Surrey Updates

[Shift]

Here is a comparison of all 3 plan areas - Brentwood, Metrotown, and Surrey City Centre.

By looking at this, Surrey City Centre is much better positioned to develop into a regional downtown with a downtown feel based on its size, road network, land-use designations, and integration with its surrounding area. Not to mention its location South of the Fraser which is becoming a distinct region from the Burrard Peninsula of Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Etc..

Metrotown's road network and urban feel suffers by the mall taking up a large chunk of its centre.

Brentwood is a very linear, big block strip along Lougheed Highway that doesn't integrate well with its surroundings.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Shift

Here is a comparison of all 3 plan areas - Brentwood, Metrotown, and Surrey City Centre.

By looking at this, Surrey City Centre is much better positioned to develop into a regional downtown with a downtown feel based on its size, road network, land-use designations, and integration with its surrounding area. Not to mention its location South of the Fraser which is becoming a distinct region from the Burrard Peninsula of Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Etc..

Metrotown's road network and urban feel suffers by the mall taking up a large chunk of its centre.

Brentwood is a very linear, big block strip along Lougheed Highway that doesn't integrate well with its surroundings.

Why are you comparing Surrey City Centre (a future downtown) with Brentwood and Metrotown (town centres)? They're not the same thing, nor are they trying to be. If you're going to compare it to somewhere, at least make it a downtown area.

[rickvug]

I agree with most all of what's being said in the last few posts.

1. Surrey needs Skytrain extended out to Langley for maximum benefit. I completely agree that it would be shortsighted to have LTR up Fraser Highway. Better to have Skytrain and B-Lines for now, with an upgrade to those B-Lines to LTR down the road.
2. I do agree that Surrey has the better land use plan. Burnaby has been steadfast in "protecting" their single family areas. Burnaby should take a hard look at expanding the boundaries of their town centres. Especially if this would allow for ground orientated infill. Towers aren't for everyone and there aren't nearly enough centrally located townhomes (or similar).
3. Burnaby has so many more towers going up right now. If anything it is pulling ahead of Surrey. Once most of the easy sites are taken I'd expect development to move further out. For now though Surrey has too much competition for highrises.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Why are you comparing Surrey City Centre (a future downtown) with Brentwood and Metrotown (town centres)? They're not the same thing, nor are they trying to be. If you're going to compare it to somewhere, at least make it a downtown area.

C'mon. Surrey's best hope is to be Tacoma to Vancouver's Seattle. An important industrial blue collar area.

[Blease]

Originally Posted by Pinion

C'mon. Surrey's best hope is to be Tacoma to Vancouver's Seattle. An important industrial blue collar area.

Seriously out to lunch comparison.

Two of the most obvious differences: Population wise, Tacoma is 29% the size of Seattle, Surrey is 83% the size of Vancouver. Tacoma's economy is based on food services and manufacturing, Surrey's on education, agriculture, health-care, technology, and (even before the recent opening of Skydance studios) film-making. Realistically speaking, City of North Van probably has more in common with Tacoma.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Blease

Seriously out to lunch comparison.

Two of the most obvious differences: Population wise, Tacoma is 29% the size of Seattle, Surrey is 83% the size of Vancouver. Tacoma's economy is based on food services and manufacturing, Surrey's on education, agriculture, health-care, technology, and (even before the recent opening of Skydance studios) film-making. Realistically speaking, City of North Van probably has more in common with Tacoma.

Arbitrary boundaries mean nothing. What Surrey wants to their economy to be based on means nothing. Your petulant retorts are tiresome - again, you are not your municipality, stop taking it personally.

[Blease]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Arbitrary boundaries mean nothing. What Surrey wants to their economy to be based on means nothing. Your petulant retorts are tiresome - again, you are not your municipality, stop taking it personally.

Arbitrary?? (I suggest you look up the meaning) I mentioned respective population and economic drivers for each city, two pertinent and very quantifiable factors that prove that Tacoma and Surrey are very different places. And for what it's worth, Surrey's economic sectors I listed are easily verifiable in Wikipedia.

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Arbitrary boundaries mean nothing. What Surrey wants to their economy to be based on means nothing. Your petulant retorts are tiresome - again, you are not your municipality, stop taking it personally.

He raised good points. Surrey has a lot of white collar and professional jobs in the core, including the Hospital, SFU, the library, Canada Revenue Agency call center, audit and enforcement, and the Surrey Taxation Centre, Coast Capital Savings office, as well as countless Medical and dental offices, and the RCMP e-division headquarters, amongst others. Easily verified and obvious to many. A good foundation too. It seems you like to call out people who disagree with you about your hackneyed assessments of Surrey simply because you don't like the area as is evident by your previous posts. Certainly superimposed boundaries mean nothing as you say, except they seem to mean everything to you.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Blease

Surrey Central won't get the Expo line extended, but it will become a hub connecting the Expo Line with three LRT lines stretching deep into Fraser Valley. Also I somewhat disagree with your Surrey vs Burnaby assessment for one simple reason. There can only be a finite number of downtowns and Burnaby is much too close to Vancouver to develop (m)any substantial urban hubs. Brentwood for example is very nice, but it's essentially a town centre and I say that with no disrespect. Surrey Central may not have Whole Foods, but is developing a far more urban feel, albeit with a grittier edge. And Surrey Central has two important factors to consider, a burgeoning population (in the areas which surround it) and a substantial enough distance from Vancouver to establish a viable downtown.

You say there will be no extension with such conviction. The business case hasn't been completed yet and from what I've heard it heavily leans towards SkyTrain extension to Langley and LRT for the rest. But we'll see toward the end of this year.

I agree with the rest, I just think it needs more business and focus. It is trying to focus on being a medical technology center along with a University center for the region. Those are 2 things that would very much differentiate Surrey Central from other town centers and even Downtown Vancouver.

We'll see I guess.

[Shift]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Why are you comparing Surrey City Centre (a future downtown) with Brentwood and Metrotown (town centres)? They're not the same thing, nor are they trying to be. If you're going to compare it to somewhere, at least make it a downtown area.

That's exactly my point, there is no comparison. People here were referencing Brentwood and Metrotown as developing into more substantial urban centre's than Surrey City Centre, but SCC is in a different league, and will eventually surpass Metrotown in regional significance, and urban feel, given the points I made (street grid, plan, integration, location, etc.)

[GMasterAres]

Re the Anthem Properties I mentioned a few pages back (Canadian Tire property):

https://apps.surrey.ca/Online-Development-Inquiry/?year=16&seq=0448

They've submitted to the City. Looks like the first phase, a rather normal 30 storey tower along with subdivision into 6 properties to ultimately built out 6 towers.

If I had my best guess, this particular tower will be in the parking log area somewhere and the larger developments will happen later on with the redevelopment of the actual existing buildings (giving them time to relocate or accomodate reconstruction of the area).

Will probably be a few months before we see anything concrete though like renders or overall project.

[Shift]

Originally Posted by Pinion

C'mon. Surrey's best hope is to be Tacoma to Vancouver's Seattle. An important industrial blue collar area.

Tacoma
Population (2015): 200,000
Growth Rate: 1,000 per year

Surrey
Population (2015): 515,000
Growth Rate: 1,000 per month

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Re the Anthem Properties I mentioned a few pages back (Canadian Tire property):

Thanks for the update.

[Blease]

Originally Posted by Shift

Tacoma
Population (2015): 200,000
Growth Rate: 1,000 per year

Surrey
Population (2015): 515,000
Growth Rate: 1,000 per month

Yes exactly. I pointed out the population differences (along other differences) to this clueless person yesterday.

[sryboy]

Originally Posted by Blease

Yes exactly. I pointed out the population differences (along other differences) to this clueless person yesterday.

He's just sore that you compared Tacoma to N.Van.

[Shift]

Back on track..

Details on the application for the Save-on Foods / Canadian Tire site on 102 Ave.

Subdividing from 1 to 6 lots. The required road dedications through the site give a good indication of how parceling will be broken up.

Probably safe to assume that the first 30 Storey tower will be going on one of those newly created parcels where parking lot currently exists as Jhausner said.

Project Details:

Project Number
16 - 0448

Description
Rezoning from CD to CD (based on RMC-135), development permit for six mixed-used high-rise tower buildings, subdivision from one to six properties.

Address
13665 102 Ave

Rezoning Details:

Status
Initial Review

Description
Rezoning from CD to CD (based on RMC-135) to permit development of a 30-storey mixed use building.


https://apps.surrey.ca/Online-Development-Inquiry/?year=16&seq=0448

No plans on Anthem's site yet. Site in red:

[red-paladin]

Has Surrey zoned enough land for actual office buildings in Surrey Centre though?
Sure seems like it's going to be built out with a lot of medium sized residential towers and it'll be impossible to be a proper secondary downtown.

[Shift]

Are office buildings going to be as relevant in the remainder of the 21st Century as they were in the 20th? With a changing job market and automation?

Pretty much all of the City Centre Plan is designated 'Mixed-Use', with the exception of 2 pockets of Single Family Residential in the North-East and South-West. This means office could be developed pretty much anywhere on this plan outside of the light yellow areas. There are no exclusively designated 'Office' areas.

All new development in City Centre applies for a CD Zone (Comprehensive Development) upon application. CD Zones are flexible and unique and can accommodate a variety of uses.

Surrey is already developing into a proper downtown and diversifying itself through:

• SFU's expansion along with other institutions and related uses locating in the area.
• The Civic Plaza development which is creating a civic heart of the city, and will be expanded further to connect with Central City
• The emerging Innovation Boulevard medical research district which will create a synergy with the emerging educational node.
• The numerous mixed-use Office/Residential/Retail proposals under application around the City Centre right now - The Hub at King George / Anthem Properties Site / West Village Master Plan / Tien Shier 108 & KGB Development / Holland Pointe / Bosa University District.

Based on all the evidence the area is not developing into a City Centre full of medium sized residential towers.

[sryboy]

Originally Posted by Shift

Surrey is already developing into a proper downtown and diversifying itself through:

Based on all the evidence the area is not developing into a City Centre full of medium sized residential towers.

When is the next iteration of this map coming out?

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Has Surrey zoned enough land for actual office buildings in Surrey Centre though?
Sure seems like it's going to be built out with a lot of medium sized residential towers and it'll be impossible to be a proper secondary downtown.

CD allows for zoning just office. So the hubs around Gateway, Surrey Central, and King George can have dedicated just office towers. Or mixed use. It comes down to the developer. It seems right now developers are opting for mix use aka Retail/Office at the bottom, residential at the top.

But there are a few projects still technically on the books that are full office including Holland Point across the street from King George Station, and Phase C of The HUB next to King George which both call for 2 dedicated office towers. Phase B of The HUB is also a little closer to just office but it still has residential in it.

There's plenty of space though and if I were educated guessing, if Surrey starts to see Office Tower construction it will be around King George or Surrey Central nearer to the mall. That said, mixed use seems to be the flavor of the month now and quite frankly I don't see a huge deal with it. A lot of major cities are moving away from having dedicated "Office" districts. And quite frankly the "Office" district in downtown Vancouver is dead after 7pm. You can fire a canon around Burrard Station and not hit anyone in the evening. So from a vibrancy standpoint, I think having mixed use makes a central core more robust.

But CD zoning allows for it I guess is the short answer for you.