somewhere and can't build, so kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

Whalleyboy
May 21, 2012, 3:16 AM
came across some guildford rec reno stuff thought i'd share

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/guildfordrec02.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/guildfordrec03.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/guildfordrec04.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/guildfordrec05.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/guildfordrec06.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/guildfordrec07.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/guildfordrec08.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/guildfordrec09.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/guildfordrec10.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/guildfordrec11.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/guildfordrec01.jpg

GMasterAres
May 22, 2012, 5:11 AM
Going to be quite the facility when the expansion is complete.

GMasterAres
Jun 15, 2012, 4:41 PM
For those interested:

http://developers.surrey.ca/AMANDA5/eNtraprise/DInquiry/index_fromgis.jsp?ProjectNumber=12-172

Looks like the development of the "tower" phase of Quatro. The address in question is the Flamingo Motor Hotel which would come down for the project to be built.

2 Development sites so guessing 2 phased project. No more details someone may be able to get more out of the developer.

CoryHolmes
Jun 17, 2012, 3:04 PM
A little off-topic here but does anyone know what the search lights in Central City were last night? About 10:30 - 12:00 last night they were circling over my unit, but since I face west I couldn't see the source.

WaxItYourself
Jun 17, 2012, 4:46 PM
A little off-topic here but does anyone know what the search lights in Central City were last night? About 10:30 - 12:00 last night they were circling over my unit, but since I face west I couldn't see the source.

There was a foot race between the police and an individual

http://www.cknw.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=1722639

Whalleyboy
Jun 23, 2012, 6:27 AM
in upcoming council meetings A small 3 storey office building by 104 ave/whalley blvd with commercial base is being proposed
Its kinda cool and modern I like seeing that they are keep with commerical along 104 ave
http://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/PLR_7911-0172-00.pdf

Diet Butcher
Jun 28, 2012, 1:29 AM
Anyone heard of this Project? "Verve" http://www.porte.ca/verve/ Saw the Street signs for the sales Center today

GMasterAres
Jun 28, 2012, 5:00 PM
Anyone heard of this Project? "Verve" http://www.porte.ca/verve/ Saw the Street signs for the sales Center today

Yes I think it was posted somewhere already but forget where. It's beside the new condo buildings that went in the last few years. It is a trailer park space on Fraser Highway before you get to 140th on the left side heading East.

They evicted everyone in the trailer park and Verve is what is being built there.

http://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/PLR_7911-0228-00.pdf

GMasterAres
Jul 5, 2012, 7:02 PM
An interesting project near Scott Road station:

http://developers.surrey.ca/AMANDA5/eNtraprise/DInquiry/index_fromgis.jsp?ProjectNumber=12-185

Can anyone get/does anyone have additional information on the project. Looks like a mixed use development on the property where Home Depot currently is near Scott Road station called "The River."

Only info I an find is:

"proposed combination of residential, commercial, commuter-retail, office/retail , with a large multifunctional flex-space that will provide seating for 750-1000 people, with a focus on asset utilization for church and other activities that support the local community. Currently preparing applications to the City of Surrey." but nothing else.

Assuming they are subdividing so that the project can take place in the empty space/parking lot between Home Depot and the Sky Train Park & Ride.

Nites
Jul 29, 2012, 9:50 AM
YellowFever


taken 2 days ago.


http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af28/Hongkongese/downtown%202/IMG_9643.jpg

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af28/Hongkongese/downtown%202/IMG_9644.jpg

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af28/Hongkongese/downtown%202/IMG_9646.jpg

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af28/Hongkongese/downtown%202/IMG_9634.jpg

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af28/Hongkongese/downtown%202/IMG_9635.jpg

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af28/Hongkongese/downtown%202/IMG_9636.jpg

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af28/Hongkongese/downtown%202/IMG_9637.jpg

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af28/Hongkongese/downtown%202/IMG_9638.jpg

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af28/Hongkongese/downtown%202/IMG_9639.jpg

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af28/Hongkongese/downtown%202/IMG_9640.jpg

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af28/Hongkongese/downtown%202/IMG_9647.jpg

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af28/Hongkongese/downtown%202/IMG_9648.jpg

officedweller
Aug 10, 2012, 6:29 PM
New Aquatic Cnetre for South Surrey:


New $50M aquatic centre on track in South Surrey

http://www.thenownewspaper.com/7064542.bin?size=620x400s

By Christopher Poon, Surrey Now
August 9, 2012

A long-desired aquatic centre project in the Grandview Heights area of South Surrey is moving along swimmingly and residents should expect to be able to make waves in less than two years at the Grandview Heights Aquatic Centre.

With groundbreaking scheduled to begin later this fall, the new aquatic and recreation centre will feature all the amenities expected of a modern-day facility, including a 10-lane Olympic-sized pool, a family and leisure pool, water slides, diving towers and a weight room.

To be located at 24th Avenue and 168th Street, the facility has been something members of the Grandview community have been wanting for quite some time and something Coun. Linda Hepner said was a natural choice for the area.

...

Expected to come in at around $50 million, the facility's look was designed by Hughes Condon Marler Architects and will be able to host 900 spectators. Additionally, a second phase is expected to be added to the project sometime after its initial opening, which would add a warm-up pool to the facility in order to host international competitions.

...

Read more: http://www.thenownewspaper.com/aquatic+centre+track+South+Surrey/7062327/story.html#ixzz23AYGHQHu

itinerant
Aug 10, 2012, 7:37 PM
New Aquatic Cnetre for South Surrey:

More at Hughes Condon Marler Archtects website at hcma.ca/grandview-heights-aquatic-centre (http://hcma.ca/grandview-heights-aquatic-centre/). Also at facebook facebook.com/grandviewaqua (http://www.facebook.com/grandviewaqua) and website grandviewaqua.ca (http://grandviewaqua.ca/)

Looks great!

Here's a few additional images from HCMA's site:
http://hcma.ca/wp-content/uploads/Grandview-Aquatic1.jpg

http://hcma.ca/wp-content/uploads/Grandview-Aquatic.jpg

SpongeG
Aug 10, 2012, 9:39 PM
cool, so that will be out in the walmart area? grandview heights is out of my radar of knowledge for surrey...

officedweller
Aug 10, 2012, 10:57 PM
Nice!

hollywoodnorth
Aug 10, 2012, 11:04 PM
cool, so that will be out in the walmart area? grandview heights is out of my radar of knowledge for surrey...

correct

Whalleyboy
Aug 11, 2012, 1:31 AM
Out of the two new pools being built for surrey I think this is a much nicer one then Guildford. It will have platform jumps and will also have an adult and family hot tub area. Plus the seating area for viewing events makes it a much nice place.

Although I will say guildford pool is really nice looking to still.

memememe76
Aug 11, 2012, 6:04 AM
The thing I like about the Guildford one (besides it being near my home) is that it is relatively centrally located. Like the Fleetwood centre, this Morgan Crossing centre is rather far away from the main retail area (Wal-Mart and the shopping centres). Had I bought one of the townhouses there, I would still need to drive to the community centre.

Also, there does not appear to be a library.

Whalleyboy
Aug 11, 2012, 6:54 AM
The thing I like about the Guildford one (besides it being near my home) is that it is relatively centrally located. Like the Fleetwood centre, this Morgan Crossing centre is rather far away from the main retail area (Wal-Mart and the shopping centres). Had I bought one of the townhouses there, I would still need to drive to the community centre.

Also, there does not appear to be a library.

I have to agree with you there. While the area it is being built does have development plans it could be a while before anything is really by it. Plus majority is still at the other end of the area.

dharper
Aug 19, 2012, 8:43 PM
"Has anyone driven down the newly widened 96Ave? Have you seen the eastbound lanes are fine, but the westbound lanes turn sharply around the Esso station at 168St. Albeit, the intersection isn't finished yet, but if you continue a straight line to the west and east of the intersection, at least half of the pumps will have to come out, and possibly half the access to the remaining pumps will have to go. Is this stations lease up soon, or did someone screw up big time?"

I originally posted this on here back on Jan 20, 2011. Does anyone have an update, or know anything more about this?

go_leafs_go02
Aug 20, 2012, 12:46 AM
"Has anyone driven down the newly widened 96Ave? Have you seen the eastbound lanes are fine, but the westbound lanes turn sharply around the Esso station at 168St. Albeit, the intersection isn't finished yet, but if you continue a straight line to the west and east of the intersection, at least half of the pumps will have to come out, and possibly half the access to the remaining pumps will have to go. Is this stations lease up soon, or did someone screw up big time?"

I originally posted this on here back on Jan 20, 2011. Does anyone have an update, or know anything more about this?

The northeast parcel of land was found to be highly contaminated (the vacant parcel opposite the gas station) in which it took a large segment of the budget for widening the roadway. There are some property acquisition issues as well with the Esso Station. From what I understand, the road is hopefully fully built by this time next year.

invisibleairwaves
Sep 7, 2012, 4:41 AM
Mid-rise development proposed for Scott Road station
Posted on September 6, 2012 by Paul Hillsdon

Scott Road station’s first transit-oriented development is nearing the light of day, 22 years after it was opened for service. Lion Rock Developments, a company which leverages real estate to fund the long term operation of churches, is proposing a two-phased, mid-rise, multi-use project on empty land between the Home Depot andPark and Ride. The first phase on the northern half of the property will feature a church and community space, ground floor retail, and three floors of residential units, wrapped around an above-ground parkade. The second phase consists of condos and retail units designed in a similar layout. It is anticipated to include 252 units once complete.

Civic Surrey article with renderings (http://www.civicsurrey.com/2012/09/06/mid-rise-development-proposed-for-scott-road-station/)

Very cool. Looks a lot more urban and pedestrian friendly than a lot of the stuff that gets proposed and built in the "city centre".

LeftCoaster
Sep 7, 2012, 1:45 PM
Why in the world are they proposing a residential building in that location??

This seems like a terrible idea.

Tfreder
Sep 7, 2012, 3:08 PM
That doesn't seem to be the worst part of the proposal, considering they want to build a church there as well :haha: :haha: :haha:

go_leafs_go02
Sep 7, 2012, 3:55 PM
Why in the world are they proposing a residential building in that location??

This seems like a terrible idea.

How so - the area is going to undergo significant transformation in the next decade or so - this is the first step to it.

Residential with perfect access to Skytrain - some density.

CoryHolmes
Sep 9, 2012, 6:56 AM
Any updates for my future home, 3 Civic Plaza? I've been trolling the city's website and come up with nothing.

Why is it so hard for these people to shut up and take my money?!

GMasterAres
Sep 13, 2012, 4:24 AM
No but I have word that the Park Avenue (former Sky Towers) will be going on sale spring next year 2013 and will be completed by 2015/16.

I'd expect the 3 Civic Plaza to go on sale this winter, probably in the next few months just so projects can stagger. It's still supposed to break ground in October which is just 2-4 weeks away so I'd imagine sales won't lag far behind that. It is such a big project compared to a standard residential tower that they can most likely get away with selling close to construction date or a bit after.

Who knows though. Developers are difficult to predict and none of the above could come true in the end heh.

tybuilding
Oct 1, 2012, 7:32 PM
http://www.civicsurrey.com/2012/09/28/tien-sher-proposes-300-sq-ft-micro-lofts-for-surrey/

Proposed for Gateway:

"Tien Sher, the developers behind Quattro, are recognized for their efforts to bring affordable housing to the market – their six-storey wood frame Quattro 3 was an effort to do just that, by reducing building costs and passing those savings onto consumers. Their latest project though, pushes the envelope even further. Tien Sher is proposing to build the first of a three phase project featuring 56 micro-lofts, with units as small as 300 square feet."

GMasterAres
Oct 1, 2012, 8:47 PM
An interesting concept. I worry about the area though. I'm of two minds, you do need affordable housing, but at the same time and seeing a lot of renters here at Park Place, cheap rent has its negatives. I almost had a renter run into me head on in the underground parking because they were stoned and trying to pass someone in the opposite direction.

There's a certain segment of our population that I just don't think need any more help. I'm not saying it is a bad idea though, or that every renter is a problem, but am just unsure if it is actually needed at this time, and if in that specific area it won't just call back too many of the undesirables that Surrey is trying to reduce.

memememe76
Oct 2, 2012, 12:04 AM
Yesterday, I ran Surrey's first marathon (of many, I hope). I did the half (the full is merely a repeat of the half marathon loop). These are the types of events that Surrey needs. I thought it was a great success. I do hope the drivers won't put too much of a damper on it. I ran past a lot of irate drivers.

Cypherus
Oct 2, 2012, 4:08 AM
Yesterday, I ran Surrey's first marathon (of many, I hope). I did the half (the full is merely a repeat of the half marathon loop). These are the types of events that Surrey needs. I thought it was a great success. I do hope the drivers won't put too much of a damper on it. I ran past a lot of irate drivers.

Yeah a lot of unsuspecting drivers, including myself, got caught in the chaos. At a stop light one woman screamed out in frustration at the traffic lady, and another guy in the car next to me at another stop light swore as loud as he can when he saw that his detoured route led to yet another closed off section. It was actually quite humorous and tested a lot of people's patience.

It took me an hour to get from Fraser Highway East in Fleetwood to Central City. People shouldn't have had to detour all the way down to 72nd to get on Scott Road, like I did, then to 104 just to get around the marathon course. No other city would close off sections of main arterial roads that are paramount for transportation. Great planning... :-S

WarrenC12
Oct 2, 2012, 4:13 AM
No other city would close off sections of main arterial roads that are paramount for transportation. Great planning... :-S

Except Vancouver on every major run of the summer...

xd_1771
Oct 2, 2012, 5:28 AM
Yeah a lot of unsuspecting drivers, including myself, got caught in the chaos. At a stop light one woman screamed out in frustration at the traffic lady, and another guy in the car next to me at another stop light swore as loud as he can when he saw that his detoured route led to yet another closed off section. It was actually quite humorous and tested a lot of people's patience.

It took me an hour to get from Fraser Highway East in Fleetwood to Central City. People shouldn't have had to detour all the way down to 72nd to get on Scott Road, like I did, then to 104 just to get around the marathon course. No other city would close off sections of main arterial roads that are paramount for transportation. Great planning... :-S
104th Ave was closed as well. I'm aware of what happens when closures affect 104 Ave even on a Sunday as I happened to document the congestion on 100th Ave just this April when it happened due to an accident. During the marathon it turned out pretty badly, just as I expected. Congestion was sporadic throughout the westbound corridor of 104th (I took some pictures on my phone where the lanes narrowed close to 140th). At 140th & 104th, 140th had a lengthy back up in both directions as late as 1:30-2PM after most of the run. 104th Ave buses in both directions were experiencing hour long delays, as reported by TransLink on Twitter. I had a friend who told me it took her an hour and a half to get from Surrey Central to Guildford on that day - a trip that normally takes ~15 minutes by the 320, 10-12 on a 337 and would take 5 (guaranteed) on a reliable SkyTrain connection if one existed. The closure of 100th through Green Timbers didn't help either.

Add to that the closure of Highway 1 capacity on the same day and you end up with a really big mess. I think the planning was quite poor - I'm not convinced the public was notified well enough of the closures into City Centre. The Highway 1 closures were probably distracting enough.

memememe76
Oct 2, 2012, 5:33 AM
For the San Francisco Marathon that my sister did this past summer, she ran across the Golden Gate Bridge, which was closed for the event. I'm pretty sure a lot of people drive over it.

Hopefully, drivers will know what to expect when the event takes place next year. If that means driving before the roads close (which this year was 7am), then so be it.

On a positive note, besides the wonderful entertainers and volunteers, there was a pretty good number of people throughout the course (who were probably lounging around an early Sunday morning doing chores and then noticed a bunch of runners) who were cheering on all the runners. I think that number will only grow exponentially next year.

SFUVancouver
Oct 2, 2012, 8:14 PM
No other city would close off sections of main arterial roads that are paramount for transportation. Great planning... :-S

Except that is exactly what just about every city does.

New York
http://www.sportstoursinternational.co.uk/images/5404.jpg
Source (http://www.sportstoursinternational.co.uk/images/5404.jpg)

Sydney
http://www.lauragreaves.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/b4_3991.jpg
Source (http://www.lauragreaves.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/b4_3991.jpg)

London
http://www.jst.org.uk/Files/Images/inline/london-marathon.jpg
Source (http://www.jst.org.uk/Files/Images/inline/london-marathon.jpg)

Paris
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01869/paris-marathon_1869341i.jpg
Source (http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01869/paris-marathon_1869341i.jpg)

Tokyo
http://www.tylershineon.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Tokyo-Marathon-2010.jpg
Source (http://www.tylershineon.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Tokyo-Marathon-2010.jpg)

Etc., etc.


I'm glad to hear that Surrey's marathon went well, and I second the comment that this is exactly the sort of thing the city should be promoting. Individually, big public events may not have much of a lasting effect on the city, but in aggregate events like the marathon, Canada Day, the Vaisakhi parade, Fusion festival, etc., all help a city transform from purely a place of residence and work, to one that is a living, breathing, exciting place that attracts and retains people for more reasons than relatively inexpensive housing and low taxes.

go_leafs_go02
Oct 2, 2012, 8:51 PM
I'm also sure that comments received from the public regarding planning for traffic closures, and traffic management will be considered for next year's marathon, with changes either in road closures or public information being done.

It didn't help that the media and Province were blitzing for days on end to avoid the Port Mann, and even though work wrapped up Sunday morning, a lot of people assumed it would be highly restricted until Monday morning. The marathon likely involved 6-12 months or more of planning, while the Port Mann closure only came around about a month ago to the motoring public.

osirisboy
Oct 2, 2012, 8:57 PM
I think the main problem was that people werent aware fully of the closures etc, not the closures themselves. I find if people are properly informed then it goes pretty smoothly ie the port mann lane closures

Cypherus
Oct 3, 2012, 5:24 AM
It's easy to cite Sidney and New York as examples of where main roads are closed for marathons or other running events. However, those population centers are expansive and have sufficient arterial roads to accommodate traffic diversion from the main roads.

96th, 88th, KGB, 104 Ave, 100th, and Fraser Hwy are the main arteries in north Surrey. To close a segment of each of those roads, leaving no other artery as an alternative for diversion, is shortsighted. The traffic chaos around side streets in Surrey was indicative of people having no alternative artery to use. As such, better course planning or sufficient notice of the event should be given next year.

tybuilding
Oct 6, 2012, 12:05 AM
I didn't know what was going on either. I came from Newton on 140th heading towards 88 Ave, I saw the backup and cut into the subdivision and headed east to 146st where I rejoined 88 Ave. Next year I suggest signage to redirect people to other streets like 84 Ave.

officedweller
Oct 18, 2012, 10:51 PM
Has this been posted before:

Centre of Newton:

http://caa-architecture.com/projects/centre-of-newton/

Centre of Newton

Location: Surrey, BC
Developer: Centre of Newton Property Inc.

An infill project on an existing shopping centre site, this four storey mixed-use development
features two levels of underground parking, three floors of office space and retail on two floors
making creative use of the sloping site.

The building is sited against the existing pedestrian oriented neighborhood along 137th Street
continuing the ‘Main Street’ retail frontage with the second level retail backing onto
the existing Power Centre style shopping centre with at grade parking on the podium.

The 45,000 sq.ft. development is seeking LEED Gold certification.

Completion Spring 2013.

Some renders (more at the link).

http://caa-architecture.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/3D-View-Perspective-S-E-Corner.jpg
http://caa-architecture.com/projects/centre-of-newton/

http://caa-architecture.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/10012-Newton-Mixed-Use-2-3.jpg
http://caa-architecture.com/projects/centre-of-newton/

http://caa-architecture.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/10012-137-Street-view1-6.jpg
http://caa-architecture.com/projects/centre-of-newton/

GMasterAres
Oct 23, 2012, 8:51 PM
That building above ^^ is under construction right now.

officedweller
Oct 23, 2012, 9:15 PM
Good to hear, thanks.

CoryHolmes
Oct 24, 2012, 2:58 PM
That building above ^^ is under construction right now.

Really? Hunh. Goes to show how often I drive through Newton...

tybuilding
Oct 24, 2012, 7:33 PM
Really? Hunh. Goes to show how often I drive through Newton...

Its too bad the Newton Redevelopment is still 10 years out. I heard they might be building 70 and 71 avenues between 138a and KGB though sooner. Hopefully that will spurn the redevelopment.

sryboy
Oct 26, 2012, 4:52 AM
Call me crazy or Mr. obvious but Newton seems way more predestination friendly than any other town center in surrey? All it needs is some decent restaurants and pubs!

memememe76
Oct 26, 2012, 5:16 AM
You're crazy. For instance, who walks to the Newton Library? Whereas, loads of people can easily walk to Surrey Central Library or Guildford Library. Do people walk to Superstore in Newton? Lots do to either Superstore or Walmart in Guildford.

GMasterAres
Oct 30, 2012, 6:10 AM
You're crazy. For instance, who walks to the Newton Library? Whereas, loads of people can easily walk to Surrey Central Library or Guildford Library. Do people walk to Superstore in Newton? Lots do to either Superstore or Walmart in Guildford.

I grew up in Newton and can tell you since I was in high-school everyone in the area walks around Newton for the most part. You get in your car if you need to leave the area but you can, and we used to, walk everywhere. So much so that this is part of the reason the Superstore now has those locking carts. We used to have dozens of Superstore carts in the complex and in other complexes near us back in the day.

They had to pay people in trucks to drive around to bring them back. I can see why they lock them now when you try to leave but it forces everyone even those across the street to need to drive now to do any large grocery shop.

But yes, you can walk everywhere in Newton. You can walk everywhere in Surrey Central and Guildford. I personally think more people walk in some of the Surrey centers than are given credit.

What Newton is doing though is more and more getting rid of the "parking lot" walls along the road. This building above is another one of those. And that's what you see mainly in Vancouver which gives the illusion of a more walkable city. Walk around Oakridge for example and you'll find many buildings right on the street with their "parking lots" in the back. Like this building has done. So from the street you get the wall of buildings that present a more "downtown" feel to an area.

SpongeG
Oct 30, 2012, 6:14 AM
newton to me always seemed like it felt more of a "downtown" than any other part of surrey besides south surrey

that little street behind save on foods makes for a decent high street

go_leafs_go02
Oct 30, 2012, 3:55 PM
Cloverdale's played the role of the old-time downtown for many years, although it is nowhere as busy as Newton.

SpongeG
Oct 30, 2012, 6:39 PM
i always forget cloverdale always think its more part of langley than surrey, but yeah thats a cute downtown

officedweller
Oct 31, 2012, 7:24 AM
From the Now:


South Surrey casino could net $6 million for city annually
New casino proposed for south Surrey could net city $6M per year

By Christopher Poon, Now Staff October 30, 2012

If the proposed South Surrey gaming centre gets approved by council, the City of Surrey stands to make an estimated $6 million a year due to simply being a host city.

By now, the residents of South Surrey and the surrounding area have likely heard of the plan by the B.C. Lottery Corp. and Gateway Casinos and Entertainment Limited to build an entertainment-focused casino at 168th Street and 10th Avenue.

http://www.thenownewspaper.com/news/7470275.bin?size=620x400s


Read more: http://www.thenownewspaper.com/news/South+Surrey+casino+could+million+city+annually/7468422/story.html#ixzz2ArKXWukz

theQ
Nov 26, 2012, 11:29 PM
Does anybody know what is happening to the old Kinsmen Lodge near Central City Mall (13333 Old Yale Road)? The lodge closed down last spring and the residents moved to a new location near the SMH. Lately it seems that some construction has been going on inside the old empty lodge...

I was hoping that it would be torn down and redeveloped...

whiteshadow
Nov 27, 2012, 1:25 AM
Does anybody know what is happening to the old Kinsmen Lodge near Central City Mall (13333 Old Yale Road)? The lodge closed down last spring and the residents moved to a new location near the SMH. Lately it seems that some construction has been going on inside the old empty lodge...

I was hoping that it would be torn down and redeveloped...

I heard it was going to be minimally renovated and reused by Fraser Health for some purpose. It apparently has a lot of asbestos so doing anything more than minimal renovations would probably be cost-prohibitive.

officedweller
Dec 7, 2012, 12:38 AM
Proposed development at Hwy 91 and 72nd -
should be an opportunity to contribute to a full interchange(?)

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/182392691.html

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/181412251.html

hollywoodnorth
Dec 7, 2012, 12:46 AM
Proposed development at Hwy 91 and 72nd -
should be an opportunity to contribute to a full interchange(?)

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/182392691.html

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/181412251.html

thanks!

more info at http://www.corp.delta.bc.ca/EN/main/municipal/323/27003/mklands.html

officedweller
Dec 7, 2012, 3:02 AM
thanks!

more info at http://www.corp.delta.bc.ca/EN/main/municipal/323/27003/mklands.html

Thanks!

1.3 OPPORTUNITIES

1.3.1 Highway 91
 64th Avenue and 72nd Avenue: Upgrade existing interchanges to alleviate some of the commuter traffic problems.
 64th Avenue Access: Roundabout would minimize impact to critical turning movements, thereby creating safer thoroughfares.
 Roads: Adjacent road network vehicle trips could be minimized by providing a neighborhood with residential and commercial properties. By providing a self-contained community, commuter traffic off-site would be minimal.

1.3.2 72nd Avenue Access
72nd Avenue interchange would remove bottleneck on Highway 91 from the at-grade signalized intersection. Upgrading to an interchange would mitigate the traffic congestion problems in the area.

http://www.corp.delta.bc.ca/assets/CPD/PDF/MKDL_Traffic%20Storm%20and%20Site%20Servicing%20Summaries%20FINAL.pdf

GMasterAres
Dec 17, 2012, 7:54 PM
Two new projects on the books in Surrey Center, not sure how far they will get (Initial Review right now), but would fill in more of the gaps:

Project #1:

http://developers.surrey.ca/AMANDA5/eNtraprise/DInquiry/index_fromgis.jsp?ProjectNumber=12-325

10322 133 Street which is between the 2 Wave towers and the new Ultra tower. So you'd end up with | Ultra | This Proposal | Wave 1 & 2 | 104th Ave

35-storey mixed use with 3 storey office retail so in line with Ultra but with retail mixed-use.

Project #2:

http://developers.surrey.ca/AMANDA5/eNtraprise/DInquiry/index_fromgis.jsp?ProjectNumber=12-327

No height specified but described as "Residential tower and podium with sub-grade parking".

Address 13399 103 Ave. Basically across the street from the North Surrey rec center between North Surrey Rec and Ultra/Wave etc.

http://174.1.98.41/Surrey/SurreyDevX.jpg

GMasterAres
Dec 17, 2012, 7:57 PM
Also of note:

http://developers.surrey.ca/AMANDA5/eNtraprise/DInquiry/index_fromgis.jsp?ProjectNumber=12-332

This is the development application for the massive King George project at King George Station.

Found here on the forums:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=194968

CoryHolmes
Dec 18, 2012, 1:22 AM
Hmm. That parcel across the street from the North Surrey Rec Centre is where SFU had wanted to build their student residences...

theQ
Dec 18, 2012, 6:17 PM
This is quite interesting. (13399 103 avenue)

Here is a city document showing the parcel and the proposed new road. The 3-month old document states that a proposal had been received for two residential towers.

http://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/CR_2012-R192.pdf

Here is the original application for the same address, stating one residential tower and a conceptual second tower.

http://developers.surrey.ca/AMANDA5/eNtraprise/DInquiry/project_detail.jsp

The question is, is this new proposal for one of the two towers that was previously proposed (SFU residence) or is this for a brand new development that will replace the SFU residence? Either way, it'll be great to see something built.

GMasterAres
Dec 18, 2012, 6:47 PM
This is quite interesting. (13399 103 avenue)

Here is a city document showing the parcel and the proposed new road. The 3-month old document states that a proposal had been received for two residential towers.

http://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/CR_2012-R192.pdf

Here is the original application for the same address, stating one residential tower and a conceptual second tower.

http://developers.surrey.ca/AMANDA5/eNtraprise/DInquiry/project_detail.jsp

The question is, is this new proposal for one of the two towers that was previously proposed (SFU residence) or is this for a brand new development that will replace the SFU residence? Either way, it'll be great to see something built.

It would be for something new though it could still be the SFU residence project. Could be the one that was posted on Civicsurrey not too long ago. It is a different architecture firm entirely so I'd imagine the project will look different than in 2006 (not to mention we're 8 years later...)

Diet Butcher
Dec 21, 2012, 2:06 AM
Got a letter in the Mail today informing of Preliminary Notice of Proposed Development of 10335, 10327 and 10315 133 Street. This is basically on the other side of the street from Ultra, on the same side as the Wave Presentation Center. Right now these lots are vacant/ugly and there's still one older but lived in house there as well.

They want to rezone to CD and construct 1 6 Story Building with a two story townhouse base consisting of approximately 114 Units and 2 levels of underground parking.

Here's the link to the City Project http://developers.surrey.ca/AMANDA5/eNtraprise/DInquiry/index_fromgis.jsp?ProjectNumber=12-0315

Not Massive but really nice to fill in most of the rest of the space on that road.

GMasterAres
Jan 4, 2013, 5:56 AM
Not sure this was posted anywhere but, proposed 37 storey tower in Delta.

http://www.delta-optimist.com/Proposed+high+rise+would+tallest+building+Delta/7665977/story.html
http://www.corp.delta.bc.ca/EN/main/municipal/323/27003/80Ave.html
Renders of the project --> http://www.corp.delta.bc.ca/assets/CPD/PDF/80Ave-20121210PHMemo.pdf

Part of the revitalization of Scott Road plan by Delta. Surrey has been developing a lot on Scott Road but Delta has the only high-rise density in 2 existing towers at 80th Ave. I can see them from my balcony actually here in Central Surrey. This would be constructed pretty much next to the existing towers.

Also mentions another project not yet at council stage near 70th and Scott Road (Strawberry Hills). Wonder if these will encourage more dense proposals on the Surrey side, or more in Delta. Delta is running out of development land and the only option at this stage is to start densifying the Scott Road corridor and those areas to do it would be around 72nd and 80th and in-between.

Was given third reading December 17th.

jlousa
Jan 4, 2013, 6:14 AM
Sorry but that proposal is bordering on ridiculous. The region really needs to move away from towers outside of the regional town centres and move towards mid-rises. There is no good argument for a 37 storey tower in this location over an equally dense mid-rise project.

BodomReaper
Jan 4, 2013, 6:54 AM
Sorry but that proposal is bordering on ridiculous. The region really needs to move away from towers outside of the regional town centres and move towards mid-rises. There is no good argument for a 37 storey tower in this location over an equally dense mid-rise project.

Except that buyers, in return for accepting to live in a suburban location, might demand the views and corner units that mid-rises can't offer compared to a tower like this?

From an urban design perspective, I'm fully with you. But I can only think of only 3-5 concrete mid-rises outside of Vancouver/Richmond - compared with hundreds of point-towers, suggesting that suburban condo projects either have to be wood frame or a point-tower to make economic sense.

Whalleyboy
Jan 4, 2013, 6:58 AM
I don't actually think its that bad as a location. Currently there isnt a real town centre area for north delta. 72nd and scott road is mostly built up up because of Surrey. Delta has been wanting to build its own town centre area for north delta for a while. Why not start where this is already some minor built up.

Plus add the fact north delta is already pretty packed area and running out of room.

This could be north deltas Central city tower

squeezied
Jan 4, 2013, 8:47 AM
I don't actually think its that bad as a location. Currently there isnt a real town centre area for north delta. 72nd and scott road is mostly built up up because of Surrey. Delta has been wanting to build its own town centre area for north delta for a while. Why not start where this is already some minor built up.

Plus add the fact north delta is already pretty packed area and running out of room.

This could be north deltas Central city tower

I notice from your past posts you tend to look at municipalities irrespective of each other in terms of how municipalities (and ultimately the region) function. Arbitrary municipal boundaries have little impact in this regard. Consider the region without these arbitrary boundaries and you'd see that there is no reason to have a town centre there considering the proximity to Whalley and Newton.

It isn't some fantasy sim city world where each city should have it's own downtown, stadium, shopping mall, university, etc. If you understand that cities and its people interact with each other region-wide, you'd realize there's no need for a town centre there.

It's a poor argument for a town centre just for the sake of North Delta having its own town centre without considering outside of its municipal borders.

officedweller
Jan 4, 2013, 10:18 PM
Not sure this was posted anywhere but, proposed 37 storey tower in Delta.

http://www.delta-optimist.com/Proposed+high+rise+would+tallest+building+Delta/7665977/story.html
http://www.corp.delta.bc.ca/EN/main/municipal/323/27003/80Ave.html
Renders of the project --> http://www.corp.delta.bc.ca/assets/CPD/PDF/80Ave-20121210PHMemo.pdf

Part of the revitalization of Scott Road plan by Delta. Surrey has been developing a lot on Scott Road but Delta has the only high-rise density in 2 existing towers at 80th Ave. I can see them from my balcony actually here in Central Surrey. This would be constructed pretty much next to the existing towers.

Also mentions another project not yet at council stage near 70th and Scott Road (Strawberry Hills). Wonder if these will encourage more dense proposals on the Surrey side, or more in Delta. Delta is running out of development land and the only option at this stage is to start densifying the Scott Road corridor and those areas to do it would be around 72nd and 80th and in-between.

Was given third reading December 17th.

Yeah, seems like it's going ahead:

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/185581041.html

Interesting that Delta will approve it
- i.e. imagine if it were proposed for Ladner or Tswwassen?
It would be rejected in a heartbeart.

I think one of the factors is that Scott Road is a significant commercial corridor for the area - and that raises the same issues seen with, say, Kingsway in Vancouver. With the commercial corridor providing ready services for residents.

Should there be linear development (including highrises) along the existing commercial corridor,
or should it be focussed at the "approved" town centres (i.e. like Ladner & Tswwassen in Delta, or SkyTrain stations in Vancouver). ..and which would upset the neighbours more?

I also really don't see this as being much different from Kerrisdale's current reality (no existing rapid transit).

Looking at an aerial map for the area, there seems to be a hydro RoW that leads from King George Blvd to about 88 Ave & Scott Road. That could be used for a Scott Road branch off a King George LRT line.

Tfreder
Jan 4, 2013, 10:59 PM
imagine if it were proposed for Ladner or Tswwassen?
It would be rejected in a heartbeart.


:haha: That scenario makes my sides hurt. If that were the case, the whole community would be in an uproar. South Delta is, in my opinion, the "capital city" of NIMBYs in Vancouver.

Whalleyboy
Jan 5, 2013, 2:32 AM
I notice from your past posts you tend to look at municipalities irrespective of each other in terms of how municipalities (and ultimately the region) function. Arbitrary municipal boundaries have little impact in this regard. Consider the region without these arbitrary boundaries and you'd see that there is no reason to have a town centre there considering the proximity to Whalley and Newton.

It isn't some fantasy sim city world where each city should have it's own downtown, stadium, shopping mall, university, etc. If you understand that cities and its people interact with each other region-wide, you'd realize there's no need for a town centre there.

It's a poor argument for a town centre just for the sake of North Delta having its own town centre without considering outside of its municipal borders.

In eyes of a normal everyday person yes it may seem pointless. But if you look at it through the eyes of a city there is plenty of reason to do things like this. For one it bring in more businesses and population to areas and that in turn bring in more money for the city. which in turn can get spent towards things like rec centres, libraries, and road work, etc.

While in the ideal world we wouldnt have boarders we don't live in this world so each city is gonna look out for itself and own best interest and whats gonna help it thrive.

huenthar
Jan 5, 2013, 2:49 AM
I notice from your past posts you tend to look at municipalities irrespective of each other in terms of how municipalities (and ultimately the region) function. Arbitrary municipal boundaries have little impact in this regard. Consider the region without these arbitrary boundaries and you'd see that there is no reason to have a town centre there considering the proximity to Whalley and Newton.

It isn't some fantasy sim city world where each city should have it's own downtown, stadium, shopping mall, university, etc. If you understand that cities and its people interact with each other region-wide, you'd realize there's no need for a town centre there.

It's a poor argument for a town centre just for the sake of North Delta having its own town centre without considering outside of its municipal borders.

Proximity to Newton and Whalley? What proximity? 80th ave and 120 st is further from Whalley and further from Newton than Brentwood is from Metrotown, than Metrotown is from Edmonds; it's comparable to the distance between downtown New West and Lougheed. (ball park estimates all :P )

I think there's plenty of room for a small "town center" in North Delta, although from a transportation standpoint Nordel Way would make more sense. In any case, a few towers do not a town centre make, and as pointed out point towers offer windows & views that mid-rises don't, things that buyers value highly.

GMasterAres
Jan 5, 2013, 9:40 AM
I notice from your past posts you tend to look at municipalities irrespective of each other in terms of how municipalities (and ultimately the region) function. Arbitrary municipal boundaries have little impact in this regard. Consider the region without these arbitrary boundaries and you'd see that there is no reason to have a town centre there considering the proximity to Whalley and Newton.

It isn't some fantasy sim city world where each city should have it's own downtown, stadium, shopping mall, university, etc. If you understand that cities and its people interact with each other region-wide, you'd realize there's no need for a town centre there.

It's a poor argument for a town centre just for the sake of North Delta having its own town centre without considering outside of its municipal borders.

Unfortunately the regional argument doesn't come into play and never will. Delta doesn't get taxes from Surrey and vice versa. So telling Delta Council and citizens they can't increase density and add more housing for their city + gain more tax base, and build a potential town center just because Surrey beat them to it just wouldn't fly.

And heck I'm a Surrey citizen. I'd love to see a tower like this built in Central Surrey to add to the downtown build up. But I can understand why Delta doesn't care.

I guess the question is, why shouldn't Delta which has stagnant population growth, want to increase their population and tax base? Why should the city lose out because it happens to sit next to Surrey?

And regarding Whalley and Newton... Newton has let's count it, 0 towers. That area of Delta already has 2. I'd argue they have the upper hand when it comes to densification. I guess I fall into the regional plan skeptic club. It always seems to just follow what is already happening and doesn't provide anything new. And let's face it, very few cities actually follow it. Take Vancouver for example. If you read the regional plan for Metro Vancouver to 2040, it states quite clearly that in Vancouver densification is to only happen downtown and at Oakridge. So any towers built on Kingsway, or the densification along Cambie being planed, or heck the Marine Gateway project are all contrary to the regional plan. So if Vancouver is allowed to do whatever it wants as do all the other cities, can't see an issue with Delta doing it. And Brentwood heck is classified as a municipal town center. I don't know very many "municipal town centers" that warrant 50+ storey towers. Because it isn't classified a "Regional Center" should Burnaby only be allowed to construct 30 storey towers everywhere? Let's get real here.

GMasterAres
Jan 5, 2013, 9:43 AM
:haha: That scenario makes my sides hurt. If that were the case, the whole community would be in an uproar. South Delta is, in my opinion, the "capital city" of NIMBYs in Vancouver.

It can't be. Community plans for both don't allow much height. Tsawwassen maxes out at 6 storey and Ladner is something like 3 or 4 max.

squeezied
Jan 5, 2013, 12:12 PM
Unfortunately the regional argument doesn't come into play and never will. Delta doesn't get taxes from Surrey and vice versa. So telling Delta Council and citizens they can't increase density and add more housing for their city + gain more tax base, and build a potential town center just because Surrey beat them to it just wouldn't fly.

And heck I'm a Surrey citizen. I'd love to see a tower like this built in Central Surrey to add to the downtown build up. But I can understand why Delta doesn't care.

I guess the question is, why shouldn't Delta which has stagnant population growth, want to increase their population and tax base? Why should the city lose out because it happens to sit next to Surrey?

And regarding Whalley and Newton... Newton has let's count it, 0 towers. That area of Delta already has 2. I'd argue they have the upper hand when it comes to densification. I guess I fall into the regional plan skeptic club. It always seems to just follow what is already happening and doesn't provide anything new. And let's face it, very few cities actually follow it. Take Vancouver for example. If you read the regional plan for Metro Vancouver to 2040, it states quite clearly that in Vancouver densification is to only happen downtown and at Oakridge. So any towers built on Kingsway, or the densification along Cambie being planed, or heck the Marine Gateway project are all contrary to the regional plan. So if Vancouver is allowed to do whatever it wants as do all the other cities, can't see an issue with Delta doing it. And Brentwood heck is classified as a municipal town center. I don't know very many "municipal town centers" that warrant 50+ storey towers. Because it isn't classified a "Regional Center" should Burnaby only be allowed to construct 30 storey towers everywhere? Let's get real here.

You and Whalleyboy misconstrue things. Objection to a town centre isn’t an objection to density. I never objected to increased density at that location. A town centre is much more than just residential towers.

As defined by Metro Vancouver:
Urban Centres [an umbrella term for the metro core, regional city centres, and municipal town centres] are intended to be the region’s primary focal points for concentrated growth and transit service. They are intended as priority locations for employment and services, higher density housing, commercial, cultural, entertainment, institutional and mixed uses.

So yes the regional argument does come into play when talking about town centres, afterall Metro Vancouver is a regional governing body. There's a good reason SoF isn't saturated with more town centres than it can support. The existing SoF town centres already have a hard time attaining those things defined above. Office vacancies are already among the highest in the region; another new town centre isn't going to help the situation. The existing town centres have sufficient room to absorb growth and other amenities. There also isn't much potential for a town centre at 80th and Scott Rd; it’s a relatively small retail area hemmed in by residential buildings in cul-de-sacs that aren't likely going to be redeveloped. There are better candidates for potential town centres elsewhere in the region.

Lastly the Regional Growth Strategy, which I assume you’re referring to, makes no claims about densification happening only in designated urban centres. What it does say is focusing and prioritizing growth in designated urban centres and frequent transit development areas. All those examples you listed are within the frequent transit development areas and are not contrary to the regional growth strategy.

jlousa
Jan 5, 2013, 6:09 PM
The developers own plans were originally for two more modest towers. IMO two or heck even 3 towers in the 12-14 storey range would fit in better do more for the urban fabric and provide just as much and perhaps even more density.
And I agree completely with you that the stray towers along Kingsway (King Ed Vil/The Hills) are out of place as is the Marine Gateway/MC2 and the ridiculous height being proposed at Brentwood Centre. That said, I have no problem with density being landed at all those places, just feel the same way that it should've taken a different massing.

GMasterAres
Jan 7, 2013, 9:40 AM
Ok so the argument then is that it shouldn't be 37 storeys high. I guess my question is why? Is it simply aesthetic, seeing a single tower out in the middle of nowhere?

I guess my issue is I just don't quite understand the opposition here for such a tower. For Jlousa I'm now seeing it is height purely. For others, a claim of regional growth? In both cases I guess my question is what is the magic number? It just seems so completely subjective.

If 37 is too much, is 30 too high? What about 25 floors? Or 20? Where is the mark where it is acceptable there in your eyes. And if 14 is ok, what if the proposal was 4 towers 14 floors high? Or 4 20 high. What about 8 14 floors high? Or 20 towers 20 floors high? When does the "it's too high" call convert over to "It's too dense" call?

I know I'm being a bit over the top but really what is the argument?

Is it purely a "I shouldn't see it from Burnaby" argument combined with a "Nothing big should be built south of Fraser unless it is in Surrey Central." argument? If this proposal was in Newton would it be acceptable? What about Langley? How about Maple Ridge? Coquitlam had a few smatterings of tiny towers just 7 or 8 years ago then suddenly built a pile of massive towers of this height. Didn't see anyone complaining about that. Was it because it was as has been pointed out, a regional town center? Why does Coquitlam with not a huge amount more population that Delta get a town center with multiple 30 storey towers?

I'd just like to figure out the logic in the arguments.

And in the grand scheme of 'regional growth strategy', a project like this will bring something like 420 new units to that area, if you have 2 people per unit that is 840 new residents.

When you put 840 new people compared to 2500000 people, it doesn't seem like such a major impact on the region from a growth standpoint. I mean let's face it Surrey adds more than that to the region per month and this project will take years to be completed.

Pinion
Jan 7, 2013, 12:26 PM
Ok so the argument then is that it shouldn't be 37 storeys high. I guess my question is why? Is it simply aesthetic, seeing a single tower out in the middle of nowhere?

I guess my issue is I just don't quite understand the opposition here for such a tower. For Jlousa I'm now seeing it is height purely. For others, a claim of regional growth? In both cases I guess my question is what is the magic number? It just seems so completely subjective.

If 37 is too much, is 30 too high? What about 25 floors? Or 20? Where is the mark where it is acceptable there in your eyes. And if 14 is ok, what if the proposal was 4 towers 14 floors high? Or 4 20 high. What about 8 14 floors high? Or 20 towers 20 floors high? When does the "it's too high" call convert over to "It's too dense" call?

I know I'm being a bit over the top but really what is the argument?

Is it purely a "I shouldn't see it from Burnaby" argument combined with a "Nothing big should be built south of Fraser unless it is in Surrey Central." argument? If this proposal was in Newton would it be acceptable? What about Langley? How about Maple Ridge? Coquitlam had a few smatterings of tiny towers just 7 or 8 years ago then suddenly built a pile of massive towers of this height. Didn't see anyone complaining about that. Was it because it was as has been pointed out, a regional town center? Why does Coquitlam with not a huge amount more population that Delta get a town center with multiple 30 storey towers?

I'd just like to figure out the logic in the arguments.

And in the grand scheme of 'regional growth strategy', a project like this will bring something like 420 new units to that area, if you have 2 people per unit that is 840 new residents.

When you put 840 new people compared to 2500000 people, it doesn't seem like such a major impact on the region from a growth standpoint. I mean let's face it Surrey adds more than that to the region per month and this project will take years to be completed.

Agree with you 100%. There's a similar debate about the 32 storey development in Seylynn on the North Shore. The council wanted to lower it to 28 storeys, like that mattered somehow (but then backed off when that meant taking away amenities).

I don't understand how people can be pro-density but a 30-something storey tower is somehow unacceptable. We're not talking about the Burj Khalifa in Delta.