Surrey Updates

[GMasterAres]

Also of note:

http://developers.surrey.ca/AMANDA5/eNtraprise/DInquiry/index_fromgis.jsp?ProjectNumber=12-332

This is the development application for the massive King George project at King George Station.

Found here on the forums:

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

[CoryHolmes]

Hmm. That parcel across the street from the North Surrey Rec Centre is where SFU had wanted to build their student residences...

[theQ]

This is quite interesting. (13399 103 avenue)

Here is a city document showing the parcel and the proposed new road. The 3-month old document states that a proposal had been received for two residential towers.

http://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/CR_2012-R192.pdf

Here is the original application for the same address, stating one residential tower and a conceptual second tower.

http://developers.surrey.ca/AMANDA5/eNtraprise/DInquiry/project_detail.jsp

The question is, is this new proposal for one of the two towers that was previously proposed (SFU residence) or is this for a brand new development that will replace the SFU residence? Either way, it'll be great to see something built.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by theQ

This is quite interesting. (13399 103 avenue)

Here is a city document showing the parcel and the proposed new road. The 3-month old document states that a proposal had been received for two residential towers.

http://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/CR_2012-R192.pdf

Here is the original application for the same address, stating one residential tower and a conceptual second tower.

http://developers.surrey.ca/AMANDA5/eNtraprise/DInquiry/project_detail.jsp

The question is, is this new proposal for one of the two towers that was previously proposed (SFU residence) or is this for a brand new development that will replace the SFU residence? Either way, it'll be great to see something built.

It would be for something new though it could still be the SFU residence project. Could be the one that was posted on Civicsurrey not too long ago. It is a different architecture firm entirely so I'd imagine the project will look different than in 2006 (not to mention we're 8 years later...)

[Diet Butcher]

Got a letter in the Mail today informing of Preliminary Notice of Proposed Development of 10335, 10327 and 10315 133 Street. This is basically on the other side of the street from Ultra, on the same side as the Wave Presentation Center. Right now these lots are vacant/ugly and there's still one older but lived in house there as well.

They want to rezone to CD and construct 1 6 Story Building with a two story townhouse base consisting of approximately 114 Units and 2 levels of underground parking.

Here's the link to the City Project http://developers.surrey.ca/AMANDA5/eNtraprise/DInquiry/index_fromgis.jsp?ProjectNumber=12-0315

Not Massive but really nice to fill in most of the rest of the space on that road.

[GMasterAres]

Not sure this was posted anywhere but, proposed 37 storey tower in Delta.

http://www.delta-optimist.com/Proposed+high+rise+would+tallest+building+Delta/7665977/story.html
http://www.corp.delta.bc.ca/EN/main/municipal/323/27003/80Ave.html
Renders of the project --> http://www.corp.delta.bc.ca/assets/CPD/PDF/80Ave-20121210PHMemo.pdf

Part of the revitalization of Scott Road plan by Delta. Surrey has been developing a lot on Scott Road but Delta has the only high-rise density in 2 existing towers at 80th Ave. I can see them from my balcony actually here in Central Surrey. This would be constructed pretty much next to the existing towers.

Also mentions another project not yet at council stage near 70th and Scott Road (Strawberry Hills). Wonder if these will encourage more dense proposals on the Surrey side, or more in Delta. Delta is running out of development land and the only option at this stage is to start densifying the Scott Road corridor and those areas to do it would be around 72nd and 80th and in-between.

Was given third reading December 17th.

[jlousa]

Sorry but that proposal is bordering on ridiculous. The region really needs to move away from towers outside of the regional town centres and move towards mid-rises. There is no good argument for a 37 storey tower in this location over an equally dense mid-rise project.

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Sorry but that proposal is bordering on ridiculous. The region really needs to move away from towers outside of the regional town centres and move towards mid-rises. There is no good argument for a 37 storey tower in this location over an equally dense mid-rise project.

Except that buyers, in return for accepting to live in a suburban location, might demand the views and corner units that mid-rises can't offer compared to a tower like this?

From an urban design perspective, I'm fully with you. But I can only think of only 3-5 concrete mid-rises outside of Vancouver/Richmond - compared with hundreds of point-towers, suggesting that suburban condo projects either have to be wood frame or a point-tower to make economic sense.

[Whalleyboy]

I don't actually think its that bad as a location. Currently there isnt a real town centre area for north delta. 72nd and scott road is mostly built up up because of Surrey. Delta has been wanting to build its own town centre area for north delta for a while. Why not start where this is already some minor built up.

Plus add the fact north delta is already pretty packed area and running out of room.

This could be north deltas Central city tower

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

I don't actually think its that bad as a location. Currently there isnt a real town centre area for north delta. 72nd and scott road is mostly built up up because of Surrey. Delta has been wanting to build its own town centre area for north delta for a while. Why not start where this is already some minor built up.

Plus add the fact north delta is already pretty packed area and running out of room.

This could be north deltas Central city tower

I notice from your past posts you tend to look at municipalities irrespective of each other in terms of how municipalities (and ultimately the region) function. Arbitrary municipal boundaries have little impact in this regard. Consider the region without these arbitrary boundaries and you'd see that there is no reason to have a town centre there considering the proximity to Whalley and Newton.

It isn't some fantasy sim city world where each city should have it's own downtown, stadium, shopping mall, university, etc. If you understand that cities and its people interact with each other region-wide, you'd realize there's no need for a town centre there.

It's a poor argument for a town centre just for the sake of North Delta having its own town centre without considering outside of its municipal borders.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Not sure this was posted anywhere but, proposed 37 storey tower in Delta.

http://www.delta-optimist.com/Proposed+high+rise+would+tallest+building+Delta/7665977/story.html
http://www.corp.delta.bc.ca/EN/main/municipal/323/27003/80Ave.html
Renders of the project --> http://www.corp.delta.bc.ca/assets/CPD/PDF/80Ave-20121210PHMemo.pdf

Part of the revitalization of Scott Road plan by Delta. Surrey has been developing a lot on Scott Road but Delta has the only high-rise density in 2 existing towers at 80th Ave. I can see them from my balcony actually here in Central Surrey. This would be constructed pretty much next to the existing towers.

Also mentions another project not yet at council stage near 70th and Scott Road (Strawberry Hills). Wonder if these will encourage more dense proposals on the Surrey side, or more in Delta. Delta is running out of development land and the only option at this stage is to start densifying the Scott Road corridor and those areas to do it would be around 72nd and 80th and in-between.

Was given third reading December 17th.

Yeah, seems like it's going ahead:

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/185581041.html

Interesting that Delta will approve it
- i.e. imagine if it were proposed for Ladner or Tswwassen?
It would be rejected in a heartbeart.

I think one of the factors is that Scott Road is a significant commercial corridor for the area - and that raises the same issues seen with, say, Kingsway in Vancouver. With the commercial corridor providing ready services for residents.

Should there be linear development (including highrises) along the existing commercial corridor,
or should it be focussed at the "approved" town centres (i.e. like Ladner & Tswwassen in Delta, or SkyTrain stations in Vancouver). ..and which would upset the neighbours more?

I also really don't see this as being much different from Kerrisdale's current reality (no existing rapid transit).

Looking at an aerial map for the area, there seems to be a hydro RoW that leads from King George Blvd to about 88 Ave & Scott Road. That could be used for a Scott Road branch off a King George LRT line.

[Tfreder]

Originally Posted by officedweller

imagine if it were proposed for Ladner or Tswwassen?
It would be rejected in a heartbeart.

That scenario makes my sides hurt. If that were the case, the whole community would be in an uproar. South Delta is, in my opinion, the "capital city" of NIMBYs in Vancouver.

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by squeezied

I notice from your past posts you tend to look at municipalities irrespective of each other in terms of how municipalities (and ultimately the region) function. Arbitrary municipal boundaries have little impact in this regard. Consider the region without these arbitrary boundaries and you'd see that there is no reason to have a town centre there considering the proximity to Whalley and Newton.

It isn't some fantasy sim city world where each city should have it's own downtown, stadium, shopping mall, university, etc. If you understand that cities and its people interact with each other region-wide, you'd realize there's no need for a town centre there.

It's a poor argument for a town centre just for the sake of North Delta having its own town centre without considering outside of its municipal borders.

In eyes of a normal everyday person yes it may seem pointless. But if you look at it through the eyes of a city there is plenty of reason to do things like this. For one it bring in more businesses and population to areas and that in turn bring in more money for the city. which in turn can get spent towards things like rec centres, libraries, and road work, etc.

While in the ideal world we wouldnt have boarders we don't live in this world so each city is gonna look out for itself and own best interest and whats gonna help it thrive.

[huenthar]

Originally Posted by squeezied

I notice from your past posts you tend to look at municipalities irrespective of each other in terms of how municipalities (and ultimately the region) function. Arbitrary municipal boundaries have little impact in this regard. Consider the region without these arbitrary boundaries and you'd see that there is no reason to have a town centre there considering the proximity to Whalley and Newton.

It isn't some fantasy sim city world where each city should have it's own downtown, stadium, shopping mall, university, etc. If you understand that cities and its people interact with each other region-wide, you'd realize there's no need for a town centre there.

It's a poor argument for a town centre just for the sake of North Delta having its own town centre without considering outside of its municipal borders.

Proximity to Newton and Whalley? What proximity? 80th ave and 120 st is further from Whalley and further from Newton than Brentwood is from Metrotown, than Metrotown is from Edmonds; it's comparable to the distance between downtown New West and Lougheed. (ball park estimates all )

I think there's plenty of room for a small "town center" in North Delta, although from a transportation standpoint Nordel Way would make more sense. In any case, a few towers do not a town centre make, and as pointed out point towers offer windows & views that mid-rises don't, things that buyers value highly.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by squeezied

I notice from your past posts you tend to look at municipalities irrespective of each other in terms of how municipalities (and ultimately the region) function. Arbitrary municipal boundaries have little impact in this regard. Consider the region without these arbitrary boundaries and you'd see that there is no reason to have a town centre there considering the proximity to Whalley and Newton.

It isn't some fantasy sim city world where each city should have it's own downtown, stadium, shopping mall, university, etc. If you understand that cities and its people interact with each other region-wide, you'd realize there's no need for a town centre there.

It's a poor argument for a town centre just for the sake of North Delta having its own town centre without considering outside of its municipal borders.

Unfortunately the regional argument doesn't come into play and never will. Delta doesn't get taxes from Surrey and vice versa. So telling Delta Council and citizens they can't increase density and add more housing for their city + gain more tax base, and build a potential town center just because Surrey beat them to it just wouldn't fly.

And heck I'm a Surrey citizen. I'd love to see a tower like this built in Central Surrey to add to the downtown build up. But I can understand why Delta doesn't care.

I guess the question is, why shouldn't Delta which has stagnant population growth, want to increase their population and tax base? Why should the city lose out because it happens to sit next to Surrey?

And regarding Whalley and Newton... Newton has let's count it, 0 towers. That area of Delta already has 2. I'd argue they have the upper hand when it comes to densification. I guess I fall into the regional plan skeptic club. It always seems to just follow what is already happening and doesn't provide anything new. And let's face it, very few cities actually follow it. Take Vancouver for example. If you read the regional plan for Metro Vancouver to 2040, it states quite clearly that in Vancouver densification is to only happen downtown and at Oakridge. So any towers built on Kingsway, or the densification along Cambie being planed, or heck the Marine Gateway project are all contrary to the regional plan. So if Vancouver is allowed to do whatever it wants as do all the other cities, can't see an issue with Delta doing it. And Brentwood heck is classified as a municipal town center. I don't know very many "municipal town centers" that warrant 50+ storey towers. Because it isn't classified a "Regional Center" should Burnaby only be allowed to construct 30 storey towers everywhere? Let's get real here.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Tfreder

That scenario makes my sides hurt. If that were the case, the whole community would be in an uproar. South Delta is, in my opinion, the "capital city" of NIMBYs in Vancouver.

It can't be. Community plans for both don't allow much height. Tsawwassen maxes out at 6 storey and Ladner is something like 3 or 4 max.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Unfortunately the regional argument doesn't come into play and never will. Delta doesn't get taxes from Surrey and vice versa. So telling Delta Council and citizens they can't increase density and add more housing for their city + gain more tax base, and build a potential town center just because Surrey beat them to it just wouldn't fly.

And heck I'm a Surrey citizen. I'd love to see a tower like this built in Central Surrey to add to the downtown build up. But I can understand why Delta doesn't care.

I guess the question is, why shouldn't Delta which has stagnant population growth, want to increase their population and tax base? Why should the city lose out because it happens to sit next to Surrey?

And regarding Whalley and Newton... Newton has let's count it, 0 towers. That area of Delta already has 2. I'd argue they have the upper hand when it comes to densification. I guess I fall into the regional plan skeptic club. It always seems to just follow what is already happening and doesn't provide anything new. And let's face it, very few cities actually follow it. Take Vancouver for example. If you read the regional plan for Metro Vancouver to 2040, it states quite clearly that in Vancouver densification is to only happen downtown and at Oakridge. So any towers built on Kingsway, or the densification along Cambie being planed, or heck the Marine Gateway project are all contrary to the regional plan. So if Vancouver is allowed to do whatever it wants as do all the other cities, can't see an issue with Delta doing it. And Brentwood heck is classified as a municipal town center. I don't know very many "municipal town centers" that warrant 50+ storey towers. Because it isn't classified a "Regional Center" should Burnaby only be allowed to construct 30 storey towers everywhere? Let's get real here.

You and Whalleyboy misconstrue things. Objection to a town centre isn’t an objection to density. I never objected to increased density at that location. A town centre is much more than just residential towers.

As defined by Metro Vancouver:

Urban Centres [an umbrella term for the metro core, regional city centres, and municipal town centres] are intended to be the region’s primary focal points for concentrated growth and transit service. They are intended as priority locations for employment and services, higher density housing, commercial, cultural, entertainment, institutional and mixed uses.

So yes the regional argument does come into play when talking about town centres, afterall Metro Vancouver is a regional governing body. There's a good reason SoF isn't saturated with more town centres than it can support. The existing SoF town centres already have a hard time attaining those things defined above. Office vacancies are already among the highest in the region; another new town centre isn't going to help the situation. The existing town centres have sufficient room to absorb growth and other amenities. There also isn't much potential for a town centre at 80th and Scott Rd; it’s a relatively small retail area hemmed in by residential buildings in cul-de-sacs that aren't likely going to be redeveloped. There are better candidates for potential town centres elsewhere in the region.

Lastly the Regional Growth Strategy, which I assume you’re referring to, makes no claims about densification happening only in designated urban centres. What it does say is focusing and prioritizing growth in designated urban centres and frequent transit development areas. All those examples you listed are within the frequent transit development areas and are not contrary to the regional growth strategy.

[jlousa]

The developers own plans were originally for two more modest towers. IMO two or heck even 3 towers in the 12-14 storey range would fit in better do more for the urban fabric and provide just as much and perhaps even more density.
And I agree completely with you that the stray towers along Kingsway (King Ed Vil/The Hills) are out of place as is the Marine Gateway/MC2 and the ridiculous height being proposed at Brentwood Centre. That said, I have no problem with density being landed at all those places, just feel the same way that it should've taken a different massing.

[GMasterAres]

Ok so the argument then is that it shouldn't be 37 storeys high. I guess my question is why? Is it simply aesthetic, seeing a single tower out in the middle of nowhere?

I guess my issue is I just don't quite understand the opposition here for such a tower. For Jlousa I'm now seeing it is height purely. For others, a claim of regional growth? In both cases I guess my question is what is the magic number? It just seems so completely subjective.

If 37 is too much, is 30 too high? What about 25 floors? Or 20? Where is the mark where it is acceptable there in your eyes. And if 14 is ok, what if the proposal was 4 towers 14 floors high? Or 4 20 high. What about 8 14 floors high? Or 20 towers 20 floors high? When does the "it's too high" call convert over to "It's too dense" call?

I know I'm being a bit over the top but really what is the argument?

Is it purely a "I shouldn't see it from Burnaby" argument combined with a "Nothing big should be built south of Fraser unless it is in Surrey Central." argument? If this proposal was in Newton would it be acceptable? What about Langley? How about Maple Ridge? Coquitlam had a few smatterings of tiny towers just 7 or 8 years ago then suddenly built a pile of massive towers of this height. Didn't see anyone complaining about that. Was it because it was as has been pointed out, a regional town center? Why does Coquitlam with not a huge amount more population that Delta get a town center with multiple 30 storey towers?

I'd just like to figure out the logic in the arguments.

And in the grand scheme of 'regional growth strategy', a project like this will bring something like 420 new units to that area, if you have 2 people per unit that is 840 new residents.

When you put 840 new people compared to 2500000 people, it doesn't seem like such a major impact on the region from a growth standpoint. I mean let's face it Surrey adds more than that to the region per month and this project will take years to be completed.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Ok so the argument then is that it shouldn't be 37 storeys high. I guess my question is why? Is it simply aesthetic, seeing a single tower out in the middle of nowhere?

I guess my issue is I just don't quite understand the opposition here for such a tower. For Jlousa I'm now seeing it is height purely. For others, a claim of regional growth? In both cases I guess my question is what is the magic number? It just seems so completely subjective.

If 37 is too much, is 30 too high? What about 25 floors? Or 20? Where is the mark where it is acceptable there in your eyes. And if 14 is ok, what if the proposal was 4 towers 14 floors high? Or 4 20 high. What about 8 14 floors high? Or 20 towers 20 floors high? When does the "it's too high" call convert over to "It's too dense" call?

I know I'm being a bit over the top but really what is the argument?

Is it purely a "I shouldn't see it from Burnaby" argument combined with a "Nothing big should be built south of Fraser unless it is in Surrey Central." argument? If this proposal was in Newton would it be acceptable? What about Langley? How about Maple Ridge? Coquitlam had a few smatterings of tiny towers just 7 or 8 years ago then suddenly built a pile of massive towers of this height. Didn't see anyone complaining about that. Was it because it was as has been pointed out, a regional town center? Why does Coquitlam with not a huge amount more population that Delta get a town center with multiple 30 storey towers?

I'd just like to figure out the logic in the arguments.

And in the grand scheme of 'regional growth strategy', a project like this will bring something like 420 new units to that area, if you have 2 people per unit that is 840 new residents.

When you put 840 new people compared to 2500000 people, it doesn't seem like such a major impact on the region from a growth standpoint. I mean let's face it Surrey adds more than that to the region per month and this project will take years to be completed.

Agree with you 100%. There's a similar debate about the 32 storey development in Seylynn on the North Shore. The council wanted to lower it to 28 storeys, like that mattered somehow (but then backed off when that meant taking away amenities).

I don't understand how people can be pro-density but a 30-something storey tower is somehow unacceptable. We're not talking about the Burj Khalifa in Delta.