HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Metro Vancouver & the Fraser Valley


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #401  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2008, 6:04 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 41,834
Down south near Newton (56th (or is it 64th?) east of King George Highway).

Great news!!
Mind you, Richmond's City Hall is a landmark downtown building and it hasn't spurred a flood of office development there - although it does have some.

Last edited by officedweller; Mar 14, 2008 at 6:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #402  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2008, 6:28 PM
excel excel is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,484
Good news.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #403  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2008, 7:35 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 41,834
From the Now:

Quote:
Moving city hall to core? That's one fine idea

Surrey Now
Friday, March 14, 2008

In her state of the city address, Mayor Dianne Watts assured Surrey's community leaders developing the city centre is a priority.

"With our strategic central location and rapid growth, Surrey's City Centre is poised to be the primary business district for the South of the Fraser area and the Lower Mainland's second downtown core," she said Thursday.

"We are starting to see real growth in our city centre."

Good news, to be sure.

But what we like even more than promises of growth and vibrancy in Surrey's core is action.

And, as usual, Watts delivered it. The push is on for a regional library downtown and the provincial headquarters of the RCMP is moving to the core, bringing 2,300 jobs.

Plus, Watts told the luncheon crowd the process has begun to move Surrey's city hall into the downtown area.

Awaiting a report from city staff, Watts said she is committed to making the move.

And we can't support her enough on this one. Because it's one thing to talk a good game but it's quite another to back it up.

Moving city hall downtown would add another vital government anchor to the area (Canada Revenue Agency is already there).

Plus, it would bring about 2,000 more employees to the core, which would bring big bucks and big buzz to downtown.

Believe it or not, we've seen other community leaders in B.C. give lip service to revitalizing their city's core, despite having just moved their offices uptown.

One more reason to love Surrey.

© Surrey Now 2008
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #404  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2008, 12:02 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,805
awesome news!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #405  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2008, 2:45 AM
David's Avatar
David David is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,453
it was really cool seeing all the movie set stuff today.
they had maps of the US with "highway evacuation routes" or something marked out.
and a map of SFU had been taken and the title "SFU" was pasted over with Fort Linwood Military Academy. All the building names and everything remained the same... obviously wouldn't matter for long shots. It was still pretty cool.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #406  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2008, 6:07 PM
Bert Bert is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 411
Kingsway Pedestrian Overpass Update

From the latest report on it (Feb 18 2008): "Over the month of February the contractor will be completing the surface preparation and installation of glass. The application of the final finish to the various components is highly weather dependant; therefore, the contractor expects to be complete by the end of April 2008."

There's still no glass on the Kingsway bridge though, and the decking has been left totally unfinished. Actually, the pedestrian bridges over Kingsway and McMurray haven't appeared to progress at all for a couple months. As of the last report (October 2007), the bridges were supposed to be complete by January.

Anyone know if there's some problems at Dominion Construction?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #407  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2008, 6:09 PM
cc85 cc85 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 451
city hal, downtown surrey? lol, i dont think surrey has any large area of land available to it to build a good city hall. 3 years completion time frame to boot? haha. bing thom to design it? haha, they are so far behind on developing the city centre plan that they could not do the city hall in that time frame. expect a timeframe of 5-7 years.

nevertheless, bring it to city centre!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Last edited by cc85; Mar 16, 2008 at 7:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #408  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2008, 4:07 PM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
I would agree that 3 year completion time is a bit optimistic mainly from an infrastructure standpoint. From a building and layout standpoint, it wouldn't be too tough. Most city hall designs opt for a very large open area where they can put removable walls and or snap-together furniture. So for areas like CPD, Engineering, etc., it's fairly easy to put those up. You just design a really large space, then layout the furniture in Visio.

The difficult part is the power, Information Technology area, data centre, phone systems, and all the rack rooms designed and implemented correctly. I would imagine they would plan to move _some_ not all of the services to the new building within 3 years while construction is still underway.

So you probably wouldn't see a fully running city hall in Central Surrey for teh 5-7 years as cc85 mentioned. It could certainly be designed and built such that you could see some services there within 3 years. I would imagine they'd be looking at putting it close to the skytrain.

If anyone will recall (and I have a Google Earth design with the plans) the transit village concept that was put forward a year or so ago, there was call for a complete redesign of the North Surrey Rec Centre by squishing a bit of the front building, removing a large bulk of the parking in front, and constructing a few buildings including a hi-rise there (directly across from Central City).

I would 'guess' that this would be an area they'd be looking to build the new city hall. Right next to the Central Surrey 'icon', pretty much attached to Surrey Central skytrain station, and in the 'heart' of downtown.

If I were a betting man, I'd put money down on there. They also wouldn't need to kick anyone aka businesses or residents out since they control that land already.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #409  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2008, 7:12 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 41,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
They also wouldn't need to kick anyone aka businesses or residents out since they control that land already.
Good call!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #410  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2008, 12:19 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,135
well they do have a whole area where they want a "downtown" and a lot of it is currently crappy single home dwellings

that big empty building on 104th is suppossed to be in the "new" downtown so i imagine the houses in that are could be gone before too long - the area i beleive was rezoned years ago to prepare for a downtown
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #411  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2008, 5:10 AM
SFUVancouver's Avatar
SFUVancouver SFUVancouver is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,731
Citi and Motif | March 13th, 2008


My photo, taken March 13th, 2008


My photo, taken March 13th, 2008


Brentwood Gate | March 13th, 2008


My photo, taken March 13th, 2008


My photo, taken March 13th, 2008

The tint on the Mk2 SkyTrain windows ended up looking really dark.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #412  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2008, 7:52 AM
vanman's Avatar
vanman vanman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,487
^ Brentwood Gate looks like a fortress with that massive concrete wall facing Lougheed Hwy. Please tell me that it will be at least somewhat covered up with landscaping.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #413  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2008, 7:26 PM
cc85 cc85 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 451
aside from the huge tower, what an excellent transformation of the once poor natural landscape! i want to see it!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #414  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2008, 10:27 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,135
the lot across from brentwood gate is a beehive of activity this week

they have cleared all the trees and are doing lord knows what with all kinds of equipment

its also a ledmac project

i think its going to be an 18 storey tower? with retail at the base?

anyone know for sure?

the people in collage next door must be grumbling with so much going on next to them now
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #415  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2008, 6:15 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
Too many of these to keep track of, not sure if this one has been posted before, hopefully someone more famaliar with the area will be able to let us know.

CONDOMINIUM APARTMENT, COMMERCIAL TOWER Proj: 9063428-3
Coquitlam, Greater Vancouver RD BC PREPARING PLANS
2992 Glen Dr, V3P 2P7
$24,000,000 est
Start: 2009
Note: Currently in a design and application for development permit has been made. Working drawings and construction schedules are undetermined at this time. Further update over Summer 2008.
Project: proposed mixed-use tower containing CRU/office space on floors one-eight; 192 condo units on floors nine-27; three levels u/g prkg.
Scope: 225,000 square feet; 27 storeys; 3 storeys below grade; 192 units
Development: New
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #416  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2008, 4:54 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,135
Highrise proposal draws concerns

'Enough is enough' message from public meeting
Leneen Robb, Coquitlam NOW
Published: Wednesday, March 19, 2008



Highrises and the building activity that goes along with their construction have become hot-button issues in the Tri-Cities.
Photograph by : NOW file photo


A proposal to redevelop the Heritage Mountain shopping village in Port Moody is attracting intense interest -- even though it's at such an early stage in the approval process that council hasn't formally discussed it yet.

Key Choi owns the site, considered the last undeveloped parcel in NewPort Village. It's located next to the NewPort Village Market Square shopping complex on Ioco Road at Ungless Way, and contains an IGA grocery store.

Choi has applied to the city for an official community plan amendment and rezoning to allow for the construction of two highrise towers and amenities ranging from retail and office space to a daycare and pocket park.

He's also hired Romses Architects to design the proposed development and, as part of the approval process, the firm held an open house last Thursday.

Of those who attended, 224 signed in and 160 filled out feedback forms.

Scott Romses said he knew the proposal would attract a lot of interest.

"We knew it was going to be a very strong turnout because it's obviously a very important part of the community and a very high profile site," he said, adding that he wasn't expecting quite as many people to show up as did.

Staff at the firm has been going through feedback forms during the past few days, and Romses said two key concerns stand out: density and highrise towers.

"I think a lot of people don't want to see more highrise towers and a lot of people would like to see that site remain zoned lowrise," he said, "but our point of view is that it should be of a similar nature to the rest of NewPort Village."

Former Port Moody councillor Ann Hulbert, however, disagrees.

She called The NOW after attending the open house, and said there was a lineup to get inside the meeting room at the Social Recreation Centre.

"I think everybody was honestly saying the same thing, and that is, 'Enough is enough. No more highrises in that area,'" she said, adding that she originally thought the proposal was for a 28-storey tower, and was disappointed to learn that both 19- and 31-storey buildings are planned.

Hulbert said her late husband spent 19 days living at the nearby hospice, and she's concerned the noise of such a large construction project would disturb patients.

She's also worried about the impact the proposed 304 residential units could have on traffic. While she lives on the city's north shore, she already encounters traffic snarls as she drives past the site each day.

She doesn't oppose all highrises -- she was on council when the area's first towers were approved -- but says she'd prefer to see the site rebuilt with lowrise residential on top of commercial.

"The thing that really stood out to me was how angry the people were," she said of last Thursday's meeting.

"I have never, in all my 35 odd years of living in this city, ever, ever been to an open house where there were so many people in a far-too-small room getting very upset."

Whenever major developments are proposed, traffic concerns top the list.

Romses, however, said the proposed development is designed to reduce the use of cars.

"We've worked very hard to try and create a walkable, sustainable development and predicating that is that a good proportion of the people will take access to transit, buses, the Evergreen Line when it's there -- so we're trying to create a development where people can live, work and play onsite," he said.

"They don't have to get into their car to get groceries. They don't have to get into their car to visit their dentist ... it's a complete community where we get away from this very suburban mentality where everything is predicated on the car."

His firm plans to approach the city sometime in May to proceed to the next step in the approval process, which involves presenting the project to a land use committee consisting of council and private citizens.

If the project gains preliminary approval, a public hearing would be scheduled before it could receive the final OK.

"We're talking three to four years for Phase 1," Romses said, explaining that the first phase of the project would consist of the highrises, while the second would comprise mixed-use development and the pocket park.

The plan is to allow the IGA to stay onsite, by moving it into a new location built during Phase 1.

"A lot of people thought it was a done deal and that this is just a formality," Romses said of the open house, "but I just want to emphasize that this is Step 1. Council, mayor hasn't even seen this. There's a long way to go."


http://www.canada.com/coquitlamnow/news/story.html?id=cdd5db8c-72cb-4652-98bd-7ecf67cb669b&k=33681
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #417  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2008, 4:55 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,135
Don't turn Port Moody into another Metrotown

My wife and I have lived in Port Moody since 1982.

We have watched the community transform from an industrial centre to one of Metro Vancouver's most desirable residential suburbs.

A large part of the city's award-winning transformation is due to intelligent planning and construction of high-density residential projects which are essential to enable the city to maintain its tax base and contribute much needed housing to the metro area.

In our opinion, Port Moody's approval process for all of the high-density projects currently in place or under construction has been very successful in assuring that each project meets all of the sometimes conflicting requirements for accessibility, traffic, preservation of green space, respect for neighbouring properties and maintenance of the unique nature of our community.

While we hope that the city's approval process will continue to guide us along an intelligent path, our confidence was shaken by the March 13 presentation by a developer at the Social Recreation Centre of a plan to replace the shopping centre on Ioco Road across from City Hall with a two-tower, 31- and 19-storey retail and residential complex.

This is a behemoth of a project with over 300 residential units on top of more commercial space than that which is currently on the site, all plunked down in what is already the densest part of the city.

Even more disturbing than the presentation of a project which clearly violates the principles noted above was an air of inevitability exhibited by the presenters; the formal approval process was seen as merely a formality.

All dissenting voices were dismissed.

An observation that the amount of parking provided in the project is inadequate to meet the needs of such a large complex and replace the nearly 200 spaces lost by the elimination of the existing ground-level parking was countered with an assertion that there is already ample public parking available under the existing buildings in NewPort Village.

Such ridiculous claims were typical of those presented in support of the project.

This project needs to be rethought.

Let's continue to develop Port Moody sensibly -- more high density by all means, but not projects like this that only fuel developers' greed for profits and will make our city into just another Metrotown or Brentwood.

Doug Mills

Port Moody

http://www.canada.com/coquitlamnow/news/...8c5d-ae35-40fe-b2c5-a2d048198bf0&k=19913
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #418  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2008, 4:55 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,135
Highrises the new hot-button issue

Coquitlam NOW


Wednesday, March 19, 2008


Highrises seem to have replaced transportation and crime as the No. 1 concern of many Tri-Cities residents.

It's not surprising, considering that we're at the tail end of a building boom and the local skyline has changed remarkably during the past few years.

Two planned developments in particular -- a 26-storey tower at the corner of Lions Way and Shaughnessy Street in Port Coquitlam, and 19- and 31-storey highrises planned for Ioco Road and Ungless Way in Port Moody -- have become huge stories in recent weeks.

An open house about the proposed Port Moody development drew more than 200 people to a meeting Thursday, despite the fact that council has not even formally discussed the proposal yet.

And the tower planned for one of Port Coquitlam's busiest corners was so contentious that, after a second public hearing was needed because of a technicality, two councillors switched their votes to oppose it. The tower passed third reading by a slim margin of 4-3.

An online poll on The NOW's website is tracking public sentiment on the issue of highrise development and, as of Tuesday afternoon, 25.29 per cent of respondents said we should allow developers to build more highrises because we need to conserve land.

Just 5.75 per cent favoured highrises because "a condo is all I can afford," while 2.3 per cent were unsure and 16.09 per cent said "suburbs are for houses."

A whopping 50.57 per cent of respondents said No to highrises because "they're ugly."

That may or may not be true, depending on your views about architecture, but one thing to consider is that by housing people in highrises, we can preserve more green space for parkland and wildlife habitat, as well as agricultural uses.

The way we see it, there's nothing ugly about that.

http://www.canada.com/coquitlamnow/news/...29fc-46cc-4efe-95fb-c29145520687&k=52467
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #419  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2008, 4:58 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,135
Condos for Fantasy Gardens?

John Kurucz, Special to the Richmond News
Published: Tuesday, March 18, 2008
An ambitious plan announced last week that could see the Fantasy Gardens lands redeveloped has at least one city council member cautiously awaiting the purchaser's next step.

Coun. Harold Steves told the News Friday that he was caught off guard to hear news of Townline's proposed plans to redevelop the 22-acre property at No. 5 Road and Steveston Highway.

"I'm surprised he's (Rick Ilich, president of Townline Ventures) actually buying it because I've advised him not to," said Steves, who chairs of the city's planning committee.


Bob Pearce, a development manager with Townline, says the company does not intend to apply to have the land removed from the Agriculture Land Reserve.
Photograph by : Brett Beadle/Richmond News


"I met with him a year ago, and city staff discussed this with him a year ago, and we said we did not want high-density apartments and townhouses there."

The property was purchased last December by Townline, a Richmond-based development company. The city's Official Community Plan designates the site as a mixed-use development. About half the land is contained within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), though Ilich told the News Friday his company does not intend on applying to remove that land from the ALR.

"The main thing is that we're just focusing on the existing OCP designation -- we're not trying to reinvent the wheel, we're just trying to go with what the city has already envisioned for this site," he said. "I guess the biggest mystery will be the ratio of that mixed use -- is it 50 per cent retail and 50 per cent residential, or is it a third retail, a third residential a third of something else? That's the whole point of the public consultation, so we can get a better feeling of what some of the neighbours want to see."

A series of public consultation sessions will take place at the site from April to June, though no firm dates or times have been set.

Ilich said Townline officials met with city staff and some community members about 18 months ago -- before his current plans began to solidify -- though they "were quick to say this looks a bit overpowering."

"If they have living quarters on top of stores, that might work," Steves said. "But the original plan that I discussed with him, there's no way I can support that. We'll see what they come up with."

Steves said the area of No. 5 Road is widely considered by the city as the divide between urban and rural land, and that high-density housing does not suit the area's makeup.

Ilich said his company has learned from those preliminary discussions with community stakeholders, and he's cognizant of the fact that some people will express opposition no matter what.

"Other than a few people who might dislike the idea of anything ever changing, I think people are willing to see that intersection improved and look more like a front door," he said. "What a front door means will be different for some people but our focus is to do this right. If you were to go the easy route, I think that's a bit of a copout and we would be a little bit embarrassed to be a part of something like that."

What will be done about the traffic in the area, and what happens to the land in the ALR are two of the more contentious issues Ilich expects to face in the coming months.

As for the land in the ALR, Ilich said his company will maintain its botanical gardens theme while canvassing the community on ideas for farming uses. He's hoping that academics from either Kwantlen University College or the University of B.C. will assist Townline is finding a contemporary approach to those farming plans.

"I also think it's our job to mitigate our impact on traffic as much as possible or probably completely," he added.

Potential resident opposition aside, the Fantasy Gardens lands have been the subject of controversy in the past.

The site was once owned by former Social Credit Premier Bill Vander Zalm, and featured a number of Christian symbols throughout the property -- statues depicting the life of Christ and a replica of Noah's Ark.

But Vander Zalm faced a maelstrom of controversy over the eventual sale of the site in the early 1990s.

A conflict of interest commissioner's report released in April 1991 found that Vander Zalm used his position as premier to facilitate the $16 million sale of the property to a Taiwanese conglomerate. Vander Zalm resigned on April 2, 1991.

Ilich maintained that any commercial or retail space at the site will not be of the big box variety.

"We think that's wrong. As a Richmond business, and as someone who grew up in Richmond, I don't think I'd feel good about slapping another big box into people's faces," Ilich said.

As for the claim that the development will drive housing costs up?

"I often hear the argument that change means house prices are going to go up and that means my kids won't be able to live here -- that's actually — backwards. You stop supply, prices go up dramatically. Inflation is inevitable, but I think you can spread it over longer periods of time by allowing further density," he said.

For more information on the project and when the public consultations will take place, see www.gatewaytorichmond.ca.

http://www.canada.com/richmondnews/news/story.html?id=6ec521e4-0d9b-4058-87cb-62034aa89f56&k=3258
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #420  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2008, 7:20 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 41,834
WRT Surrey Central - they also need a Convention Centre in central Surrey. Maybe they could tie that in with the City Hall project (start medium sized and expand?). That would boost the need for hotels there and rev up the activity. SFU Surrey could also take advantage of the facilities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
   
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Metro Vancouver & the Fraser Valley
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:25 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.