[Surrey] Wave | 87 m | 28 Stories | Completed

[Whalleyboy]

personally i still dont think this is the area for retail. while yes 104 is a major road it would just be seperated with from the rest. With city hall going up and not having any retail base to it.
I'm sticking to thinking city park way should be the main retail street for surrey as it follows king george but isnt busy. It keeps in line with skytrain which means people can easily walk along and still make train connections with out having to back track. plus if you take it from holland park all the way to gateway thats stil around 1700meters(5700feet) of street retail to. Which is alot. Plus you take the fact the malls along this route and a few shops have already set up shop along this helps it already

[invisibleairwaves]

Originally Posted by rbostyle

And that should be an opportunity rather than a reason to NOT include them. If the spaces aren't going to be leased for the first 5-10 years, use them as a city-funded startup space. Let people come in and get a taste for what running their own business might be like - you never know, it might work here, because it certainly has in other areas around the globe, i.e. there was one amazing example of a nearly abandoned pedestrian mall in Australia somewhere offering this sort of program, and it got to the point where the building owners had competition for new leases due to the huge increase in traffic (yes I know this is not a pedestrian mall, but it will be on a major downtown Surrey arterial). Unfortunately I can't find reference to it anywhere, but will post it when I do.

As much as I support the idea of a streetwall, I'm not convinced this is the way to do it. For one thing, this is a city that cheaps out on basic services like roadbuilding; getting City Hall to fund a startup space sounds like a bit of a pipe dream. And I'm not fond of the idea of the city getting involved in funding startups that way...it's overstepping the role of government in my mind. The city should be regulating businesses, not propping them up with taxpayer dollars.


The point about residential density is relevant though. Thousands of people are moving into an area the size of a few blocks, within easy walking distance of this project. Should they all pile into their cars to go to the nearest strip mall for groceries? The City seems to think so, despite its supposed emphasis on pedestrians.

In any case I can't see why it's an onerous demand to the developer to put in a few retail spaces there, even if they aren't leased immediately. After all, a big cement wall isn't collecting any revenue from leases either.

[invisibleairwaves]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

personally i still dont think this is the area for retail. while yes 104 is a major road it would just be seperated with from the rest. With city hall going up and not having any retail base to it.

This doesn't really make a lot of sense...City Hall may not have retail but it's also got a big civic square linking 104th to the Skytrain. The only separation comes from the blocks in between that haven't been developed yet (and also from that D'Corize disaster).

City Parkway should absolutely become a major shopping street, I agree...but if the city wants Whalley to be a metropolitan core, City Parkway alone isn't going to be nearly enough. Look at downtown Vancouver: Robson, Granville, Denman, Alberni, Water, Pacific, Davie, and that's just the downtown core...I know that Whalley isn't going to have the density to support that many streets of retail any time soon, but one street just isn't going to come close. I think you're really understating the number of businesses that already exist in Whalley, never mind the ones that are going to come to support a higher population after more redevelopment. City Parkway, 104th, 108th, King George, both Ring Roads...it's not unrealistic at all to expect that Whalley could eventually support retail on all these streets, and as a result I don't see why Surrey should allow any project on those roads that doesn't include it.

[Whalleyboy]

I'm willing to bet that the reason this actually doesnt have retail is cause it doesnt lay in the city centre area when you look at a map of how the city wants things to be put out.

Here look at this map you can see if you look at the old planning it was just a multiple resident area.

[rbostyle]

Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves

In any case I can't see why it's an onerous demand to the developer to put in a few retail spaces there, even if they aren't leased immediately. After all, a big cement wall isn't collecting any revenue from leases either.

So maybe that's the answer - build the retail spaces, and hide them with a big cement wall until the city is ready for them

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

I'm willing to bet that the reason this actually doesnt have retail is cause it doesnt lay in the city centre area when you look at a map of how the city wants things to be put out.

Here look at this map you can see if you look at the old planning it was just a multiple resident area.

Thanks for posting. A day or so after my last rant on this forum topic I came across something similar on civicsurrey.com. The fact that the city actually has a plan assuages my fears somewhat, though I'm still disappointed that the residents of this high-density, urban neighbourhood will have to be so reliant on the mall for their day-to-day coffee/pub/grocery (assuming that Safeway won't be there forever) needs. Reminds me of the Metrotown area (which, thankfully, is now in the process of being planned as a more pedestrian-friendly area).

In other words, the lack of retail north of Univ. Dr. isn't the end of the world, even if it's not conducive to a neighbourhood I personally would find appealing.

Moreover, even Davie Street (my hood) has a sizeable non-retail portion, so there might be opportunities for pedestrian-oriented retail streetscaping further west on 104th as the urban fabric matures.

[hollywoodnorth]

I like them ... but they are very Mississauga-ish ... IMO

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

Thanks for posting. A day or so after my last rant on this forum topic I came across something similar on civicsurrey.com. The fact that the city actually has a plan assuages my fears somewhat, though I'm still disappointed that the residents of this high-density, urban neighbourhood will have to be so reliant on the mall for their day-to-day coffee/pub/grocery (assuming that Safeway won't be there forever) needs. Reminds me of the Metrotown area (which, thankfully, is now in the process of being planned as a more pedestrian-friendly area).

In other words, the lack of retail north of Univ. Dr. isn't the end of the world, even if it's not conducive to a neighbourhood I personally would find appealing.

Moreover, even Davie Street (my hood) has a sizeable non-retail portion, so there might be opportunities for pedestrian-oriented retail streetscaping further west on 104th as the urban fabric matures.

I doubt they'll have to rely on the mall for ever just wait till more building go up closer to university drive and city park way and stuff i'm sure we will see some retail there. If they mess up on that though i am throwing in the towel on the council.

Personally i really want to see an entertainment district get going already in the central area. As surrey holds a young crowd and the market is cheaper housing so younger people can buy in you think there would be a night club or two around central instead of just pubs. central was once could when they had a real dance floor.

[GMasterAres]

I'm still not 100% on board with this "WE MUST HAVE RETAIL AT THE BOTTOM OF EVERYTHING" argument I keep hearing. I think those people need to really _REALLY_ take some long walks through downtown Vancouver and other major cities and REALLY with a notebook write down all the retail and what they actually are.

Yelling retail just doesn't cut it. You have to look at what the retail is. And why. The unfortunate truth is right now Surrey does still have a lot of retail in that area. You can't simply start building retail under every project and expect it to fill up. What you're going to see in my opinion are the retail specific areas as they get redeveloped, will be redeveloped with more high density projects that will have retail under. The only time you have to add retail under a project is to support a very specific target group that doesn't have access already to whatever it is in close proximity.

Again, I charge those of you on the it sucks unless it has retail mode of thinking to go downtown and really take a look. What you're going to find is in almost all residential areas, "retail" under residential units are mostly made up of:

1) Small little 7-11 style shops
2) Banks
3) Restaurants/Coffee shops

That makes up most.

When you move to the more major routes such as Davie, Robson, Granville, then you get different styles of retail. Larger box stores like Future Shop, the Bay, Sears, clothing stores, etc. But is Granville a dense street? The average building height on Granville is 4 storeys. Hardly "high density" towers. And even in that case, those streets have a very far leaning percentage of:

1) Small little 7-11 style shops
2) Banks
3) Restaurants/Coffee shops

You get the odd smattering of other shops here and there but for the most part it isn't hugely diverse. To be honest I think in Surrey you're going to find the retail component will be more localized to certain pockets around already existing retail areas. Also in 4-6 storey condo projects you're most likely to see retail at the base.

Finally when they start to redevelop the parking lot for Central Surrey mall, the parking lot where Safeway is (104th) and the parking lot where Canadian Tire is, I think you'll find every building going up there will have retail at the base to replace.

So I for one am not entirely upset by there not being retail. I'd like every place to have at least a small component, but that's just not realistic in the real world especially given these projects are happening on the outskirts.

What we really need, and what more of you should be pushing, is for the central areas of downtown Surrey to start being redeveloped. Enough with the edge stuff. 108th, 96th, 100th at the edge, etc. Let's see some high density development on KGB.

I know I've said in another thread that it will come, but it shouldn't come in 15 years, it should start to come by no later than next year I think.

Regarding this project, I like it and the design and the fact it is not a crazy project with 200 phases and 9,000 storeys. So much like CityPoint I'm certain it will be done and on time getting more people to the area and accelerating the need for additional redevelopment. I'd also like to personally see more developers building at the same time.

It's great for a company like Concord or the Quatro project to be there, but when 1 developer is charged to build a massive complex, it takes over a decade before things are done. I'd rather see 15 projects going on at once rather than 3 massive projects taking 15 years to be built in 30 phases.

[Whalleyboy]

i completele agree with you. these are great buildings. I will agree with that cement wall needs to be fixed a little just to make the steet fronting side meet it better and seem less disconnecting

[GMasterAres]

It's kind of funny, I was walking down Hamilton off of Pender downtown yesterday heading to Rogers Arena and took note of the new buildings along the street. They've constructed several new buildings with "street retail" along the road so I decided to take note of what the "retail" was.

First place, Coffee Shop (retail)
Second place, Canada Border Services Agency (non-retail)
Third place, BC Hydro (non-retail)
Fourth place, Art Gallery (non-retail)
Fifth place, No Name Busines (non-retail)

So out of 5 "Retail" locations in this brand new building in downtown Vancouver, there is 1 retail business and it is *drum roll* just another coffee shop.

Like I said I'm more interested in WHAT is going in the retail space on the street than having the retail space period. 4 of those businsses could probably be located somewhere completely different and real-retail could go in there but let's face it, street retail only works if you are on a street people walk down. Surrey still has a quite low pedestrian population in "downtown" so I still don't think there is a huge demand as of yet especially where current construction is happening.

Could there be in 10 or 20 years? Absolutely. But a lot can change in that timeframe and lets face it, you can't build for 10-20 years in the future because we don't know what will happen then. Surrey absolutely demanding retail be put in everything would grind construction to a halt and be about as effective a policy IMO as them demanding every building be construction to accomodate flying cars, hovercrafts, and space ports. I mean they could need them in 100 or 200 years right?

[CoryHolmes]

Originally Posted by jhausner

them demanding every building be construction to accomodate flying cars, hovercrafts, and space ports.

... I'm down with that part...

[tybuilding]

I didn't see a thread for this one so I am adding it.

http://www.waveliving.ca/



Life at Wave:

This is something different. There are 3 actors that will be living during mall hours in a display suite built in Surrey Central Mall. Check out the story it today's 24 Hours newspaper. You can watch them online.

http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/News/local/2012/03/25/19547356.html

or:

http://www.waveliving.ca/life-at-wave/

[s211]

A taller version of the new airport control tower in Edmonton...

[GMasterAres]

I think the patios are outstanding to be honest. Floor plans not too sure about, they seem small, and seem to have no closet space anywhere. *shrug* but the look I think is quite neat. Better than the standard square box designs.

[Diet Butcher]

I pass by the site every day on my way home from Work, last I saw they were trimming the trees on the Site and they have the 2 Old Houses Boarded up.

This is the actual description from http://www.surrey.ca/files/JANUARY_2012_CITY_CENTRE_MAJOR__PROJECTS.pdf

One 28-sty. apt. bldg. 231 apt. units and 11 ground-oriented th.
units. One 28-sty. apt.bldg. 228 apt. units & 10 ground-oriented th.
units

[Dylan Leblanc]

Threads merged

We saw the design for these towers last year (hence the old thread) but I think it was unsure whether they design would make it through to reality. So far it looks like it, although notice the blank wall that is "to be updated" in the original rendering from the first page hasn't been updated in the rendering used on the sales website, and posted by tybuilding above.

[Diet Butcher]

They now have one of the Old Houses on Site completely tarped off with a bunch of the Furniture in the Front Yard. Can't wait until they fully clear this site!

[Diet Butcher]

The 2 Old Houses on the Site have now been Demolished, and they are just finishing up the massive sign.

[Track]

In the demo unit at Central, the washrooms only have waist-high walls. Is that just so that people walking by can see the room, or is that actually part of the design? I get that the whole thing is supposed to be open, but that's a little too much in my opinion.