[Surrey] King George Hub | U/C

[officedweller]

Posted by PeterPrinciple on the retail thread -

New development for the Berezen site "King George Station" developed by PCI

Includes large format retail - just what the area needs (to make up for the lack thereof at Infinity).

Some renders suggest two office blocks - others suggest 3 office blocks.

http://www.loopnet.com/xNet/Looplink...RID=1903819501

Description
King George Station is a landmark mixed use development set to anchor the rapidly evolving downtown core of Surrey, British Columbia' s second largest city. With approximately 300,000+ square feet of retail space an additional 300,000 square feet of A' class office space and up to three, 35 storey high rise residential towers, King George Station stands to become a flagship destination for Surrey and the surrounding municipalities.

King George Station is located on the northeast corner of King George Highway and Fraser Highway, centrally located within Surrey City Centre. The City of Surrey has taken ambitious plans to transform the downtown core into a metropolitan hub for the municipality and surrounding Fraser Valley. The City is leading the way on this initiative with the construction commencement of their new 210,000 square foot city hall, a nearly completed 75,000 square foot central library and a 1,600 seat performing arts venue. Furthermore, significant provincial and federal investment is underway, including the $500 million expansion of Surrey Memorial Hospital, the construction of the new 820,000 square foot RCMP E division headquarters and a new 188,000 square foot outpatient and surgery centre. All of this government investment into Surrey City Centre is being equaled by the private sector with a number of major high density residential developments having been built in recent years, with many more planned or under construction

Rendering of whole project:
http://www.loopnet.com/Attachments/9...8E3397517F.pdf

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Lower level floorplan
(labels indicate large format drugstore (30,000 sq ft), large format clothing (50,000 sq ft), supermarket (40,000 sq ft)):
http://www.loopnet.com/Attachments/6...2269405FFC.pdf
Upper Level Floorplan
(labels indicate large format retail (108,000 sq ft) and Cineplex):
http://www.loopnet.com/Attachments/0...E2282C6319.pdf


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Brochure:
http://www.loopnet.com/Attachments/8...D633323892.pdf

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


http://www.formretail.ca/


http://www.formretail.ca/


http://www.formretail.ca/

[queetz@home]

Seems like an awful waste of prime space given it being at the skytrain station and right smack in the centre of Surrey. Why oh why do suburban office tower proposals have to be so short? Once its there, its going to be like that forever. Wasn't there a report that says office space beside Skytrain stations command premium prices or something?

If the developer is in a hurry to cash in, leave some space for future taller towers. At the very least, vertically phase those office buildings or somethin....

[SpongeG]

thats the end of their downtown though isn't it? i think they look fine a nice build up to the tallers that will go to the north

[nickinacan]

This is the type of development Surrey should really be pushing for. Highrises are not always the best solution for density. Low rise buildings are much better when it comes to the whole pedestrian experience. The commercial component is right where it ought to be, there is limited surface parking, and three high rises? I am all for it. In addition, since the commercial component is sandwiched between the Infinity development and the giant Holland Pointe development across the street, it really offers some breathing room.

[phesto]

I know a lot of folks here will be pissed that PCI isn't pursuing tall towers like the previous proponent, but it just doesn't make sense economically. They want to be able to phase it.

Vertical phasing is fine, though I don't foresee a tall office tower in Surrey anytime soon.

[jlousa]

Glad to see PCI behind this project. I now have a confidence that it'll happen that I never had with Berezen. Personally I worry about a potential upcoming glut of retail space across the region but it's obvious that others don't share that concern.
I think the office sqftage is appropriate for this location and it'll help draw additional people onto skytrain in the opposite direction which currently has an abundance of capacity during peak times.

[nickinacan]

Plus they want the mass of high density development to circle the new civic centre and Surrey Central Station. King George Station and Gateway Station were meant to be mixed use.

[racc]

Originally Posted by nickinacan

Low rise buildings are much better when it comes to the whole pedestrian experience.

This is absolutely not the case. It the detail at the street level that total determines the pedestrian experience. The height of the building is not relevant at all.

Originally Posted by nickinacan

The commercial component is right where it ought to be, there is limited surface parking, and three high rises?

I am shocked that there is surface parking at all. It is right next to a rapid transit station and a soon to be B-Line route. There should be no surface parking at all. It will just waste everyone's time. All people seem to think that they are parking jedis and can magically claim one of the few surface parking spaces. More often than not, these spaces will be full forcing people to use the underground parking. Don't bother with the surface parking then they won't be wasting their time looking for it. It just creates more driving.

A perfect example of this is the development across from New Port Village in PoMo. It is total chaos with all the people driving by the few surface parking spaces to check if they are available before heading to the underground.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by nickinacan

This is the type of development Surrey should really be pushing for. Highrises are not always the best solution for density. Low rise buildings are much better when it comes to the whole pedestrian experience. The commercial component is right where it ought to be, there is limited surface parking, and three high rises? I am all for it. In addition, since the commercial component is sandwiched between the Infinity development and the giant Holland Pointe development across the street, it really offers some breathing room.

Originally Posted by racc

This is absolutely not the case. It the detail at the street level that total determines the pedestrian experience. The height of the building is not relevant at all.


I am shocked that there is surface parking at all. It is right next to a rapid transit station and a soon to be B-Line route. There should be no surface parking at all. It will just waste everyone's time..

I largely agree with RACC that it is the street level and what it provides, both in amenities and services, plus the aesthetic/design aspect that determines how good the pedestrian experience will be.

The only possible negative factor (IMHO) could be the shadow aspect caused by tall buildings, and the fact that low-rise buildings create a more "European" feel, while having high-rises creates something more "hybrid big-city" (a bit like Mississauga).
- - -
Regarding parking, it would be nice to cars out, of the way, creating a less cluttered atmosphere, although many people want to simply park next to where they want to go for convenience.

Again, I think that underground parking could be the better option, even if it requires a bit more access time. (The last thing I'd want to see is a latter-day "Kingsway")
*
Also, a magnificent fountain, like the one in Sergels Torg, playing somewhere within sight would be great, but I guess that's asking a bit too much!! And of course, this is suburban Surrey, not central Stockholm!!

[QUOTE]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...n_20040506.jpg[QUOTE/IMG]
wikipedia

[Millennium2002]

The only caveat I have about this development is this really oddly placed kiosk-like establishment that will be built right in front of the King George SkyTrain Station south entrance... Now... I wouldn't mind if they rebuilt the station with more stores inside, but having that thing in front of the entrance is just asking for trouble by blocking efficient pedestrian movements and commutes; creating a blind, unsupervised corner that may be prone to more seedy and criminal elements; and obscuring the visibility and identity of the station in general to tourists and other residents.

(One might think btw that my concerns sound a little weird, but they're more like a summary of what I think are the actual crime prevention through station design principles + station accessibility and identification principles that TransLink has.)

That kiosk aside, the rest of the development looks fine and I'd wish to see most of it go ahead as planned.

[nickinacan]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

The only possible negative factor (IMHO) could be the shadow aspect caused by tall buildings, and the fact that low-rise buildings create a more "European" feel, while having high-rises creates something more "hybrid big-city" (a bit like Mississauga).

Yuck. That is exactly what Surrey should not strive to be. Sure Mississauga has a pretty nice skyscraper, but there is absolutely no cohesiveness to the downtown area, much like the Metrotown area in Burnaby. They took the "Lets cram highrises around a big mall" approach to planning, which kills any opportunity for vibrant street life.

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Regarding parking, it would be nice to cars out, of the way, creating a less cluttered atmosphere, although many people want to simply park next to where they want to go for convenience.

Again, I think that underground parking could be the better option, even if it requires a bit more access time. (The last thing I'd want to see is a latter-day "Kingsway")

Agreed. Although the surface parking is less surface parking and more angled street parking if you get where I am coming from. It looks like there is underground parking as well. I would prefer it to be completely underground, but as stated in my other response post, it is probably just 15 minute parking for convenience.

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Also, a magnificent fountain, like the one in Sergels Torg, playing somewhere within sight would be great, but I guess that's asking a bit too much!! And of course, this is suburban Surrey, not central Stockholm!!

That is funny that you brought up Stockholm as I have been there before. Sergels Torg is the type of central focal point Surrey needs, but I believe that this will be the more pedestrian oriented Civic Centre. Something like Sergels Torg (Or Kogens Nytorv or Radhuspladsen in Copenhagen) would be perfect in an area on the north end of the City Centre, like at the "5 Corners" area at 108th Avenue and King George. The north end is really missing a focal point. I know there were concepts of the area with a large fountain there, but I don't know what became of that.

[tybuilding]

I like the concepts, as long as they take into account the extension of the BC Parkway through the site an have a proper multi-use urban trail that allows for cycling I will be happy.

The low rise office tower reminds me of the AMEC building across from Stadium Skytrain station.

[GMasterAres]

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1091...revitalization





Image sources from newswire.ca. The project for residences still doesn't add up with rendering. You'll note the "shadow" buildings in the back are Park Place and the phase after Park Avenue. Park Place being 35 storeys, the 3 towers in the background as part of this project still look quite a bit shorter or of the same size.

Also re-residences, if you look closely in the top render especially, you can now see 4 residential towers. Back one is 39 story, next is about 35 or so, next is about 30, and the other is about 24. So if you go 10 units per floor average, that would be around 1300 units give or take. So that leaves another 400 still which could be done through ground level 4 story or what not. Either way if this project and all phases does go through, King George is going to be quite bustling.

Imagine final projects complete around there being Infinity, 4 towers for Park Place (2 current, 2 future between current and Skytrain), 2 x Park Avenue, the 40+ story tower behind Park Avenue, you have the existing tower there, then 4 more residential towers and commercial space + (LOOK A THEATRE). You throw in the still on hold but possible Holland Pointe and you have a lot of people in a small area.

I think this project could be a catalyst and with such a visible committed anchor in Coast Capital, I would bet money this will see the light of day for sure.

[nickinacan]

Originally Posted by racc

This is absolutely not the case. It the detail at the street level that total determines the pedestrian experience. The height of the building is not relevant at all.

It definitely does. There is a huge difference in the feel of district that has things designed at a more human scale. Don't get my wrong, I love skyscrapers, and the level of detail at street level definitely plays a part in it, but they definitely need to have breathing room and allow natural light to come down to street level. I was travelling from May to August and went everywhere Chicago to Athens, and I can tell you that the low to mid rise buildings definitely make a huge difference.

Originally Posted by racc

I am shocked that there is surface parking at all. It is right next to a rapid transit station and a soon to be B-Line route. There should be no surface parking at all. It will just waste everyone's time. All people seem to think that they are parking jedis and can magically claim one of the few surface parking spaces. More often than not, these spaces will be full forcing people to use the underground parking. Don't bother with the surface parking then they won't be wasting their time looking for it. It just creates more driving.

A perfect example of this is the development across from New Port Village in PoMo. It is total chaos with all the people driving by the few surface parking spaces to check if they are available before heading to the underground.

I definitely agree with you there, but I don't believe that Surrey is ready to give up surface parking completely. I believe that these stalls will probably just be something like 15 minute parking only so people can run into the pharmacy or whatever. If it were up to me, it would all be underground.

[racc]

Originally Posted by nickinacan

It definitely does. There is a huge difference in the feel of district that has things designed at a more human scale. Don't get my wrong, I love skyscrapers, and the level of detail at street level definitely plays a part in it, but they definitely need to have breathing room and allow natural light to come down to street level. I was travelling from May to August and went everywhere Chicago to Athens, and I can tell you that the low to mid rise buildings definitely make a huge difference.

There is absolutely no evidence to support that shorter buildings are better for pedestrians. So called "human scale" building sizes is a bunch of BS invented by people who for whatever reason don't like towers. Even a two story building is much larger than a person so to say it is "human scale" is totally ridiculous.

As far as light goes, that depends more on street widths and the orientation of the buildings and the reflectively of the buildings. In summer, it is actually really nice to have taller buildings they can provide much needed shade.

Here is some actual research:
http://www.vancouversun.com/Pedestri...186/story.html

Design - not height - matters. Daniel Fusca, a planner with Project-Walk Canada, studied more than 60 highrises in the Toronto area. What he found is that if buildings have shops or homes at ground level, if they have few blank walls, if they're set back further from the street and designed to minimize wind, the pedestrian's experience is no different if the building is 10 storeys or 100.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

thats the end of their downtown though isn't it? i think they look fine a nice build up to the tallers that will go to the north

Found your post in retro-research, and I agree totally. It gives a "definition" to downtown," and as you say, leads up nicely to the taller towers. Also, that curved building on the angled coner has an almost "European" (dare I say that?) symmetry and elegance to it, the way it fits that intersection.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Found your post in retro-research, and I agree totally. It gives a "definition" to downtown," and as you say, leads up nicely to the taller towers. Also, that curved building on the angled coner has an almost "European" (dare I say that?) symmetry and elegance to it, the way it fits that intersection.

The renders you're talking about in the post above the one you quoted (which was posted 2 years ago) are no longer what the project looks like.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Jebby

The renders you're talking about in the post above the one you quoted (which was posted 2 years ago) are no longer what the project looks like.

I beg your pardon.
Do you happen to know where I can access a link to what the project looks like now?
/ Thanks

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I beg your pardon.
Do you happen to know where I can access a link to what the project looks like now?
/ Thanks

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

It's only 8 pages long.

[Metro-One]

I like it, and this one I actually can imagine proceeding in Surrey.

It is funny though how all of Surrey's high hopes (tallest residential between Vancouver and Surrey, the 30 floor or more city hall office tower, Vans tallest office tower, etc...) have all been reduced to this. (also funny to note that slowly sneaking its way in with little fan fare / media coverage Burnaby is currently building the tallest 2 towers in Canada between Vancouver and Calgary.)

But all that aside, i do think this is a good looking development.