Surrey City Centre Redevelopment Plans

[Blease]

Originally Posted by Shift

Again, the Mayor isn't very well informed.

"Currently, McCallum said, the city has about 16 high-rise projects that are “in different phases in our planning process.”

The number is actually 47 in process / construction

https://urbansurrey.com/surrey-city-centre-active-projects/

"Since we’re going to build SkyTrain along Fraser Highway, it’s encouraged developers to bring their high-rise development forward in our city centre."

This comment has no basis. Almost all the current 47 high-rises in process were initiated prior to the loss of LRT. Applications will come in regardless though.

Good point Shift. Just to clarify my earlier post, I’m just relieved our mayor isn’t trying to actively sabotage the development already in process.

[Cypherus]

He sounds at least optimistic about transforming the Surrey downtown into a regional center full of hi rises and mixed use density, and is not being an impediment to that vision. I think where people got concerned was his election platform about "smart development" and promises to arm wrestle developers, but no one really knew what that would portend. So far it looks like the city center is safe and it's full steam ahead.

[GMasterAres]

Also if you actually look at Doug McCallum's record, I don't think you could say he is against development and especially density. He was actively working on densifying Surrey Central when he left office last time, and there was a _lot_ of development under his reign.

I think Shift puts it right that applications will come in regardless though. At the end of the day a Mayor is really one voice on council and unless they get policies and bylaws enacted that become a huge impediment to developers or increase costs considerably, cheaper and more open land in Surrey will win out in the end.

I think where you'd see this council put the brakes on a bit more is all the townhouse and subdivision development being done in what some would call no-mans land where there is no supporting road infrastructure, commercial space, and in many cases even Elementary/High School capacity to handle the burden. For every 10+ of these types of development there is 1 development in Surrey Central.

Surrey Central largely has infrastructure to support densification, and several of the schools in the catchments are actually under capacity.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Park place?

Park Place has no visitor parking on the surface. Technically again it is all pay parking and meant for the retail units all around. No different than street parking along many downtown Vancouver streets in front of businesses. You'll note there is NO parking allowed on the major streets in Surrey so they have to put it somewhere.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I agree with Freddino! The Surrey downtown setbacks and street grid, as well as the width of road space all, contribute to a more suburban feel compared to say downtown Vancouver and other Major city cores. Narrower roads, towers closer together, and built form that would be right to the curb would all help to create a more urban form.

Very true to a degree. I just came from Melbourne and have spent time in quite a few other major cities, and while some high-rises are built right along the roads with no setbacks, not all are. What I fine actually makes it feel more downtown though is how the infill is built and the smaller buildings. If you take away all the infill for example in Melbourne CBD, high-rise wise it would look sparse.

Most of the infill are 5-10 storey buildings but with 0 setbacks from the curb and retail/building access right on the sidewalk. That to me gives you that downtown feel. Having 2-3 storey townhouses be what is flanking the streets doesn't build that same feel even with 0 setback. It is height and purpose.

Also a tighter street grid with back alleys adds to that feel. But taking just Melbourne or Brisbane (Brisbane is closer to Metro Van in size), the actual high rises aren't predominantly stacked next to each other with little space.

Here's a few examples in the more dense parts of Melbourne. Try to focus first on just the high rises and placements, then look at the infill and imagine that was all not there or mainly 2-3 storey retail/townhouses instead of what it actually is.

Melbourne:

https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.8084297...itch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.8161156...TSmkvrCH1rEqJwk2IVmuA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Brisbane:

https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.4699989...X7-Z2nYkjej1yX1HIE4KQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[GMasterAres]

Sorry another follow up, honestly though I think our biggest problems in Metro Vancouver design wise these days are:

1. FAR concerns. So many of the cities have way to restrictive FAR maximums or ideas of what a high FAR is. For example, the highest FAR cap in the Surrey Central plan would have about 90% of buildings in other major cities around the world not be allowed. Even smaller infill in Melbourne/Brisbane I used as examples above are 15-20 FAR. That goes for many other smaller cities like Portland for example whose downtown core has buildings in the 20-30FAR range. Setbacks play a part.

2. Architectural design. Like I said I just got back from the Melbourne area and it was the first time I actually spent time in Melbourne CBD for any length of time and toured around. I'm typically out in the valley instead. I was floored at the city architecturally.

To me it seemed like every single high-rise development was purpose built with the architectural elements being paramount. Ignore the fact they have 60+ storey high towers and quite a few that make Shangri-la in Downtown Vancouver look short, but they use color all over the place, and so many other interesting different elements from funky balconies to offset designs.

Heck I was struck by just the colors. Purple accented high rise next to one with blue and gold accents. And they take that architecture right to street level too. Many overpasses have art pieces built right into the overpass, or tunnel elements with amazing lighting or interesting design.

We could really take a lesson from that and I think the concern over FAR and townhouse podiums has a bigger impact on Architectural design.

When we landed back in Vancouver and I headed out to Surrey, looking at our regional centers just made me sad. It all just seemed so drab and Surrey Central looked suddenly to me like a bunch of spaced out concrete grey with bluish window high rises that are SUPER boring.



Just look at http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=18 and http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=170

vs http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=2 and even http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=1

Vancouver is improving but only in the last 5-10 years honestly and even then the shortness and lack of FAR density of buildings throughout Metro Vancouver tends to seem to make everything look blah and table top boring.

Maybe things are changing?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Park Place has no visitor parking on the surface. Technically again it is all pay parking and meant for the retail units all around. No different than street parking along many downtown Vancouver streets in front of businesses. You'll note there is NO parking allowed on the major streets in Surrey so they have to put it somewhere.

Still doesn't change my primary point.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Sorry another follow up, honestly though I think our biggest problems in Metro Vancouver design wise these days are:

1. FAR concerns. So many of the cities have way to restrictive FAR maximums or ideas of what a high FAR is. For example, the highest FAR cap in the Surrey Central plan would have about 90% of buildings in other major cities around the world not be allowed. Even smaller infill in Melbourne/Brisbane I used as examples above are 15-20 FAR. That goes for many other smaller cities like Portland for example whose downtown core has buildings in the 20-30FAR range. Setbacks play a part.

2. Architectural design. Like I said I just got back from the Melbourne area and it was the first time I actually spent time in Melbourne CBD for any length of time and toured around. I'm typically out in the valley instead. I was floored at the city architecturally.

To me it seemed like every single high-rise development was purpose built with the architectural elements being paramount. Ignore the fact they have 60+ storey high towers and quite a few that make Shangri-la in Downtown Vancouver look short, but they use color all over the place, and so many other interesting different elements from funky balconies to offset designs.

Heck I was struck by just the colors. Purple accented high rise next to one with blue and gold accents. And they take that architecture right to street level too. Many overpasses have art pieces built right into the overpass, or tunnel elements with amazing lighting or interesting design.

We could really take a lesson from that and I think the concern over FAR and townhouse podiums has a bigger impact on Architectural design.

When we landed back in Vancouver and I headed out to Surrey, looking at our regional centers just made me sad. It all just seemed so drab and Surrey Central looked suddenly to me like a bunch of spaced out concrete grey with bluish window high rises that are SUPER boring.



Just look at http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=18 and http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=170

vs http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=2 and even http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=1

Vancouver is improving but only in the last 5-10 years honestly and even then the shortness and lack of FAR density of buildings throughout Metro Vancouver tends to seem to make everything look blah and table top boring.

Maybe things are changing?

hopefully but yes Melbourne is amazing, can't wait to go back

[rpvan]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Also if you actually look at Doug McCallum's record, I don't think you could say he is against development and especially density. He was actively working on densifying Surrey Central when he left office last time, and there was a _lot_ of development under his reign.

I think Shift puts it right that applications will come in regardless though. At the end of the day a Mayor is really one voice on council and unless they get policies and bylaws enacted that become a huge impediment to developers or increase costs considerably, cheaper and more open land in Surrey will win out in the end.

I think where you'd see this council put the brakes on a bit more is all the townhouse and subdivision development being done in what some would call no-mans land where there is no supporting road infrastructure, commercial space, and in many cases even Elementary/High School capacity to handle the burden. For every 10+ of these types of development there is 1 development in Surrey Central.

Surrey Central largely has infrastructure to support densification, and several of the schools in the catchments are actually under capacity.

Yeah most of the growth in Surrey over the past few decades has been fueled by the infill in the other areas of the city. Most of the city still isn't built up to the level of Vancouver (each block is at least twice the size), so one can only assume that there will only be more housing growth in the future along with the (hopefully) shrinking of the present large city blocks.

Even today, there are various housing and townhouse projects underway across most of the city outside the city centre/downtown area. It will only add to the overcrowding issue in schools in future as more young families settle in the city.

I didn't know that most of the schools in the city centre are under capacity though; interesting point.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Also if you actually look at Doug McCallum's record, I don't think you could say he is against development and especially density. He was actively working on densifying Surrey Central when he left office last time, and there was a _lot_ of development under his reign.

I think Shift puts it right that applications will come in regardless though. At the end of the day a Mayor is really one voice on council and unless they get policies and bylaws enacted that become a huge impediment to developers or increase costs considerably, cheaper and more open land in Surrey will win out in the end.

I think where you'd see this council put the brakes on a bit more is all the townhouse and subdivision development being done in what some would call no-mans land where there is no supporting road infrastructure, commercial space, and in many cases even Elementary/High School capacity to handle the burden. For every 10+ of these types of development there is 1 development in Surrey Central.

Surrey Central largely has infrastructure to support densification, and several of the schools in the catchments are actually under capacity.

What about the redevelopment or the SFHs in the more developed parts of Surrey into townhouses/row houses?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Sorry another follow up, honestly though I think our biggest problems in Metro Vancouver design wise these days are:

1. FAR concerns. So many of the cities have way to restrictive FAR maximums or ideas of what a high FAR is. For example, the highest FAR cap in the Surrey Central plan would have about 90% of buildings in other major cities around the world not be allowed. Even smaller infill in Melbourne/Brisbane I used as examples above are 15-20 FAR. That goes for many other smaller cities like Portland for example whose downtown core has buildings in the 20-30FAR range. Setbacks play a part.

2. Architectural design. Like I said I just got back from the Melbourne area and it was the first time I actually spent time in Melbourne CBD for any length of time and toured around. I'm typically out in the valley instead. I was floored at the city architecturally.

To me it seemed like every single high-rise development was purpose built with the architectural elements being paramount. Ignore the fact they have 60+ storey high towers and quite a few that make Shangri-la in Downtown Vancouver look short, but they use color all over the place, and so many other interesting different elements from funky balconies to offset designs.

Heck I was struck by just the colors. Purple accented high rise next to one with blue and gold accents. And they take that architecture right to street level too. Many overpasses have art pieces built right into the overpass, or tunnel elements with amazing lighting or interesting design.

We could really take a lesson from that and I think the concern over FAR and townhouse podiums has a bigger impact on Architectural design.

When we landed back in Vancouver and I headed out to Surrey, looking at our regional centers just made me sad. It all just seemed so drab and Surrey Central looked suddenly to me like a bunch of spaced out concrete grey with bluish window high rises that are SUPER boring.



Just look at http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=18 and http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=170

vs http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=2 and even http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=1

Vancouver is improving but only in the last 5-10 years honestly and even then the shortness and lack of FAR density of buildings throughout Metro Vancouver tends to seem to make everything look blah and table top boring.

Maybe things are changing?

If you don't have viewcones and there are developers willing to pay for the designs, anything is possible. I was impressed with not just Melbourne's CBD, but even other cities in Canada, Asia and Europe when I visited those places as well.

Unfortunately, Vancouver will only lag behind more with our antiquated policies and mindset of planners. My hope for this region now lies in Burnaby and Surrey, and I'm really glad they are, at least for the moment, going in the best direction possible. Unfortunately, it will take a while for developers to be willing to pay more for avande garde designs in suburb town centres.

[Canucks223]

Originally Posted by Vin

If you don't have viewcones and there are developers willing to pay for the designs, anything is possible. I was impressed with not just Melbourne's CBD, but even other cities in Canada, Asia and Europe when I visited those places as well.

Unfortunately, Vancouver will only lag behind more with our antiquated policies and mindset of planners. My hope for this region now lies in Burnaby and Surrey, and I'm really glad they are, at least for the moment, going in the best direction possible. Unfortunately, it will take a while for developers to be willing to pay more for avande garde designs in suburb town centres.

A couple thoughts. Vancouver is obviously lagging and falling behind the rest of the world (even with other Canadian cities as well) when it comes to architectural design and building size/height (aside from a few select buildings). One would think that with all of the development and explosive growth that has happened within Vancouver and suburbs, Vancouver should have helped pave the way or at least keep up with the other Cities when it comes to the height and architecture of these buildings. But obviously this was not possible with restrictions such as the view cones and other limiting factors. Now that being said, have these restrictions improved our skyline and overall beauty of the City (which I presume was the end goal by having these limitations created in the first place). Or has it only been a detriment to its potential. Would a tourist from Australia who visits Vancouver for the 1st time being left in awe of the city and its mountains the same way people here on this forum are left in awe at the city that Melbourne has become with all its architecture?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Canucks223

A couple thoughts. Vancouver is obviously lagging and falling behind the rest of the world (even with other Canadian cities as well) when it comes to architectural design and building size/height (aside from a few select buildings). One would think that with all of the development and explosive growth that has happened within Vancouver and suburbs, Vancouver should have helped pave the way or at least keep up with the other Cities when it comes to the height and architecture of these buildings. But obviously this was not possible with restrictions such as the view cones and other limiting factors. Now that being said, have these restrictions improved our skyline and overall beauty of the City (which I presume was the end goal by having these limitations created in the first place). Or has it only been a detriment to its potential. Would a tourist from Australia who visits Vancouver for the 1st time being left in awe of the city and its mountains the same way people here on this forum are left in awe at the city that Melbourne has become with all its architecture?

I also need to remind you here that this is a skyscraper discussion forum site and not a mountain/outdoor one. Hope that answers your question here. With that said, I'm sure an Australian may be impressed with Whistler or the Northshore mountains, but would probably wouldn't be too impressed with our downtown, unless he/she is from a small town like Darwin or Launceston, and never been to Melbourne or Brisbane.

I always believe that we would have an even more impressive skyline and a lot more creational/retail services in our downtown if not for all those restrictions. Well, let's see what Surrey will come up with in the next decade or so.

[e-clam9]

About 40 new high rise condo are being approved to be built along King George around Surrey downtown. It is going to be a busy place (in terms of construction) for next 10+ years.

[Blease]

Originally Posted by e-clam9

About 40 new high rise condo are being approved to be built along King George around Surrey downtown. It is going to be a busy place (in terms of construction) for next 10+ years.

Good to hear. I'm particularly looking forward to finding out the details of City Centre's upcoming developments. Shift recently teased us with a sense of what's to come in city centre. Very excited, looking forward to getting more details.

[e-clam9]

Early in 2019, it will be very busy for pre-sales in Surrey downtown area:

- Park George Tower II
- University District Tower II
- King George Hub Phase 3
- Central City 2 (office/retail only)
- George Town Phase 1
- Centra Surrey
- The Holland

Still selling or recently sold out are:
- Avani
- University District Tower I
- Park George Tower I
- One Central
- Linea

Do I miss any one ?

Let's hope there are still enough demand for so many new supply in a short time. Someone said Avani has a $70K incentive on some units. Oakridge re-development project in Vancouver is giving out car, oversea trip, luxury items, and more. According to news, this year has the most pre-sales comparing to recent years. It is interesting to see how well they can sell.

[osirisboy]

What's king George? Is that park George? And what's Surrey central

And you missed georgetown

[e-clam9]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

What's king George? Is that park George? And what's Surrey central

And you missed georgetown

Corrected, Too many names to remember... I am searching my email for their names, thanks

[Westbased]

Originally Posted by e-clam9

This month is busy for pre-sales in Surrey downtown area:

- Park George Tower II
- University District Tower II
- King George Hub Phase 3
- George Town Phase 1
- Central City 2 (office/retail only)

Still selling or recently sold out are:
- Avani
- University District Tower I
- Park George Tower I
- One Central
- Linea

Do I miss any one ?

Let's hope there are still enough demand for so many new supply in a short time. Someone said Avani has a $70K incentive on some units. Oakridge re-development project in Vancouver is giving out car, oversea trip, luxury items, and more. According to news, this year has the most pre-sales comparing to recent years. It is interesting to see how well they can sell.

I'm pretty sure The Hub phase 3 is a rental only building so no pre-sales. Georgetown also doesn't look like it'll be ready for sales until March! Sales centre is still under construction.

[e-clam9]

Originally Posted by Westbased

I'm pretty sure The Hub phase 3 is a rental only building so no pre-sales. Georgetown also doesn't look like it'll be ready for sales until March! Sales centre is still under construction.

I got this email last month from them but it did not mention rental or pre-sale. I guess this phase 3 is for pre-sale.


"KING GEORGE HUB NEXT TOWER LAUNCHING 2019

Thank you for your continued interest in King George Hub. PCI Developments is excited to announce the release of their next tower in 2019!

King George Hub is Downtown Surrey's premier offering. The perfect combination of rapid transit, residential, retail, office and vibrant public space, in a complete community developed by award-winning PCI Developments.

In the lead up to the launch of our next tower in 2019, we look forward to sharing with you further details of one of Metro Vancouver’s most attractive condo offerings, including announcement of retail tenants who are coming to King George Hub!

Stay tuned for further announcements!

Sincerely,
The King George Hub Sales Team"