Surrey Updates

[jlousa]

It's quite easy to be pro density but anti-height. Height doesn't mean density. My opinion is that the region (including Vancouver) would be better served by limiting the tallest towers to the regional centres, tallish towers to the municipal centres, and sticking to human scale to human scale+ everywhere else. The North Van proposal is equally as bad and the loss of amentity space is a red herring by the development team. The same amount of public amentity could've been provided by reshifting the massing to say 3*14storey towers or even better 2*12 storey towers and 2*10 storey towers all while landing additional density and creating a more welcoming urban fabric. Personally it seems like the Regional Vision for the Metro is not being adhered to and we will all suffer from it longterm.

[vansky]

37 is nothing, look at brentwood and metrotown, clearly the fashionable thing right now is a 150m skyscraper.

[officedweller]

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 agree with you too.

Once the decision is made to place density , what difference does it make what form it takes (so long as it meets criteria for streetfront retail, etc.).
That's really a design aesthetic.

... and look at Olympic Village versus the Concord Lands. Both have great pedestrian environments. But from an in-suite perspective, buyers have spoken with their feet, favouring the sweeping views from towers, versus the courtyard and streetwall views of Olympic Village.

If a developer is trying to create a project that will "lift" an area, it's not going to do it by building what may amount to "infill".

[jlousa]

I don't beleive OV is a fair comparision to NEFC as the prices aren't comparable. I think if we saw OV priced at ~$600psf we'd see buyers flock to them as well.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by jlousa

It's quite easy to be pro density but anti-height. Height doesn't mean density. My opinion is that the region (including Vancouver) would be better served by limiting the tallest towers to the regional centres, tallish towers to the municipal centres, and sticking to human scale to human scale+ everywhere else. The North Van proposal is equally as bad and the loss of amentity space is a red herring by the development team. The same amount of public amentity could've been provided by reshifting the massing to say 3*14storey towers or even better 2*12 storey towers and 2*10 storey towers all while landing additional density and creating a more welcoming urban fabric. Personally it seems like the Regional Vision for the Metro is not being adhered to and we will all suffer from it longterm.

Your point makes sense now. I guess where the difficulty is, is that we unfortunately have an outside view and look at a project based on what is proposed only without looking at all other factors that actually go into being a land developer. For example, it is easy to sit and say "Well instead of building 1 tower with 37 floors you should build 3 towers with 14 floors each. you'd get the same 'density' and it would aesthetically look better."

Easy to say, but that forgets the fundamental issue being the physical land and footprints. You can't physically fit 3 towers in the footprint of land they own. So to do your proposal means additional cost meaning they need to purchase additional land, kick out tenants there (offices surround them basically), take down buildings, and then they have the footprint available. At the end that's a lot more effort and cost to result in the same amount of residential units.

So from a development standpoint it is simply easier to go up.

I do understand your point though but I'm looking at it from the developers side of thing and the fact that a developer wants to get the most bang for their buck. If city council approves such a project and the market looks as though the need is definitely there for the units, then they'll build it.

Like I said previously though, I'd love to see the tower in Surrey Central instead of where it is being proposed. But I do understand why it is being proposed and why Delta wants such a project.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I don't beleive OV is a fair comparision to NEFC as the prices aren't comparable. I think if we saw OV priced at ~$600psf we'd see buyers flock to them as well.

I agree with you there. I think design does play a bit of a part at OV but the price is the big factor there.

I do think the views from the tower will be outstanding though. And unlike Surrey Central, they will probably be long lived. I mean look at Ultra. They have constantly been pitching the views even still doing it today in trying to sell their last units. They are almost done construction and now on the books are 4-6 more towers to be constructed almost around Ultra which will completely block all the views North and East, within 4 or 5 years.

[cornholio]

I will have to disagree with Jlousa, and I cant remember the last time I disagreed with his posts.

Personally I think the view potential should be maximized, that means towers evenly distributed through out the city. This doesn't mean I support tower clusters everywhere but I strongly support standalone towers everywhere taking advantage of their location and the unobstructed views it provides.

I think standalone towers are great and make for a much more livable city, I may not have always thought this but now I do. I say (as a example) every 200sq meters or so of the city should be zoned for one tower with relaxed height limits (I do support keeping reasonable massing limits).

*I also could care less about a skyline, only north american cities have central skylines because their density is so low that the little cores standout. Most cities you cant tell because there are so many sprawling clusters of high rises that not a single one stands out. The view resource should be maximized and not squandered imo.

[jlousa]

By allowing single towers at every 200m, you are picking winners and losers. A property owner in the shadow of the tower gets the shade but not the ability to copy his neighbour. Certainly doesn't seem like a fairer system then allowing everyone to build to the same height. I guess it's a matter of personal perfences.

[GMasterAres]

Yah I don't see single towers being the norm given what Jlousa just stated.

I don't know. The way I see it is it could encourage some more densification on Scott Road which would mean more people South of Fraser and more demand for Surrey Central to build a commercial center. Or this could be a one off and we won't see another tower in Delta for 20 years.

Could go many ways. If the first happens I'd put money down that the next Metro Vancouver regional growth strategy puts a new little "municipal center" dot over that area...

[logan5]

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 think the first priority should be quality architecture. When I'm walking around a tower neighborhood, I simply do not notice the difference between a 20 story tower and a 35 story tower; they are both out of the visual scope, so I guess they are both too tall and way past a human scale.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by jlousa

By allowing single towers at every 200m, you are picking winners and losers. A property owner in the shadow of the tower gets the shade but not the ability to copy his neighbour. Certainly doesn't seem like a fairer system then allowing everyone to build to the same height. I guess it's a matter of personal perfences.

Fair enough..I just prefer towers spread through out the city taking advantage of the views instead of restricting them to only clusters where you lose most of the "view" benefit.

Not particularly feasible im sure in real life but maybe use a share system where every property owner in the area gets a certain number of shares in the development's gain. How the algorithm is set would depend on what is deemed fair. This way you don't get any losers.

But yes its all preference.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by logan5

I think the first priority should be quality architecture. When I'm walking around a tower neighborhood, I simply do not notice the difference between a 20 story tower and a 35 story tower; they are both out of the visual scope, so I guess they are both too tall and way past a human scale.

I've always felt that towers have nothing to do with human scale when it comes to urban design. Human scale simply means design elements in architecture take into account humans and pedestrians. Like designing street lightning to not simply illuminate the roads and car traffic. Or designing the city scape so that there is a more intimate feel with private-in-public areas.

Given that, the architecture only really should play a part when observing at a non-human scale, when looking at it from a city scape point of view. Take Shangri-La. When you're downtown, you don't really notice it much. You do here and there but you're in the urban environment. You DO notice it when you're looking downtown from little mountain or you're crossing the Lion's Gate or looking from North Van at a non-human scale.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Fair enough..I just prefer towers spread through out the city taking advantage of the views instead of restricting them to only clusters where you lose most of the "view" benefit.

Not particularly feasible im sure in real life but maybe use a share system where every property owner in the area gets a certain number of shares in the development's gain. How the algorithm is set would depend on what is deemed fair. This way you don't get any losers.

But yes its all preference.

That's the one thing I notice in Yaletown. I have a friend that live in Yaletown and pays more a month in rent than a mortgage on a half million dollar house. He pays to live downtown because of the lifestyle. But from a view standpoint, you're absolutely correct. He is in a tower on the 18th floor and you look outside and see just a wall of buildings. He has a great view of the back alley though...

[tybuilding]

So I see that Holland Pointe is supposed to start construction this year and they are getting together leases according to the sign on King George.

http://centurygroup.ca/#/developments/holland-pointe

[officedweller]

Concord render of Park Avenue (former Sky Towers site) - very "towers in the park":


http://www.parkavenueliving.ca

[SFUVancouver]

Thanks for posting. It's very auto court-y. I'd be keen to see what the opposite corner looks like -hopefully it meets the street in a far more engaging manner than the Infinity complex.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Thanks for posting. It's very auto court-y. I'd be keen to see what the opposite corner looks like -hopefully it meets the street in a far more engaging manner than the Infinity complex.

It looks like Infinity is missing

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

It looks like Infinity is missing

Lol yes it does look like it isn't there.

As for the park, that is part of the Quibble Creek stretch which is protected and I think them and more the tower slated to be constructed next to Park Avenue are going to spruce it up to be a proper urban park space.

[Track]

I like the look of the towers quite a bit, definitely more appealing than Infinity or Park Place. I get the criticism that they're a bit "tower in the park", but given that it's next to Quibble Creek and on the edge of the downtown area, I'm fine with it.

[whalley13]

Looks like construction on Connect is starting, there is an excavator, and a construction trailer on sight.

Balance has a presale sign up as well......i think these small projects are important, as they will be provide a steady increase of people moving into d/t surrey, verses just waiting for the big towers to come through....