[SpongeG]

IMO anything north of 104 east of scott road west of 152 is kinda ghetto - not somewhere i would wanna call home - my friend has lived in numerous places in that zone and it was always a little scary

[Diet Butcher]

Urban Village is South of 104, about a block from Central City Mall, I don't think it falls into the area you are describing?

[webster]

Urban Village is South of 104, about a block from Central City Mall, I don't think it falls into the area you are describing?

but, you could see it from your window at Ultra....

[SpongeG]

I will add its improving but like others have said its a deterrent to some buyers

there are pockets of nice but they are i think over powered by the worst

[Whalleyboy]

I think its because everyone has a thought when they think of surrey that they look for the bad and if your looking for something your gonna find it. So instead of coming to surrey and thinking of looking for the good they look for the bad and find just that.

[c2128]

Really? I don't know about that or your definition of better location.

Parks and Recreation:
1. Holland Park is closer to Park Place (PP) than Ultra
2. Whalley Athletic Park / Tom Binnie are closer to Ultra than PP
3. North Surrey Rec is closer to Ultra than PP though via Skytrain it would be technically the same roughly

Ammenities and Services:
1. Hospital is closer to PP than Ultra
2. Surrey Central Mall is roughly the same distance from both
3. New library is closer to Ultra than PP
4. All other services are roughly same distance from both

Work/Rental Oppertunities:
1. SFU Surrey is slightly closer to Ultra than PP though this is marginal at best
2. Hospital is closer to PP than Ultra
3. New RCMP headquarters is closer to PP than Ultra
4. Skytrain is closer to PP than Ultra though added time from King George Station to Surrey Central roughly makes up the additional walking distance from Ultra to Surrey Central so call them a tie
5. Both fairly close to both KGB and one of the additional side boulevards.
6. PP closer to Fraser Highway

So overall for what I'd look for in a condo, I'd say Park Place actually has quite a few benefits over Ultra location wise. You could argue Ultra is more 'central' so should demand a higher price but I still feel (and it appears others feel based on unit sales) that there isn't enough in Ultra to account for the very large price difference.

For example I bought a unit on the 21st floor in Park Place former Infinity 2 for roughly $200k. The same sized unit in Ultra when they went on sale but on the 3rd floor was over $300k and if you scaled up tot he 21st floor at about $2k per floor you'd be sitting around $340k. That's $140k MORE for the same size. Not to mention my building will be completed soon even with some major delays due to the economic downturn and Ultra hasn't even sniffed a shovel.

When Ultra went on sale many moons ago it was nearly double the price as equal sized units in what is now Park Place. Yes Ultra has additional perks in their units and they could be seen as higher quality build wise, I don't think that level of unit demand has really reached Surrey yet. Reputations are improving but you aren't going to get the style of person from Yaletown that expects to pay $140,000 more on a unit to get the illusion that their counters are made of solid gold and are thus 'better'.

Not to mention when it comes to rental units, people pay based on location purely more often than not. Renters don't rent condos in downtown Vancouver for $2500 a month because the counters are marble. They pay that because they are living in downtown Vancouver. Ultra's build quality doesn't mean you can rent the units higher than those in Park Place or even Infinity or the other new towers in the area because the location is in essence the same.

Is there a potential based on location that Ultra will be better in the long run? In 20 or 30 years yes quite possibly. But should you pay higher prices today for the promiss of things to come in 2 decades? I dunno.


I'm guessing that you purchased your unit years ago?!

But I'm not sure if you are talking about one-bed or two-bed unit because one-bed units in Ultra are surely not that expensive but two-bed units in PP are not that cheap either. Probably you got a really good deal??

[jhausner]

My pricing is going based on when the project first went to market. Compared square foot to square foot, Ultra was 50% to 100% more expensive than Infinity Phase 2. Both originally went on sale 4-5 years ago. Infinity 2 a bit before Ultra but not far off from each other.

Things have changed since then so you can't really compare now since Park Place/Infinity 2 is being built and completed so they have more power to push up prices whereas Ultra is still dirt so they have less power and have to reduce prices to try and attract pre-sales, a fairly cold market right now.

I had a lot of friends who were looking to buy a place when all the projects went on sale around the same time. It was Infinity, Ultra, and Quatro which were the big ones selling. We all walked away from Ultra going "they're insane to want those prices here right now."

Remember this was before SFU was taking off there, before the expansion to the Hospital, before the major change in Surrey's downtown stance, before the new city hall and library were announced, 4-5 years before the Olympics were to take place, and before the RCMP headquarters was announced.

So while today people can argue it's a great location that warrents those prices, 4-5 years ago it was a pipe dream of maybe, could be, and possiblies. The fact that all these other projects have been announced and have started construction and Ultra is still a piece of dirt I think reflects that fact. If they had priced things a bit more reasonably it would probably be topping out now.

I'm not saying it won't happen, just that the hype I've read in the last several pages about why the prices should be higher weren't valid 4-5 years ago.

[c2128]

My pricing is going based on when the project first went to market. Compared square foot to square foot, Ultra was 50% to 100% more expensive than Infinity Phase 2. Both originally went on sale 4-5 years ago. Infinity 2 a bit before Ultra but not far off from each other.

Things have changed since then so you can't really compare now since Park Place/Infinity 2 is being built and completed so they have more power to push up prices whereas Ultra is still dirt so they have less power and have to reduce prices to try and attract pre-sales, a fairly cold market right now.

I had a lot of friends who were looking to buy a place when all the projects went on sale around the same time. It was Infinity, Ultra, and Quatro which were the big ones selling. We all walked away from Ultra going "they're insane to want those prices here right now."

Remember this was before SFU was taking off there, before the expansion to the Hospital, before the major change in Surrey's downtown stance, before the new city hall and library were announced, 4-5 years before the Olympics were to take place, and before the RCMP headquarters was announced.

So while today people can argue it's a great location that warrents those prices, 4-5 years ago it was a pipe dream of maybe, could be, and possiblies. The fact that all these other projects have been announced and have started construction and Ultra is still a piece of dirt I think reflects that fact. If they had priced things a bit more reasonably it would probably be topping out now.

I'm not saying it won't happen, just that the hype I've read in the last several pages about why the prices should be higher weren't valid 4-5 years ago.


I agree with you if the pricing is based on when both projects went on market 4-5 years ago. However, since Ultra has reduced prices (I believe PP has also changed prices) I think we can just compare the location and the current prices between Ultra and Park Place and see which one is more worthy.

[pomonke]

i agree with jhausner.
if my memories serve me right,
those were about the asking prices when they were put out on the market,

agenda started from $ 119,000
infinity 1 + quattro 1 started from $139,000
infinity 2 started from $149,000
city point + d'corize started from $159,000
skytower started from 179,900

but ultra was asking $ 189,000
i know an asian family who was actually interested and went the grand opening held on some Saturday back then. She told me it was like a bidding war, with the sales staff telling everyone that the 'advertised-everywhere' $180's offers were sold out and gone. Now the new starting price is $ 199,000.

so, they got pissed off and left.:hell:

I mean, yes it was about the hype. but it's also about public relations. Ways the developers deal with their clients.

I mean you can make up any prices, deploy any marketing (scheming) strategies and take on any gambling you want , but reputable developers such as Concord Pacific, Bosa or Polygon would probably do things differently. For example, have a condo beautifully built first and then asking that $199,000 starting price.

[whalley13]

There are signs up now saying>>>>"phase 1 sold out, register phase 2".....i think this is a good sign mebbe they are starting up construction soon?

[Diet Butcher]

They are still planning to start at the very end of January (which will probably end up being Feb or March). I saw a couple of guys walking around some of their material storage beside Element the other day. Last week there was an Excavator parked on the land Ultra will be built on, but I'm not sure what it was doing.

They plan to re-open the Sales Center at the actual Ultra site in March as well.

So things are moving along...

[surrey1]

this is what happens when the city allows the smaller phases to be built first...it ends up delaying the towers for years. same thing happened for dcor...they built those 4 story condos first...and then eventually after almost 7 years they built the 20 story condo on 104th.

the city should ban 4 story condos from being built on prime real estate near the skytrains unless it is part of a larger development where the main towers are built first.

[allan_kuan]

Don't expect a lot of leadership from Surrey in regards to promoting high-rise developments... they love expanding their suburbia still... (while at the same time complaining that they are expanding and deserve all sorts of things that are essentially unaffordable without the extra density)

[Metro-One]

:previous: Exactly how I feel.

It seems that Coquitlam and Port Moody have done a better job developing with the mere promise of mass transit (Ioco, Coquitlam Centre / Douglas College area) than Surrey has around its existing mass transit, especially when considering that Surrey's population is 3 times larger that PoMo and Coquitlam combined.

This is the primary reason why I feel the Tri-Cities deserve mass transit before more is built in Surrey.

Surrey has had 4 stations at their disposal for almost 20 years now. Only in the last few years have they started to turn the tide in the area from being a low-rise and brownfield slum. (I dont care as much about Scott Road, but the area around there should become far more dense industrial than it is now).

[SpongeG]

well no one wants to live there without the want to live in the areas its not going to be able to sell

[racc]

:previous: Exactly how I feel.

It seems that Coquitlam and Port Moody have done a better job developing with the mere promise of mass transit (Ioco, Coquitlam Centre / Douglas College area) than Surrey has around its existing mass transit, especially when considering that Surrey's population is 3 times larger that PoMo and Coquitlam combined.

This is the primary reason why I feel the Tri-Cities deserve mass transit before more is built in Surrey.

Surrey has had 4 stations at their disposal for almost 20 years now. Only in the last few years have they started to turn the tide in the area from being a low-rise and brownfield slum. (I dont care as much about Scott Road, but the area around there should become far more dense industrial than it is now).
Well said, I was just thinking the same yesterday. While I support rapid transit in Surrey, I'm not sure that rapid transit will be enough to attract the levels of development needed to support rapid transit. A much better bet financially is rapid transit to UBC. At least people really want to live on the west side of Vancouver so there will be the ridership to support rapid transit. The current generation won't be around forever and the younger generation that will move there will likely be more supportive of high density development. Hopefully we will be able to invest in both rapid transit expansion in Surrey and the UBC Line at the same time to avoid divisive regional battles.

[mosup]

Don't expect a lot of leadership from Surrey in regards to promoting high-rise developments... they love expanding their suburbia still... (while at the same time complaining that they are expanding and deserve all sorts of things that are essentially unaffordable without the extra density)

Can you clarify what "leadership" you are referring to in regards to promoting high rise developments? As a Surrey resident, I've seen five or more highrise applications approved by city council in the past two years. The problem lies with the developers/investors - they seem to pull out last minute, lose funding or delay construction for obscure reasons of sorts

[invisibleairwaves]

Can you clarify what "leadership" you are referring to in regards to promoting high rise developments? As a Surrey resident, I've seen five or more highrise applications approved by city council in the past two years. The problem lies with the developers/investors - they seem to pull out last minute, lose funding or delay construction for obscure reasons of sorts

Exactly. Surrey has offered incentives for city centre projects and approved plenty of high-rise proposals. I like to bash Surrey City Hall as much as anyone, but what are they supposed to do here? Go bankrupt by building the towers themselves?

[c4c]

How about an update if this is ever going to start, anyone??

[Diet Butcher]

Weststone should have a press release in the next couple of weeks, they are working on apparently working adding something to the project that is a big deal for them as well as the community.

Things are looking good, I've seen Weststone employees at the site yesterday and today checking out their extra materials storage area behind Element.

[surrey1]

Weststone should have a press release in the next couple of weeks, they are working on apparently working adding something to the project that is a big deal for them as well as the community.

Things are looking good, I've seen Weststone employees at the site yesterday and today checking out their extra materials storage area behind Element.

lol....the cycle continues....lemme guess..they are a few months away, planning to begin construction in april.

[Whalleyboy]

I will give up on thos project if that happens. although they migh try and make the there holding off on it by adding something new to what there doing

[jhausner]

By adding something new and major you aren't refering to them actually starting the project once and for all? That would certainly be new and major. :cool:

[allan_kuan]

Exactly. Surrey has offered incentives for city centre projects and approved plenty of high-rise proposals. I like to bash Surrey City Hall as much as anyone, but what are they supposed to do here? Go bankrupt by building the towers themselves?

As a foreword, my mindset usually comes from the position of government regulations guiding development in town and city centres, rather than relying solely on any sort of natural or encouraged growth (although it'd be pretty spectacular if someone suddenly built 4 towers today in say Scottsdale in anticipation of LRT).

From that view, I'm not sure if those incentive moves are sufficient. Rumour has it that Surrey city hall is still moving ahead with Tynehead and Port Kells suburbia expansion, and many developments over the past five years have still been in suburbia... which has and will surely continue to take away from the demand that could be otherwise used to build their often touted Downtown master plan. =S

I was thinking more of them just stopping all new-build developments and focusing more on redevelopments instead. Wishful thinking, maybe, but at least it puts more pressure to build something taller and increasing the chances of that happening. As long as they're lenient with the market like they are right now, though, the market's going to continue to fool them and will barely adapt to building the higher stuff.

[CoryHolmes]

As nice as it would be to concentrate all efforts on Central City, Surrey still has a mind-boggling amount of people moving to it each month. They need a place to live just like everybody else and with the recent crackdown on illegal suites...

Also, the urban lifestyle just doesn't appeal to everyone. Those silly people need a home too :)

[SpongeG]

a lot of immigrants want the big suburban "american dream" style detached home and there will always be demand for it as long as the region attracts immigrants thats really the only city with the space to provide that style of housing

[invisibleairwaves]

It's definitely erroneous to assume that the people buying single-family homes out in the 'burbs would just as soon buy into a high-rise in Whalley. It's not really the same demand. And look at the Tri-Cities; they're getting praised for densifying around future Skytrain stations, but at the same time they're sprawling all over the place. It doesn't really make a lot of sense to directly link the lack of progress in the city centre with the sprawl to the east and south.

[surrey1]

a lot of those immigrants are purchasing those condos either for their children or investments.

[Diet Butcher]

Just wanted to give everyone an update, that they are moving in a new Construction trailer for Ultra in the staging area behind Element as we speak.

Things are definitely underway on moving this project forward.

[Pinion]

Let us know when it's actually going up. I had to check Surrey via globalairphotos.com because judging by threads here it sounds like it's doing as well as Metrotown at least and I could barely tell where downtown Surrey was.

[SpongeG]

don't people on the forum go places? i get everywhere in the LM

[Whalleyboy]

thing is nothing much has been going on in surrey lately theres no real attraction of doing stuff here. Surrey centre lacks huge in entertainment. Given we do have winterfest coming up soon though so that will be something but most of the time there is nothing much. Plus its cold out and people in surrey dont walk hahah

[SpongeG]

i don't know i walk around surrey central at least once a month - the mall or go to best buy whatever, go to movies at strawberry hill or collosus, shop at superstore from newton, scott road, langley 104th, east van whichever one is close at the time and I live in coquitlam, my friend lives in surrey and when we hang out we go everywhere

[Whalleyboy]

But see thats the thing your doing normal everyday thing for the most part those arent really drawing in people to come there to often. They need to stop putting everything everywhere in surrey if they want to make people come to central they gotta put more there. I know it may seem unfair to the other town centres but they should understand there not to play equal to central

[SpongeG]

i don't mean attraction wise i just mean getting out leaving your little world circle - if you wanna see whats going on than go see it don't ask what is going on - go see for yourself

[Whalleyboy]

yeha but if your going some where alot of people want more then just looking into one thing to go out to an area

[Pinion]

There is zero reason as a North Vancouverite to go to Surrey. I'll go as far as Metrotown for movies/shopping, or New West for a restaurant, but beyond some mild curiosity about the SFU campus I have no desire or need.

The last time I went was five years ago and that was required by my BCIT class (wiring a house that had been massacred by illegal East Indian workers).

Hardly fair to call it my "little world circle." I drive all the way down the west coast for fun, I've been to Las Vegas about 10 times, I've been all over the Pacific Rim. Surrey is isolated and boring, not me, and I'm definitely not going to waste a day going there just to see if some construction finally started.

I fully expect a dogpile from sensitive Surreyites now, but I am only responding.

[mosup]

There is zero reason as a North Vancouverite to go to Surrey. I'll go as far as Metrotown for movies/shopping, or New West for a restaurant, but beyond some mild curiosity about the SFU campus I have no desire or need.

The last time I went was five years ago and that was required by my BCIT class (wiring a house that had been massacred by illegal East Indian workers).

Hardly fair to call it my "little world circle." I drive all the way down the west coast for fun, I've been to Las Vegas about 10 times, I've been all over the Pacific Rim. Surrey is isolated and boring, not me, and I'm definitely not going to waste a day going there just to see if some construction finally started.

I fully expect a dogpile from sensitive Surreyites now, but I am only responding.

Yet another post touting the "holier-than-thou" attitude expected from a resident North of the Fraser. Surrey is an affordable and liveable region, anyone living here could appreciate that. Outsiders, obviously, not so much.

[SpongeG]

i guess my point is why do you need a reason to go somewhere?

just get out there explore and see the world! the world is yours to discover

today i am going to pick up my friend and we will drive aimlessly around surrey maybe into vancouver who knows we can anywhere we want :)

[invisibleairwaves]

Yet another post touting the "holier-than-thou" attitude expected from a resident North of the Fraser. Surrey is an affordable and liveable region, anyone living here could appreciate that. Outsiders, obviously, not so much.

Whether it's affordable and liveable or not is beside the point. Surrey has basically nothing to attract visitors from elsewhere in the region, and as a Surrey resident I have no problem admitting that. Hell, I can't be bothered to go to most places in the city, and I don't have to cross a bridge to get there. Surrey needs things to attract people, and acknowledging that fact doesn't mean you have a "holier-than-thou" attitude.

[Whalleyboy]

Whether it's affordable and liveable or not is beside the point. Surrey has basically nothing to attract visitors from elsewhere in the region, and as a Surrey resident I have no problem admitting that. Hell, I can't be bothered to go to most places in the city, and I don't have to cross a bridge to get there. Surrey needs things to attract people, and acknowledging that fact doesn't mean you have a "holier-than-thou" attitude.

You took the words right out of my mouth.
Surrey may have things to do for people who live here. But it lacks on any real draw from people out of the area. Its partly why i was always angry at Surrey shaking its head no at the berezan towers wanting to add a casino. It would have been a start to drawing people in. Once you got one big thing more will follow big and small. As it stands people dont want to come to surrey to look at our parks. Sorry but we need a younger view on needs and wants around surrey. Problem is to Surrey trys to heard to please all of its town centres right now with things. We need to focus on one build it up and then work with the rest. Kinda like what most of metro vancouver did with Vancouver many of the suburbs where willing to help push vancouver forwards to what its is today.

[SpongeG]

whats going on with that park on 96th? there is a house about to be demolished out that way i can't think of the street (its by the campground thats near hwy #1) but it was being lived in a couple months ago now its ready to get demolished... seems like a lot of work out there new parking, new trails, new picnic area and the new thing that crosses the highway over pass right? lol i forget the term

[Metro-One]

Whether it's affordable and liveable or not is beside the point. Surrey has basically nothing to attract visitors from elsewhere in the region, and as a Surrey resident I have no problem admitting that. Hell, I can't be bothered to go to most places in the city, and I don't have to cross a bridge to get there. Surrey needs things to attract people, and acknowledging that fact doesn't mean you have a "holier-than-thou" attitude.

In summer the new GEB has brought a tidal wave of boaters and beach bums from Surrey to Maple Ridge coming to Golden Ears Park for the lakes.

While I also personally find Surrey the least interesting community in Metro Vancouver (which is bizarre given its size) the one spot I do love in it is Redwood Park on 20th Ave east of #15. That place has such a unique feel in our region and actually has a very interesting historical story behind it.

Of course those are the features one can not simply build in a city, they have to evolve organically over time.

If you have never been to Redwood park before, go there, make a picnic out of it, it honestly is amazing on a summer afternoon.

[Whalleyboy]

Cresent beach is also a nice palce to go out to in surrey. But North Surrey really lacks on things for people to do. Heck even the Surrey eagles dont play in the northern part of surrey they play out in south surrey. If surrey could atleast get them out to central it would be a good start for something more to do.
I really hope surrey gets a move on with the performing arts building It would be a reason to actually go to central. Also how about letting a new night club or two into the area...club not pub....I am not even a club person but i find centrals night life a drag Central pub is just crappy these days and most of the other drinking places out there most people really dont want to go to

[Pinion]

i guess my point is why do you need a reason to go somewhere?

just get out there explore and see the world! the world is yours to discover

today i am going to pick up my friend and we will drive aimlessly around surrey maybe into vancouver who knows we can anywhere we want :)

I guess choosing to not own a car is part of it. If I drive down the PCH, I rent. I can't see myself paying for a day trip to Surrey. I do go to White Rock once or twice a year, but that is prohibitively expensive.

I would honestly love to see Surrey flourish, that's why I read these threads. But it seems like every one is just "great big thing announced! great big thing not started yet. developer says great big thing will start in 2-3 months. (six months go by). developer says they're going to break ground soon!"

It's just sad. Meanwhile my neighbourhood is quietly booming in a way Surrey could only dream of. Marine drive (the real one, not SW/SE) will be the next 4th ave in five years. Aimlessly drive down it one day, you'll be surprised. ;)

[SpongeG]

i drove aimlessly down and around north vancouver last last sunday :) i gets around

[pomonke]

geez Weststone Group,
if you don't feel like building Ultra, at least make sure no hobo camping or hookers fxxking on the ground.

or maybe it's coz' the hobo camping and hookers fxxking that make your new condo NOT SELLING.

[jhausner]

You have to look at who wants to live where and why.

Everyone always seemst to miss the demographic of an urbanite. Surrey and Langley have won in the circle of families it's that simple. Why? Because families can afford to live in Surrey. There are plenty of parks, houses aren't $1 million for a 2 bedroom, and schools while crowded right now are plentiful. There are also lots of things to do for children and teenagers.

But those people aren't the people moving into an 'urban' environment. Familes are _not_ going to be moving into high-rises. It's that simple. So if Surrey is to densify downtown it can only do so by attracting the young adult crowd. It becomes a Downtown Vancouver, Metrotown, Central Surrey deal.

If I was someone that went sking/snowboarding 4 times a week during the winter would I move to Coquitlam? No I'd probably move to North Vancouver because that's where I would be targetted. If you are a club hopper that loves to party all night long over the weekend, you're going to move closer to downtown Vancouver.

So the same thing has to apply to Surrey, it needs something to _attract_ the younger crowd between kids/teens and adults. I think it is going in the right direction with the anchor of SFU and now the team up between SFU and Surrey Memorial. Attracting university students brings a focus to an area and as such over time (hopefully sooner than later) the infrastructure will follow. Better restaurants, a movie theater, a few clubs, some interesting retail locations, etc. But you need a target.

Simply saying "Surrey should stop sprawling" is just asinine. The fellow above from North Vancouver is more on the money then most people posting typically are. He says he has no reason to come to Surrey. Bingo. Simply telling people to come won't work. You need a target demographic and you need to build for them.

I think the University crowd will pay off. It will take time and effort but things are headed in the right direction.

My only issue is I think many developers in the area are aiming too high. The Urban Village has been aimed too high. Will Ultra be completed? Probably at some stage. But we need some more affordable housing (and I don't mean the needy and poor) alternatives.

If Surrey is targeting students, Ultra isn't. Very few students going to SFU could afford a unit in Ultra. Thus why I think they aimed a bit high. CityPoint is more on the money. 3 or 4 more of those projects and things would start to flow forward.

[jhausner]

I guess choosing to not own a car is part of it. If I drive down the PCH, I rent. I can't see myself paying for a day trip to Surrey. I do go to White Rock once or twice a year, but that is prohibitively expensive.

I would honestly love to see Surrey flourish, that's why I read these threads. But it seems like every one is just "great big thing announced! great big thing not started yet. developer says great big thing will start in 2-3 months. (six months go by). developer says they're going to break ground soon!"

It's just sad. Meanwhile my neighbourhood is quietly booming in a way Surrey could only dream of. Marine drive (the real one, not SW/SE) will be the next 4th ave in five years. Aimlessly drive down it one day, you'll be surprised. ;)

See now I have a bit of an issue with your statement "quietly booming in a way Surrey could only dream of." I guess it depends on what you mean by booming. Surrey has most likely grown in the last month more than North Vancouver district and city combined have grown in a year. So if by booming you mean population growth, I don't think so. Same goes for jobs. There are far more jobs available in Surrey than in North Vancouver city or district not to mention our shipping and transportation businesses are booming pretty well.

If we're going to ignore all that and focus just on towers constructed, then maybe I'll give you that though 5 or so have been built in the last few years in Surrey central which isn't too bad but not too hot either.

I do absolutely agree with you though that there are a lot of "BIG PROJECT!" that never see the light of day which is why in my last post I said I think developers in Surrey Central are aiming way too high. The area can't support 60 storey highrise towers or $500,000 800 sq. ft. condos yet. It might not be able to for another 50 years! So it's time they start aiming just a tad lower. More 25-30 storey developments. Heck even some 12 storeys would get the blood flowing.

There seems to be only 2 things that developers want to build in Surrey Central.

1. 4 storey wood-frame/concrete condos
2. 900 storey megaliths

Nothing in between. That doesn't mean though that Surrey isn't still booming. I think the city itself is doing fairly well. I do see your point though on you not having any reason to go to Surrey just as much as I have no reason to go to North Vancouver. I've only go to North Vancouver for 3 reasons these days, 1. to visit my friends that live in North Van, 2. to go skiing on Cypress, and 3. heading up to Whistler. The last 2 typically have me avoiding most of it anyway so really it comes down to visiting friends so I can absolutely see where you're coming from.

Visiting though != living and Surrey needs to attract people to Central Surrey for the purpose of living. There has to be things here to make it more attractive to live than to commute to Surrey. And that's where I think picking a demographic and going with it will eventually sprout roses. Takes time but it will happen.

[SFUVancouver]

Familes are _not_ going to be moving into high-rises. It's that simple.

The assertion that "Familes(sic) are _not_ going to be moving into high-rises" is just false.

There are more children per capita living in False Creek north than anywhere else in the City of Vancouver. When Elsie Roy school was being built the school board and Province reduced its City-recommended design size by half since they figured that there would be no kids living downtown, because after all, "Familes(sic) are _not_ going to be moving into high-rises." Instead the school was full on day one and there is more than a 900 kid waiting list to get in just in the immediate catchment area. I have heard from friends on the False Creek south side that enough parents have enrolled their kids in False Creek elementary that that school's falling enrolment, which was edging into the school closure danger zone, has completely turned around and the place is now totally over crowded, so much so that the school board is adding a new classroom and contemplating portables. Parents camp out for days in advance of the Elsie Roy school registration day so that they can try to get their kid in their local school. The school board and province appear likely to make the same mistake with the next planned school for downtown at International Village because, after all, "Familes(sic) are _not_ going to be moving into high-rises."

A big factor in supporting all of these families is the requirement that at least 25% of all units are suitable for families, meaning 2 bedrooms or more, plus there are a fair number of rental and co-op buildings in the neighbourhood and those broaden the income spectrum that can afford to live there. New daycares are being built and they are finding themselves full from day one too. There are many parks within walking distance for parents to bring their kids, lots to do, grocery stores, drug stores, banks and post offices are all close by, doctors and dentists' offices too, etc., etc., plus a family seldom needs to own more than one car and that translates into a whole lot more headroom for one's mortgage. Add in a much shorter commute and less time spent driving everywhere on errands and you end up with parents having more time to spend at home with their families.

[geoff's two cents]

:previous: Same goes for the west end. There are a lot more families living in my neighborhood than I'm sure jhauser is aware.

[Whalleyboy]

I think your missing the point. Well yes vancouver has its spots that are bad Surrey as a whole not just in certain areas has over populated schools. 1/3 of Surreys population is under the age of 19. It has the youngest average aged population in BC

[SFUVancouver]

...1/3 of Surreys population is under the age of 19. It has the youngest average aged population in BC


Surrey and Langley have won in the circle of families it's that simple.

As of 2006 33.9% of Surrey was under 24 years of age, not 19. (source) (http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/dd/facsheet/cf188.pdf) For the District of Langley it is 33.4% (source (http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/dd/facsheet/cf178.pdf)) that are 24 years of age and under and for the City of Langley it is 29.9% (source (http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/dd/facsheet/cf177.pdf)). For comparison's sake in the City of Vancouver it is 25.6% that are 24 or under. (source) (http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/dd/facsheet/cf189.pdf)

Now in absolute terms these percentages, respectively, represent a 24 and under population in Surrey of 134,020, 31,295 for the District of Langley, 7,040 for the City of Langley, and 147,860 in the City of Vancouver. So while a larger proportion of Surrey's population is young than in the City of Vancouver, in actual numbers the latter is home to more young people, and by extension, more families. In fact if the 24 and under population of Surrey, the City and District of Langley were combined they would only exceed the same age cohort in the City of Vancouver by just 16.5%.

I am dwelling on this because 'Surrey is home to more families/is more family-friendly than the City of Vancouver' is a fairly common meme that is repeated as if it were fact. I am not saying that anyone here has specifically said this, but rather it is one of the underpinnings of a rising anti-City of Vancouver/North of the Fraser mentality that is growing in this region. Part of it, surely, is the discrepancy between the South of the Fraser population boom and the provision of commensurate infrastructure, amenities, and services by its local governments as well as regional and senior levels of government. Part of it is also the myth-making that is important to the creation of the unique culture and mindset for any city that is in its growth spurt years. Finding an 'other' to compare or rail against is entirely normal and even if the assertions that help make up the myth-making are not borne out by fact, they are still important.

Another central one to the myth-making of a rising Surrey is that it is going to have a larger population than the City of Vancouver pretty soon, so watch out. Looking at the 2001 and 2006 census results shows us that Surrey's population grew by 13.6% from 347,825 to 394,976; an absolute growth of 47,151 people, which is a huge increase by any measure. That works out to an average of 9,430 people a year, or an average of 785 people a month. Not the '1,000 people a month' that is often quoted, but not far from it either. During that same five year period the City of Vancouver grew by only 5.9% from 545,671 to 578,041; an absolute growth of 32,370 people or an average of 540 people a week, which is not small but still below Surrey's growth. The devil is in the details, of course, and the difference in population growth between the two cities during this time period was 14,781 people, which is not small but also hardly the galloping rate needed to immenently fill the 183,065 person chasm between the two cities' populations as they stood at the census in 2006. These numbers come from BC Stats and are sourced from the above-linked fact sheets on these cities.

Metro Vancouver's population numbers are higher for both cities in 2006 than BC Stats' and they also include 2010 estimates. Metro Vancouver places the 2006 population of Surrey at 412,734 and the City of Vancouver's as 599,765 (source (http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/KeyFacts-MetroVancouverPopulationEstimates.pdf)). Metro's 2010 estimate places Surrey at 462,345, an increase of 49,611 people, while the 2010 estimate places the City of Vancouver at 642,843, an increase of 43,078 and only 6,533 people short of Surrey's estimated growth. Regardless of which stats organization is closer to reality, the 2011 census will be very interesting.

[tybuilding]

whats going on with that park on 96th? there is a house about to be demolished out that way i can't think of the street (its by the campground thats near hwy #1) but it was being lived in a couple months ago now its ready to get demolished... seems like a lot of work out there new parking, new trails, new picnic area and the new thing that crosses the highway over pass right? lol i forget the term

The house on the north side of 96 ave between 176 st and 168 st is a Metro Park caretaker house, there is an overpass for pedestrians and cyclists being built at 168 st and Hwy 1.

[geoff's two cents]

I am dwelling on this because 'Surrey is home to more families/is more family-friendly than the City of Vancouver' is a fairly common meme that is repeated as if it were fact. I am not saying that anyone here has specifically said this, but rather it is one of the underpinnings of a rising anti-City of Vancouver/North of the Fraser mentality that is growing in this region. Part of it, surely, is the discrepancy between the South of the Fraser population boom and the provision of commensurate infrastructure, amenities, and services by its local governments as well as regional and senior levels of government. Part of it is also the myth-making that is important to the creation of the unique culture and mindset for any city that is in its growth spurt years. Finding an 'other' to compare or rail against is entirely normal and even if the assertions that help make up the myth-making are not borne out by fact, they are still important.

This paragraph is pure gold. Thanks for posting.

[SpongeG]

The house on the north side of 96 ave between 176 st and 168 st is a Metro Park caretaker house, there is an overpass for pedestrians and cyclists being built at 168 st and Hwy 1.

ah i guess they moved him house will be gone soon

[jhausner]

My original point was more along the lines of "stop saying people that want to live in 2 bedroom homes will suddenly move into high rises." and that Surrey for Central Surrey specifically needs to focus on attracting people that would move instead into Downtown Vancouver or Metrotown and those aren't the same people living in Kits, Point Grey, or Oakridge.

It wasn't a North vs South actually. :-|

As for stats, take a look at http://www.realismtheory.com/Metro_Population.zip (Excel document)

It has compiled Census Data for most of the cities in Metro Vancouver. Missing some smaller ones and West Vancouver but gives a good idea of projections using flat line and also is kind of interesting. If anyone wants historical census numbers: http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/pop/mun/mun1921_2006.asp

[jhausner]

The assertion that "Familes(sic) are _not_ going to be moving into high-rises" is just false.

There are more children per capita living in False Creek north than anywhere else in the City of Vancouver. When Elsie Roy school was being built the school board and Province reduced its City-recommended design size by half since they figured that there would be no kids living downtown, because after all, "Familes(sic) are _not_ going to be moving into high-rises." Instead the school was full on day one and there is more than a 900 kid waiting list to get in just in the immediate catchment area. I have heard from friends on the False Creek south side that enough parents have enrolled their kids in False Creek elementary that that school's falling enrolment, which was edging into the school closure danger zone, has completely turned around and the place is now totally over crowded, so much so that the school board is adding a new classroom and contemplating portables. Parents camp out for days in advance of the Elsie Roy school registration day so that they can try to get their kid in their local school. The school board and province appear likely to make the same mistake with the next planned school for downtown at International Village because, after all, "Familes(sic) are _not_ going to be moving into high-rises."

A big factor in supporting all of these families is the requirement that at least 25% of all units are suitable for families, meaning 2 bedrooms or more, plus there are a fair number of rental and co-op buildings in the neighbourhood and those broaden the income spectrum that can afford to live there. New daycares are being built and they are finding themselves full from day one too. There are many parks within walking distance for parents to bring their kids, lots to do, grocery stores, drug stores, banks and post offices are all close by, doctors and dentists' offices too, etc., etc., plus a family seldom needs to own more than one car and that translates into a whole lot more headroom for one's mortgage. Add in a much shorter commute and less time spent driving everywhere on errands and you end up with parents having more time to spend at home with their families.

I could have worded things a bit more concise. My statement would have been better as "Families 'on average' wanting to buy a place to raise their children will not be moving into high-rises IN SURREY." Last I checked this was a Surrey forum and if you read the context of my post you'll note I was talking about Surrey itself.

I'm not discounting that families can be raised in Vancouver or in high-rises in general. Regarding this Vancouver vs Surrey thing, I think you're completely missing the point. When you look at population projections and increases in the Surrey area, the population growth shows that over 50 years more 'families' are moving into the Surrey area than into the Vancouver area. I'm not saying NO families are moving into Vancouver. But trend wise I don't think you can argue against. In the late 70s and 80s Surrey had a population of 150,000 ish to Vancouver's 415,000. As of 2006 Surrey was at 395,000 and Vancouver 578,000. That's a growth of 163,000 in Vancouver to 245,000 in Surrey. You can't tell me that was 245,000 25 year old college students moving out here. That's also nearly the entire population of North Vancouver District more people moving to Surrey in that time than to Vancouver and there is still a lot of land out here to develop as of 2011. So hopefully you're not thinking the amount of families moving into Vancouver is near the amount moving to Surrey.

I do think that Vancouver has a lot to offer. Maybe I just hang out with the wrong crowd but in my large circle of friends and associates, I know very few people who can afford to buy in Vancouver and still have money left over for other things especially now that you can't qualify for a mortgage by including potential rental income. That's a big change I think some of the people on these forums don't understand or haven't had to have a bank deny them a mortgage over in the last year.

People moving into Vancouver _used_ to up to last year be able to purchase a home beyond their means by qualifying for their mortgage and adding on 'potential rental income' for secondary suites. They could also project their mortgage out over longer terms, get mortgages for a greater percentage of the property value, and didn't have to qualify so that they can maintain their monthly payments with a sharp interest rate increase like that do right now.

So that means in just the last year alone the tightening national morgage rules have priced a large amount of people out of the Vancouver city price range. The vast majority of people I know who were looking in Vancouver have the banks basically saying no now and are looking this direction be it Burnaby onwards. I don't think you're taking that into account.

I don't disagree though that in certain situations living in Vancouver can very well be cheaper than out 'in the burbs.' In certain situations moving to New York City can be cheaper than living in Metro Vancouver. You're probably eluding to a news paper article late last year covering the very topic. Unfortunately as with all things of this nature, it isn't 100% faithful of all situations and ignored trending. Anyway I'm not going to get drawn into a hugee(sic) debate about who has a shinier car.

Feel free to come back with some statistics laying out exactly how many "families" are living in downtown Vancouver and we can continue this conversation that direction.

As for Surrey, if a family is given the choice of living in a nice 3 bedroom home vs a 3 bedroom high-rise IN SURREY, then like I said, 'familes won't be moving into high-rises' and you'll be largely disappointed. Surrey itself needs to focus on a different demographic for Central Surrey. That doesn't mean completely discount families. It just means don't focus on them.

[jhausner]

:previous: Same goes for the west end. There are a lot more families living in my neighborhood than I'm sure jhauser is aware.

I don't know much about you but given SFU's name I'm assuming he is attending University. You and him should look up the word 'context' in the dictionary and take a reading comprehension 101 course. SFU seems to have his spellingg(sic) skills quite polished though.

As I said above and if you re-read my original post that was misquoted, I was contextually refering to Surrey specifically. I wasn't arguing that no families grow up in high-rises or the west end or in Manhattan. That would be idiotic. There would be no families in New York City if families didn't live in high-rises so of course there are families in downtown Vancouver.

My point was again specific to Surrey since this is a Surrey specific topic about a Surrey urban development. Given the choice of living in Park Place and raising a family vs living in Fleetwood or Clayton and raising a family, what choice do you think _most_ people would pick?

I think you'll find that more families moving to Surrey will pick the homes or even town houses before they'd pick a high-rise in Central Surrey. That was the point. Quite frankly I don't really care what a family or person moving into Vancouver or Burnaby or Cache Creek is thinking. The context was Surrey specifically.

[geoff's two cents]

Familes [sic] are _not_ going to be moving into high-rises. It's that simple.

:previous: jhauser, thanks for clarifying your position, though I'd contend that the context of this statement in your original post is by no means clear. You started with a discussion of Surrey, but this particular comment reads as if you're trying to support your argument using a (very) hackneyed generalization, per SFU's post. Such hogwash is more common among older folks I've spoken to who fled to the 'burbs to raise their families in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but it emerges occasionally on this forum as well. Obviously, this isn't what you meant.

I'm only responding, btw, because of that "reading comprehension 101" remark. Let's try and keep those ad hominem comments to a minimum here.:)

[jhausner]

:previous: jhauser, thanks for clarifying your position, though I'd contend that the context of this statement in your original post is by no means clear. You started with a discussion of Surrey, but this particular comment reads as if you're trying to support your argument using a (very) hackneyed generalization, per SFU's post. Such hogwash is more common among older folks I've spoken to who fled to the 'burbs to raise their families in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but it emerges occasionally on this forum as well. Obviously, this isn't what you meant.

I'm only responding, btw, because of that "reading comprehension 101" remark. Let's try and keep those ad hominem comments to a minimum here.:)

Yes sorry about that. Was about 2am when I replied and unfortunately sometimes when I'm tired I fall into the trap of thinking people can read my mind. :rolleyes: Shouldn't have sniped at you and SFU and I can see how the context may not be entirely clear. I just assumed it was.

Really all I was driving at were the notions I read on these forums from people living South of Fraser that assume that it is a "townhouse and house construction" vs "high-rise construction" issue in the burbs. AKA the reason towers aren't being built is because of all the "darned urban sprawl!" and I just don't see that as a reality because the demographic of people on average moving into high-rises can and often is quite different than those moving into the "darned urban sprawl."

Case and point, most of our executive here live in homes and if you ask them why they would pick a home vs living in say a 3 bedroom condo, most will say "So I have room to park the boat and put in my hottub." It can be as superficial as that.

I purchased a unit in Park Place and plan to move and live in it. When I do raise a family though I have actually considered the buying a 2 bedroom condo to live in vs moving out a bit further and getting a town house or detached house. The truth is I'll most likely go for a detached house simply because of my lifestyle and the fact I do a lot of back-woods trekking across the country meaning I need a garage to store my items.

Can I get a locker? Sure. But they aren't cheap. Not to mention it would be kind of nice to have space for a game room, a little garden/yard, and be in a more kid-friendly playing neighborhood. So when I look at Surrey's target for Downtown Surrey I continue to lean towards targetting a non family demographic such as University students. The tough part is that with skytrain, Metrotown is 20 minutes away and downtown Vancouver 40 or so. That means you need to have a good insentive to bring that group to live in the center vs just moving into Yaletown or around Metrotown.

[whalley13]

I agree with Jhausner, but some things worth taking note of:

Large indo population is shifting from single, multifamily dwellings, to smaller townhouses its not as common for family's to live together as the 2nd generation strikes out on their own....this is partly why I think the townhouse developements in the eastern part of the city are doing well. As the hospital expands, more gov't buildings and more amenities move into d/t surrey this 2nd generation market will buy in, I believe.

The price diff in surrey, vs vancouver or burnaby, is not that different for a townhouse/condo vs a residence. Surrey homes have the advantages of multiple suites, which make a house attractive vs. a condo/townhouse. Burnaby and vancouver it is pretty much unheard of to have two suites which is somewhat more common in surrey. If the surrey is successful in a suite crackdown, then u can expect more demand for condo's espec in a rentals imo.

[Skyhigh8]

lol....the cycle continues....lemme guess..they are a few months away, planning to begin construction in april.

I heard they found their shovels, March is the month or never. Hope this time it is true, they can not afford for another economic downturn.

[whalley13]

Constructions gotta be starting soon, that atco trailer they got there is huge, definitely not just for a security guard.

[phesto]

Apparently Weststone has brought in Bosa as a partner on this project, so things are looking positive that it will go ahead. :tup:

[VanCvl]

Apparently Weststone has brought in Bosa as a partner on this project, so things are looking positive that it will go ahead. :tup:

If that is true, then it brings another major, legit developer to the area. Bosa hasn't completed a highrise in Central yet and it would be a huge bet on the area for them.

[whiteshadow]

Apparently Weststone has brought in Bosa as a partner on this project, so things are looking positive that it will go ahead. :tup:

They brought in Bosa almost 2yrs ago, it hasn't helped so far. The sales staff mentioned Bosa was brought in to assist on the General Contracting side as WestStone wouldn't be building the tower themselves as they did for Agenda/Element.

[phesto]

They brought in Bosa almost 2yrs ago, it hasn't helped so far. The sales staff mentioned Bosa was brought in to assist on the General Contracting side as WestStone wouldn't be building the tower themselves as they did for Agenda/Element.

I'm not in on the details, but supposedly it is more of a partnership now; perhaps with Bosa taking a greater position in the project. Not sure what, if anything, this means for Ultra in the short term, but obviously good news.

[Diet Butcher]

Metrocan is going to be doing the actual building per the signs on site. They have about twice as many high rise projects under their belt than Bosa, with a reputation for tighter completion schedules but usually just focus on the building aspect, not marketing and sales.

Metrocan's build time should be 24 months from the start date, just a couple lingering issues to finalize things. I think people underestimate the amount of work that goes into starting a project like this and dismiss it as never starting. They got hit by the downturn, but have fought and worked hard to get back to this stage.

[Diet Butcher]

Looks like they are moving a second construction trailer into the holding area behind Element now.

[jhausner]

About time.

[Diet Butcher]

I also saw some land surveying being done on site yesterday

[Diet Butcher]

BC Hydro is now setting up power to the Construction Trailers on site.

[theQ]

Good! It's about time... It really seems like this project is about to go ahead. It's great to finally see another "batch" of building and development in Central City. A few years ago the Infinity, Agenda, Element, Fuse, D'Cor we're all being started - and then everything stalled!

Now we have the Library, City Hall, Park Place and (hopefully) the Ultra being built. It's a pretty good size "batch", hopefully more will start soon!

[Whalleyboy]

Good! It's about time... It really seems like this project is about to go ahead. It's great to finally see another "batch" of building and development in Central City. A few years ago the Infinity, Agenda, Element, Fuse, D'Cor we're all being started - and then everything stalled!

Now we have the Library, City Hall, Park Place and (hopefully) the Ultra being built. It's a pretty good size "batch", hopefully more will start soon!


we also got the new hospital critical care tower getting started and If you look at the one picture in the one thread the RCMP "E" division building is coming along pretty fast too (given its out of central but in my mind it counts). Also I believe quattro 3 is gonna be starting this year too

Personally i hope to see some movement with the meical tower and possibly the kenstone property along king george this year. Even if its adding a fence around the one or ripping down the knight and day on the other.

[KingGeorge]

Just found this site and joined, really interesting. I was passing Ultra today and there were two Metrocan trailers on the site, they were also hooking up hydro lines and fencing off trees. I asked the Metrocan guys what was happening and they told me they expect to be excavating before the end of the month. The trees are coming down next week and then the heavy equipment will move in. They said this was a Weststone project and they were general contractor, Weststone is apparently planning a big groundbreaking event. It's going to be great seeing another high-rise go up, especially this side of Skytrain. Because of the grade elevation Weststone was saying this is going to be the city centre's highest building. They have to have credit for pulling this through a rescession and still going ahead, I was in their sales centre before it closed and they had achieved $50 million in pre-construction sales before they closed down in November, so good for them. The sales girls told me they had achieved it without advertising, so it says a lot for our city and what's happening. They are a good bunch of girls and I've come to know them all over the past couple of years.

[surrey1]

the number of professional workers moving into the area is really going to help turn the image around...its something the area sorely needs

e division - rcmp officers and other police related workers
outcare facility/new emergency center - doctors/nurses/healthcare workers
city hall - city of surrey employees
school district center - teachers/administrators
central city tower - lawyers/accountants

and all of those projects should be completed in a few years..will spur demand for decent restaurants which is something the area sorely needs

[KingGeorge]

The latest update from Weststone last night is that they have made their required presales to obtain Construction Financing and is still targeting late January (which could mean an actual Feb-March start). They want to have it finished by the same time as the new City Hall which is due to break ground March 2011.

Obviously the area is still undergoing transition, but things will improve with the new Library. Once City Hall & Ultra breaking ground, there will be security guards around those construction sites and it will drive that activity somewhere else.

I think too often people (Myself included) have too high of expectations for the amount of time it takes an area to change, or a development to start. We all may not be aware of all of the work and time required for certain aspects.

I hardly think the rest of the area is "Crack Houses", there are a few run down houses in the area, but those have steadily been getting Bulldozed and progress is continual. In addition to Agenda & Element, there are 2 other Condo units on the same block including Ethical Gardens which is quite nice.

The SFU Residence will be another great addition to the area.

Just been reading back through the posts on this thread and it looks like you were spot on Diet Butcher.......got any other predictions!!!

[KingGeorge]

One more little update from me, because I live right there. Weststone and the Surrey by-laws were on the site last week getting rid of any "steet people" from the site and then they cleaned it up with a crew. They will apparently be having site security and cameras on that big vacant lot shortly. Another good clean-up for the city centre. I'm sure they will have good security if they want to keep their equipment and supplies safe.

[hollywoodnorth]

One more little update from me, because I live right there. Weststone and the Surrey by-laws were on the site last week getting rid of any "steet people" from the site and then they cleaned it up with a crew. They will apparently be having site security and cameras on that big vacant lot shortly. Another good clean-up for the city centre. I'm sure they will have good security if they want to keep their equipment and supplies safe.

lets see a photo of this thing getting into gear yo!

[Whalleyboy]

I keep telling everyone give it time and Surrey will be awesome we are getting place to live and work right now...we really still need more place to play though

[KingGeorge]

Here's the pic I took last week of Metrocan starting to set-up their site office.

http://i891.photobucket.com/albums/ac118/surreybc/puhqo.jpg

[webster]

Here's the pic I took last week of Metrocan starting to set-up their site office.

http://i891.photobucket.com/albums/ac118/surreybc/puhqo.jpg

live nearby? or president of the company ;)

http://yfrog.com/hspuhqoj

[hollywoodnorth]

live nearby? or president of the company ;)

http://yfrog.com/hspuhqoj

http://yfrog.com/froggy.php?username=DaleRegehr


http://oi56.tinypic.com/5xk3di.jpg


seems like it :) :cheers:

[KingGeorge]

http://yfrog.com/froggy.php?username=DaleRegehr


http://oi56.tinypic.com/5xk3di.jpg


seems like it :) :cheers:

Yes, I sent him those pics and the ones I'm just posting. I know all the crew there at Weststone in the city centre. He likes pics, I know others have sent him theirs in the past as well. He told me Volksboi sent him a good number a few years ago and he always talked about this site but I never paid it a visit.

[KingGeorge]

Here's the pics I took today. Work has been done on the tree protection and then Telus came for the phone lines.

http://i891.photobucket.com/albums/ac118/surreybc/IMG00116-20110307-0958.jpg


http://i891.photobucket.com/albums/ac118/surreybc/IMG00117-20110307-1520.jpg

Please let me know if you don't want pics and I can stop posting them, I was going to record the whole build-out as I live on the doorstep.

[Whalleyboy]

keep it up!

[g35]

keep it up!

Yeah I also appreciate the pics!

[officedweller]

Yeah, keep them coming!

[Skyhigh8]

keep the good work and save me a special trip... the digging starts next week...

[KingGeorge]

Yesterday the surveyors were on the site, must be ready to start digging soon. I don't know how far down they have to go, but there's obviously going top be a lot of truck traffic especially as city hall is excavating at the same time.

http://i891.photobucket.com/albums/ac118/surreybc/IMG00118-20110309-1456.jpg

http://i891.photobucket.com/albums/ac118/surreybc/IMG00119-20110309-1457.jpg

[Diet Butcher]

I heard they were going to try and start digging next week.

Looking forward to seeing the heavy equipment on site!

[c2128]

When will they open the sales centre again?

[Diet Butcher]

They are moving in all the furniture into the Construction Trailers now.

[Diet Butcher]

Pictures from this morning

http://i52.tinypic.com/2mg76vm.jpg

http://i52.tinypic.com/ddpb2v.jpg

[pomonke]

Residents in the area received notice letter from President and CEO of Weststone saying the construction will be launched March 21, 2011 with tentative completion of 'Ultra at Urban Village' in August 2013.

[trofirhen]

Love the view of the hulking mountains in the distance. Golden Ears at a different angle. What's the ridge peak behind them? Magnificent in any event.

[Whalleyboy]

There some amazing views from central. So many of my friends think theres no views what so ever from central area of surrey.

[Diet Butcher]

http://i54.tinypic.com/v81rbq.jpg

[SFUVancouver]

^ Thanks for the photo.

Immediately after reading "timber!" I remarked to myself that due to the photo not being entirely level it looks like the D'Corize tower is falling over, and the slight blurriness of the image almost suggests motion, too. It was enough to prompt a guffaw.