Surrey Updates - Page 40

xd_1771 · #**781** Posted **Oct 21, 2010, 11:40 PM**

Not what I expected at all, seems impressive!

Whalleyboy · #**782** Posted **Oct 21, 2010, 11:56 PM**

where you expecting just a plain green wall? you should know Surrey doesnt look for normal

SpongeG · #**783** Posted **Oct 22, 2010, 1:16 AM**

lets hope they maintain it - the one at the wholefoods in vancouver looks kinda gross now dead plants in parts, dying plants, they have to keep up a lot of maintenance

odd choice for a publicly funded building - but it looks nice

xd_1771 · #**784** Posted **Oct 22, 2010, 8:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

where you expecting just a plain green wall? you should know Surrey doesnt look for normal

Wasn't actually expecting it to be covered with plants I mean

Whalleyboy · #**785** Posted **Oct 28, 2010, 12:20 AM**

well civicsurrey has found stuff on the knight and day town area.

Quote:

A new 18-storey, mixed use tower, proposed by Circadian Projects, appears ready to set a new standard for high density development in the City Centre. The development, at 9677 King George Boulevard, the current site of the Knight and Day restaurant, incorporates all the elements to be desired in new towers, such as interesting architecture, mixed-uses, street frontage, enhanced public green space, and LEED certification.

The design of the tower, led by Atelier Pacific, echoes the wide curves of the Central City tower, while adding a bold and modern podium and red vertical stripe. It is certainly far more interesting than the Infinity/Park Place towers, and definitely more unique than the D’Corize or CityPoint towers.

The podium, an essential component of the successful towers in Downtown Vancouver, incorporates a pharmacy, labs, and a coffee shop at the ground level, a restaurant and lounge on the second floor, and medical offices on the third floor. Even more importantly, these variety of uses will be accessible directly from the street, meaning a more engaging and exciting pedestrian experience.

The mixture of uses in this tower goes beyond the podium level however. Centred around a medical space theme that functions particularly well with the project’s proximity to Surrey Memorial, the tower is being designed to maximize leasing options. Plans include a possible care facility from the 4th to 10th floors, medical office space from the 11th to 16th floors, and a commons area and rooftop patio on the 17th floor. The floor plans can be changed to accommodate residential leases as well, if the market does not warrant a full medical tower.

The project will retain and enhance an existing creek on the west side of the property. A new public green space, with paths and a gazebo, will be constructed fronting onto this creek area. 84 new trees will be planted in the area, replacing the 1 mature tree that will be removed.

The development expects to meet LEED Silver certification. Green building features include tower orientation to ensure maximum daylight, on-site storm water management with bioswales, on-site renewable energy with a solar thermal water system, low e-glazing windows, low flow fixtures, LED lighting, energy efficient appliances, and recycled construction materials.

All in all, the project truly sets a new standard for developments in the City Centre. Most towers following Central City haven’t come close to that building’s success. This development however builds on Central City’s best elements, taking that standard to the next level with bolder architecture, even greater mixed uses, more active street frontage, and incorporating some of the most advanced green building technology available. There’s no doubt in my mind that if constructed, this will be the new bellwether for high density towers in the City.p

pictures all there
http://www.civicsurrey.com/2010/10/27/proposed-tower-sets-new-standard-for-city-centre/

officedweller · #**786** Posted **Oct 28, 2010, 12:36 AM**

Looks OK - not actually as nice as was described before as two ovals.

It's also being proposed as either all office, all residential or mixed office and residential.

I'll bet the renders, with large pane glass, shows the office version and a residential version will have operable windows and won;t look as sleek.

mr.A · #**787** Posted **Oct 29, 2010, 10:43 PM**

my pic.

officedweller · #**788** Posted **Oct 29, 2010, 11:30 PM**

Nice!
But is that green glass? Maybe the concrete won't be painted beige?

xd_1771 · #**789** Posted **Oct 30, 2010, 12:15 AM**

This is an on-going e-mail conversation between me and a Gateway Program representative concerning the 6-lane bottleneck/narrowing at the 104th/160th interchange as part of the new Highway 1 expansion plans, immediately adjacent to the Guildford area. This is a choice that concerns me largely about how it will affect the Guildford area.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Original message
Greetings from SkyscraperPage,
The forum members of Skyscraperpage's Vancouver subforums have noticed a possible mistake or flaw in the diagrams related to the 160th/104th interchange design (see: http://pmh1project.com/inforoom/documents/20091209FraserHeightsProjectUPdate-Final_000.pdf

page 3, http://www.pmh1project.com/inforoom/documents/20101021FHE-CombinedDisplayBoards-FINAL.pdf

). Does this 500m section which appears to have only 6 lanes in the diagrams (2 regular + 1 HOV) reflect on the actual design of the interchange or is this just a mistake in the drawings? We have been supposedly promised 4 lanes (3 regular + 1 HOV) throughout to the bridge from 200th Street and this would be a major disappointment on our part if this were to happen. We would like to point out this mistake because of fear that it could adversely affect traffic patterns approaching the new Port Mann Bridge, specifically and especially with the amount of trucks coming from Highway 15 and then being forced to merge yet another lane into the left to avoid exiting (i.e. a Grandview-Willingdon situation with bigger distancing). We would appreciate an honest and punctual answer on this matter.

Best wishes from SkyscraperPage Vancouver,
Daryl Dela Cruz (member: xd_1771)

Quote:

Dear Daryl,
Thank you for your email regarding the future lane configuration at the 160 Street interchange.

There will be three general purpose lanes and one HOV lane in each direction between the 152 Street interchange and the 200 Street interchange. Near the 160 Street interchange, the outside westbound lane will be an exit-only lane and will drop off at the 104 Avenue/160 Street exit. It will be picked up again on the other side of the interchange where there is a two lane 104 Avenue/160 Street on-ramp to Highway 1 westbound with one of those lanes becoming a highway through-lane. A similar situation will exist in the eastbound direction.

I appreciate that you have concerns about traffic flow in this area. This configuration was designed in recognition of the high volume of traffic exiting and entering Highway 1 at 160 Street, which is the last westbound exit before the Port Mann Bridge. If four lanes in each direction along Highway 1 were to be maintained through this area, it would mean that a ten lane section of highway would be required both immediately west and east of the 160 Street interchange, which is not warranted based on the future design traffic volumes. Extensive traffic modelling was conducted to simulate this laning configuration, and the results have shown that it will operate very well.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have additional questions.

Regards,
Alicia

Alicia Richards
Community Relations Coordinator
Transportation Investment Corporation
Suite 1420 - 1111 West Georgia Street Vancouver BC
Office: 778-783-1220| Mobile: 604-828-7900| Email: [email protected]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I have studied the various diagrams concerning this area and I am very concerned about how traffic will actually negotiate this pattern. There are a few more questions I would like to ask and concerns I would like to point out as noticed by me and other members on SkyscraperPage.

It seems that this plan creates a lot of weaving. What worries me the most is in the eastbound direction just before the interchange; I am afraid that taking the two lanes of traffic from Highway 7, merging into one before adding on to the highway, and then forcing those travelers to merge onto the highway in no more than ~1200m concerns me largely, and I fear that traffic will suffer the most in this section. The westbound traffic pattern faces a similar effect; though it may seem more acceptable at first, when the amount of trucks coming from Highway 15 is considered it becomes known that trucks will have to change lanes twice, creating a Grandview-Willingdon effect though it is spread over 1800m.

I am a resident of the Guildford area and I actually do appreciate how the extra lanes for the ramps can actually benefit my own travel in and out of the Guildford area on Highway 1 as my residence is closest to this exit, but I am extremely worried about the consequences this could face on Guildford. There are already major traffic issues on 104th; the only acceptable route into Fraser Heights at 156th often results in the eastbound left turn lane backing up long past its' boundaries despite a long advanced signal. Combined with the often terrible lane layout light timings and at 154th as well as the lack of proper right turn lanes at intersections, this section of 104th for most of the day is a major traffic problem. I am extremely worried that if traffic patterns increase rapidly to the point where this bottleneck becomes severely congested, traffic will look to using 152nd and 104th as a part of the highway which will severely detriment the development of Guildford and the main routes in and out. These sections of road are crucial as connection roads to Highway 1 from Guildford, but to actually use these sections of road as a part of Highway 1 will block any suitable access into Guildford and deter business and residential development, and clog up local streets (possibly including my own) even more.

I have looked thoroughly at the construction of the new overpass and there doesn't appear to be any expansion room to add that fourth lane when necessary if traffic volumes do indeed suffer from this bottleneck. The last thing I would like to ask is why have no future expansion predicaments been made at this location? I wouldn't mind a temporary reduction to 6 lanes at 104th, but the lack of expansion options is what bothers me about this area the most. If any problems arise from the choice to bottleneck this section of highway to 6 lanes, I fear these problems will become permanent and persistent and largely affect my own way of life.

Many thanks for your reply,

Daryl Dela Cruz (member xd_1771)
SkyscraperPage Vancouver

go_leafs_go02 · #**790** Posted **Oct 30, 2010, 12:30 AM**

As I've said before, I can understand their situation in certain regards with merging in to the highway, but I am a strong proponent to having through lanes not come and go due to weaving problems. 1/4 cars do not exit at 160 Street heading westbound at this time, nor do I expect that to be.

Sounds like they don't want to do 10 lanes around there because it isn't warranted - even though in that email they mentioned that's what would make sense to do to ensure the thru lanes under the 160 Street overpass be retained as 3+1HOV.

Either way, I guess we'll see how this works when it's complete. I think it'll fail miserably to be honest. Remember, the Alex Fraser Bridge only warranted intersections at first - looks like those all lasted less than a year minus 72 Avenue (which besides is simply caused by political reasons - Hello Delta) gongshow.

If they only had provisions to ensure that the 160 Street overpass has room for widening in case they are mistaken - because traffic modelling doesn't prove accurate 100% of the time. Then I'd be OK. However, once built, we're screwed since you can't widen anymore. They designed the bridge with room for 8 lanes, which include the 2 offramp/onramp lanes to 104 Avenue that go under 160 Street.

Asinine to say the last. This bugs me like crazy. I don't even drive through there, I can just see what it's going to be.

xd_1771 · #**791** Posted **Oct 30, 2010, 12:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

As I've said before, I can understand their situation in certain regards with merging in to the highway, but I am a strong proponent to having through lanes not come and go due to weaving problems. 1/4 cars do not exit at 160 Street heading westbound at this time, nor do I expect that to be.

Sounds like they don't want to do 10 lanes around there because it isn't warranted - even though in that email they mentioned that's what would make sense to do to ensure the thru lanes under the 160 Street overpass be retained as 3+1HOV.

Either way, I guess we'll see how this works when it's complete. I think it'll fail miserably to be honest. Remember, the Alex Fraser Bridge only warranted intersections at first - looks like those all lasted less than a year minus 72 Avenue (which besides is simply caused by political reasons - Hello Delta) gongshow.

If they only had provisions to ensure that the 160 Street overpass has room for widening in case they are mistaken - because traffic modelling doesn't prove accurate 100% of the time. Then I'd be OK. However, once built, we're screwed since you can't widen anymore. They designed the bridge with room for 8 lanes, which include the 2 offramp/onramp lanes to 104 Avenue that go under 160 Street.

Asinine to say the last. This bugs me like crazy. I don't even drive through there, I can just see what it's going to be.

This is one of the two things that I'm worried about the most. I pointed this out in the reply e-mail. The other thing that worries me is how this could indirectly - and may I remind you, permanently - affect Guildford Town Centre; it's businesses, transportation, and the all-important 152 St - 104th corridor that is for most of the day ALREADY a bottleneck and could just get worse.

GMasterAres · #**792** Posted **Nov 2, 2010, 7:24 PM**

When you look at the new overpass designs, they are being built to accomodate 1 additional lane each direction including the one at 160th. That would allow them to push another lane through there if not 2 more since they are only extending it by 1 lane conceivably.

I don't know if I agree though that 1/4 of the cars don't exit at 160th from Highway 1 heading Westbound. I believe it is that amount if not more. Also keep in mind they are modeling not just rush hour but they model 24/7 and traffic models adjust consistently throughout the day and what day of the week you're in.

The major bottle neck anyway isn't 160th it's always been 152nd and with the collector lanes and doubling of the on-ramp capacity at 152nd alone you're going to probably reduce congestion by 50% alone right there. Even today when you get on at 160th you typically (not always but typically) will bottle up nearer to 152nd so 2 additional lanes I don't think is warrented yet for 160th.

I think it will be fine and to me it looks like they are building the overpasses to accomodate additional lanes so we're good. They wouldn't build a bridge that can expand lane wise if they weren't going to build the overpasses to also.

golog · #**793** Posted **Nov 7, 2010, 6:22 AM**

City Center Library is looking good.

I wouldn't be surprised to see it in a few movies, especially those in the sci-fi/futuristic genre

Whalleyboy · #**794** Posted **Nov 7, 2010, 1:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by golog

City Center Library is looking good.

I wouldn't be surprised to see it in a few movies, especially those in the sci-fi/futuristic genre

Gotta love Surrey for that its has the really future like building in central but then if you head over to cloverdale we got the old school like main street.

SpongeG · #**795** Posted **Nov 8, 2010, 10:41 PM**

Concord Pacific moves its reclamation mastery from Vancouver to Surrey

By Barbara Gunn, The vancouver Sun November 8, 2010 1:27 PM Comments (1)

In the coming years, the Surrey City Centre neighbourhood will bear no resemblance to the neighbourhood that long preceded it. And heavyweight developer Concord Pacific is front and centre in that transformation, by going up — quite literally.

...

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainmen...+Surrey/3785991/story.html#ixzz14jXTr1U9

red-paladin · #**796** Posted **Nov 9, 2010, 1:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpongeG

Concord Pacific moves its reclamation mastery from Vancouver to Surrey

By Barbara Gunn, The vancouver Sun November 8, 2010 1:27 PM Comments (1)

In the coming years, the Surrey City Centre neighbourhood will bear no resemblance to the neighbourhood that long preceded it. And heavyweight developer Concord Pacific is front and centre in that transformation, by going up — quite literally.

...

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainmen...+Surrey/3785991/story.html#ixzz14jXTr1U9

"Park Place – so named for the nearby Holland Park – will incorporate some 12,000 square feet of commercial space, and eventually be adjacent to additional Concord Pacific offerings.

Longer-term plans, Murray notes, will see the developer inserting an additional four towers into the Surrey City Centre area, bringing to about 2,300 its residential contribution."

Sweet.

invisibleairwaves · #**797** Posted **Nov 9, 2010, 3:48 AM**

Woah...

http://www.civicsurrey.com/2010/11/08/46-storey-tower-envisioned-for-100-ave/

Nice tower, but pretty meh at street level. Odds of this one actually being built?

Whalleyboy · #**798** Posted **Nov 9, 2010, 3:58 AM**

i'm keeping high hopes for this tower cause if it doesnt get done next building to go there will not be aloud to be so big

red-paladin · #**799** Posted **Nov 9, 2010, 6:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves

Woah...

Nice tower, but pretty meh at street level. Odds of this one actually being built?

Here's the photo from that link:

http://www.civicsurrey.com/2010/11/08/46-storey-tower-envisioned-for-100-ave/

This one, 9677 King George Boulevard, from an article on the same site, is even better!

http://www.civicsurrey.com/2010/10/27/proposed-tower-sets-new-standard-for-city-centre/

Whalleyboy · #**800** Posted **Nov 9, 2010, 9:41 AM**

is it just me or does Surrey really likes its nonsquare buildings