[officedweller]

Interesting that this plan from the MCMP website shows towers (more residential?) to the north (lower left) of the older Intrawest condo towers:

http://www.mcmparchitects.com/portfolio/99

http://www.mcmparchitects.com/content/A005.jpg
http://www.mcmparchitects.com/portfolio/99

http://www.mcmparchitects.com/content/shot2227.jpg
http://www.mcmparchitects.com/portfolio/99

[tybuilding]

I wonder what the plan for the BC Parkway trail is for this area. Any thoughts? I am trying to figure out if it is supposed to go on University BVLD or City Parkway. It will be along University BVLD between 105A and 107A:

"This section of the BC Parkway runs along University Drive and will be in front of Tom Binnie Park and the Chuck Bailey Recreation Centre, connecting 105A Avenue to 107A Avenue."

http://www.surrey.ca/city-services/9853.aspx

http://www.surrey.ca/files/cos-master/BC_Parkway_Plan_Oct_2010.pdf

It looks like it comes up City Parkway so a new pedestrian controlled intersection is required at 108 Ave.

[racc]

I wonder what the plan for the BC Parkway trail is for this area. Any thoughts? I am trying to figure out if it is supposed to go on University BVLD or City Parkway. It will be along University BVLD between 105A and 107A:

"This section of the BC Parkway runs along University Drive and will be in front of Tom Binnie Park and the Chuck Bailey Recreation Centre, connecting 105A Avenue to 107A Avenue."

http://www.surrey.ca/city-services/9853.aspx

http://www.surrey.ca/files/cos-master/BC_Parkway_Plan_Oct_2010.pdf

It looks like it comes up City Parkway so a new pedestrian controlled intersection is required at 108 Ave.

Where ever possible, the Parkway should be under the SkyTrain guideway. It offers excellent weather protection for cyclists and pedestrians. The weather is a main challenge for cycling. They should take advantage of a "free" covering for it. They actually do exactly this for elevated rapid transit lines in Copenhagen.

[VanCvl]

Has anybody heard about major leases or tenants being signed? How about construction dates?

[officedweller]

They've been trying to lease for a while.

[jhausner]

I think the issues are:

1) it's a difficult area still. Even though commercial lease rates will be lower around Gateway than many other areas regionally, it still has a stigma and will be a good 10 or more years before that eases enough imo.

2) With all the perceived plans around Surrey Central station and the new city hall, I can see some major tenants waiting to see what happens around there. It's more central.

3) Out of the larger commercial centers in the region Surrey is still at the bottom of the heap. The perception thing is big and will take some time.

I think this will eventually get built, maybe not as designed. But not until you start to see the next phases from Concord, Bosa, and others under construction. The more residential base you get, the more dense, and the higher 'class' you get moving in, the increase in commercial demand.

And let's face it, you knew this was going to have a tough time when the Metrotown Tower #3 stalled. I mean how many new office towers have been constructed in Vancouver itself recently? Some can point to the Telus project but really is that new? It's a new building but it's 1 business basically moving so you're pretty much net 0. We're still in difficult economic times. I wouldn't call it a swing and a miss in a sense of Surrey being at fault for anything. It's just how things are.

[jhausner]

Oh as for those other residential towers in their drawing, the drawing looks to be based on what is on the books right now in the planning department. Those projects though have been on hold for a number of years. The likelyhood of them being constructed at this stage are probably less than 50%.

[s211]

I think the issues are:

1) it's a difficult area still. Even though commercial lease rates will be lower around Gateway than many other areas regionally, it still has a stigma and will be a good 10 or more years before that eases enough imo.



More like 20+ years now. This project's been on the books for that long.

[Whalleyboy]

there was a plan for something like 12 towers around gateway in the plans when the station first got built

[queetz@home]

I think the issues are:

1) it's a difficult area still. Even though commercial lease rates will be lower around Gateway than many other areas regionally, it still has a stigma and will be a good 10 or more years before that eases enough imo.

2) With all the perceived plans around Surrey Central station and the new city hall, I can see some major tenants waiting to see what happens around there. It's more central.

3) Out of the larger commercial centers in the region Surrey is still at the bottom of the heap. The perception thing is big and will take some time.

I think this will eventually get built, maybe not as designed. But not until you start to see the next phases from Concord, Bosa, and others under construction. The more residential base you get, the more dense, and the higher 'class' you get moving in, the increase in commercial demand.

And let's face it, you knew this was going to have a tough time when the Metrotown Tower #3 stalled. I mean how many new office towers have been constructed in Vancouver itself recently? Some can point to the Telus project but really is that new? It's a new building but it's 1 business basically moving so you're pretty much net 0. We're still in difficult economic times. I wouldn't call it a swing and a miss in a sense of Surrey being at fault for anything. It's just how things are.

The only way this complex will be built is if the developer builds it anyway, with or without tenants. That is how Central City got built, and the end result is what you see today.

You kinda have to ask this question if you were the developer....why would I expect prospective tenants to make a leap of faith on the area when I myself wouldn't?

Its all about confidence, really. Yes, there is the stigma and all, but if the developer was so confident in, say Dianne Watts turning Whalley around, he should be so confident to TAKE THE RISK, signalling to the prospective tenants that they too should have confidence in the area.

Its really about taking risks, and if developers will continue to have this never ending wait and see tactic, hoping for some miracle that some white knight tenant would get the ball rolling, then nothing ever gets built. This despite the fact that Surrey is poised to become the most populous city in Metro Vancouver, and with a young population to boot. The market conditions for such workplaces are there, unless you expect them all to cram into Skytrain and work in Vancouver and Burnaby...

While this tactic sounds crazy, one would only see 1021 Hastings and PWC Place in downtown Vancouver, as well as the Eight Avenue Place in Calgary (which in many publications such as the Globe and Mail, was deemed the symbol of overbuilding recklessness by real estate analysts) as an example that the saying, "If you build it, they will come", simply simply simply works!

[Whalleyboy]

what are you talking about? central originally had ICBC planned to move in when it was getting built. But they back out during the construction

[hollywoodnorth]

what are you talking about? central originally had ICBC planned to move in when it was getting built. But they back out during the construction

yup that's what happened as per my memory as well :cheers:

[Whalleyboy]

given they did still have schools planned to go into it still even when icbc back out.

Also it be well to note i'd say there is a higher possibility as of lately for these to get built then 2 years ago. Due to the fact only recently has centrals office space starting getting filled up

[jhausner]

Actually you missed another tenant, Tech BC. That was also the main pull for Central City tower. It was going to be ICBC and Tech BC. Then Tech BC went bust.

[theQ]

The story that I remember is that the NDP were working on revitalizing Whalley several years ago. They planned the Central City tower (officially built by ICBC and owned by ICBC until 2007 when they sold it for a profit) and were going to move ICBC there (from North Vancouver) and also they started the new TechBC as a revolutionary type university - and it was going to move there as well.

During this time, the BC Liberals were accusing them of wasting money, and said that it was a waste of money to move ICBC to Whalley, and they also vowed to close TechBC if/when they got elected.

Subsequently, the BC Liberals got elected, they cancelled the ICBC move, claiming that building the Central City tower was a big waste of money and would be "white elephant" in Whalley for years. They also closed TechBC (however, it amalgamated with SFU, sort of, which I think will be good for Whalley in the long run). They also sold/cancelled the fast ferries and made several other changes.

Of course, they were wrong. The Central City tower wasn't a white elephant and they filled up pretty quickly (a bit longer than had ICBC moved in). SFU has expanded in Surrey several times and will continue to do so and Whalley is finally receiving the investment that the NDP would have brought 15 years ago.

[jlousa]

It was a short term bust though ,at the time. I remember ICBC had to raise rates one year because of the huge write down they had to do on the tower as independent appraisers didn't agree with ICBC's book value. ICBC was forced to lower it's value and was forced to raise rates to compensate. ICBC held the building for several more years before offloading it for a profit (not sure if it was a profit over initial pricing or the lower write down price though).

That all said it's been a long time since then and things have changed. Not sure how much demand there is, and I have doubts that a private developer will build without at least partial leased space. But I think there is a market, hopefully a few tenants take the lead.

[Whalleyboy]

Personally i think they should build the little office tower with the residential building. I mean i know the residential buildings would sell no problem. Plus if they make the little one first its not as big of a risk if it doesn't sell out fast enough. That is in compared to the big office tower.

[BodomReaper]

The story that I remember is that the NDP were working on revitalizing Whalley several years ago. They planned the Central City tower (officially built by ICBC and owned by ICBC until 2007 when they sold it for a profit) and were going to move ICBC there (from North Vancouver) and also they started the new TechBC as a revolutionary type university - and it was going to move there as well.

During this time, the BC Liberals were accusing them of wasting money, and said that it was a waste of money to move ICBC to Whalley, and they also vowed to close TechBC if/when they got elected.

Subsequently, the BC Liberals got elected, they cancelled the ICBC move, claiming that building the Central City tower was a big waste of money and would be "white elephant" in Whalley for years. They also closed TechBC (however, it amalgamated with SFU, sort of, which I think will be good for Whalley in the long run). They also sold/cancelled the fast ferries and made several other changes.



I know this is very OC, but I couldn't help but notice the similarity with the "British Columbia Centre" saga in the 70's, except this time the Socreds/Liberals were the villains. From Wikipedia:
The British Columbia Centre was a development proposal slated to be completed by 1975. At 208 metres (682 feet) it would have been the tallest skyscraper in the city (and taller than the Living Shangri-La, which currently holds the record). With the defeat of W.A.C. Bennett's Social Credit government in 1972, the plan was scrapped just as the construction phase was about to begin. The New Democrat government of Dave Barrett responded to fears of the dark shadow that the building would cast downtown, and commissioned a redesign from another architectural firm, Arthur Erickson Architects. The reconceptualization Erickson came up with was of a skyscraper laid on its side, the "B.C. Centre on its back."

[theQ]

I think that they should build it! There was a study that was released in December that said that vacancy rates in Surrey, near the skytrain was .4% even though lease rates were higher. I think anytime that vacancy rates are so low, it's a good market to build office space. I'm glad that there's also a proposal for some new office space in the 54 story building to be built beside city hall.

Here's the article, copied from Western Investor - the story also appeard in the Vancouver Sun and "24".

Metro Vancouver office buildings that are within a close walk to a Skytrain or Canada Line transit station have vacancy rates half as low as those buildings more than 0.5 kilometres from a station, a new study suggests.

The recent survey by Jones Lang Lasalle reveals that the direct vacancy rate in transit-linked offices averages 4.8 per cent, but rises to 12.3 per cent in buildings not close to a transit station. As well, offices close to transit were able to charge more for leases, at an average of $18.63 per square foot, compared to $17.26 per square foot for transit-challenged offfices.

Transit links are most important in Surrey. The Jones Lang LaSalle survey found that Surrey’s vacancy rate for offices close to Skytrain is 0.4 per cent, compared to 25 per cent for space further from transit, and the rental rates for transit-linked space are about 33 per cent higher.
Some analysts point out that many offices close to transit are often newer buildings, which may make them capable of attracting higher rents and lower vacancies.

For more on the Metro Vancouver office market, watch for the January 2012 issue of Western Investor.

[Whalleyboy]

that 54 storey is the only other real office building on the map and list right now. Well there is others in planning stages still. But this ones already on on its 3rd reading(its on hold on the list).

[Chikinlittle]

I think that they should build it! There was a study that was released in December that said that vacancy rates in Surrey, near the skytrain was .4% even though lease rates were higher. I think anytime that vacancy rates are so low, it's a good market to build office space. I'm glad that there's also a proposal for some new office space in the 54 story building to be built beside city hall.

Here's the article, copied from Western Investor - the story also appeard in the Vancouver Sun and "24".

Agreed that vacancy rates are low, but particularly for Class A space. Even then class B/C in the Surrey City Centre area, there's not much. Based on my current experiences here and watching a bit of action in the commercial leasing space in this area, to 'build it and they will come' is likely the case.

[jhausner]

I think if we weren't in the middle of an economic downturn it would have already been built. You have to still remember that it is 1 thing to build something then they will come, it is another thing to get financing from a financial institution that is shell shocked and hiding in a corner like almost every bank is right now.

They are so worried still that on the news every week the banks are saying different things. 1 week RBC says housing is healthy, the next they are saying OMG SKY IS FALLING, the next they are saying it is healthy again. If they can't make up their minds do you think any bank will loan out $2-500 million to a developer to build something with no lease tenants?

Highly doubt it. That's why I think combination commercial towers right now are the most likely in Surrey as has been mentioned before by a few others. Like the 54 storey tower. By pretty much selling out residential floors then landing a large hotel chain, the banks will overlook the remaining commercial and allow it to be built without leases signed. Just like Concord Pacific's Park Place. The commercial is empty with no signed leases but they got the bulk of their money from the residential units.

A 100% commercial building is, to the banks, too risky.

[officedweller]

There's also this professional building across from Surrey Memorial - mentioned in the thread before. It's Phse 1 of a 2 tower project.

http://www.collierscanada.com/4037

[wrenegade]

Wow, I didn't know there was a 2nd phase/tower to that project. The 2nd tower might be a ways behind, but good to know it is on the drawing board.

[whiteshadow]

There's also this professional building across from Surrey Memorial - mentioned in the thread before. It's Phse 1 of a 2 tower project.

http://www.collierscanada.com/4037

I think that's the Lark building... I drove by there the other day, I think its going ahead as they've dug a deep hole which looks to be made for underground parking.

[Whalleyboy]

Wow, I didn't know there was a 2nd phase/tower to that project. The 2nd tower might be a ways behind, but good to know it is on the drawing board.

there are some images out there of the second tower. Its just a twin to the first one.

[queetz@home]

I think if we weren't in the middle of an economic downturn it would have already been built. You have to still remember that it is 1 thing to build something then they will come, it is another thing to get financing from a financial institution that is shell shocked and hiding in a corner like almost every bank is right now.

They are so worried still that on the news every week the banks are saying different things. 1 week RBC says housing is healthy, the next they are saying OMG SKY IS FALLING, the next they are saying it is healthy again. If they can't make up their minds do you think any bank will loan out $2-500 million to a developer to build something with no lease tenants?

Highly doubt it. That's why I think combination commercial towers right now are the most likely in Surrey as has been mentioned before by a few others. Like the 54 storey tower. By pretty much selling out residential floors then landing a large hotel chain, the banks will overlook the remaining commercial and allow it to be built without leases signed. Just like Concord Pacific's Park Place. The commercial is empty with no signed leases but they got the bulk of their money from the residential units.

A 100% commercial building is, to the banks, too risky.

We've been in a middle of an "economic downturn" since Lehman Brother's collapsed in 2008 but it hasn't stopped the construction of office towers all over. That lame excuse simply doesn't cut it, otherwise we wouldn't be having Metrotower 3 and all those proposed buildings in downtown Vancouver.

Eight Avenue Place was being built with the prospect of Calgary having millions upon millions of vacant space due to Encana vacating five buildings for their own, other smaller buildings being built first, and yes, the sudden drop in commodities at that time of construction and completion. Commercial realtors saw it as a ticking time bomb and yet look at it today! Filled to capacity while its little brother is on its way up!

And regardless of who built Central City or for what purpose, bottom line was they built a HUGE office tower in the worse part of Surrey with NO TENANTS lined up and yet *TODAY* its not only doing well, but its essentially the symbol of the drive to revitalize Whalley!

[nickinacan]

And regardless of who built Central City or for what purpose, bottom line was they built a HUGE office tower in the worse part of Surrey with NO TENANTS lined up and yet *TODAY* its not only doing well, but its essentially the symbol of the drive to revitalize Whalley!

Truer words have never been spoken. Not to mention that the area was MUCH worse off than it is today. Remember Central City when it was still Surrey Place? It wasn't exactly a destination and was pretty much a mall on its deathbed. The fact that the tower is full is an amazing accomplishment.

I think we should see another boom of office and residential this year around the City Centre, especially around Surrey Central. Considering you have Bosa and Concord Pacific in the mix now, there is no doubt that other developers will be taking notice. Come one. There are literally billions of dollars of government investment going on in the area. Remember, Vancouver was a sleepy backwater town until the government decided to pour money into it. Look what it became. The same is destined for Surrey... just at a much more rapid pace.

[Whalleyboy]

plus just up the road from the gateway site tien sher has huge plans for a good chunk of centrals lands

[officedweller]

I think that's the Lark building... I drove by there the other day, I think its going ahead as they've dug a deep hole which looks to be made for underground parking.

Good to hear. Looks like a decent building - fronts the street well (even if there is some surface parking around the back).

[whalley13]

i agree with jhausner, times have changed and its a much more risk averse world...sucks for surrey but reality is reality.....
proof is in the pudding....if optimism was all that is required for investment then there would be constructiion all over d.t surrey....but look around there isn't...just billboards

patience patience patience....unless u want to put up your own tower:slob:

[VanCvl]

We've been in a middle of an "economic downturn" since Lehman Brother's collapsed in 2008 but it hasn't stopped the construction of office towers all over. That lame excuse simply doesn't cut it, otherwise we wouldn't be having Metrotower 3 and all those proposed buildings in downtown Vancouver.

Eight Avenue Place was being built with the prospect of Calgary having millions upon millions of vacant space due to Encana vacating five buildings for their own, other smaller buildings being built first, and yes, the sudden drop in commodities at that time of construction and completion. Commercial realtors saw it as a ticking time bomb and yet look at it today! Filled to capacity while its little brother is on its way up!

And regardless of who built Central City or for what purpose, bottom line was they built a HUGE office tower in the worse part of Surrey with NO TENANTS lined up and yet *TODAY* its not only doing well, but its essentially the symbol of the drive to revitalize Whalley!

Umm..there's a huge difference between "private" money and "public" money and when it can be spent. You missed the entire point of jhausner's post. Surrey Central tower wasn't built without tenants - it was built for ICBC and TechBC with public money. The majority of office construction requires a certain percentage of the spaced to be pre-leased before construction.

It's not too different than residential construction - you need a certain amount of presales.

[jhausner]

I don't disagree that economic downturn is a lame excuse but big banks don't think that way. Besides, if it was your $500 million I think you may be a bit more cautious than just rolling the dice.

Easy to spend someone else money. Unfortunately that isn't how the development world works now. It is very conservative and slow to pull the trigger.

Case and point many of the projects breaking ground in downtown Vancouver alone are already 5-9 years on the books.

I agree with you though and wish more would get done faster. Patience.