[Surrey] One Central | 134m | 46fl | U/C - Page 5

osirisboy · #81 Posted **Jul 19, 2018, 4:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pomonke

dcman72 your existence is a fxxking eyesore

What the hell kind of comment is that?

And yeah I agree dcman it's an eyesore. Itll be gone one day soon I'm sure

Nites · #82 Posted **Jul 19, 2018, 6:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pomonke

dcman72 your existence is a fxxking eyesore

Cypherus · #83 Posted **Jul 19, 2018, 12:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pomonke

dcman72 your existence is a fxxking eyesore

10 posts in and this guy is asking to be banned.

red-paladin · #84 Posted **Jul 19, 2018, 5:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pomonke

dcman72 your existence is a fxxking eyesore

It goes without saying that personal attacks are not appropriate.

dcman72 · #85 Posted **Jul 24, 2018, 5:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pomonke

dcman72 your existence is a fxxking eyesore

Wow that's a bit of a harsh response. Not that i need to defend myself but if you had read further you would have seen

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcman72

Thanks osirisboy and Shift for the insight and broadening my perspective.

They responded to my comment like adults and I changed my opinion. I have no idea what your story is or how important this house is to you but you need to take a break from the internet. Take a Mindfulness class, it taught me to be in the moment and not carry my personal baggage around.

GMasterAres · #86 Posted **Jul 26, 2018, 6:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blease

Why not just let the markets take care of the rental crunch??? Government regulations usually do a piss poor job of stuff like this.

I don't entirely disagree in concept but the problem with markets taking care of themselves is that if history is any tell, they tend to build up and then explode to correct. There's very little "minor" or "medium" corrections in a market driven economy.

So if we let the markets take care of the rental crunch, it is very likely we'll see real-estate and the overall market crash like down in Arizona and other parts of the US during the credit crunch.

With respect to Government regulations, in practice, they often do do a piss poor job of stuff like this but I feel it is only because the decisions are knee jerk and made by politicians who either don't fully understand the complex variables at work, or they believe the electorate doesn't fully understand so for "being voted in next cycle" sakes they again turn to quick fixes or no fixes.

I do believe though that Government, especially municipal government, can make good decisions with respect to land use and regulations that nudge an area in the right direction. I'm not saying there should be NO condo development for example, but we already know what happens when absolutely NO _0_ purpose built rental only housing is built in a city.

We've seen the results of this stance over the last 20 years and it is a lot larger a factor I feel in creating the crazy real estate market we have today than over-seas investors. And I get the irony of me saying this, a multi-home owner who rents out extra units to pay my mortgage and who would likely compete with these rent-only buildings.

I don't think it would hurt to have certain areas in the metro-cores designated rental only. It would force condo owners to compete and lower their prices through increased competition, and quite honestly that to me sounds like a free market. Isn't one of the foundations of a free market society, competition?

Anyway this is probably not the thread for this discussion, feel free to PM me if you want to discuss further.

dcman72 · #87 Posted **Aug 8, 2018, 4:15 AM**

I received this notice in the mail, click on image to see full size. it looks mostly the same as the one I posted april/2017 but with the new project number that Shift found.

In the notice they have the building with a 44 storey tower, 13 storey podium and 7 levels of underground parking. the notice from april/2017 had 44 storey tower, 13 storey podium, 6 levels of parking.

Shift has an earlier post that has the building as a 46 storey tower and a 14 storey podium. Is this a typo by the city or is this one of those things they'll amend later in the process?

GMasterAres · #88 Posted **Aug 13, 2018, 10:58 PM**

Have to go by what the City said. Things can change but that would be the most correct as of the publishing of that letter.

Shift · #89 Posted **Oct 14, 2018, 7:47 PM**

Project has been named 'One Central'. Time to update thread title.

http://aoyuaninternational.com/project-one-central.php

https://onecentral.ca

Westbased · #90 Posted **Oct 14, 2018, 8:31 PM**

Just got an email this morning from Sky Real Estate Team for this project. They are marketing "urban micro units" starting at under $200K.

I'm guessing if they are advertising units they're extremely confident they will get away with a change from rental to strata...

Klazu · #91 Posted **Oct 15, 2018, 2:10 AM**

While this project looks nice, the surrounding area is developing to become a much more "tower in the park" than I was expecting - if that rendering is to be believed.

red-paladin · #92 Posted **Oct 15, 2018, 2:22 AM**

Title updated.

osirisboy · #93 Posted **Oct 15, 2018, 2:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

While this project looks nice, the surrounding area is developing to become a much more "tower in the park" than I was expecting - if that rendering is to be believed.

No that's a bulllshit rendering. All the treed areas are actually old houses that will eventually be redeveloped. It's not tower in the park although it's all very much point towers

I bought this was going to be rental?

CoryHolmes · #94 Posted **Oct 15, 2018, 3:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

While this project looks nice, the surrounding area is developing to become a much more "tower in the park" than I was expecting - if that rendering is to be believed.

Yeah, I just spent the afternoon walking around Coal Harbour and I love how all the towers came down right at street level. Towers in the park is an awful thing and something we should be avoiding, not striving towards.

Klazu · #95 Posted **Oct 15, 2018, 5:26 AM**

Yeah, I can understand them taking liberties with a rendering. Good to hear that the plan calls for a dense area.

Shift · #96 Posted **Oct 15, 2018, 10:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

While this project looks nice, the surrounding area is developing to become a much more "tower in the park" than I was expecting - if that rendering is to be believed.

The rendering is very inaccurate. The area is not developing in a 'tower in the park feel' by any means.

For instance - the trees shown in front of the tower to the right dont even exist. That is where the evolve commercial podium sits. All the other areas of trees have applications on them or will have soon. Also no trees exist between this tower and the 4 storey building behind it - just a pedestrian walkway. Placement of the rendering seems very off.

Cypherus · #97 Posted **Oct 15, 2018, 10:10 PM**

Great to see the design didn't change. Definitely a nice looking tower and continues the Urban Village ethos and civic colour scheme. For the tower being shy of 50 floors by 4 floors only, this is an exciting tower (except for Ultra east facing residences)...

Shift · #98 Posted **Oct 15, 2018, 10:11 PM**

Nice looking roof amenity area:

officedweller · #99 Posted **Oct 15, 2018, 11:17 PM**

Here's a render from the website -
what's missing?

http://aoyuaninternational.com/project-one-central.php

Also from the website:

http://aoyuaninternational.com/project-one-central.php

Shift · #**100** Posted **Oct 16, 2018, 12:07 AM**

I see Prime has been replaced by a new park and SFU has been picked up and relocated onto the rec centre parking lot.

Also - height of this is 44 floors. Not sure why the thread title says 46.

https://apps.surrey.ca/Online-Develo...ar=18&seq=0244