Surrey/South Fraser Updates

[Sheba]

How has the rest of Surrey changed since that time, infrastructure wise, culturally, socially?

I mostly knew a chunk of North Delta as that was 'my hood' - and physically very little has changed. North Delta was a bedroom community and seems content to be so. I haven't been back to see cultural or social changes to the area.

Thankfully the Surrey side of Scott Road has changed. Some will complain that it's endless strip malls but that's an improvement (esp south of 80th) as it brings more retail to the area. There are limited bus routes in the area and practically all are north / south so it's hardly surprising to see surface parking. I could do a large rant on SoF bus routes...

My impressions of Surrey (most of which I didn't know as well). The suburban areas don't seem to be very different than they used to be. Surrey Place and Guildford were the places to go so it's not surprising that growth is mostly being concentrated there. King George and Scott Road are also getting some redevelopment action, although obviously not as much at the new Surrey Central downtown area. Old school views like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.1844255,-122.84536,3a,75y,43.52h,82.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8nzT8N69Dzadvjb_xQ6PSg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e2) are slowly being replaced with views more like what you see to the right at The Hub. It gives me hope for downtown Surrey.

[EhJay]

North Delta is in the process of revamping Scott Road with retail and residental above it. Eventually they also envision and LRT line running down Scott road (to 72nd?).

[Sheba]

North Delta is in the process of revamping Scott Road with retail and residental above it. Eventually they also envision and LRT line running down Scott road (to 72nd?).

Ah but only Scott Road will be revamped.

Any 'rail' type project would likely end at the bus loop, which is at approx 74th - but I could see them wanting to continue down to 64th (same with King George). Where would a Scott Road Line go (north) after 96th - do they think it will handle Scott Road hill? Honestly I think this route is better off with a B Line eventually upgraded to BRT.

[Firebrand]

Ah but only Scott Road will be revamped.

Any 'rail' type project would likely end at the bus loop, which is at approx 74th - but I could see them wanting to continue down to 64th (same with King George). Where would a Scott Road Line go (north) after 96th - do they think it will handle Scott Road hill? Honestly I think this route is better off with a B Line eventually upgraded to BRT.

It makes more sense to put a B-Line along Scott Rd. I’ve never been on the 319 myself, but I’ve talked to bus drivers who said that the 319 rivals that of Vancouver buses—especially in rush hour—in terms of overcrowding. They should’ve put the Scott Rd B-Line first before the 96.

Personally, I don’t think a streetcar will fit well in a miniature skyscraper forest (being at-grade and all); a bus will do a job just fine for now. For some reason, Fraser Valley mayors—especially Hepner—have some sort of fetish for LRT.

[Sheba]

It makes more sense to put a B-Line along Scott Rd. I’ve never been on the 319 myself, but I’ve talked to bus drivers who said that the 319 rivals that of Vancouver buses—especially in rush hour—in terms of overcrowding. They should’ve put the Scott Rd B-Line first before the 96.

Personally, I don’t think a streetcar will fit well in a miniature skyscraper forest (being at-grade and all); a bus will do a job just fine for now. For some reason, Fraser Valley mayors—especially Hepner—have some sort of fetish for LRT.

I think you mean South of Fraser (SoF) - the Fraser Valley is beyond Langley and Maple Ridge.

...and yes they have a fetish for LRT because it's rail so therefore it's sexy or something (unlike a bus). :rolleyes:

[Firebrand]

But if rail is... wait, that topic goes to the Surrey LRT thread.

I haven’t been to Scott Rd for a long time now. I used to go to Strawberry Hill with a friend, who lives near that area, for movie nights. Last time I remember it was all strip malls and SFHs. What’s changed since then?

Also, since when Delta decided to put a highrise dead centre of suburbia? It’s just out of place based on that location.

[Sheba]

But if rail is... wait, that topic goes to the Surrey LRT thread.

I haven’t been to Scott Rd for a long time now. I used to go to Strawberry Hill with a friend, who lives near that area, for movie nights. Last time I remember it was all strip malls and SFHs. What’s changed since then?

Also, since when Delta decided to put a highrise dead centre of suburbia? It’s just out of place based on that location.

I suspect I'm remembering an earlier Scott Road than you are. I would have ridden the run between 96th (the old Scott Road hill was brutal) and 72nd (when the bus loop was around the mall). The north / 96th end was mostly groundscraping retail, while the southern half tended towards malls (that still exist) and tiny houses (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.1418064,-122.8903352,3a,37.5y,97.03h,88.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGQVAAiE5BSDazUEpsq-Ctw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) like this. There were limited small strip malls at that end.

Almost all of the buildings were one, maybe two storeys - you could count the number of taller buildings on one hand (the three storey medical building at 80th was one of them). On the Surrey side just about everything south of that tiny house to down past 72nd didn't exist then - it was tiny houses or fields for the most part.

Retail with a couple floors of residential above (like at 75A) didn't exist. That is a massive increase in density compared to what was there before. I'm willing to see what they have planned for Scott Road before passing judgment.
:cheers:

[Firebrand]

I’ve been living in Langley for almost three years now. The suburban mindset has unfortunately crept into my head, so any tower proposed in a suburb would be an eyesore to me. Langley is one of the few cities in Metro Van with no highrises being proposed (the others being Poco, Pitt Meadows, and Maple Ridge).

Not that there’s anything wrong with having highrise development, it’s just that Langley is full of NIMBYs that don’t want any highrises within their city. Good for Delta for allowing highrise development on Scott Rd.

[Vin]

I’ve been living in Langley for almost three years now. The suburban mindset has unfortunately crept into my head, so any tower proposed in a suburb would be an eyesore to me. Langley is one of the few cities in Metro Van with no highrises being proposed (the others being Poco, Pitt Meadows, and Maple Ridge).

Not that there’s anything wrong with having highrise development, it’s just that Langley is full of NIMBYs that don’t want any highrises within their city. Good for Delta for allowing highrise development on Scott Rd.

Perspectives change once the towers are built. You don't think the towers in Metrotown, Brentwood, Surrey Central, Coquitlam Centre, etc, are eye sores, do you? They are essentially suburbs of Vancouver, and once upon a time, depending on how far back you go, had no towers: just like Langley today.

North Delta has a single tall tower sticking up like a sore thumb now at Scott Road. A few more will make the area look better.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[paulsparrow]

Surrey to Say Goodbye to Newton Bingo Hall Soon

Surrey is to bid farewell to the Newton Community Gaming Centre. According to several reports the Hall will be closed after April, 21 this year. Apparently, Gateway’s Casino Proposal is getting mixed emotions from the locals.Read More (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=166978&page=109)

https://3xnhi43vikn244hoyg160zl4-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/61444surreyBingoCountryexterior-ES.jpg

Yes this is becoming part of the new casino in Delta slated to be at #99 and 17a. Dianne Watts squashed the idea of another Casino in Surrey so Delta was the last city awarded one.

[Firebrand]

I wonder why is Surrey is closing its casinos and not building new ones?

[Shift]

I wonder why is Surrey is closing its casinos and not building new ones?

The City of Surrey is not in the Casino business.

The private sector proposes and builds Casinos.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[osirisboy]

The City of Surrey is not in the Casino business.

The private sector proposes and builds Casinos.

The private sector can't build them in a city that doesn't want them though I think was the point. I'm fairly certain if surrey allowed casinos there would be a number of casinos ready to build one lol

[Shift]

I wasn't aware the City of Surrey doesn't want casinos? Where does it say they aren't allowed?

There is one in Cloverdale - Elements Casino

[paradigm4]

I wasn't aware the City of Surrey doesn't want casinos? Where does it say they aren't allowed?

There is one in Cloverdale - Elements Casino

They have a policy to not support the expansion of gambling in the City. Fraser Downs was a compromise as it was needed to save horse racing and it was supposed to be a larger "regional" facility.

[EhJay]

This is true. Edgewater was supposed to be redeveloped to a huge casino in South Surrey, but council shot it down.Even Element casino they have kaboshed any addition in tables.

[Firebrand]

Seems that Surrey have some sort of hatred for casinos.

[Shift]

Well that's unfortunate. A casino would be good for adding some life to City Centre. The Zoning By-Law does allow for them.

[Westbased]

11125 - 124th street (Eminta Centre with Tenants: CDI College, Sky Trampoline, Church, Self Storage) across the street from Scott Road Skytrain sold very recently for $44 million.

Buyer was Mondivan, a Vancouver/New York based developer.

Site is around 13 acres and CD zoned. We will definitely be seeing a large scale mixed use project here in the near future.

I can see this coming to market once the new bridge is completed, but they could definitely hold for a few years as it is leased with strong holding income or even get started sooner.

Its a shame the bridge will only be 4 lanes especially with the population in the lower mainland and the density that is being built around it. (River district, towers along the waterfront New West, this project eventually).

[Shift]

^Good to hear. That site is one of the first things you see coming over the SkyTrain bridge into Surrey and its not pretty (like that entire area).

Redevelopment of that site into something mixed-use would be phenomonal - and the perfect site to kick start the renewal of that area too - especially with the tie in to the new Patullo Bridge. I'm guessing it will be in the 6-storey range though - not towers. The city is resistant to towers outside of the City Centre or Town Centres.

Will flank Scott Rd Station nicely combined with WestStone's 6-storey mixed use on the east side of the station.

Site:

https://i.imgur.com/2z2eLRW.jpg?1

[Westbased]

I hope we see at least a few buildings around 20 stories! You're right though I imagine it would be hard to get approved.

I feel it would be a fantastic waste of land to not allow high density however, given Scott Road station is one stop from Columbia, which connects to Millennium line etc. the benefits of transit.

Anyone have any idea who owns the Park and Ride lot directly beside the station?

[Firebrand]

It will be really cool to have a continuous mixed-use development along Scott Rd, from the Station to Strawberry Hill.

I’m glad they finally started putting some sort of development in the Bridgeview area. Right now it looks pretty dull, in contrast to New West.

[Sheba]

^Good to hear. That site is one of the first things you see coming over the SkyTrain bridge into Surrey and its not pretty (like that entire area).

Redevelopment of that site into something mixed-use would be phenomonal - and the perfect site to kick start the renewal of that area too - especially with the tie in to the new Patullo Bridge. I'm guessing it will be in the 6-storey range though - not towers. The city is resistant to towers outside of the City Centre or Town Centres.

Will flank Scott Rd Station nicely combined with WestStone's 6-storey mixed use on the east side of the station.


Most of the area is zoned for industrial. How many times on here have I heard people complain that we're losing our industrial land and it's being pushed out of the region...


It will be really cool to have a continuous mixed-use development along Scott Rd, from the Station to Strawberry Hill.

I’m glad they finally started putting some sort of development in the Bridgeview area. Right now it looks pretty dull, in contrast to New West.

It's not gonna happen. They might start building from 96th down to Strawberry Hills but I wouldn't expect many buildings to hit double digit number of storeys. It'll mostly be lowrise with the occasional tower at a major (for the area) intersection.

[Shift]

Most of the area is zoned for industrial. How many times on here have I heard people complain that we're losing our industrial land and it's being pushed out of the region...


Majority of that area is designated industrial/business park - but the area immediately around Scott Rd Station and a corridor from it leading to the river (of which this site falls within) is designated for mixed-use residential/commercial under the South Westminster Plan.

A developer cannot propose residential or mixed-use on the industrial zoned lands down there without triggering a Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy amendment - which is a big process. It's fairly secured industrial land and would be hard to convince the Metro Van Board to approve a land-use change.

[Aroundtheworld]

^Good to hear. That site is one of the first things you see coming over the SkyTrain bridge into Surrey and its not pretty (like that entire area).

Redevelopment of that site into something mixed-use would be phenomonal - and the perfect site to kick start the renewal of that area too - especially with the tie in to the new Patullo Bridge. I'm guessing it will be in the 6-storey range though - not towers. The city is resistant to towers outside of the City Centre or Town Centres.

Will flank Scott Rd Station nicely combined with WestStone's 6-storey mixed use on the east side of the station.

Site:

https://i.imgur.com/2z2eLRW.jpg?1

If they're going to put mixed-use in that area, they had better make the street network more pedestrian friendly when the new Patullo Bridge is built.

[SFUVancouver]

Flood plain: check.
Industrial area: check.
Automobile dependent street grid and platting: check.

What a terrible idea.

[paradigm4]

Flood plain: check.
Industrial area: check.
Automobile dependent street grid and platting: check.

What a terrible idea.

Yup. Density should go in the core, not here.

[Shift]

Flood plain: check.
Industrial area: check.
Automobile dependent street grid and platting: check.

What a terrible idea.

Ok - but the long-range plan does call for re-designating some of that area. It's also right next to a rapid transit station with some mixed-use already under construction.

Mind you the South Westminster Plan is quite dated - amendments likely - but the concept is still the same. Idea is to change the area from what you've described - create a link between Scott Rd Station and the river with some mixed use.

It's not much different in context than the Waterfront Village Neighbourhood Plan in Coquitlam https://www.coquitlam.ca/planning-and-development/community-plans/southwest-coquitlam/waterfront-village-centre.aspx - changing an industrial area along the Fraser River. South Westminster is actually more suitable due to Scott Rd Station and proximity to downtown New West / Surrey City Centre.

Maybe it is a good thing that the south-end of the Pattullo Bridge is not being turned into more of a freeway interchange - if the neighbourhood is to become more walkable in the future.


https://i.imgur.com/ExzFK0F.jpg?1

[flipper316]

^Good to hear. That site is one of the first things you see coming over the SkyTrain bridge into Surrey and its not pretty (like that entire area).

Redevelopment of that site into something mixed-use would be phenomonal - and the perfect site to kick start the renewal of that area too - especially with the tie in to the new Patullo Bridge. I'm guessing it will be in the 6-storey range though - not towers. The city is resistant to towers outside of the City Centre or Town Centres.

Will flank Scott Rd Station nicely combined with WestStone's 6-storey mixed use on the east side of the station.

Site:

https://i.imgur.com/2z2eLRW.jpg?1

I swear to god if they put in another set of lights on the perimeter road to service that future development i'm gonna lose it. Before you say why would they, remember the old Patullo plans with the Scott Road extension road that was gonna hook up the perimeter road to the north that was going to be a signalized intersection.

[Tetsuo]

Another high-rise development application for North Delta was recently submitted to the city. That application is to build a 31-storey building in the 9500 block of Scott Road.

[Nites]

Another high-rise development application for North Delta was recently submitted to the city. That application is to build a 31-storey building in the 9500 block of Scott Road.

That's a pretty random spot. At least Rise was placed in an area that had a few other old apartment buildings. Somewhat of a cluster.

It's not a bad area. Also, only about a 5 minute drive to Scott Road station which has the largest parking lot out of all the stations.

[Sheba]

That's a pretty random spot. At least Rise was placed in an area that had a few other old apartment buildings. Somewhat of a cluster.

It's not a bad area. Also, only about a 5 minute drive to Scott Road station which has the largest parking lot out of all the stations.

The vast majority of North Delta is SFH - now they need more money so they're building up along Scott Road and leaving everything else alone. I could see a tower at most of the grid roads: 96th Ave, 84th, 80th and 75A - only 84th doesn't have anything submitted.

No go for the time being: 92nd has a rail line right there, 88th / Nordel Way and 72nd have retail that would need to be rebuilt so they would come later. I don't know if it's worth it to build towers further south.

In between those locations I can see them building up a few floors. They seem to like retail on the ground with residential or office above, although what's currently there is frequently only 2 floors. If they bring it up to 4 floors they could sell it as blocking the street noise of Scott Road for the rest of North Delta.

[Tetsuo]

Don't forget Delta has also been seeing quite a bit of consolidation of SFH lots for townhome development, there's quite a bit of that happening around 72nd.

[Westbased]

I'm hearing some small scale mixed use is in the works for 88th Avenue just west of 132nd Street in Surrey.

4 stories: some retail at grade, 3 levels of residential and underground parking.

A new small park would be added as well for outdoor amenity for both residents and public.

Thoughts on adding a little bit of density along 88th Avenue?

I personally think it would be great to see some multi-family added along such a critical arterial road through Surrey. It connects to Langley, Delta, and Highways, both 99, 91, and 1.

[Nites]

I'm hearing some small scale mixed use is in the works for 88th Avenue just west of 132nd Street in Surrey.

4 stories: some retail at grade, 3 levels of residential and underground parking.

A new small park would be added as well for outdoor amenity for both residents and public.

Thoughts on adding a little bit of density along 88th Avenue?

I personally think it would be great to see some multi-family added along such a critical arterial road through Surrey. It connects to Langley, Delta, and Highways, both 99, 91, and 1.

As far as I know most of these properties have been boarded up and are set to be demolished. I believe one of the empty lots was once a house that got burnt down a number of years back. I always wondered how that happened when the fire hall is right out in front.

https://i.gyazo.com/569dc85eb5651cd14b4f66ee8f00cb66.jpg

[Nites]

There is also another site on 132nd and 84th Ave that has been on sale for over 2 years. Seems like a good spot for 4-6 level condo considering only about 3.5 acres of the site is usable due to a creek setback. However, they could use the rest of the space for park purposes.

https://i.gyazo.com/e45b9f947787db732dca23012667ce78.jpg

[Westbased]

There is also another site on 132nd and 84th Ave that has been on sale for over 2 years. Seems like a good spot for 4-6 level condo considering only about 3.5 acres of the site is usable due to a creek setback. However, they could use the rest of the space for park purposes.

https://i.gyazo.com/e45b9f947787db732dca23012667ce78.jpg

The first site appears to be the one where the rumblings are coming from!

Yes, hard to understand how any fire gets out of hand with the fire hall so close...

Both sites however could utilize the creek setback space by creating park space or something along those lines for the residential units.

[Nites]

Quite far from the city centre but a least it will be on KGB. One 7 story podium and two 6 story podiums. Not your typical cookie cutter condo that's for sure.

http://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/PLR_7917-0397-00.pdf

3 High Rise and 2 low rise condos.

https://i.gyazo.com/730694069aa6446487404c5bd5a05d26.jpg

https://i.gyazo.com/7afc37a48a50bf39b57a95293f4be23b.jpg

https://i.gyazo.com/2e3c5d7c08dc05d6d2e24360e83d91f4.jpg

https://i.gyazo.com/2e1a1799a166e52664dcdce50c6b13d1.jpg

https://i.gyazo.com/028d3998164bccc8d165ad9c70f6f0e4.png

[EhJay]

Seems a bit of an odd spot at the moment. I guess down the line once Central City builds in it'll make more sense?

[EhJay]

Fraser Landmark (https://www.fraserlandmark.com/)

http://www.darshanbuilders.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/HeroDraft.jpg

Supposed to be bulit at 140th and Fraser Highway.
Estimated completion date is 2019.
To date they've put up new signage and begun clearing part of the site.

[Nites]

Just a little read I found

https://i.gyazo.com/4d99ac2521048ada6cda1a213a89c865.png

[Westbased]

I think their argument for creating a gateway from the north is justifiable especially if the towers turn out the way they are rendered.

It will be a tough approval process though thats for sure.

[officedweller]

Nice, thanks.

Good to see a move back to towers close to the Gateway Station side of downtown Surrey.
When the 4 storey condos were built to the north of Gateway (near the Nestors) I thought it was a major step down from densification near the station.
This particular project is a bit far from Gateway Station, but still in proximity.

[Vin]

I love how ambitious Surrey is by going so BIG when it comes to creating its CBD. With the same distance from Vancouver's CBD as to what King George is to these gateway towers, buildings are already tiny, especially at the Fairview/Broadway side.

[Changing City]

I love how ambitious Surrey is by going so BIG when it comes to creating its CBD. With the same distance from Vancouver's CBD as to what King George is to these gateway towers, buildings are already tiny, especially at the Fairview/Broadway side.

So you didn't read the recommendation in the report? "The Planning & Development Department recommends that Council endorse Option A, which is to refer the application back to staff to work with the applicant to develop the subject site in accordance with the "Low to Mid Rise Residential up to 2.5 FAR" designation in the City Centre Plan".

[Shift]

Quite far from the city centre but a least it will be on KGB. One 7 story podium and two 6 story podiums. Not your typical cookie cutter condo that's for sure.

http://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/PLR_7917-0397-00.pdf

3 High Rise and 2 low rise condos.

https://i.gyazo.com/730694069aa6446487404c5bd5a05d26.jpg


This is actually within the City Centre Plan boundary. Staff is not supportive of it however - they want 4-6 stories on this site as it is on the fringe of City Centre and it should be used a transition site to towers concentrated elsewhere in City Centre.

It's heading to Council tonight for 1st / 2nd but staff is recommending it be referred back. Will be interesting to see what happens. I'm supportive of it - regardless of the City Centre Plan - it's an appropriate site for towers and the design is interesting. On the other hand, I see where the City is coming from, and support their vision for a 4-6 storey edge to City Centre. I'm really fine with any outcome here.

[Shift]

Fraser Landmark (https://www.fraserlandmark.com/)

http://www.darshanbuilders.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/HeroDraft.jpg


This project is looking good. Well integrated with the street. Construction expected to start by the fall.

[Shift]

Another render of Fraser Landmark

https://i.imgur.com/4nPNpEQ.jpg?1

[EhJay]

"Great News!

Macdonald Realty Platinum Project Marketing has secured a new development in the absolute prime location of Fraser Hwy and 140th St. Located in Surrey City Centre Fraser Landmark is offering 121 luxury homes with prices below market value.

We are proud to be working with Darshan Builders, a powerful new presence in the Metro Vancouver region and one of the leading luxury home building companies in the real estate industry.

This new community will only be available to our VIP insiders and, as there will be no money spent on a costly presentation centre and display suites, the homes will be discounted substantially."

[Spork]

Hilarious press release. "Below market value" "powerful presence" "luxury" "leading". Oh, let me count the ways.

[madog222]

as there will be no money spent on a costly presentation centre and display suites, the homes will be discounted substantially."

We pass the savings directly on to our shareholders! :D

[Nites]

Another render of Fraser Landmark

https://i.imgur.com/4nPNpEQ.jpg?1

That's a nice vantage point. The city centre is lit up pretty good.

[Blease]

Does anyone know when the renovations to the Surrey Central station will be complete? I was under the impression the renovated portion of the station would open around the same time as the Civic Hotel.

[iron]

Does anyone know when the renovations to the Surrey Central station will be complete? I was under the impression the renovated portion of the station would open around the same time as the Civic Hotel.

The estimate on their website is still Fall 2018. I think the current timeline hasn't changed for just over a year now.

[flipper316]

Another render of Fraser Landmark

https://i.imgur.com/4nPNpEQ.jpg?1

Let's hope they leave enough room for the Fraser Highway widening and potential LRT. Although this is BC so i'm not optimistic. They'll probably barely leave enough room for 4 lanes and not enough room for even a right turn lane.

[Westbased]

"Great News!

Macdonald Realty Platinum Project Marketing has secured a new development in the absolute prime location of Fraser Hwy and 140th St. Located in Surrey City Centre Fraser Landmark is offering 121 luxury homes with prices below market value.

We are proud to be working with Darshan Builders, a powerful new presence in the Metro Vancouver region and one of the leading luxury home building companies in the real estate industry.

This new community will only be available to our VIP insiders and, as there will be no money spent on a costly presentation centre and display suites, the homes will be discounted substantially."

The best marketing campaign I've ever seen! They'll be taking a loss just so you can purchase their units. :haha:

[Shift]

Let's hope they leave enough room for the Fraser Highway widening and potential LRT. Although this is BC so i'm not optimistic. They'll probably barely leave enough room for 4 lanes and not enough room for even a right turn lane.

Surrey Transportation takes road dedications for ultimate road widths (future widening) on nearly every application (unless the ultimate road width is already in place) - rest assured.

[iron]

This is actually within the City Centre Plan boundary. Staff is not supportive of it however - they want 4-6 stories on this site as it is on the fringe of City Centre and it should be used a transition site to towers concentrated elsewhere in City Centre.

It's heading to Council tonight for 1st / 2nd but staff is recommending it be referred back. Will be interesting to see what happens. I'm supportive of it - regardless of the City Centre Plan - it's an appropriate site for towers and the design is interesting. On the other hand, I see where the City is coming from, and support their vision for a 4-6 storey edge to City Centre. I'm really fine with any outcome here.

Council picked Option C instead of staff's recommendation: https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/large-iconic-gateway-housing-project-proposed-in-city-centre/

[officedweller]

Good to hear!

**************

West Village District Energy Centre

from Scott Construction twitter April 9th:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DaX1UJqUMAEJf8e.jpg
https://twitter.com/ScottConstructs

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DaX1UNoUQAICwiU.jpg
https://twitter.com/ScottConstructs

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DaX1UPqVMAA9xCz.jpg
https://twitter.com/ScottConstructs

[Shift]

Council picked Option C instead of staff's recommendation: https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/large-iconic-gateway-housing-project-proposed-in-city-centre/

Yeah good news. I think they made the right decision. That site does really form a 'Gateway' site. Matching the density directly across King George to the south makes sense.

Option C for reference:

Basically supportive of the proposed density, but referred back to staff to work on improvements to the proposal. Council really emphasized a need for a more "iconic" tower or design for this site if the increased density is to be allowed.


As for District Energy - Looking great! Liking those beams.

[invisibleairwaves]

I'm curious about what the actual objections to the density are. I'm not usually a fan of politicians overruling expert advice from staff, but if the concerns are just aesthetic nitpicking about the "vision for the skyline", then council made the right call. Would love to know if there are issues relating to infrastructure, services, etc. behind the recommendation from staff.

[iron]

My take on the report is that the primary concern is for setting a potentially bad precedent. It diminishes the authority of the NCP if developers can regularly get council to disregard it for reasons as simple as "we like more density".

[invisibleairwaves]

My take on the report is that the primary concern is for setting a potentially bad precedent. It diminishes the authority of the NCP if developers can regularly get council to disregard it for reasons as simple as "we like more density".

I dunno, I think "we like more density" is a pretty great reason when you're close to transit and stuck in the middle of a housing crisis. Political support for higher buildings is such a rare and fleeting thing sometimes, so if you have it, why not take advantage?

Again, if staff has real concerns about infrastructure or liveability, they should be heeded. But we live in a region where planning documents are rife with voodoo about "domed skylines" and other such nonsense, which can and should be disregarded if it ever means less housing. Besides, Surrey's NCPs have never had much authority anyways; they've always been guidelines, loosely adhered to and routinely ignored whenever they involve the possibility of the City actually spending any money on anything.

[officedweller]

Those towers need to make up for the low density closer to the station!!



http://i.imgur.com/WZUNDH5.jpg?1

[Shift]

^Yeah - ironically, those 4-storey buildings are designated high-rise 5.5 FAR in the plan (Purple Area).

They will likely be replaced with higher density one day.

Makes sense to extend the purple to the other side of King George - and Council agrees.

https://urbansurrey.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/llqkfzg.png

[officedweller]

The proposed highrise site is within easy walking distance (despite the hill) from the station.

^Yeah - ironically, those 4-storey buildings are designated high-rise 5.5 FAR in the plan (Purple Area).

They will likely be replaced with higher density one day.

Makes sense to extend the purple to the other side of King George - and Council agrees.

https://urbansurrey.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/llqkfzg.png

[kh177]

As far as I know most of these properties have been boarded up and are set to be demolished. I believe one of the empty lots was once a house that got burnt down a number of years back. I always wondered how that happened when the fire hall is right out in front.

https://i.gyazo.com/569dc85eb5651cd14b4f66ee8f00cb66.jpg

Glad to see some development in this part of town - would think it's a traffic/access nightmare for residents though. Right across a fire hall also. 88 Ave is busy (with lots of accidents on 88 and King George), not a lot of pedestrian traffic so might be tough to make the retail work. LRT construction until 2024/2025 on King George will make traffic on 132 even more of a nightmare.

All that said - region needs more supply so anything's better than a few vacant homes.

[GMasterAres]

My take on the report is that the primary concern is for setting a potentially bad precedent. It diminishes the authority of the NCP if developers can regularly get council to disregard it for reasons as simple as "we like more density".

True but the NCP for Surrey Central is stupid. They want to create an iconic downtown but they limit to under 10 FAR on all sites even the iconic site. You look at any major downtown of prominence around the world and they have buildings of 15-30 FAR in their main core.

"We want high rises and density but not really super density and well a lot of trees on roof renders!!!! BECAUSE TREEZ!"

Have no issue with Council's decision, these aren't 90 storey towers and if you look at land use, right across the street is a proposal for 30+ storey towers and just North of this development are already proposals for 5+ storey condos. Those are your gradual "gateway." Honestly the worry of staff is likely because of the single family homes directly behind and a worry that all those properties will want to consolidate and upscale beyond the NCP to cash in on higher land values.

Finally let's face it, at the pace that development happens in Surrey, we'll likely go through 3 or 4 more complete rewrites to the NCP before any major core downtown is completed or well formed.

[Shift]

True but the NCP for Surrey Central is stupid. They want to create an iconic downtown but they limit to under 10 FAR on all sites even the iconic site. You look at any major downtown of prominence around the world and they have buildings of 15-30 FAR in their main core.

"We want high rises and density but not really super density and well a lot of trees on roof renders!!!! BECAUSE TREEZ!"



I don't think the City Centre Plan is limiting in any way - unless you mean they should be allowing more 60+ storey towers all over the place?

The 30-40 storey range of most proposals under application seems like pretty decent density for a secondary metropolitan downtown.

Also, iconic can be created through buildings that aren't 60-storeys tall. The new SFU building, City Hall, and Library are quite iconic and all less than 10 FAR.

[officedweller]

I think a good secondary core to compare to - with substantial office space - is Bellevue, Washington.

[osirisboy]

I don't think the City Centre Plan is limiting in any way - unless you mean they should be allowing more 60+ storey towers all over the place?

The 30-40 storey range of most proposals under application seems like pretty decent density for a secondary metropolitan downtown.

Also, iconic can be created through buildings that aren't 60-storeys tall. The new SFU building, City Hall, and Library are quite iconic and all less than 10 FAR.

You are conflating height with high fsr. Yes i wouldn't object to lots of 60 plus storey tall buildings, that would be great. But you can have high fsr like 15-20 with 20 storey buildings. I was looking at la proposals and there's tons of 20-30 storey buildings with 400-500 units in them. That would be great here

[Shift]

New application submitted for a 35-storey residential tower and 3-storey commercial building on the grass field site just north of the Canadian Tire/Anthem Site on Whalley Blvd.

341 Units
20,000 sq.ft. of ground floor retail
23,800 sq.ft of office

Architect is Focus Architecture - same as Delta Rise.

Seems like quite a large site for just a single tower... but maybe not. There will be a new green lane dedicated through it.

https://urbansurrey.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/jh8haxf.jpg

https://urbansurrey.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/9ofdyxp.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/ibKCCrB.jpg?1

https://apps.surrey.ca/Online-Development-Inquiry/?year=18&seq=0141

[CoryHolmes]

About time that site got some action. It's been an eyesore for as long as I can remember.

[osirisboy]

Roughly 10 units per floor so should be a pretty decently sized tower. However, the podium should be larger than 3 stories.

[Shift]

Agreed - such an eyesore. Although given the application was just submitted - still likely 2-3 years away from start of construction. But nice to know its in the works. Along with Anthem's project, that side of King George will finally start to see some improvement.

The podium will actually be 4-stories. The 3-storey commercial building is stand-alone.. so guessing something similar to Evolve?

Curious to see the plan and how they manage to fill the site. It looks big enough for 2 towers.

Also, a 35-storey tower here will appear quite tall - given this site is up on a hill.

[Westbased]

Toys R’ Us site has reportedly sold for around $60 million.

[clee7903]

That empty land has been there for as long as I can remember too. I am surprised it sat empty for so long given it's pretty close to the city centre and surrounded by buildings. Hope they can start soon.

[Nites]

Hopefully the commercial building will have a nice design and good bulk.

[Nites]

Toys R’ Us site has reportedly sold for around $60 million.

So the dollar store is also moving/gone?

[Cypherus]

Thanks for the update Shift re: 35 storey tower. Nice to see buildings filling out the core instead of clustering around the sky train stations. Also agree this site is prime for 2 towers otherwise I fear it may have too much green space around it, akin to a Tower in the Park style.

[Shift]

Toys R’ Us site has reportedly sold for around $60 million.

Good news. Another piece of the puzzle coming together.

[Shift]

To add to the list of new applications:

A revised application has been submitted for the site outlined in red below at 133 St and Central Ave. Across from Evolve and West Village Park.

"To rezone from RF to CD in order to develop an 18-storey tower with a 2-storey and 4-storey podium consisting of 157 units."

The site is designated for 4-6 storey - so staff may not be supportive. Doesn't mean it can't happen.

https://i.imgur.com/cS0XRKH.jpg

https://apps.surrey.ca/Online-Development-Inquiry/?year=18&seq=0125

[Westbased]

To add to the list of new applications:

A revised application has been submitted for the site outlined in red below at 133 St and Central Ave. Across from Evolve and West Village Park.

"To rezone from RF to CD in order to develop an 18-storey tower with a 2-storey and 4-storey podium consisting of 157 units."

The site is designated for 4-6 storey - so staff may not be supportive. Doesn't mean it can't happen.

https://i.imgur.com/cS0XRKH.jpg

https://apps.surrey.ca/Online-Development-Inquiry/?year=18&seq=0125

Was this just updated? If so then it we may already be seeing applicants aiming for higher density because the "gateway" site on King George was given a go ahead from council...

Regardless, it is across the street from 30+ story buildings and in my opinion it also for a better transition if this tower does hit the 18 story. Behind that 6 stories max sure.

[Westbased]

So the dollar store is also moving/gone?

I don't believe either Toys R' Us or the dollar store will be moving in the very near term as they still have some term on their lease and the developer will still have to go through the development permitting process.

Guessing we might see an application on the site later this year and hopefully construction can start hopefully by 2020.

[GMasterAres]

I don't think the City Centre Plan is limiting in any way - unless you mean they should be allowing more 60+ storey towers all over the place?

The 30-40 storey range of most proposals under application seems like pretty decent density for a secondary metropolitan downtown.

Also, iconic can be created through buildings that aren't 60-storeys tall. The new SFU building, City Hall, and Library are quite iconic and all less than 10 FAR.

Go through the list of high FAR towers in most downtowns within the United States (even Portland) and you'll find a lot of 20-30 storey towers that are 15+ FAR. It has as much to do with mass as with height.

For example, Prime in Surrey Central = FAR 8.4 which is fine.

But compare to SFU building directly nex tdoor which is a LOT shorter and has a FAR of 3.8. You may say, hey that is way less than 8.4, but with the SFU building's massing, if you were to bring up its height to just 15 stories, it would very likely have a FAR > 8.4 and that would be a 15 storey building vs a 37 storey building.

SFU = 90% lot coverage vs Prime which is 50% lot coverage.

I just feel a true downtown has a healthy mix of mass and height. If Surrey builds nothing but 30-40 storey towers at FAR 3-10 we're never going to get a tight skyline unless there are 2-300 towers built in Surrey Central. And with a FAR cap typically being pushed, that means the higher a tower goes the thinner it gets. Look at GEC which has height granted but it is pencil thin. Even 3 Civic which has a wide profile looking East<>West, has a thin profile North<>South.

If you were to box it out with the same height you'd be FAR 20+ easy.

I'd just love to see a bit more umph in the central parts or in a few parts. As it stands today with the Surrey Central NCP, it would be a stretch to get any towers like the Bentals downtown built, or even Metro Tower III. Heck the Amazing Brentwood would blow the NCP limits out of the water.

I think I would have preferred just the CD zones to not have this artificial limit. Then again maybe Surrey is ok with overlooking it they just put the limit to force developers to go through a council amendment process and give them some cash in lieu of mass.

I guess we'll see over time.

[Shift]

Was this just updated? If so then it we may already be seeing applicants aiming for higher density because the "gateway" site on King George was given a go ahead from council...

Regardless, it is across the street from 30+ story buildings and in my opinion it also for a better transition if this tower does hit the 18 story. Behind that 6 stories max sure.

The previous (2012) application was for an 18-storey tower as well. Doesn't appear much has changed with this 2018 application number - although likely a re-design, maybe new developer, otherwise not sure why the update.

I agree 18-storeys here is very appropriate. Will step down nicely from Evolve and Wave even. 6-storeys is appropriate to the site west of it right on 132 - although that dated application (2009) is for 4-storeys. Bet that will change.

[Shift]

Looks like Veteran's Village got a re-design. Thank god.

Back to 2 towers and looking fantastic. Much better reference to the Vimy Memorial on this one with the red exterior feature. Sidewalk/pedestrian realm looks great. Wondering if the tower behind might be a future Phase 2 or if its intended to be built all at once? They look somewhat interconnected.


https://i.imgur.com/XZXC9So.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/OXucdoX.jpg

[CoryHolmes]

Love the red! I wish more towers had bold colour choices like that!

[osirisboy]

So i think it could be nice but it could also turn out to be a spandrel mess. And I don't get why there are two huge rows of bushes/trees and grass. Just build a sidewalk and be done with it. This is supposed to be downtown Surrey right?

[iron]

So is this the 4th design for Veteran's Village, or what? Do you think this one will stick? This one's (market?) housing component is the clearest yet.

Weird to see 2 rows of bushes but no bike path among them.

[officedweller]

Better than this (previous version) I guess (?), but could be a jumbled mess?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOyj2s2V4AAGn_j.jpg
https://twitter.com/larkgroup1

[Shift]

I wouldn't take the rendering as exact detail of what the sidewalk will look like. There could very well be a bike lane incorporated into it - as Surrey is moving in that direction with streets in City Centre. I like the wide sidewalk / double row of trees anyway. Much more big city / urban feel than a standard sidewalk, and much better pedestrian realm. Looks like it's intended as a quasi plaza space fronting 106 Ave - anchoring the building.

The massing is very urban, fills out the site well.

[Nites]

Way better design. Like the red.

[Blease]

So we know this building will provide accommodations and services for Canadian veterans. Question is, will this building also be an administrative centre for the Department of Veterans Affairs, that is to say, will a bunch of well paid federal government jobs also be moving to the area?

[iron]

So we know this building will provide accommodations and services for Canadian veterans. Question is, will this building also be an administrative centre for the Department of Veterans Affairs, that is to say, will a bunch of well paid federal government jobs also be moving to the area?

Veteran Affairs is a tenant of new Gateway Place building. I think they're new to the area. Just a small office though.

[GMasterAres]

Way way way better design. Nice, and hope this actually gets built. Will change that area drastically.

[pok3mytummy]

So we know this building will provide accommodations and services for Canadian veterans. Question is, will this building also be an administrative centre for the Department of Veterans Affairs, that is to say, will a bunch of well paid federal government jobs also be moving to the area?

It is a long-term plan for all federal government departments in the GVR area to consolidate all their department buildings into two HUBS - Downtown Vancouver and Surrey area. However, this would probably take a REALLY long time to implement