Surrey/South Fraser Updates

[logan5]

:previous:It's hard to imagine Surrey developing a CBD, even considering Metro Vans linear growth pattern. Toronto is nearly 3 times the size of Vancouver and it still only has 1 CBD. Same with New York City. (correct me if I'm wrong) If there were a 2nd CBD to develop in Metro Van, I see Metrotown as having more potential than Surrey considering its central location in the Skytrain system and the fact that it's in the center of our urban area. IMO of coarse.

[squeezied]

I believe NY has two CBDs: Midtown an lower Manhattan. But the two are relatively close in proximity.

Likewise, it's hard to see the region's second metro core being in Surrey. Metrotown would be more appropriate as it's geographically central for the region's population. Proximity to downtown's CBD is quite important too if the towncentres want commerce rather than just condos and retail.

[officedweller]

The best local example would be Seattle and Bellevue.

Planners want Surrey to be a new core so Valley commuters do not need to cross a bridge to get there.

[Whalleyboy]

:previous:It's hard to imagine Surrey developing a CBD, even considering Metro Vans linear growth pattern. Toronto is nearly 3 times the size of Vancouver and it still only has 1 CBD. Same with New York City. (correct me if I'm wrong) If there were a 2nd CBD to develop in Metro Van, I see Metrotown as having more potential than Surrey considering its central location in the Skytrain system and the fact that it's in the center of our urban area. IMO of coarse.

actually if you look more on a map central is much more central to the whole region then metrotown. Plus as stated its easier for the fraser valley folks too to get to surrey then cross the river

[GMasterAres]

Yes Surrey is technically dead center of the Metro area if you count Langley to the edge of Abbotsford. If you include Abbotsford into the region then Surrey becomes the no brainer as a regional center.

http://www.bcgolfpages.com/images/SurreyCentral.jpg if you want a map example. I'm a bit past the border of Abbotsford but you can see how central it is. Population central it isn't though which is what I think confuses people.

Surrey = Geographical center NOT population center
Burnaby is probably more population central, but our lovely Fraser River makes geography very important for traffic movement

Remember though the concept for downtown Surrey regionally wasn't to displace Downtown Vancouver OR Metrotown. It was to build a downtown central busines district for the fraser valley.

I think eventually if the plans progress to completion you'll see the Abbotsford Airport linked to downtown Surrey the way YVR is to Vancouver. The hopes are that businesses from Surrey to Chilliwack will see Surrey as the "Downtown" whereas from Vancouver to Coquitlam will see Vancouver as the "Downtown". Kind of splitting the region into 2 main cities regions of Metro Vancouver and Metro Surrey.

I think it may take 100 years for that to be complete if it ever is complete but that's what the regional design was looking for and what Surrey has been aiming for mainly. That doesn't remove the fact that the article is right that you have to start with the roads, even though ironically the article writer seems to have missed the fact it is a "6-lane King George Boulvard" unless I fell asleep and in that time it was not only widened but had its name reverted back to 2 years ago.

[squeezied]

As mentioned above, geographic centre is not the same as population centre. Whalleyboy, we had this conversation before a while back. A bunch of arbitrary lines to define the boundaries of a region skews a lot of things. Look at google maps without labels and boundaries, only looking at the built-up areas and it becomes obvious Metrotown is the most central. You could say Surrey Central is the centre of the region if you place equal weight on farmlands and built-up areas, but that would show how little you know.

[Whalleyboy]

I missed the urban populaton part at the start. I do understand its not centre for majority of the population. Althoug with majority of growth coming south of the fraser and NE section Surrey is alot more easier for most to get to then Vancouver in these areas. Now that we got the golden ears bridge makes maple ridge and pitt meadows entry to surrey alot easier. Then add the fact ones the port man is done it will help connectins between surrey and coquitlam. Eventually the pattullo bridge is even going to be replace help make central easier to get for those in new west and south east burnaby. Plus with the SFPR getting put in its gonna be a breeze for those in even richmond to get to central since they have a nice hwy drive all the way there.

But to add good reasons why surrey make a good location for a second metro core over burnaby besides geogrphy. Surrey has alot of intersecting major road/hwy ways heading to and around it in the works. With that central becomes a much more accessible area then Vancouver for alot of people. Also you can take the fact alot of bussiness up here do come from USA and with Surrey being on the boarder helps those working in US companys with easy travel back and forth. Also its right in the middle of two international airports which can help with shipping. Then to throw on top of that Surrey has its own docks on the fraser river which are the largest of its kind on the whole west coast of north america.

But anyways all i'm trying to point out is Surrey central is a good location for the pick of being the second metro now not argueing geography of any sort. Althought i have a map of comparing travel times with surrey and vancouver from the citys around here i'm way to lazy to do burnaby lol

But I really hope one day both Surrey and Vancouver can work together and be great sister city in one major metro area. with Vancouver being home to those NoF/north shore while Surrey looks after the Sof/valley area.

[twoNeurons]

Surrey's kind of like Vancouver's New Jersey or Brooklyn.

As for Toronto. Isn't North York somewhat of a CBD?

Toronto's also built differently, remember...

[GMasterAres]

As mentioned above, geographic centre is not the same as population centre. Whalleyboy, we had this conversation before a while back. A bunch of arbitrary lines to define the boundaries of a region skews a lot of things. Look at google maps without labels and boundaries, only looking at the built-up areas and it becomes obvious Metrotown is the most central. You could say Surrey Central is the centre of the region if you place equal weight on farmlands and built-up areas, but that would show how little you know.

I actually beg to differ on population centralization. In the mind it may seem somewhat true or if on Google Maps you draw circles around both of exact size (distance) but you're missing reality here. You're missing the fact that you can't COMPLETELY disregard geography. There's more than just looking at a map and drawing 2 circles then going "lawl look guyz more people in this circle!"

Burnaby is greographically closer to Vancouver so much so that if Metrotown Mall wasn't in central burnaby there would be 0 reason to go there due to the close proximity to Downtown Vancouver. That is the first point you have to take into account. You don't think so? Where is Telus, a major Metrotown business, moving? Oh that's right, downtown Vancouver. The two compete with each other 100%.

So a large portion of population west of Metrotown will select downtown Vancouver over Metrotown so you can't really count it as being a downtown for that group even if your magic circle includes all of Vancouver.

Second point, on the flip side if we just look at straight population ACCESS then again your argument isn't as "cut and dry" as you may think. For Metrotown you have to completely disregard North and West Vancouver. Again your circle may include them but access wise there isn't a chance anyone there would select Metrotown over Downtown Vancouver. Maybe a fringe group out near Seymour Mountain but the bulk of those two cities are built around getting across to downtown Vancouver.

So now you have let's say 1/2 the population of Vancouver + the population of Burnaby + the population of New West Minster and 1/3 the population of Coquitlam.

Note: population numbers based on 2006.

289020 + 202799 + 58549 + 38188 = 588556 people in a reasonable circle around Metrotown.

Now let's look at Surrey. We have the population of Surrey + the population of New Westminster + the population of Langley + the population of Delta + 1/3 the population of Coquitlam within the same circle. What does that look like people wise?

394976 + 58549 + 117332 (Langley City + District) + 101668 + 38188 = 710713.

So in that same circle "Downtown Surrey" actually has access to at least 100,000 people more or basically half the population of Burnaby itself. Keep in mind those are also 2006 population numbers. In the last 5 years population growth south of fraser has out-paced north of fraser so I think that number this year will be greater (closer to 150,000 people spread). And I think I was being generous with giving Burnaby half of Vancouver's population. The bulk of Vancouver's population is actually centred around Downtown Vancouver so it is probably closer to 1/4. Coquitlam could be argued I guess too.

That also doesn't include people from say Maple Ridge (population 69,000) who have fairly easy access to downtown Surrey (Golden Ears Bridge along 96th straight into downtown). Takes about 20 minutes at most by car on a bad day. Try driving from Main Street to Metrotown in 20 minutes during the day. Good luck. And you have to disregard Skytrain access because if I can get to the Skytrain in Vancouver, why would I go to Metrotown vs just to Downtown Vancouver? Unless I'm going to the mall itself for some reason there is no reason to.

So again your argument about population doesn't really hold true in reality. Surrey pretty much wins the population debate and it completely wins the geography debate. I excluded Richmond for both because with Canada Line it is really linked to Downtown Vancouver.

*shrug*

[SpongeG]

most people i know in surrey barely cross the river they stay on the southside of the fraser and prefer it that way

[LeftCoaster]

We all prefer it that way :D

[CoryHolmes]

We all prefer it that way :D

I'm too busy chuckling to be offended :cheers:

[xd_1771]

The new 399 b-line along with the new bus link(s) from Guildford across the new PMB to Coquitlam (though I'd rather see the 399 being extended to go through Guildford, to have a single and powerful north-south line running Coquitlam-Guildford-Whalley-Newton-White Rock) will create a new and, as I presume, popular regional transit service - and along with expansions along the 502 and the addition of the rapidbus, will put Surrey City Centre truly in the centre of everything and make it one of the most accessible city centres from all directions. Ideally we would want to expand the Skytrain system with a new line along both this important (and long) north-south corridor as well as along the Fraser Hwy corridor in the future.

[Whalleyboy]

So Fed Ex is looking to move to the South westminster industrial area of Surrey. Right on Scott road
http://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/PLR_7911-0128-00.pdf

[xd_1771]

So Fed Ex is looking to move to the South westminster industrial area of Surrey. Right on Scott road
http://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/PLR_7911-0128-00.pdf

Ooh, that'd be a big plus with the SFPR being right next door.

[Whalleyboy]

So i went for a walk through holland park today. I just noitced they have the concession now open. The city has a 3 year contract with the people running it. Its gonna be open all summer and parts of fall and spring. Also they have the play park for kids in there now. Can't lie i kinda want to play on it how cool it was.

[invisibleairwaves]

So i went for a walk through holland park today. I just noitced they have the concession now open. The city has a 3 year contract with the people running it. Its gonna be open all summer and parts of fall and spring. Also they have the play park for kids in there now. Can't lie i kinda want to play on it how cool it was.

I have to say, for all the complaining I do about Surrey, they definitely did a good job with Holland Park. Once the area around it (and especially the houses on the south side) gets built up a bit more, it'll be a really cool place.

[Whalleyboy]

You can tell what they have done with holland park has had a postive effect with how many people you see walking around there on just a normal day. They've also add some cool little tables with built in checker boards. I also saw the city had volunteers who would be walking around the park and city centre kinda keeping an eye out on things. Its actually a great idea kinda cheap security =P

[Whalleyboy]

here i filmed a video on the park today with my phone you can see how well its doing
http://youtu.be/a99IWGjSxn0
also sorry for all the shaking i was rollerblading. Also it turns the right way part way in

[logan5]

Nice park actually. Pure fantasy, but having some cool little restaurants and retail along Old Yale Rd would really compliment the park, and vice versa. What a perfect spot to sit out on a patio (with a beer) and enjoy the view of the park.

[Whalleyboy]

well there still hope that a little pub could go on the other side where the houses are currently sitting

[geoff's two cents]

It would appear a new hotel/convention centre/office/condominium complex is in the works for Surrey City Centre, in addition to the long-rumoured SFU dormitory just to the south. I didn't read the documents too closely, but it would appear that SFU is somehow involved. There are repeated references to the MOU between the two parties. If this actually happens, SFU would benefit from the conference facilities, and the city would benefit enormously from having a downtown hotel that isn't an eyesore.

It's nice to see some height here (33 floors), as well as the fact that the city is going for a mixed-use model - i.e. using the more profitable residential component to help pay for the (less profitable) office and (riskier) hotel components.

If this progresses, this will also be worth watching to see if the city's modus operandi of intervening directly in the market by developing a profit-oriented building (as opposed to the civic facilities) actually pays dividends. Since the city itself is involved, I'd also expect some higher-quality architecture in later renderings - though I do like the fact that what's there at present at least appears to meet the street nicely.

Anyone familiar with this project who can weigh in on how far along it is, the chances of it going forward, etc.? I'm looking at you, paradigm4 and whalleyboy.

Concept rendering: http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff436/geoffbil/Screenshot2011-08-01at82339PM.png

Project Summary: http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff436/geoffbil/Screenshot2011-08-01at83151PM.png

The project in question is distinguished here from the proposed SFU dorm: http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff436/geoffbil/Screenshot2011-08-01at82110PM.png

Site photo: http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff436/geoffbil/Screenshot2011-08-01at81906PM.png

Site map: http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff436/geoffbil/Screenshot2011-08-01at81406PM.png

Schedule: http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff436/geoffbil/Screenshot2011-08-01at81654PM.png

Rendering of proposed SFU student dormitory just to the south you've likely already seen: http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff436/geoffbil/Screenshot2011-08-01at82359PM.png

Note: The document is entitled "SFU Redidence," so it's a little hard to take 100% seriously. I'm guessing the project is in a very early planning stage.

There's some other stuff of interest here as well. Here's a shot I think I've seen elsewhere of the city-owned property on 104th: http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff436/geoffbil/Screenshot2011-08-01at85257PM.png

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff436/geoffbil/Screenshot2011-08-01at85320PM.png


Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/59218393/Sfu-Residence-Project-Eng

[paradigm4]

Well I just read through the document and it seems more like an information package outlining some offshore investment/development opportunities than any solid project. The City doesn't own that land to the best of my knowledge and in fact is looking at extending 103 Ave through those properties. This doesn't seem connected to the SFU residences either and the overall text seems confused about the development process. I wouldn't put much weight into it.

[Whalleyboy]

I havent seen that one myself. The only hotel I jnew of that was in planning a while back for central area was the 9 storey one on whalley blvd right by the canadian tire.

Looking at this project it does look to get in the way of where the city plans build it roads. Although i wonder if this might be the second phase of the SFU buildings since the orginal plan was to have both a 13 storey and 24 storey building. They've already increase the 13 storey building to 15. so maybe they want to change their 24 to a bigger building and try and get more use out of it adding hotel and office space.

[geoff's two cents]

Well I just read through the document and it seems more like an information package outlining some offshore investment/development opportunities than any solid project. The City doesn't own that land to the best of my knowledge and in fact is looking at extending 103 Ave through those properties. This doesn't seem connected to the SFU residences either and the overall text seems confused about the development process. I wouldn't put much weight into it.

I'm sure you're right about it being simply a preliminary outline for investors (that might account for the rather unprofessional formatting, as well as the bolded "Investment Attraction" on the "project schedule").

However, based on the "site map" I posted from the documents, I don't see how extending 103 Ave here would impact this property at all. After all, the block sits at the corner of Uni Blvd and 103A Ave. It doesn't stand in the way of any road extensions I'm aware of - unless of course the city is planning on shifting 103A Ave 10m to the south.;)

[Diet Butcher]

On that note, does anyone have an update on the SFU Residence? It seems like we haven't heard anything on it in awhile?

[Whalleyboy]

So i just noticed service canada for where you apply for EI has also moved to the city centre from newton.

[SpongeG]

nice, I heard that they are trying to get all EI and employment related services under one roof, but still maintaining separate offices, it includes outside agencies like wage subsidy and case workers etc. so they probably needed a bigger space

[CoryHolmes]

So I just finally noticed that the 7-11 and Rogers Video in the 102/KGB minimall closed down. I have no idea when, but seeing both close down at the same time makes me wonder if any project or building is going up there. Anyone have any clue or am I just raving like a madman again?

[WaxItYourself]

So I just finally noticed that the 7-11 and Rogers Video in the 102/KGB minimall closed down. I have no idea when, but seeing both close down at the same time makes me wonder if any project or building is going up there. Anyone have any clue or am I just raving like a madman again?

They closed because the owner raised the rent too much. I'm not sure how much or what they raised it too though. There are plans to build a tower there with a CIBC at the bottom.

http://www.bozyk.com/HTML/CtrofSurrey.html

[CoryHolmes]

There are plans to build a tower there with a CIBC at the bottom.

http://www.bozyk.com/HTML/CtrofSurrey.html

Much of the woot.

[red-paladin]

They closed because the owner, CIBC, raised the rent too much. I'm not sure how much or what they raised it too though. There are plans to build a tower there with a CIBC at the bottom.

http://www.bozyk.com/HTML/CtrofSurrey.html

http://www.bozyk.com/IMAGES/Commercial/CenterofSurrey/CtrofSurrey_image03.jpg (From the site above)

That is actually, surprisingly nice!

[Diet Butcher]

Do we know what the current status of this building is? Have they submitted anything to the City?

[Whalleyboy]

I've yet to see anything proposed to the city yet. But they probably where waiting for 7/11 and rogers to clear out of the area. I am hoping next central development map they put out it will be on it. But if i see anything on council reports i'll make sure to say soemthing

[Whalleyboy]

So looking at there maps of surrey from july 25 2011 i came across where they plan on having mix used buildings....i have to say i am very displease they are trying to us king george and 104 as there main retail roads. They dont even touch city park way. I sent them a message saying they should real look into using city park way over king george as its a calmer street and more likely will get people to walk along it

anyways heres the maps they've for the city centre aproved on july 2011
Surrey City Centre Land Use and Density Concept
http://www.surrey.ca/files/City_Centre_Land_Use_Concept_Appendix_I.pdf
Surrey City Centre Building Height Concept
http://www.surrey.ca/files/City_Centre_Building_Heights_Concept_Appendix_II.pdf
Surrey City Centre Road Width Concept
http://www.surrey.ca/files/CityCentre_Road_Width_Concept_Appendix_III.pdf
Surrey City Centre Road Network Concept
http://www.surrey.ca/files/CityCentre_Road_Network_Appendix_V.pdf

[GMasterAres]

So looking at there maps of surrey from july 25 2011 i came across where they plan on having mix used buildings....i have to say i am very displease they are trying to us king george and 104 as there main roads. They dont even touch city park way. I sent them a message saying they should real look into using city park way over king george as its a calmer street and more likely will get people to walk along it

anyways heres the maps they've for the city centre aproved on july 2011
Surrey City Centre Land Use and Density Concept
http://www.surrey.ca/files/City_Centre_Land_Use_Concept_Appendix_I.pdf
Surrey City Centre Building Height Concept
http://www.surrey.ca/files/City_Centre_Building_Heights_Concept_Appendix_II.pdf
Surrey City Centre Road Width Concept
http://www.surrey.ca/files/CityCentre_Road_Width_Concept_Appendix_III.pdf
Surrey City Centre Road Network Concept
http://www.surrey.ca/files/CityCentre_Road_Network_Appendix_V.pdf

Remember downtown Surrey isn't just for downtown Surrey. They have to also consider the main routes to get into downtown Surrey in selecting major roads. 104th and KGB just make sense.

A vast majority of traffic to the city come long these routes. Fraser Highway is another major route in. 96th is on the very edge so while it is the last major route in it isn't a major road for downtown (being on the edge and all).

So we come back to KGB and 104th. KGB is the major north-south route. It connects all the way to the border through Newton and South Surrey then North via the Patullo to New West and beyond.

104th is the major east-west route. To the west it will connect directly to the SFPR at Tannery Road (look for a 104th upgrade from city center through to Tannery Road when the SFPR is completed). And east it cuts straight through Guildford connecting to HWY1 and Fraser Heights.

96th is your main connection to Golden Ears. And Fraser Highway your main connection to Langley via Fleetwood and East Clayton.

But if you're looking just for downtown Surrey major routes it has to be KGB and 104th. They're no brainers. Will they be the major pedestrian roads? Probably not. Just like in downtown Vancouver you have more people walking on Robson than you do Georgia yet Georgia is a "major road". Same thing on Granville where most people walk that yet traffic wise it is Seymour and Howe for cars. Same thing here. Look at all the 'major roads' designated in downtown Vancouver and see if they are pedestrian roads. Howe, Seymour, Georgia, Dunsmuir, Smithe, Nelson, Burrard, and Pacific. Where do most people walk? Davie, Denman, Robson, Granville, Mainland, etc.

Most likely you'll see 104th and KGB maintaining as major roads for cars and other vehicular traffic but City Parkway, University Blvd., and Walley Blvd. will become more major pedestrian traffic routes. 102 vs 104 same deal.

[Whalleyboy]

I ment to add main retail roads to my thing there. I know thee gonna stay major traffic roads which i have no problem with and its obvious why they both are major roads. What i mean is i'm displease to see is that they are putting all there mixed use building on what has to be is central to busy car routes. They should be looking to build retail streets of these roads and on roads beside them like city park way. But instead they build along them thinking the pedistrians will want to walk along them which they wont as there to busy with traffic. you need calmer area for people to want to walk along.

[GMasterAres]

Have to agree with you there. There is a difference between Highway Retail and Pedestrian Retail. Surrey has been built on Highway Retail since the beginning. This new notion of Pedestrian Retail may be throwing them a bit for a loop.

I agree though retail streets should not be car centric. Again Robson and Davie as examples in Vancouver. They are hardly car friendly but that's where a lot of retail is located. Same with Denman. Driving Denman sucks big time so most people avoid it and use Burrard to get to Georgia.

But the retail is on Denman.

[Whalleyboy]

I actually messaged them saying they should relook into there map and look into using city park way since there is already retail along it there gonna strech it past the mall. plus the fact that it has skytrain stations all along it so there stops at both ends and easy access. I think more should message them telling themt to look into it so they get the point

[officedweller]

Yeah, that's the difference between Richmond, which is trying to "tame" No. 3 Rd. and Burnaby, which @ Brentwood Town Centre, is focussing retail on Dawson St., one block over from Lougheed Highway.

Also akin to Georgia St. and Robson st. - each serves a different function.

[GMasterAres]

I actually messaged them saying they should relook into there map and look into using city park way since there is already retail along it there gonna strech it past the mall. plus the fact that it has skytrain stations all along it so there stops at both ends and easy access. I think more should message them telling themt to look into it so they get the point

Let us know if you get any response from them. Would be nice to know the reasoning why they would designated it that way.

[Whalleyboy]

why not to do the same and message them yourself to so they get the point they're going about it all wrong.

[Whalleyboy]

Surrey has reply to the article about south surrey joining white rock

http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/surreyleader/news/127491643.html

[delboy]

Surrey has reply to the article about south surrey joining white rock

http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/surreyleader/news/127491643.html

I agree with this. The notion of south surrey joining with WR is laughable. WR should join with Surrey, not the other way around.

I also agree that the present state of muncipal govts here is broken. North Vancity/ North Van Disctrict...Langley City/Langley Township....Coquitlam/Poco.....

As evident with the new regional growth strategy, concessions had to be made for particular cities that served their needs and not those of the entire region....

[metroXpress]

New Surrey library to lend people out as ‘living books’
By LAURA KANE, Vancouver Sun August 16, 2011

**Click for a picture: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Surrey+library+lend+people+living+books/5264053/story.html

Gone are the days of rummaging through card catalogues and dusty shelves. The new Surrey City Centre library will be home to a “human library,” with people on loan as living books.

Surrey’s $36 million library, set to open at the end of the month, will allow users to “check out” people and pick their brains about their experiences with blindness, immigration, religion or a disability, among other things. The goal is to break down stereotypes and start discussions, said deputy chief librarian Melanie Houlden.

“What we’re aiming to do is bring the library to life for people. There are huge repositories of experience and knowledge in their own brains,” she said.

People with various personal experiences have already agreed to volunteer, she said. Users will be able to request an “expert” and chat over a cup of coffee in the library’s new cafe.

The idea began in Europe and has already been successfully applied at Coquitlam Public Library and Douglas College, she said.

A human library is not the only new feature coming to the Surrey facility. Now that e-readers can store hundreds of novels, libraries must branch out from being mere book warehouses, Houlden said.

“We’re really talking about community in a way we never have before,” she said. The library will also offer free tutorials on using computers and social media, a teen lounge and a planned volunteer-tutor program for youth.

The library will house 100,000 items for loan, including books, DVDs and 20 e-readers, she said. A large kids’ area on the ground floor has spaces for play and storytelling, and a world-languages area offers items in 16 languages, including Arabic, Mandarin and Punjabi.

Vancouver-based architect Bing Thom designed the 77,000-square-foot glass and concrete building, which features tilted walls, spiralling white staircases and large windows.

“Libraries are sanctuaries,” Thom said. “They are people’s universities. It’s a place for self-learning, but it’s also a place for people to come together.”

Certified by the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program, the building boasts a number of green features, including a green roof and energy-efficient taps and light fixtures.

The library, at 10350 University Drive, is part of the $2 billion Surrey city centre revitalization project, which will also bring a new city hall and community plaza to the area.

lkane@vancouversun.comtwitter.com/ellekane

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun


Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Surrey+library+lend+people+living+books/5264053/story.html#ixzz1VID7JnOy

[metroXpress]

A media tour was held at the new Central City Library yesterday. Civic Surrey has a great blog post with LOTS of photos.

http://www.civicsurrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/scclibtour34-500x375.jpg


Check it out: http://www.civicsurrey.com/2011/08/16/photo-tour-of-the-city-centre-library/#more-2527

[go_leafs_go02]

Not exactly brand new, but a cool vid showing the lighting on the two new Pedestrian overpasses on both Highway 99 at 35 Avenue and Highway 1 at 168 Street:

ntVCwLgbEyY

[SpongeG]

cool stuff - will be nice on the cold grey dark rainy winter days

[Whalleyboy]

I showed alot of people pictures of those bridges and a few replys have been there to good for surrey they should be in Vancouver.
But i really like how Surrey is pushing these artistic kinda things these bridges for one are great along with the urban wall on the chuck baileys centre to everything in holland park. Surrey is really starting to grow into a real artistic place

[go_leafs_go02]

To be honest, I wish they'd switch the Tynehead Bridge up with the one right on Johnston Hill.

That new bridge there is starting to look like a Detroit overpass, with chainlink fence up to the top and barbed wire at the top to stop suicides. Being a little overdramatic there, but you get the point. Imagine those colourful glowing arches when entering Surrey from the Port Mann? That would look super cool if you ask me....

[officedweller]

That new bridge there is starting to look like a Detroit overpass, with chainlink fence up to the top and barbed wire at the top to stop suicides. Being a little overdramatic there, but you get the point. Imagine those colourful glowing arches when entering Surrey from the Port Mann? That would look super cool if you ask me....

Yeah, I noticed that too.

[Whalleyboy]

So well looking around i came across a project by DA architects called the triangle it is located in central around gateway. But it is in the same location as the gateway office park. So I dont fully know whats going on

here is the over view
The concept for this Surrey, BC development is to provide a retail destination (260,000 square feet) that includes a significant residential component (400 units). The retail portion comprises street oriented mid-size users (5,000 to 10,000 square feet) and a few larger users (food store, fashion anchor, drug store).

This project is a regionally sensitive evolution of the Lifestyle Centre concept. The residential component consists of approximately 200 units located above the retail users along the street and approximately 200 units in 2 high rise towers oriented towards the project central public plaza. Continuous weather protection, a high level of pedestrian amenities, and the lively public plaza provide an interesting and animated pedestrian experience.
http://da-architects.ca/wp_2010/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/the_triangle_lg111.jpg
http://da-architects.ca/wp_2010/images/featuredprojects/large/the-triangle-mixed-use-lifestyle-centre/project.jpg
all this is from http://da-architects.ca/projects/the-triangle-mixed-use-lifestyle-centre/

[officedweller]

The only development I've ever heard of called "The Triangle" is in Port Coquitlam near Pitt River Bridge - and there is a "lifestyle" centre planned for that area.
I think the D/A website guys screwed up and the location and map were accidentally copied from the Gateway Towers project.

[Whalleyboy]

Well maybe but then they completely screwed up since the description talk about it being in surrey

[hollywoodnorth]

cool south of the fraser blog I found

http://www.southfraser.net/

he was on the news as well today

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Canada/BC/1258521056/ID=2148664694

[GMasterAres]

Well maybe but then they completely screwed up since the description talk about it being in surrey

They did screw up I'm pretty sure. The map even has the same address as the gateway tower project and the project size wouldnt even fit in that area.

[jlousa]

Found this interesting, probably doesnt' bode well for Berezan's grand vision.


Defendants: Ralph Berezan and 0810720 B.C. Ltd. 1455–126A St., Surrey
Plaintiff: Larco Investments Ltd. 1908–925 W. Georgia St., Vancouver
Claim: A declaration that Larco is entitled to keep deposits that Berezan made on condo units at the Residences at Morgan Crossing because Berezan failed to complete the purchase of the units

[amor de cosmos]

Like TransLink, Metro Vancouver has been doing their own study on regional growth and have their own take on how to help shape growth south of the Fraser, a take that includes transit. It’s called the Regional Growth Strategy: Metro Vancouver 2040.

I sat down with Christina DeMarco, the Manager of Regional Development with Metro Vancouver to get a better idea of the challenges the area faces in terms of development and transit as well as the role Metro Vancouver plays in what south of the Fraser will look like in 2040. For those of you who aren’t familiar with Metro Vancouver, I started the interview with some fundamental questions.
http://buzzer.translink.ca/index.php/2011/10/an-interview-with-metro-vancouvers-manager-of-development-christina-demarco/

[whalley13]

Interestingly, there is a bosa development sign on te olde brick site in front of the future city hall

[GMasterAres]

Interestingly, there is a bosa development sign on te olde brick site in front of the future city hall

Do you know the development number on the sign?

[whalley13]

Just a generic sign, 'bosa development coming soon'...i didnt see a code on it

[Whalleyboy]

Just a generic sign, 'bosa development coming soon'...i didnt see a code on it

usually i find best thing to do when you can't find anything on a project but you have a company name its best jsut to message them. Which i have done so if i hear anything back i shall let you know.

[webster]

usually i find best thing to do when you can't find anything on a project but you have a company name its best jsut to message them. Which i have done so if i hear anything back i shall let you know.

is it across the street from the new City Hall? on the north side of 104th?

I think that is City owned land as well - likely a partnership between Bosa and Surrey City Centre Development Corp

[theQ]

I looked on the Surrey City Development website to see if it mentioned anything about the site... I didn't find anything that mentioned "Bosa" but I did find this interesting quote:

SCDC is also involved in a joint venture with Century Group on a major mixed-use tower in the City Centre.

The Century Group is the group that built the CityPoint towers near Gateway and had planned to build the three Holland Point towers in Holland point.

It'd be great to see a mixed-use tower in the City Centre...

[theQ]

I just looked at the Century Group's website. It refers to "Holland Point" development:

The three towers are designed at differing heights and to support a varied number of housing types, including single- and multi-family apartments and condomiums, as well as a rich mix of retail suites, office areas and commercial spaces.

I'd forgotten that the Century Group had acquired that land this past spring. This must be the project that the SCDC was referring to. It'd be great if this project was started, AND if a new BOSA project is started near city hall AND if Concord Pacific starts building the old "Sky Tower" development... It looks like Downtown will go through another "boom" in the next few years!

[Whalleyboy]

I just looked at the Century Group's website. It refers to "Holland Point" development:



I'd forgotten that the Century Group had acquired that land this past spring. This must be the project that the SCDC was referring to. It'd be great if this project was started, AND if a new BOSA project is started near city hall AND if Concord Pacific starts building the old "Sky Tower" development... It looks like Downtown will go through another "boom" in the next few years!

I just looked at there site too. Call me crazy but look like newer renderings for pictures. I know it should think like this but i seem to have some more hope for those towers getting done again.
looks like we wont have to wait long to find out though
i saw this on there site
High-rise residential apartment buildings, ground residential townhouses and lower level mixed use retail, office and commercial space, construction beginning in late 2011 or early 2012. Design: Patrick Cotter Architect Inc

[LeftCoaster]

Those are definitely newer renderings, I remember this project from when I was working at Ledcor and we were working with different, older drawings. Same design but not as refined.

If I recall those drawings are from at least a year back though.

Does anyone know/remember the zoning status of the site?

[theQ]

Hopefully studies like this will encourage more office space to be built in Central City (Full Article Vancouver Sun http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Suburban+Vancouver+office+market+driven+rapid+transit+report/5563744/story.html

It concluded that the importance of having office space close to SkyTrain appears to be most pronounced in Surrey, where the vacancy rate for office space without rapid transit is 25 per cent, “yet buildings near the SkyTrain are a hot commodity, with a direct vacancy rate of just 0.4 per cent.”
The index noted that Central City, with 572,778 square feet of office space, is fully occupied.
“Gross occupancy costs for buildings with access to the SkyTrain are 33.3 per cent higher than the rest of the Surrey market,” the report added. “The combination of high occupancy costs and limited vacancy in buildings with rapid-transit access allows these landlords to negotiate aggressively by seeking high net rental rates and offering modest inducement packages.”

I thought that I remembered the first Holland Point development to be mostly
residential, whereas this new proposal states that it will have a "retail suites, office areas and commercial spaces." I'm also wondering/hoping that the new Bosa development will be office space.

[GMasterAres]

Guessing the Bosa development is still on the down low. Let us know if you hear anything from them. Nothing from the city though, nothing on COSMOS, and can't find anything about that location anywhere so it's funny.

Not even a permit to put that sign up it seems.

Fun times. I do certainly hope Holland Pointe gets built. Century Group seems to have a pretty good track record of getting things built and getting them built in a reasonable time. With Concord moving forward with 4 more towers and hopefully in the next year construction of the other 3 towers in that area (residential by CRA, medical where Knight and Day are, and the 1 across from the hospital), add Holland Pointe and the area is getting better and better.

_STILL_ need _MORE_ on the King George Bvd section between 100th and 108th though IMO. There seems to be too much focus around KGB and Gateway. Need more, much more, around Surrey Central and need to get rid of the darned parking lots at Central Surrey and across at the Canadian Tires. Should be 8-10+ mixed use high rises built there.

[officedweller]

The third render of Holland Pointe at the Century Group website shows that the taller tower has what appear to be banks of fluorescent lighting in the tower - i.e. office? (although there do appear to be more balconies than your average office tower)

http://centurygroup.ca/#/developments/holland-pointe

Teasers at the Patrick Cotter Architects website (55 storey City Centre mixed use project? (could be the tallest Holland Pointe tower)):

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

[Whalleyboy]

The third render of Holland Pointe at the Century Group website shows that the taller tower has what appear to be banks of fluorescent lighting in the tower - i.e. office? (although there do appear to be more balconies than your average office tower)

http://centurygroup.ca/#/developments/holland-pointe

Teasers at the Patrick Cotter Architects website (55 storey City Centre mixed use project? (could be the tallest Holland Pointe tower)):

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

Maybe its not all the towers that have offices. Maybe just the main tower will be the mixed use one. I just want these ones to get going already so surrey can reclaim tallest tower outside of Vancouver...stupid burnaby lol

[theQ]

I drove by the new Bosa sign yesterday... And it is BIG, it's not just a small, non-descript sign. The first sign I noticed was at the East edge of the old "Brick" property - which made me think that the property is about to get developed.

However, a block later there is another identical sign on the corner or University Drive and 104th avenue, located on the old d'Corous land. I know that this is city owned land and that they had been going to develop the d'Corous as a joint-venture of sorts before it got cancelled over 2 years ago.

My guess is that Bosa is now going to build a low-rise on the old d'Corous site, and that the sign in front of the Brick is simply a sign for that development. I've noticed before that developers sometimes have a few signs, blocks away, announcing their development... Here are pictures from my photobucket.

I'd really like to see the Brick land developed, but I'm almost equally happy to see the empty d'Corous land developed as well - it's been quite an eyesore!

http://i966.photobucket.com/albums/ae145/krohnk/bosabrick.jpg

http://i966.photobucket.com/albums/ae145/krohnk/bosauniversitydr.jpg

[webster]

I drove by the new Bosa sign yesterday... And it is BIG, it's not just a small, non-descript sign. The first sign I noticed was at the East edge of the old "Brick" property - which made me think that the property is about to get developed.

However, a block later there is another identical sign on the corner or University Drive and 104th avenue, located on the old d'Corous land. I know that this is city owned land and that they had been going to develop the d'Corous as a joint-venture of sorts before it got cancelled over 2 years ago.

My guess is that Bosa is now going to build a low-rise on the old d'Corous site, and that the sign in front of the Brick is simply a sign for that development. I've noticed before that developers sometimes have a few signs, blocks away, announcing their development... Here are pictures from my photobucket.

I'd really like to see the Brick land developed, but I'm almost equally happy to see the empty d'Corous land developed as well - it's been quite an eyesore!


Both those sites are City owned, and i wouldn't be surprised if Bosa is involved in both of them. I think you'll see a tower on the d'Corous site.

[theQ]

It'd be great if they built a tower on the old d'Corous site - I think the d'Corous was supposed to be a 4 story low-rise. I'd much rather see a tower! Hopefully you're right and they'll develop the Brick land at the same time... I'd sure like to see the area around the new city hall built up quickly...

[CoryHolmes]

It'd be great if they built a tower on the old d'Corous site - I think the d'Corous was supposed to be a 4 story low-rise. I'd much rather see a tower! Hopefully you're right and they'll develop the Brick land at the same time... I'd sure like to see the area around the new city hall built up quickly...

I thought it was going to be another low-rise/high-rise like the other side of University. Pity they didn't happen, I rather like the designs in both d'Cor and d'Corize (plus their sense of humour is par excellente :) )

[officedweller]

Please, no 4 storey low-rises in a downtown area!

[Whalleyboy]

Please, no 4 storey low-rises in a downtown area!
So you dont like quattro? or by dt do you mean the area right around central?

[nickinacan]

I am not sure if they can build a high rise on that corner due to the need to stagger the high rises so they can minimize the shadows during the day. I am sure if they got rid of that tower that already exists (Ted Kuhn Tower?) then they would be able to build one on that site. The only option I can see that would make sense would be on University Drive and 105th Avenue.

[Whalleyboy]

I am not sure if they can build a high rise on that corner due to the need to stagger the high rises so they can minimize the shadows during the day. I am sure if they got rid of that tower that already exists (Ted Kuhn Tower?) then they would be able to build one on that site. The only option I can see that would make sense would be on University Drive and 105th Avenue.

besides the new city hall is gonna be pretty much the same size as ted kuhn so really that tower already loses its view from that side.

[Whalleyboy]

also i was looking around and saw some 98b ave plans in the works again.

For those who don't know its the road thats suppose to go right beside king george skytrain station.

Personally i'm glad to see it back in the plans for being done. Its gonna be nice when Surrey is holding events at holland park and people dont have to walk all the way to 100th

[nickinacan]

also i was looking around and saw some 98b ave plans in the works again.

For those who don't know its the road thats suppose to go right beside king george skytrain station.

Personally i'm glad to see it back in the plans for being done. Its gonna be nice when Surrey is holding events at holland park and people dont have to walk all the way to 100th

Very true. I hope they follow through with developing a finer grid for SCC. The blocks as they are are not pedestrian friendly by any stretch of the imagination. I, as probably was discussed in many other threads, would love to see the Central City parking lot developed, with the access road between Old Yale and and 102 Avenue turned into an extension of the City Parkway. Maybe divide this land mass a couple of times to make it more walkable, then allow only high density mixed use development with business frontages staggered on both the City Parkway, the new streets and KGB.

[Whalleyboy]

There is another good thing that the road is getting done actually. Back before the olympics i asked the city why they didnt try and get the road done before the olympics started so when people came to the Surrey celebration site they would have to walk all the way to 100th. They told me that its cause that road was getting done by the people who were making holland pointe. but since it wasnt happening then the road wasnt getting done. So if the agreement is still there for that road its good sign that its getting done since holland pointe would be getting done too.

[nickinacan]

Yeah it really makes no sense to complete the road until everything is built. It would probably just become truck access for the time being anyways.

[Whalleyboy]

actually i think it would stop people from jay walking at king george station. I know the fence is there to try and stop people but they still do it.

[nickinacan]

Very true. That is a very long block. I am surprised they never stuck any pedestrian crossings there at all. Would have made sense to break up the block a bit.

[officedweller]

Edit - Moved to new thread

[tybuilding]

98B Ave extension and crossing is also an important connection of the BC Parkway trail extension see my Greenway map Master Plan of Greenways and Local Street Routes (http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?msid=200027337689478507084.00049fb99368db4bbfae9&msa=0&ll=49.180525,-122.838993&spn=0.036413,0.066175) or the Surrey Greenway Masterplan Surrey Greenway Masterplan (http://www.surrey.ca/files/Surrey_Greenways.pdf)

[theQ]

I wrote to Bosa and asked them about this development... I got an email back saying that "We anticipate that we will begin marketing this development late 2012; hence, at this time we do not have any marketing materials to provide."

I had asked if there was going to be one development or two, and the reply used the word "this development" - so it sounds like it's only going to be one development.

I also have kept checking their website for additional info, and just recently, Central City has been added on their website for "upcoming projects" http://www.bosaproperties.com/upcoming_projects.php?project=55

If anybody else has any information, please pass it along!
I drove by the new Bosa sign yesterday... And it is BIG, it's not just a small, non-descript sign. The first sign I noticed was at the East edge of the old "Brick" property - which made me think that the property is about to get developed.

However, a block later there is another identical sign on the corner or University Drive and 104th avenue, located on the old d'Corous land. I know that this is city owned land and that they had been going to develop the d'Corous as a joint-venture of sorts before it got cancelled over 2 years ago.

My guess is that Bosa is now going to build a low-rise on the old d'Corous site, and that the sign in front of the Brick is simply a sign for that development. I've noticed before that developers sometimes have a few signs, blocks away, announcing their development... Here are pictures from my photobucket.

I'd really like to see the Brick land developed, but I'm almost equally happy to see the empty d'Corous land developed as well - it's been quite an eyesore!

http://i966.photobucket.com/albums/ae145/krohnk/bosabrick.jpg

http://i966.photobucket.com/albums/ae145/krohnk/bosauniversitydr.jpg

[GMasterAres]

If it is 1 development, it would have to be a large one. It's quite an extensive sized bit of land they are advertising as being part of "the development." Not sure if anyone else has better connections with Bosa to get a bit more details or not. Would be interesting to know.

Regardless the lots are seperated right now if the extent is really from University Drive to almost KGB. They'd have to go through a process of getting the lots adjusted. Maybe a couple of high rise developments? Could also be a large scale mixed use development project.

They couldn't get Semiahmoo done so maybe they want to do similar in Surrey Central minus the mall component.

[hollywoodnorth]

interesting Rafi project in Guildford >>

http://www.rafiiarchitects.com/guildford.html

[phesto]

interesting Rafi project in Guildford >>

http://www.rafiiarchitects.com/guildford.html

That site has been put up for sale, so I'm not sure if the new owner will proceed with the same plan. Not sure Guildford is ready for this type of project from a pricing perspective.

[Whalleyboy]

Info on the bosa project at civic surrey
http://www.civicsurrey.com/2011/11/16/bosas-bold-plan-for-downtown-surrey/

and its on bosa site kinda. All it says is coming soon but there is a link
http://www.bosaproperties.com/upcoming_projects.php?project=55

[LeftCoaster]

That is great news for surrey. Bosa is a very respectable builder, with them and Concord now having major stakes in the city centre you wont see the rash of never built proposals that have epitomized Surrey's development scene in the past.

That said you also wont see the pie in the sky development proposals either. Expect conservative 100m stuff. Bread and butter developments.

[GMasterAres]

That is great news for surrey. Bosa is a very respectable builder, with them and Concord now having major stakes in the city centre you wont see the rash of never built proposals that have epitomized Surrey's development scene in the past.

That said you also wont see the pie in the sky development proposals either. Expect conservative 100m stuff. Bread and butter developments.

Like I've been saying for 5+ years should be happening first. They need to keep "getting stuff built" to move population and demand in. Then the big stuff will come.

Look at Burnaby and Vancouver. Did they build massive towers right away? Nope. Nor did Calgary or even Toronto or New York if you look back. You need to be established first then that stuff comes. Surrey is now heading the right direction IMO.

[LeftCoaster]

^Bang on. These are the most positive times I've seen for Surrey... finally they are on the right track.

[Whalleyboy]

So i found some news on Guildford rec pool. Heres a little info i found

1. 37.5m FINA short-course conforming, multi-purpose pool tank
to accommodate lane swimming (8 lanes)and springboard diving
primarily. Disabled accessible with and without traction devices.
(Original Program)
Area: 810 sm
2. 50m (52.5m) FINA conforming, multi-purpose pool tank to accommodate
lane swimming (8 lanes), synchronized swimming
(or diving), water polo, and underwater hockey as well as tower
diving (5m vs. 10m to be confirmed). This program component
results in almost twice the water volume and a significant additional
air volume due to its tower-driven loft. Disabled accessible
as per above. (Alternative Program)
Area: 1115 sm
3. L ifestyle Pool with zero entry (beach entry), interactive water
toys, two teaching lanes with generous adjoining deck space and
potentially moving water feature such as ‘lazy river’. This pool
component to be fully disabled-accessible.
Area: 660 sm
4. Deck Space includes additional area for moveable bleachers,
coaching lanes and lifeguarding. Also includes all stairs and
tower bases for diving and slide access.
Area: I ncluded
5. Swirl/Therapy pool + Wave Rider / Water Slide. This area allowance
prepares the ground for various aquatic options available
but not resolved at the time of this report. Note that in costing
this program area, only the building unit size cost is incorporated
below. Note also that this combined additional aquatic space is
actually dealing with two separate locations and feature options.
Area: 205 sm
6. E xpanded Change Facilities. The support change rooms for
men, women and families to include a renovation component for
existing change rooms as well as major expansion and integration
into the aquatic functional space. The family change room
space is to incorporate prone change facilities for the disabled.
Area: 460 sm
7. P ool Viewing on Deck. This area refers to public on-deck
viewing adjacent to main circulation to aquatic centre and is to
include small concession, seating at tables and adjacencies to
lifestyle pools.
Area: I ncluded
8. P ool viewing on Upper Level. This area is a publicly accessible
area overlooking the program pools. It is intended to provide
a permanent viewing of events and training in the program
pools and supplement the event spectator seating (moveable)
– see below.
Area: I ncluded – see item 10 below
9. Spectator Event Viewing. This is to be achieved via moveable
bleachers and results in a wider than normal pool deck that is
planned for in the deck area calculations. Such a row of event
viewing bleachers is intended to extend along the length of the
competition lanes. It is likely to yield approximately 500 capacity
for the 37.5 m pool and 800 capacity for the 50m pool.
Area: I ncluded
10. E xpanded Fitness Centre on level 2. This area is determined
by identifying the remnant space on top of the change/support
spaces below. It is intended to be integrated with the existing
fitness centre in the Guildford Recreation Centre. The actual demand
for fitness centre space is likely to exceed the listed area.
Since this space is a significant revenue generator for the facility,
there may be sufficient impetus to increase the fitness expansion
component.
Area: 400 sm (inclusive of pool)
11. Sauna, Steam Rooms.
Area: 25 sm each
12. O utdoor Access. This is intended to identify the desirability of
opening the aquatic centre to the outdoors as seamlessly as
possible. It includes features such as sliding glass walls and hard
landscaping to allow for indoor/outdoor connectivity.
Area: I ncluded
13. M echanical/Storage/Loading. This component includes support
spaces on Level 1 as well as Level 2 inclusive of loading and
conveying of materials between levels. It does not include the
service space around the perimeter of the tanks which is seen
as ‘foundation’ work.
Area: O riginal Option 540 sm; Alternate Option 630 sm
14. O ffices/ Lifeguards and First Aid.
Area: 25 sm
37.5 m Pool Total Gross Floor Area (Estimate only): 4925sm
Parking Requirement for above – on grade: 148 (plus 40)
-188
52.5 m Pool Total Gross Floor Area (Estimate only): 5430 sm
Parking Requirement for above – on grade: 163 (plus 40) -
203
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/GRPool8.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/GRPool9.jpg
now heres some images
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/GRPool1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/GRPool2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/GRPool3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/GRPool4.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/GRPool5.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/GRPool6.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/GRPool7.jpg
photos all from my photobucket

[SpongeG]

i saw this posted on facebook

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/377996_10150983363505497_788690496_22047884_891824142_n.jpg
facebook

[officedweller]

Nice!
Good to see that they're still planning highrises on King George Blvd.
The lot to the north of the taller tower seems to be excluded.

Copied to the Quattro thread...

[officedweller]

Great pics of Cloverdale Rec Centre and Chick Bailey Rec Centre here:

http://gallery.ceiarchitecture.com/

[Whalleyboy]

No pictures to show but i came across a file showing the city has city park way and 104 ave intersection plan in the works