104 Ave Corridor Planning [Surrey]

[ClaytonA]

Otherwise known as Guilford Town Centre, but actually larger.

http://www.surrey.ca/city-services/24723.aspx

Phase 2 Open House boards: http://www.surrey.ca/files/Guildford...BoardsVol2.pdf

There are proposed land use maps in the Phase 2 Open House boards above. They have two concepts, focused and dispersed growth.

Focused has two blocks N-S of 104 Ave and E-W between 148 St and 154 St as 4-6 storey apartment-style and mid to highrise at the stations. Dispersed has more 6 storey and less mid to high rise. This pretty much matches the existing Official Community Plan. Biggest changes are west of 148 St to current single family detached houses. Current population ~24,000 in 9200 homes.

[Shift]

Overview of this:

Looks like more density than the Cambie St corridor, with 4-6 storey covering large areas off of 104 Ave

Option 1:


Option 2:


https://urbansurrey.com/2018/03/06/c...4-avenue-plan/

[ClaytonA]

I think Option 2 would be better, but how will the SFD home owners affect things (Option 1 more likely end result whatever option is chosen.)

My one comment is they should have more mixed use; i.e. not just at stations but the entire length of 104 Ave. More density than Cambie since they plan on more than just the blocks fronting onto 104 Ave.

[Thanks for graphic Shift!]

[Migrant_Coconut]

Ditto on more mixed-use, but given the level of transit serving the corridor, I'd suggest less density. Nothing over six storeys please.

[invisibleairwaves]

What I like about the plans (especially option 2) is that for the most part, they don't involve upzoning the existing apartments around the mall. This area has such a large and vital amount of affordable rentals, and it would be a real shame to see another Metrotown-style disaster happen here. Add a ton of new rental stock by upzoning the strip malls and SFHs, and only after that, maybe look at redeveloping those old woodframe complexes into something taller and denser.

[goldenboi]

I'm not totally on board with the "we can't have density unless there is a high capacity, grade-separated, rapid transit line" idea. While I do agree that the LRT should be built as SkyTrain, there are plenty of very dense neighbourhoods in Vancouver and around the world that do not have RT, and they function just fine. More density = more walkable = you don't need to zip off to another neighbourhood to work/shop/etc. And as density increases, it becomes easier to serve an area by bus. Hopefully as density increase on the 104 corridor, more of the arterials can get frequent bus transit.

I like the look of the second option. It would be nice to see densification in metro van that is not just clusters of skyscrapers.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by goldenboi

I'm not totally on board with the "we can't have density unless there is a high capacity, grade-separated, rapid transit line" idea. While I do agree that the LRT should be built as SkyTrain, there are plenty of very dense neighbourhoods in Vancouver and around the world that do not have RT, and they function just fine. More density = more walkable = you don't need to zip off to another neighbourhood to work/shop/etc. And as density increases, it becomes easier to serve an area by bus. Hopefully as density increase on the 104 corridor, more of the arterials can get frequent bus transit.

I like the look of the second option. It would be nice to see densification in metro van that is not just clusters of skyscrapers.

Not "we can't have density," just "not density like Surrey First wants (which IS clusters of skyscrapers)." A plan for Whalley to look like Olympic Village could be manageable, but what they have in mind is waaay too much for a 4,080 pphpd streetcar.

Having a lot of amenities at one's doorstep should definitely be encouraged, but you can't put everything next to everybody, least of all in car-friendly sprawl like North America - YVR's in Richmond, the mountains are in North Van, most of the universities/malls/beaches are in Vancouver or Burnaby, yet most of the city is SFHs scattered all over the Lower Mainland. Nor can you always find a way to live where you work, given the housing market.

So express service is all about making those long-distance commuter trips faster and more convenient than the car or bus... which this LRT isn't, despite being "rapid" transit. I'd be genuinely interested to see how many of those dense neighbourhoods here or in the States actually have people who don't drive very often.

[Rico]

So correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the ONLY reason Surrey council wanted LRT because they wanted 'continuous development' instead of 'development nodes' like they felt came with Skytrain? So then they come up with a plan to zone nodes? To me the plan seems fine but???

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Not "we can't have density," just "not density like Surrey First wants (which IS clusters of skyscrapers)." A plan for Whalley to look like Olympic Village could be manageable, but what they have in mind is waaay too much for a 4,080 pphpd streetcar.

From what I've seen from Surrey, the plan is to have the majority of towers in Surrey Central. Guildford has a few and that's the only town centre that does - the rest of the town centres they're aiming for plenty of lowrises. There'll be some lowrises built along major corridors - perhaps how Cambie is being built up.

I think their LRT plan won't work, which I've said before, including to Surrey. All we can hope for (beyond it getting cancelled for it's poor business case) is they build a better bus network. A big part of that will fall on TransLink.

[goldenboi]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Not "we can't have density," just "not density like Surrey First wants (which IS clusters of skyscrapers)." A plan for Whalley to look like Olympic Village could be manageable, but what they have in mind is waaay too much for a 4,080 pphpd streetcar.

Having a lot of amenities at one's doorstep should definitely be encouraged, but you can't put everything next to everybody, least of all in car-friendly sprawl like North America - YVR's in Richmond, the mountains are in North Van, most of the universities/malls/beaches are in Vancouver or Burnaby, yet most of the city is SFHs scattered all over the Lower Mainland. Nor can you always find a way to live where you work, given the housing market.

So express service is all about making those long-distance commuter trips faster and more convenient than the car or bus... which this LRT isn't, despite being "rapid" transit. I'd be genuinely interested to see how many of those dense neighbourhoods here or in the States actually have people who don't drive very often.

Hopefully the need for long-distance commuters will lessen as Surrey gets more jobs in the city centre. There are already two universities that have set up campuses. In a few decades I don't think Surrey will merely be a suburb of Vancouver. It will actually be its own hub, which you won't need to leave except for special occasions. Absolutely I wish the line was being built as skytrain; but I don't think that this eliminates the possibility of having significant density. Guilford is close enough to Surrey Central as it is, I would be okay having this amount of density even without the LRT.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by goldenboi

Hopefully the need for long-distance commuters will lessen as Surrey gets more jobs in the city centre. There are already two universities that have set up campuses. In a few decades I don't think Surrey will merely be a suburb of Vancouver. It will actually be its own hub, which you won't need to leave except for special occasions. Absolutely I wish the line was being built as skytrain; but I don't think that this eliminates the possibility of having significant density. Guilford is close enough to Surrey Central as it is, I would be okay having this amount of density even without the LRT.

Absolutely - with any luck, Whalley becomes just like Brentwood and Metrotown in terms of regional importance. I'm just arguing that there'll still be a lot more of those special occasions than you or Surrey Council would think.

With all due respect to SFU Surrey and Kwantlen, the latter is a polytechnic and the former only offers first-year courses. If you want a 2+ year degree, that's a trip outside Surrey.
If Central City or Guildford doesn't have that thing you want to buy, that's another trip outside Surrey.
If you want to see the Canucks game, want to head to Vancouver Island or fly out of BC, want to spend the weekend at Granville Island or Science World or the Aquarium... well, you get the picture. And since we're one big interconnected city, it works both ways; people from outside Surrey may very well want to come in to live/work/shop/play.

By all means, densify along the arterials, that's just normal planning. But if the LRT is geared toward local trips, and so is full of door-to-door riders and isn't enough of an advantage over driving (which is looking to be the case), then all those in-out trips are going to be served by cars... which will now have two less lanes to works with. Too much density could seriously exacerbate that problem.

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

....With all due respect to SFU Surrey and Kwantlen, the latter is a polytechnic and the former only offers first-year courses. If you want a 2+ year degree, that's a trip outside Surrey.
....

Actually SFU has plans to add on 3 new buildings to the Surrey City Centre area. The projects just depend on provincial funding, but plans are underway to seriously grow the Surrey campus into a campus in its own right.

http://www.sfu.ca/fs/files/Campus_Pl..._Approved).pdf
Starts on page 17 talking of the SE3P building currently being built then continues on to discuss the other buildings.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Colin4567

Actually SFU has plans to add on 3 new buildings to the Surrey City Centre area. The projects just depend on provincial funding, but plans are underway to seriously grow the Surrey campus into a campus in its own right.

I stand corrected. Point is, not everybody offers the same programs - for example, back in January I was on the bus and overheard someone from Delta talking about trying to get into Cap U. That's pretty damn far for an education.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves

What I like about the plans (especially option 2) is that for the most part, they don't involve upzoning the existing apartments around the mall. This area has such a large and vital amount of affordable rentals, and it would be a real shame to see another Metrotown-style disaster happen here. Add a ton of new rental stock by upzoning the strip malls and SFHs, and only after that, maybe look at redeveloping those old woodframe complexes into something taller and denser.

The reality is that will happen. The path of least resistance is building over "affordable rental housing." Those old rental housing stocks have begun to really draw the ire of many new residents. The City has already begun plans to rezone land the rental housing complexes sit on from 104th to 106th Ave - 132nd to 134th St. The caveat with rental housing is that many of the owners are large property equity groups that will eventually cash out once the City rezones the land. There is so much pressure from these lobbiests to rezone at the moment....

On top of this, many housing co-ops in Surrey have seen or will see their CMHC subsudies end in the next few years. The Mayflower building next to City hall in particular will see theirs end in 2019...and the building has had a ton of geotechnical issues.

[invisibleairwaves]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

The reality is that will happen. The path of least resistance is building over "affordable rental housing." Those old rental housing stocks have begun to really draw the ire of many new residents. The City has already begun plans to rezone land the rental housing complexes sit on from 104th to 106th Ave - 132nd to 134th St. The caveat with rental housing is that many of the owners are large property equity groups that will eventually cash out once the City rezones the land. There is so much pressure from these lobbiests to rezone at the moment....

On top of this, many housing co-ops in Surrey have seen or will see their CMHC subsudies end in the next few years. The Mayflower building next to City hall in particular will see theirs end in 2019...and the building has had a ton of geotechnical issues.

For sure. I'm not advocating any kind of permanent or long-term preservation of these buildings; they will have to go eventually. But in the short term the City needs to make sure that the affordable rentals aren't singled out for redevelopment like they are in Burnaby, and the only way to achieve that is by upzoning lower-density areas first. Plenty of strip malls are also owned by property equity groups, and there's loads of SFH homeowners who wouldn't mind cashing out either. Target those areas, mandate a high % of purpose-built rental (possibly in exchange for density increases) and maybe it won't hurt so bad when the developers do eventually come for the old buildings.

[scryer]

I'm leaning more towards option 2 because I feel that it will gracefully connect the Guildford Town Centre to the rest of Surrey. In comparison to Burnaby, you can tell that it has multiple town centres because you look around and: BAM! There's a cluster of towers, making it very obvious.

[rpvan]

I hope the scrapping of LRT won't change these plans too much as they were quite promising.

If the 96B line does get upgraded to a BRT type system, I would assume the plans don't end up getting altered too much.

[fredinno]

The land on the opposite side from Guildford. T. Centre; that's where the Sears Complex is. Why is it being divided up into streetfronts on both options?

Is this some sort of Metrotown 'destroying Metropolis at Metrotown because D O W N T O W N' thing again?

That bridge is pretty useful if you want to integrate the mall with the Community Centre, like in Brentwood. Especially since 104th St. is a pretty hectic avenue, using the bridge to connect pedestrians to the 2 biggest anchors of the town Centre is going to be really convenient and useful down the road.

Plus, redeveloping the Parkade (thus merging the shopping Centre with the Landmark Cinema) has the potential to eventually allow for a 'high street' for Guildford.

They don't have to keep the current Bridge (it could use some work to be more appealing), but this trend of breaking up malls needs to stop. People still want to shop indoors, you know.

Originally Posted by scryer

I'm leaning more towards option 2 because I feel that it will gracefully connect the Guildford Town Centre to the rest of Surrey. In comparison to Burnaby, you can tell that it has multiple town centres because you look around and: BAM! There's a cluster of towers, making it very obvious.

Isn't Option 2 more clustered around Guildford?

Originally Posted by rpvan

I hope the scrapping of LRT won't change these plans too much as they were quite promising.

If the 96B line does get upgraded to a BRT type system, I would assume the plans don't end up getting altered too much.

I don't think Newton's plans are going to survive in the current state.

Guildford has Hwy 1 to compensate for worse transit, so, for now, so this might still go though, albeit at a slower pace.

[goldenboi]

I don't see any reason why the plans shouldn't go through with the BRT or even the existing b-line. Bus service can essentially provide the same speed and capacity. I am a huge advocate for densifying around B-Lines. Look at the success of the 99. I always hear the argument that people are more inclined to take a train, even if it's the same speed/capacity, but I've never actually seen evidence of this.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by goldenboi

I don't see any reason why the plans shouldn't go through with the BRT or even the existing b-line. Bus service can essentially provide the same speed and capacity. I am a huge advocate for densifying around B-Lines. Look at the success of the 99. I always hear the argument that people are more inclined to take a train, even if it's the same speed/capacity, but I've never actually seen evidence of this.

Surrey wants FAR 4.5 on Guildford. Not sure how realistic 8-10 story buildings are with only BRT.