[Surrey] University District | 67 & 82 m | 26 & 32fl | U/C

[Shift]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I know Surrey is your home so you are going to defend it, rightly so. However, while there have been improvements in Surrey there are still huge numbers of run down properties. Yes other other cities also have those negative qualities, but Surrey and specifically Whaley seem to epitomize it.

Having lived in Whaley, I can appreciate how much work still needs to be done

I'm not defending Surrey because i currently live here. I've spent more time living in Vancouver and elsewhere and have an objective view of the city. Having also physically been through all parts of Surrey extensively (unlike most people commenting here), I can assure you the vast majority of Surrey is quite high quality by Canadian standards and practically indistinguishable from any other area of the Lower Mainland. There are obviously exception areas but they pale in comparison.

The City of Surrey has done it's work with a very strong Official Community Plan and many other Secondary Plans. As development applications are processed (which are currently backed up significantly due to the high demand to develop in Surrey), eventually the seedy areas of Whalley will clean up.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I know Surrey is your home so you are going to defend it, rightly so. However, while there have been improvements in Surrey there are still huge numbers of run down properties. Yes other other cities also have those negative qualities, but Surrey and specifically Whaley seem to epitomize it.

Having lived in Whaley, I can appreciate how much work still needs to be done

F.Y.I., it's spelt Whalley.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by Shift

I'm not defending Surrey because i currently live here. I've spent more time living in Vancouver and elsewhere and have an objective view of the city. Having also physically been through all parts of Surrey extensively (unlike most people commenting here), I can assure you the vast majority of Surrey is quite high quality by Canadian standards and practically indistinguishable from any other area of the Lower Mainland. There are obviously exception areas but they pale in comparison.

The City of Surrey has done it's work with a very strong Official Community Plan and many other Secondary Plans. As development applications are processed (which are currently backed up significantly due to the high demand to develop in Surrey), eventually the seedy areas of Whalley will clean up.

I just don't see it. I think it's worse than other areas in the lower mainland in general Especially Whaley!!

(And my autocorrect likes Whaley)

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

On a more serious note, they really need to get crime under control or nobody will want to live there. Feeling safe is the #1 priority for almost everybody.

This. The number of drug-related shootouts this year is immense and general public has been in danger in several cases. Idiots are drive-by shooting wrong houses or on Cactus Club patios, like what the heck?!

Also crazy traffic accidents seem to be way too common in Surrey. Something must be done.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Shift

I'm not defending Surrey because i currently live here. I've spent more time living in Vancouver and elsewhere and have an objective view of the city. Having also physically been through all parts of Surrey extensively (unlike most people commenting here), I can assure you the vast majority of Surrey is quite high quality by Canadian standards and practically indistinguishable from any other area of the Lower Mainland. There are obviously exception areas but they pale in comparison.

Admittedly large amounts of Surrey are suburban - but then so are large amounts of Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam, etc. Aside from needing more sidewalks, Surrey really isn't that much different than the rest of them.

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I just don't see it. I think it's worse than other areas in the lower mainland in general Especially Whaley!!

(And my autocorrect likes Whaley)

How about if we claim this is what all of Vancouver looks like - it's what people keep doing to Surrey.

[osirisboy]

That would be great if vancouver was mostly like that!!!

How about we just understand that people are going to have different perceptions.

[scryer]

Having lived in several Canadian cities myself I can definitely appreciate the positive steps forward that Surrey is taking to shed itself of its reputation. Not all cities are that forward thinking (and I really don't want to get into any examples) and I am thankful that Surrey is putting in a legitimate effort to make itself liveable. It's developments like this in the core that really help the city out along with the Civic Centre.

Some things that I think could be a priority to improve would be the walkability of Surrey... Particularly the King George stretch through downtown.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

That would be great if vancouver was mostly like that!!!

How about we just understand that people are going to have different perceptions.

But people don't have to be so mean and excessively bias.

For instance, you can't seriously think that East Hastings neighbourhood look better than Whalley/Surrey City Central, and when's the last time you went there?

You should spend some time walking around that area and look at the Civic Centre/University District neighbourhood to appreciate what's going to be in store in that area in the near future.

On the other hand, I see no future in East Hastings.

[osirisboy]

Omg! Lol
I have been around Surrey central. That's where I am getting my impressions from!!! a dozen point towers and a new library and city hall haven't changed the overall feel of the area. IN MY OPINION. And yes I do think east Hastings looks a lot better than central Surrey

and I don't think anyone has been excessively mean lmao. I think Surrey is 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵. You can throw all the examples of how vancouver has 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 areas too, Hastings can be the worse place on the planet. That's great!! but it doesn't change my opinion I have about Surrey

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Omg! Lol
I have been around Surrey central. That's where I am getting my impressions from!!! a dozen point towers and a new library and city hall haven't changed the overall feel of the area. IN MY OPINION. And yes I do think east Hastings looks a lot better than central Surrey

and I don't think anyone has been excessively mean lmao. I think Surrey is 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵. You can throw all the examples of how vancouver has 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 areas too, Hastings can be the worse place on the planet. That's great!! but it doesn't change my opinion I have about Surrey

Much like East Hastings, you can put lipstick on it (high towers, fancy city hall), but walk through the Surrey Central Mall. I've done it on many occasions. The white-trash population is still thriving in the area.

[Blease]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Omg! Lol
I have been around Surrey central. That's where I am getting my impressions from!!! a dozen point towers and a new library and city hall haven't changed the overall feel of the area. IN MY OPINION. And yes I do think east Hastings looks a lot better than central Surrey

and I don't think anyone has been excessively mean lmao. I think Surrey is 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵. You can throw all the examples of how vancouver has 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 areas too, Hastings can be the worse place on the planet. That's great!! but it doesn't change my opinion I have about Surrey

Outside of the Lower Mainland very few people have any negative views on Surrey (or admittedly any views at all), but across Canada the DTES, (along East Hastings) is generally considered the benchmarks of social decay and urban blight. It's not surprising that the DTES is oft described as the poorest post code in Canada. The Sunday Times of Australia newspaper described the area as "North America's festering sore", which kind of sounds like they're saying it's as bad as slums in the Bronx or Mexico City. Not the words I'd choose, but this is certainly how the foreign press sees it.

[Blease]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Much like East Hastings, you can put lipstick on it (high towers, fancy city hall), but walk through the Surrey Central Mall. I've done it on many occasions. The white-trash population is still thriving in the area.

Tad unfair to limit the problem to East Hastings. On a good day I see more denizens of the DTES spill out into neighbouring Yaletown than in the DTES itself.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Blease

Tad unfair to limit the problem to East Hastings. On a good day I see more denizens of the DTES spill out into neighbouring Yaletown than in the DTES itself.

Uhhh, what?

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by Blease

Outside of the Lower Mainland very few people have any negative views on Surrey (or admittedly any views at all), but across Canada the DTES, (along East Hastings) is generally considered the benchmarks of social decay and urban blight. It's not surprising that the DTES is oft described as the poorest post code in Canada. The Sunday Times of Australia newspaper described the area as "North America's festering sore", which kind of sounds like they're saying it's as bad as slums in the Bronx or Mexico City. Not the words I'd choose, but this is certainly how the foreign press sees it.

I'm not sure what your point is??

Do you even read my post that you responded to?

I SAID: It doesn't matter if Hastings is the worst place on the planet it doesn't change my opinion on Surrey and how I think it's a 🞵🞵🞵🞵 hole!! It's not a competition. Personally I'd take the problems of dtes over the sprawling parking lots and strip malls of Surrey. But that's just my personal taste

You people are hilarious. Am I not allowed to have a negative impression of Surrey?

[Pinion]

Surrey should compare itself to other suburbs instead of the DTES. What is Richmond's worst area? Burnaby's? North Van's? West Van's? Coquitlam's? Why does Surrey have such bad social/crime problems when other suburbs, some with more population density, are safe and prosperous?

[Blease]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Surrey should compare itself to other suburbs instead of the DTES. What is Richmond's worst area? Burnaby's? North Van's? West Van's? Coquitlam's? Why does Surrey have such bad social/crime problems when other suburbs, some with more population density, are safe and prosperous?

Ahh the "bad crime problems" of Surrey, that bogeyman which always haunts Surrey. Let's start with the shootings which started last year and are continuing unabated into this year. This is indeed a bad problem and Surrey City Council is working all out to address the issue. Remember too, that the scumbags who shoot from cars are literally mobile and could easily transport this problem into other municipalities. For a more vivid picture about violent crime, let's look at homicides across various local municipalities for the year 2015, first number is total homicides, second is homicides per 10,000 people:

Vancouver 13, 2.15
Surrey 7, 1.38
Burnaby 6, 2.7
Richmond 4, 2.1
North Van (city & district) 2, 1.52

Some of you intrepid mathematicians may notice that the highest homicide rate last year was in Burnaby, followed in descending order by Vancouver, Richmond, North Van and then Surrey. Yes you read it here first, Surrey had the lowest homicide rate amongst larger municipalities in the region last year. Let me just say, it's hard to capture complex social phenomena in sound bites but for those of us who care, facts matter.

FYI, re, the boring stuff, homicides referenced were captured from the Vancouver Sun article below and Wikipedia was used for population figures.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/lower+m...estigators+busy+2015/11622562/story.html

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Blease

Ahh the "bad crime problems" of Surrey, that bogeyman which always haunts Surrey. Let's start with the shootings which started last year and are continuing unabated into this year. This is indeed a bad problem and Surrey City Council is working all out to address the issue. Remember too, that the scumbags who shoot from cars are literally mobile and could easily transport this problem into other municipalities. For a more vivid picture about violent crime, let's look at homicides across various local municipalities for the year 2015, first number is total homicides, second is homicides per 10,000 people:

Vancouver 13, 2.15
Surrey 7, 1.38
Burnaby 6, 2.7
Richmond 4, 2.1
North Van (city & district) 2, 1.52

Some of you intrepid mathematicians may notice that the highest homicide rate last year was in Burnaby, followed in descending order by Vancouver, Richmond, North Van and then Surrey. Yes you read it here first, Surrey had the lowest homicide rate amongst larger municipalities in the region last year. Let me just say, it's hard to capture complex social phenomena in sound bites but for those of us who care, facts matter.

FYI, re, the boring stuff, homicides referenced were captured from the Vancouver Sun article below and Wikipedia was used for population figures.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/lower+m...estigators+busy+2015/11622562/story.html

I can't believe I need to say this, but successful murder count is a stupid way of measuring general crime and safety. There were 60+ shootings in Surrey in 2015, another 30+ in the first quarter of this year, and 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 assault is up 67% in 2016. You're making a fool of yourself trying to cover up a real problem.

[Blease]

Originally Posted by Pinion

I can't believe I need to say this, but successful murder count is a stupid way of measuring general crime and safety. There were 60+ shootings in Surrey in 2015, another 30+ in the first quarter of this year, and 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 assault is up 67% in 2016. You're making a fool of yourself trying to cover up a real problem.

Clever of you to draw attention to an increase in 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 assaults in Surrey this year and conveniently ignore the bigger picture that most components of serious crime were actually down in the city over the period you refer. I've included a link to the whole story that you prefer to only selectively quote. Incidentally the article is titled, "Crime Plummeting in Surrey...". I'm guessing you resented my earlier posting because it categorically showed that Surrey's homicide rate last year was lower than that precious snowflake otherwise known as North Vancouver.

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/376407391.html?mobile=true

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Pinion

I can't believe I need to say this, but successful murder count is a stupid way of measuring general crime and safety. There were 60+ shootings in Surrey in 2015, another 30+ in the first quarter of this year, and 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 assault is up 67% in 2016. You're making a fool of yourself trying to cover up a real problem.

I think the image problem in the metro is that people bash Surrey constantly (out of habit?) and often it's way off base. Have I seen people here bash where I live - yes. Does it piss me off - yes. Does it happen anywhere near as often as it happens to Surrey - hell no. It's much easier to brush off when it doesn't happen all the time.

I remember seeing crime stats for other years posted on here and for the most part Surrey has had similar or lower numbers than other cities in the region. Yes Surrey currently has a shooting problem. While they also have poverty problems - find me a city in the metro that doesn't.

Trying to get back on topic... I think the redevelopment of the city centre area around Surrey Central Station looks fantastic, esp compared to what was there before. In less than a decade I'm sure it will fill in even more, and once the majority of empty-ish lots have been developed then the acres of surface parking (which I'm not a fan of either) will start to be redeveloped. Will people find new reasons to needlessly bash Surrey, or will they start to grow up?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Blease

Ahh the "bad crime problems" of Surrey, that bogeyman which always haunts Surrey. Let's start with the shootings which started last year and are continuing unabated into this year. This is indeed a bad problem and Surrey City Council is working all out to address the issue. Remember too, that the scumbags who shoot from cars are literally mobile and could easily transport this problem into other municipalities. For a more vivid picture about violent crime, let's look at homicides across various local municipalities for the year 2015, first number is total homicides, second is homicides per 10,000 people:

Vancouver 13, 2.15
Surrey 7, 1.38
Burnaby 6, 2.7
Richmond 4, 2.1
North Van (city & district) 2, 1.52

Some of you intrepid mathematicians may notice that the highest homicide rate last year was in Burnaby, followed in descending order by Vancouver, Richmond, North Van and then Surrey. Yes you read it here first, Surrey had the lowest homicide rate amongst larger municipalities in the region last year. Let me just say, it's hard to capture complex social phenomena in sound bites but for those of us who care, facts matter.

FYI, re, the boring stuff, homicides referenced were captured from the Vancouver Sun article below and Wikipedia was used for population figures.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/lower+m...estigators+busy+2015/11622562/story.html

Good example!

I judge a place by the rate of positive change, and not harping on what it was like in the yesteryears.