[tybuilding]

What is wrong with Newton? It doesn't seem so bad. I just moved there 2 months ago. I don't live too far from the Newton Exchange. The village street 137th is pretty cool. It would be nice to see a few more stores there maybe with people living in units above. I wish there were more streets like that one. It would be nice to see some stores added at Kings Cross in the parking lot. There is more than enough parking there.

[g35]

What is wrong with Newton? It doesn't seem so bad. I just moved there 2 months ago. I don't live too far from the Newton Exchange. The village street 137th is pretty cool. It would be nice to see a few more stores there maybe with people living in units above. I wish there were more streets like that one. It would be nice to see some stores added at Kings Cross in the parking lot. There is more than enough parking there.

I don't think it's SO BAD but I can see why people don't like it, there seem to be way more homeless/shopping cart dudes than before. There's a little tent city in the woods near the library/wave pool.

I don't know what that guy was talking about with 128 st and 72 ave on the last page, though. Seriously? I'm trying to imagine someone being scared of that area and just can't do it. I'm actually smiling just thinking about this. The only remotely disconcerting thing about that area is the old Shell gas station. Oh no!

[BCPhil]

whalley has clean up a heck of a lot better then newton. The thing is no one wants to believe it. I mean people come to the are expecting something so there basically looking for it and in which case they're gonna find it. this is why people dont see the change they're to busy looking for the old instead of seeing the amazing new and changing.

also it isnt helping surrey when people who havent been to the area in years say they've been there and its horrible. You can't go by what you saw years ago and think nothing changes...everything changes. whats even worse is the people who never been and follow what they hear about it being horrible. there judging a book by its cover and not getting to see the real thing.

also just to let you know the views from a tower in surrey are amazing. I post some images on top of central a while back. Central citys on a great spot for views of all the lower mainland and the mountains.

I don't know about that, the RCMP say crime is up in Whalley this quarter vs a year ago. In Whalley, violent crimes are up 13% and property crimes down just 2%.

According to the RCMP 1st quarter 2010 report, Whalley(30%) and Newton(29%) are neck and neck in total crime reports for all of Surrey. And Newton to the RCMP is quite a bit bigger than what people typically think of Newton; in the report Newton stretches from Scott Road to Cloverdale and everything South of 88 to South Surrey. Whalley is more Whalley sized, so if you cut out the areas to the West out of Newton's statistics it would only get more lopsided for Whalley's supremacy.

Also of note is that for 1st quarter year over year, assaults are up 20% and Sexual assaults are up 75% in Whalley, and up 3% and 44% respectively in Newton. Broken down, Whalley and Newton have almost the same number of property crimes, but Whalley has far more violent crimes.

So if you want your stuff taken, live in Newton, if you want your nose broken, live in Whalley.

http://bc.rcmp.ca/digitalAssets/20/20666_Quarterly_report_Q1_2010.pdf

[go_leafs_go02]

I don't know about that, the RCMP say crime is up in Whalley this quarter vs a year ago. In Whalley, violent crimes are up 13% and property crimes down just 2%.

According to the RCMP 1st quarter 2010 report, Whalley(30%) and Newton(29%) are neck and neck in total crime reports for all of Surrey. And Newton to the RCMP is quite a bit bigger than what people typically think of Newton; in the report Newton stretches from Scott Road to Cloverdale and everything South of 88 to South Surrey. Whalley is more Whalley sized, so if you cut out the areas to the West out of Newton's statistics it would only get more lopsided for Whalley's supremacy.

Also of note is that for 1st quarter year over year, assaults are up 20% and Sexual assaults are up 75% in Whalley, and up 3% and 44% respectively in Newton. Broken down, Whalley and Newton have almost the same number of property crimes, but Whalley has far more violent crimes.

So if you want your stuff taken, live in Newton, if you want your nose broken, live in Whalley.

http://bc.rcmp.ca/digitalAssets/20/20666_Quarterly_report_Q1_2010.pdf

And give it 10-15 years when the brand spanking NCPs like Clayton (68 Ave 7 192 St) aren't so new - crime will jump incredibly there when the neighbourhood isn't sparkling and begins to gentrify.

And to the comment about 128 St & 72 Avenue. I find that alot of personal crime happens in and around there, not right there, but just all around it.

[metroXpress]

Library Update...pics from civicsurrey.ca

http://www.civicsurrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/P1050292-500x375.jpg
http://www.civicsurrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/P1050292.jpg

[jhausner]

I don't know about that, the RCMP say crime is up in Whalley this quarter vs a year ago. In Whalley, violent crimes are up 13% and property crimes down just 2%.

Stats 101 is that they are misleading more often than not which can surprise people on first glance. I'll explain how the numbers aren't quite as bad as you make them out to be.

Violent crimes are up 13% in Walley. So what are the changes?

+12 sexual assaults and +64 assaults

So now let's check per capita against just 1 city, Vancouver:

Surrey Central population based on sheet: 83,104
Vancouver downtown population based on 2006+ some growth: 90,000~

Surrey Centre SA/Capita = 0.144 per 1000 people
Surrey Centre A/Capita = 0.77 per 1000 people
Vancouver Downtown SA/Capita (Same Period) = 0.41 per 1000 people
Vancouver Downtown A/Capita = 4.02 per 1000 people

So if you're looking regionally in the above, comparing fairly similar populated areas, even with Walley increasing 'sharply' according to the RCMP from 2010 to 2009 for sexual assaults and assaults, overall it is CONSIDERABLY less than Downtown Vancouver still and this does NOT include the Downtown East side which is seen as a different district.


According to the RCMP 1st quarter 2010 report, Whalley(30%) and Newton(29%) are neck and neck in total crime reports for all of Surrey. And Newton to the RCMP is quite a bit bigger than what people typically think of Newton; in the report Newton stretches from Scott Road to Cloverdale and everything South of 88 to South Surrey. Whalley is more Whalley sized, so if you cut out the areas to the West out of Newton's statistics it would only get more lopsided for Whalley's supremacy.

Well you can't exclude those parts because they are part of Newton officially. So that point is a bit, well, pointless. Kind of like saying well look East Vancouver also includes the border to Burnaby so if we exclude the first 20 blocks or so, the crime goes down or if we excluded Downtown East Side the crime goes down. Washington DC has a fairly good crime rate if you exclude all the murders afterall. ;) You can't go by area but can only go by population normalization.

So given population normalization alone though, you come to a similar conclusion that Walley does have a higher per 1000 person crime rate in some areas. Not all, but some.

Again though can that be attributed to the crime actually being higher? That's where analysis becomes difficult with statistics. For example, if policing has increased then there would be an increase in statistics for a given area. For example, if I record down 75% of all shoplifting because I'm understaffed police wise or 25% of the situations aren't reported to police then suddenly I get more officers or maybe there's an increase in crime reports to the police, that number may go up to 85%, the overall amount of shoplifting may look higher (as though more crime was comitted) but in fact it may actually be misleading simply because more crimes are now being reported or recorded down.

It's the classic argument "why are teens more violent these days" when if you actually analyse the truth, they aren't more violent simply more reporting is being done so it seems like there is more.

Now obviously I can't prove that's the case but it illustrates why simply reading down numbers and jumping to hard set conclusions is a bad thing. You may not be getting a full picture.


Also of note is that for 1st quarter year over year, assaults are up 20% and Sexual assaults are up 75% in Whalley, and up 3% and 44% respectively in Newton. Broken down, Whalley and Newton have almost the same number of property crimes, but Whalley has far more violent crimes.

I wouldn't classify it as 'far more'. That's a misleading use of wording. Look at the actual numbers. For assaults, the difference is 64 total assaults between Walley and Newton. That's over 3 months. That's 21.3 assaults difference per month. In an area of 83,000 population vs 126,000 population.

So you're saying 64 assault difference is "far more" when put against a total population of 209,000. I'd say it's pretty minor. The truth is again if you split to region and look at Vancouver in the picture:

Vancouver Assaults: 2.42 / 1000
Surrey Assaults: 2.14 / 1000

Again Surrey doesn't look quite as bad and even Walley doesn't seem as horrible as people think.

Try not to use phrasing like "far more". Far more would be a spread of 200 or more assaults.

If we then just take sexual assaults it becomes a bit more interesting:

Vancouver Sexual Assaults: 0.27 / 1000 people
Surrey Sexual Assaults: 0.18 / 1000 people

So given that can I include that Vancouver is more dangerous or that sexual assaults are far worst (50% greater) in Vancouver than Surrey? If you just read statistics then yes you have to conclude that. But it wouldn't include policing levels, reporting statistics, etc.

That's why I don't like making sweeping conclusions based on just a stat, not to mention it's only for 1 quarter. Things fluctuate quarter to quarter, month to month. Not to mention there was an Olympics during Q1 which had an increase in people in the Metro Van area and an even larger increase in Vancouver so even Van's statistics have to be taken with a grain of salt.

The only thing I can honestly conclude is that crime bumped up 1% in Walley from this quarter to same quarter in 2009 and down by 2% in Newton from this quarter to same quarter in 2010 which statistically = was pretty much level overall.

So if you want your stuff taken, live in Newton, if you want your nose broken, live in Whalley.

Really? Newton had less total Property Crimes than Walley for more population. I think the only thing you can conclude from the statistics is that:

1. Walley's total crime rate excluding possession has increased by 1% over last year quarter 1
2. Newton's total crime rate excluding possession has decreased by 2% over last year quarter 1
3. Cloverdale/Port Kells total crime rate excluding possession has increased by 17% overall and has increased in all categories MORE than all other districts in Surrey

meaning we can conclude that the people in other threads saying Clayton Heights seems to be heading downhill, are onto something and we need to stop worrying about Walley and Newton. ;)

Just kidding... lol.


http://bc.rcmp.ca/digitalAssets/20/20666_Quarterly_report_Q1_2010.pdf

http://vancouver.ca/police/organization/planning-research-audit/district-statistics.html

Vancouver Statistics in case you are wondering where I got them from.

[jhausner]

I grew up in Newton btw, pretty much raised my entire childhood up to and including graduation from Frank Hurt (when I was tiny we lived in Guildford but moved away when I hit grade 1) so overall 20 or so years. From my own perspective, I find some areas of Newton seemed to have gone down a bit while others seemed to go up. I used to live next to a farm on a dirt road off of King George and not far from the Newton Inn when it was still a Biker Bar.

You drive there now and it's a full mall King's Cross with condos in the back, the road is much neater looking, and you have some nice commercial developments all over the place. Not to mention the Newton Inn which became Delanies is now a sparkling new Save-On-Foods with more commercial. I actually like the area more than when I grew up there.

Venture down 140th street and you have very nice sidewalks leading to Bear Creek which to me seems upgraded and better then when I was younger. Even 72nd Ave seems nicer overall.

So I don't see what's so bad. I have no issue walking around Newton just as I actually have no issue walking around Walley. But then again I haven't had any issues walking around the Downtown East Side either.

I find with all 'crime' if you know where not to go when, you can avoid most problems. That's why I laugh when you hear "People shot outside nightclub in Downtown Vancouver at 2am" and it's reported like this is a huge massive problem and that a crime wave is setting in.

My first reaction is "That's what you get for being in a nightclub outside in Downtown Vancouver at 2am when you should be in bed not being a total dumbass."

The unsolicited crimes are a lot less I find than people seem to make out. I've had 0 cars stolen in Surrey growing up in the city and still living in the city. I've had 0 cars stolen in Vancouver either or any other city in the region. I've had my car broken into 3 times total over 14 years of owning one. Once in Burnaby, once in Surrey, and once in Vancouver. Still 3 times isn't bad. And I've had my car window broken once and the person was caught.

So minding my own business, growing up in Surrey and Newton specifically, adventuring all over the place, I can't say it's been hugely bad. I know where to go when, and where not to go when. You avoid walking down at 3am in a back alley off of 108th Ave and you'll be ok. But if you decide to do so, don't cry if something happens even though statistically you're more likely to get killed in a car accident than something still actually happening.

I also feel that Surrey Central has grown better over the past 10 years and will only go up as the bad areas are torn down and replaced. Can anyone remember Terminal and Main street 10 years ago? It's quite a bit different these days and has gotten better and safer now that condo towers have been built, some of the cheap hotels have been either upgraded or gotten rid of, and some of the industrial relocated.

Central Surrey is improving just so much as I actually think the majority of Surrey is improving. Clayton/Cloverdale worries me but I think it's just growing pains and pressures are going to start pushing those criminals out to where they belong, Abbotsford. ;)

[tybuilding]

Well said Jhausner!

[BCPhil]

Stats 101 is that they are misleading more often than not which can surprise people on first glance. I'll explain how the numbers aren't quite as bad as you make them out to be.

Violent crimes are up 13% in Walley. So what are the changes?

+12 sexual assaults and +64 assaults

So now let's check per capita against just 1 city, Vancouver:

Surrey Central population based on sheet: 83,104
Vancouver downtown population based on 2006+ some growth: 90,000~

Surrey Centre SA/Capita = 0.144 per 1000 people
Surrey Centre A/Capita = 0.77 per 1000 people
Vancouver Downtown SA/Capita (Same Period) = 0.41 per 1000 people
Vancouver Downtown A/Capita = 4.02 per 1000 people

So if you're looking regionally in the above, comparing fairly similar populated areas, even with Walley increasing 'sharply' according to the RCMP from 2010 to 2009 for sexual assaults and assaults, overall it is CONSIDERABLY less than Downtown Vancouver still and this does NOT include the Downtown East side which is seen as a different district.


I was in no way trying to compare Surrey to anything outside it's boarders, there was a bit of a debate going on between Newton and Whalley. I'll conceed that neither are by far the most crime ridden places in the Lower Mainland, Province, Country, or world. I was just talking Newton vs Whalley. If you are just going to compare them to anything, of course you are going to find more crime somewhere else.


Well you can't exclude those parts because they are part of Newton officially. So that point is a bit, well, pointless. Kind of like saying well look East Vancouver also includes the border to Burnaby so if we exclude the first 20 blocks or so, the crime goes down or if we excluded Downtown East Side the crime goes down. Washington DC has a fairly good crime rate if you exclude all the murders afterall. ;) You can't go by area but can only go by population normalization.

So given population normalization alone though, you come to a similar conclusion that Walley does have a higher per 1000 person crime rate in some areas. Not all, but some.



I don't know about that. Just because a school class averaged 50% on their final doesn't mean that's where most of the marks were, it doesn't mean that half the class failed and half passed.

If you are analyzing chance and odds you have to look at other boarders, like geographic location. Vancouver actually breaks down their statistics from Districts into Neighbourhoods.

Newton might have a certain break in rate per 1000 homes, but probability would dictate I'm less likely to suffer a break in at Scott Road and 80th than King George and 72nd. In Vancouver, you can look at crime by the city, but that doesn't mean the odds of being stabbed in Kerrisdale or Kits are as high as at the corner of Hastings and Columbia. Both have similar densities in the immediate area, but the vast difference in social status at the locations, which are separated by geographic location affects probable crime. If you just go by rather large random boundaries, it will make crime seem less probable in certain areas (and make crime seem more probable in others).


Again though can that be attributed to the crime actually being higher? That's where analysis becomes difficult with statistics. For example, if policing has increased then there would be an increase in statistics for a given area. For example, if I record down 75% of all shoplifting because I'm understaffed police wise or 25% of the situations aren't reported to police then suddenly I get more officers or maybe there's an increase in crime reports to the police, that number may go up to 85%, the overall amount of shoplifting may look higher (as though more crime was comitted) but in fact it may actually be misleading simply because more crimes are now being reported or recorded down.

It's the classic argument "why are teens more violent these days" when if you actually analyse the truth, they aren't more violent simply more reporting is being done so it seems like there is more.

Now obviously I can't prove that's the case but it illustrates why simply reading down numbers and jumping to hard set conclusions is a bad thing. You may not be getting a full picture.


If you are going to introduce that many unknowns into the system, then where do we stop. Yes, crime might seem higher because more crime is being reported, but that implies that crime reported is a subset of total crime. Meaning that even though more crime is being reported, there is actually even more crime than that happening. Which isn't a good assumption if you are trying to make Surrey seem less violent. It implies that most people are locked into a state of where they feel helpless and reporting crime does not help, or that they are scared to. Both would suggest crime affects more people than that are actual victims, as this would be a sentiment brought into the situation, not born of being a victim.

You would also have to introduce the probability of crime reporting. In Downtown Vancouver, they might have near 100% crime report rate due to the social standing of the victims. Crime is less acceptable to people, and it's easier to feel anonymous living in a dense urban environment than small neighborhoods in suburbia. When it's outsiders who come in to do crime, people report it; if it's people in your neighborhood, you don't because you're scared of how they'll react. This could mean that Surrey could have a much higher unreported crime rate than a city like Vancouver.


I wouldn't classify it as 'far more'. That's a misleading use of wording. Look at the actual numbers. For assaults, the difference is 64 total assaults between Walley and Newton. That's over 3 months. That's 21.3 assaults difference per month. In an area of 83,000 population vs 126,000 population.

So you're saying 64 assault difference is "far more" when put against a total population of 209,000. I'd say it's pretty minor. The truth is again if you split to region and look at Vancouver in the picture:


It is far more though. If 64 assaults aren't a lot, then what is? It's not an acceptable situation to have more than zero assaults in a society. It might not be significant on the scale of the whole society, and your odds of being involved are very low, but more than zero is an unacceptable state. By saying, oh well it's not that many, you are turing a blind eye on crime because it's statistially low enough that it probably won't affect you; you are in fact abandoning the people who are victims of crime because they are statistically irrelevant.

If you look at Murders in Surrey, it's actually gone down this quarter over last year, from 7 to 5. While 5 murders might not seem like a huge number compared to the Hundreds of Thousands who live in Surrey, the fact that we have it 30% closer to having none, it's a big deal. It's just as big a deal when it goes up. Sure, that's a tiny number when you express it as a % or /1000, but it's still more than zero murders. It's still people who are victims, and 1 more murder or 1 more assault victim is not negligible when talking about people.

If I had 1000 friends, and 4 of them got beat up in the last 3 months, I wouldn't be all "well, that's statistically expected", I would be concerned for their well being.



Really? Newton had less total Property Crimes than Walley for more population. I think the only thing you can conclude from the statistics is that:

1. Walley's total crime rate excluding possession has increased by 1% over last year quarter 1
2. Newton's total crime rate excluding possession has decreased by 2% over last year quarter 1
3. Cloverdale/Port Kells total crime rate excluding possession has increased by 17% overall and has increased in all categories MORE than all other districts in Surrey

meaning we can conclude that the people in other threads saying Clayton Heights seems to be heading downhill, are onto something and we need to stop worrying about Walley and Newton. ;)

Just kidding... lol.


I actually think that's a serious point. While I was debating earlier if Newton or Whalley was better/worse, that's all about the present. I'm pretty worried that Cloverdale will be Vancouver's example of Suburban Decline. It will stagnate and people will eventually be born into it with little chance of escape.

Whalley and Newton are both centers of new prosperity, and the growth and economic investment will continue for decades. The old Whalley and Newton were born of Suburban Decline (no one for a long time wanted to live in Surrey when you could buy redeveloped land beyond it for cheaper/sqfoot), but now with Urban development taking hold in both those locations, I expect to see a lot of change over the next 5 years and Cloverdale be the crime champion in less than 10.


So minding my own business, growing up in Surrey and Newton specifically, adventuring all over the place, I can't say it's been hugely bad. I know where to go when, and where not to go when. You avoid walking down at 3am in a back alley off of 108th Ave and you'll be ok. But if you decide to do so, don't cry if something happens even though statistically you're more likely to get killed in a car accident than something still actually happening.


Again, depends on where you are. Your odds of being assulted in the CBD downtown are about 9 times as likely as being involved in a non fetal accident.

IN all of City of Vancouver, there were 17 murders in 2009, and 15 fatal motor vehicle accidents. Seems just as likely to have your life taken either way in some areas, and even more likely to be murdered than hit by a car in others. For Example, D3 (south east Vancouver) in Vancouver had 7 murders vs 1 fatal vehicle accident in 2009. And even in West Point Grey, there were 29 assaults vs 12 non fetal accidents all of last year.

[officedweller]

Library Update...pics from civicsurrey.ca

http://www.civicsurrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/P1050292-500x375.jpg
http://www.civicsurrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/P1050292.jpg

Thanks for posting.
So the angled walls are being cast in place (rather than cladding added afterwards?)

[mr.A]

my photos
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4110/4834699353_c170c262a4_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4084/4834705775_2c3412ecfa_b.jpg

[Whalleyboy]

the first picture is awesome.

[jhausner]

I was in no way trying to compare Surrey to anything outside it's boarders, there was a bit of a debate going on between Newton and Whalley. I'll conceed that neither are by far the most crime ridden places in the Lower Mainland, Province, Country, or world. I was just talking Newton vs Whalley. If you are just going to compare them to anything, of course you are going to find more crime somewhere else.

Indeed but again my point was that by excluding things you can make a very easily misleading comment. Often statistics are shared like yours in a medium like the news or talk shows and most people would then concluded “WOW SEE SURREY IS INSANE! STAY AWAY” This discussion was about Newton vs Walley I’ll grant you that, but your original post makes it seem like it’s pretty horrible in Walley.

I was simply trying to bring some perspective that you do actually have to kind of look at crime as a regional issue rather that every single specific. You also later on in your response state you can’t get too specific yet you are getting specific in a lot of places.

Can’t have your cake and eat it. That was my point. Statistics alone are misleading because what I include or exclude are different from what you include or exclude. Are any right or wrong? No. But first year statistics in university will teach you day 1 that what is included and excluded by people are more typically important factors that ‘prove their point’ so all stats must be taken with a grain of salt and no sweeping general conclusions should be made on stats alone.

I don't know about that. Just because a school class averaged 50% on their final doesn't mean that's where most of the marks were, it doesn't mean that half the class failed and half passed.

If you are analyzing chance and odds you have to look at other boarders, like geographic location. Vancouver actually breaks down their statistics from Districts into Neighbourhoods.

Newton might have a certain break in rate per 1000 homes, but probability would dictate I'm less likely to suffer a break in at Scott Road and 80th than King George and 72nd. In Vancouver, you can look at crime by the city, but that doesn't mean the odds of being stabbed in Kerrisdale or Kits are as high as at the corner of Hastings and Columbia. Both have similar densities in the immediate area, but the vast difference in social status at the locations, which are separated by geographic location affects probable crime. If you just go by rather large random boundaries, it will make crime seem less probable in certain areas (and make crime seem more probable in others).

You have to be a bit more consistent. So in one breath you’re saying I shouldn’t expand my look at Vancouver because you were being specific to Newton and Walley, yet here you are saying it’s perfectly valid for you to do the opposite and EXCLUDE areas of Newton to make your point? See why I’m having an issue with your original statements? You can’t have it both ways. Either you are talking about Newton which is ALL of Newton or you aren’t.

I mean if you want to get granular let’s talk about how you’re most likely to find east Indian gangsters around Scott Road and 72nd compared to say 152nd and 72nd. Now is that because it’s a bad neighborhood? Or is it just because that area is home to one of the largest East Indian populations so odds are I’m correct. But that would be like me saying well you’re going to find a lot of shopping malls around 104th and 152nd compared to 0 avenue and 176th. A rather pointless statement to make.

So while you are part valid that each overall area has specific regions with different crime specifics, your ORIGINAL statement was global. You can’t now get granular after making global statements.

If you are going to introduce that many unknowns into the system, then where do we stop. Yes, crime might seem higher because more crime is being reported, but that implies that crime reported is a subset of total crime. Meaning that even though more crime is being reported, there is actually even more crime than that happening. Which isn't a good assumption if you are trying to make Surrey seem less violent. It implies that most people are locked into a state of where they feel helpless and reporting crime does not help, or that they are scared to. Both would suggest crime affects more people than that are actual victims, as this would be a sentiment brought into the situation, not born of being a victim.[/quote’]

It’s just fact. Unfortunately it seems like you live in a utopian world but the truth is in all aspects of life, what is reported is far less than what is actually happening. There are more speeders on the road than those caught and ticketed. There are more people not paying for parking than are caught by parking patrol. There are more helpdesk problems in an organization than are reported to the helpdesk. There are more confused people filling out their tax returns than those than call in to ask questions. It’s the way life goes. If CRA sat down and said well we get 10,000 people that phone in confused about their tax return, then they turn around and say that number is an accurate reasonable representation of how many actual people are confused, they’d be so far from reality.

Same here. While I’d like to believe more crime is reported than actually happens, just the rules of reality dictate that we know less than what goes on. It has nothing to do with meaning Surrey is LESS safe, it’s just truth. I think any reasonable human being you ask would say the same thing if you asked them the question “Do you think all crimes are reported to the Police?”

If you get a “Yes” from anyone you have my permission to smack them.

[QUOTE=BCPhil;4929930]You would also have to introduce the probability of crime reporting. In Downtown Vancouver, they might have near 100% crime report rate due to the social standing of the victims. Crime is less acceptable to people, and it's easier to feel anonymous living in a dense urban environment than small neighborhoods in suburbia. When it's outsiders who come in to do crime, people report it; if it's people in your neighborhood, you don't because you're scared of how they'll react. This could mean that Surrey could have a much higher unreported crime rate than a city like Vancouver.

Again I think you’re living in a utopian land that doesn’t exist. You truly believe that the crime report rate would be near 100%? I give you the challenge, in your travels over the next week, I want you to phone the police for every single crime you witness. Every speeder that flies pass you, every person that turns left on a red light, every person downtown that rides their bike on a sidewalk, every pedestrian that crosses on a red light, every car that goes through a red light, every person that makes a loud noise after the 10pm noise bylaw in the West End, every car alarm that goes longer than 5 minutes, every person walking in the bike/rollerblade lane on the Sea Wall, biker/rollerblader in the pedestrian lane on the Sea Wall, the list can go on forever.

Now I may be completely unreasonable in the above statements but I think it points out that you couldn’t even start to get close to 100% in crime reports. Now if we’re talking simply MAJOR crimes, I will grant the number will be higher on the report scale but in a downtown core of 80,000+, you won’t be anywhere near 100%. Domestics alone will drop that number down considerably as most people don’t report them. Those fall under assaults btw.

It is far more though. If 64 assaults aren't a lot, then what is? It's not an acceptable situation to have more than zero assaults in a society. It might not be significant on the scale of the whole society, and your odds of being involved are very low, but more than zero is an unacceptable state. By saying, oh well it's not that many, you are turing a blind eye on crime because it's statistially low enough that it probably won't affect you; you are in fact abandoning the people who are victims of crime because they are statistically irrelevant.

Again utopia that doesn’t exist. While it’s nice when going for a Nobel Peace Prize to stand on a box declaring WE MUST HAVE 0 CRIME, it’s quite a different thing to actually believe it. The truth is chaos theory means there will always be problems. There will always be a chance of getting killed in a car accident. There will always be a chance of your boat sinking due to random circumstances out on the water. There will always be a chance a plane will crash. And there will always be a chance a crime will take place. When humans are involved, 0 is unachievable.

If you look at Murders in Surrey, it's actually gone down this quarter over last year, from 7 to 5. While 5 murders might not seem like a huge number compared to the Hundreds of Thousands who live in Surrey, the fact that we have it 30% closer to having none, it's a big deal. It's just as big a deal when it goes up. Sure, that's a tiny number when you express it as a % or /1000, but it's still more than zero murders. It's still people who are victims, and 1 more murder or 1 more assault victim is not negligible when talking about people.

I don’t disagree with you that reducing murders from 7 to 5 is a good thing, but where we differ is in the fact that I don’t really care for that statistic because if next month the murder count is 8 then suddenly has the rate of murder increased by 60%!? Or do we take the average and say the rate has still statistically declined?

Do we take all 3 months and stick them into a quarter? Do we look individually? Do we look across the year? Do we compare to last year? Do we compare to the last 5 years? Do we project for next year?

See the thing is, if we did all the above they’d all be perfectly valid analysis yet with the exact same number, would come to COMPLETELY different conclusions.

That’s why I say don’t make sweeping conclusions when it comes to statistics.

From my perspective and analysis it isn’t many. I stick to that. 64 assaults isn’t many. It isn’t high, it isn’t crazy. Not with a population of 450,000 people. If that number bumped up to 200 I’d still think it low and I’ d still feel safe in Surrey. Maybe my perspective is different than yours I’ll grant you that, but it doesn’t mean my point is invalid. It just means we analyze the data differently. 

If I had 1000 friends, and 4 of them got beat up in the last 3 months, I wouldn't be all "well, that's statistically expected", I would be concerned for their well being.

You’re proving my point without even realizing it. What you just said in the quote above is “based on perspective, statistics can be misleading” which is what I challenged you on from the start. ;-) Again your original point I was taking issue with was how statistics proved something and I was simply stating they don’t.

And you above just said I was right. 

Again I have no issue with you making the statement that Newton ISN’T the worst area statistically compared to Walley. That would be valid given the data you provided. But the original debate wasn’t with this cut in time it was with the notion that Walley was improving while Newton was not. I think your stats prove that isn’t quite so cut and dry. But that’s not what your point was originally.

Your point was “If you want your stuff taken, live in Newton, if you want your nose broken, live in Whalley” which has nothing to do with the original question.

I actually think that's a serious point. While I was debating earlier if Newton or Whalley was better/worse, that's all about the present. I'm pretty worried that Cloverdale will be Vancouver's example of Suburban Decline. It will stagnate and people will eventually be born into it with little chance of escape.

I think again you’re being a bit too drastic here. Just like thinking crime should be 0 across the board, thinking Cloverdale will become some stagnate pool of east Vancouver with little chance to escape is also a bit ridiculous. I know a lot of people in Cloverdale and venture around all of Surrey and it’s not really that bad. It has growing pains like any area that has had a huge influx of development. Policing has been focused on Newton and Walley for quite a few years and suddenly you have a region bumping up in population with different communities going in and everything takes time to adjust.

While I would agree with the point that you can’t ignore it and hope it gets fixed on its own because that’s just leading to it getting worst, I thinking sky-is-falling mentality is equally destructive because that’s when NIMBYism starts to rear its head and sweeping generalized rules get put into place that don’t have any change on reality.

If you want to know what I mean, look at gun laws in Canada as a result of the massacre in Quebec and then come back to me on sweeping laws that did little to address a single event and instead cost tax payers a lot of money to reduce 0 crime simply because people thinking the sky-is-falling went crazy.

Balance, analysis, and decision. Time to think and be clear, and correctly address issues. That’s what we need.

Whalley and Newton are both centers of new prosperity, and the growth and economic investment will continue for decades. The old Whalley and Newton were born of Suburban Decline (no one for a long time wanted to live in Surrey when you could buy redeveloped land beyond it for cheaper/sqfoot), but now with Urban development taking hold in both those locations, I expect to see a lot of change over the next 5 years and Cloverdale be the crime champion in less than 10.

Really? And Surrey hasn’t grown from 200,000 people when I was young to 450,000 now? One of the largest and fastest growing cities in Canada? So nobody wanted to live here? Again I think you’re being drastic. A lot of people wanted to live here. A lot of people do live here.

As for Cloverdale, again perspective. I still think you’ll have less assaults in Cloverdale than in Walley overall for the same point you made above. But since we can’t change the scope I can’t make that statement. If we want to open it up though then again regionally Cloverdale is nothing. There are at least 5 cities in the Lower Mainland with more per/capita crime than Surrey yet it still has the reputation of not being a nice place to live.

It’s statements like “Cloverdale be the crime champion in less than 10” that I’m trying to stop. Too general. Too leading. Too deceptive.

[QUOTE=BCPhil;4929930]Again, depends on where you are. Your odds of being assulted in the CBD downtown are about 9 times as likely as being involved in a non fetal accident.

IN all of City of Vancouver, there were 17 murders in 2009, and 15 fatal motor vehicle accidents. Seems just as likely to have your life taken either way in some areas, and even more likely to be murdered than hit by a car in others. For Example, D3 (south east Vancouver) in Vancouver had 7 murders vs 1 fatal vehicle accident in 2009. And even in West Point Grey, there were 29 assaults vs 12 non fetal accidents all of last year.

Exactly yet everyone goes crazy if police start enforcing traffic violations in Vancouver instead of ‘STOPPING MURDERS!’

 I think I just read a thread on these forums about “Why do police give tickets to people bicycling instead of fighting REAL crime!”

That’s also the reason police forces in the region really don’t listen to 1) the media and 2) the general public when it comes to how they fight crime because really we’re all clueless, even me, and know less than actually is going on.

[itinerant]

I found this interior rendering of Bing Thom's new Central Library on ArchDaily (from July 26). Looks like a pretty cool space!

http://www.archdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/1280168523-surrey-library-interior-model-528x396.jpg (http://www.archdaily.com/70482/surrey-city-centre-library-by-bing-thom-architects/surrey-library-interior-model/)
From www.archdaily.com. Image (C) Courtesy of Bing Thom Architects.

Here's the link to the article:
http://www.archdaily.com/70482/surrey-city-centre-library-by-bing-thom-architects/

[Whalleyboy]

really should make a separate thread for the library. So all the images can go in one place instead of having to look through out this one one to see its been posted before lol

[wrenegade]

^Agreed. Your guys' new library is going to be sick. I don't spend much (or any) time in Surrey but I'm excited about what's going on there. There is enough (and wide enough development/timeframe) to warrant separate threads.

[Whalleyboy]

plus it will gett annoying sharing this and city hall in one thread

[surrey1]

i drove by the library under constructions...it actually looks quite small..im sure it will be spacious inside...but the exterior looks smaller than the renderings

[itinerant]

really should make a separate thread for the library. So all the images can go in one place instead of having to look through out this one one to see its been posted before lol

Oops, I looked but didn't see (found it now)... still, it IS a cool space, and yes it does look a lot smaller than I would have thought in person and in renderings.

A dedicated thread would be a good idea. Does it have to be started from scratch, or can existing messages that are library-only be relocated?

[red-paladin]

It's very Guggenheimy!

[flight_from_kamakura]

a new central library, a new city hall, a new college campus, a new civic center. visionary stuff, surrey, wow. now let's just make sure that the surrounding kms are built out with retail wall, to keep the area active.

[vangirl3]

Hi there,

Does anyone know which architectural firms have been awarded the following projects at Surrey's Civic Centre:

-performing arts centre
-SFU expansion (is this just residential or faculty as well?)
-office towers
-hotel

I've been looking all over the City of Surrey site and can't seem to find the info -- perhaps not awarded yet?

Thanks

Vangirl

[Whalleyboy]

none has been decided yet on those. All of those are only concept ideas to come with the civic centre area

[vangirl3]

Great, thanks Whalleyboy.

[Whalleyboy]

although my guess is the office tower part of city hall may still go to Kasian. Although I am more hoping on it going to Bing Thom. Its not that i do not like Kasian i just thing Bing Thom is far better in designing something unique and amazing

[vangirl3]

Any idea of when they'll award the offices and the rest of the projects?

[CoryHolmes]

Any idea of when they'll award the offices and the rest of the projects?

Never. This is Surrey, and we're not allowed to have nice things in Surrey.

[Whalleyboy]

really all depends the preforming arts centre will be the next thing to be done.

Also the sfu residential building is supposedly gonna get started next year. They have recently increased the height of the building from 13 to 15 stories. These are not gonna be like most school residential buildings since there are no shared washrooms every room will have its own and each room has there own little food prep area. Its being designed this way for if SFU decides they no longer want it it can be turn into an old folks home.

[Diet Butcher]

Thanks for the info on the SFU Residence... any idea if its supposed to break ground early next year or is it more like Summer next year?

Any idea how long it will take to complete after it starts?

Thanks.

[Whalleyboy]

I have no clue for that best to send a message asking the architure or SFU when they plan to break ground.
heres a link to what info can be found about the towers
http://surrey.fileprosite.com/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=20526&Search=1&Result=1

[Diet Butcher]

Thanks for the info.

I've tried emailing SFU and asking Paul at CivicSurrey but I haven't heard anything on the latest timeline for breaking ground...

[Whalleyboy]

well i think there still resetting dates since it was suppose to be done by now.

[Spork]

Emailing Joanne Curry should prove fruitful.

[Whalleyboy]

Now surrey has all the land it needs for the civic centre. Its sad to see people would actually want to stand in the way of this.

Rod Dales and his father Roy have lost their court battle to stop the City of Surrey from seizing their land to make way for the new civic centre development near the Surrey Central SkyTrain station.

The Dales wanted the B.C. Supreme Court to set aside a city expropriation order forcing them to sell their two-storey office building and parking lot near 135 Street and 102 Avenue.

That request was denied after B.C. Supreme Court Justice Shelley C. Fitzpatrick ruled the expropriation was legal.

"In my view, Surrey has properly followed the necessary procedure to commence the expropriation process," Fitzpatrick said in her written decision issued Aug. 27.

The two Dales properties are located where the city plans to build its new $500-million civic centre project which will include a new seven-storey city hall, 77,000 square- foot public library, community plaza, performing arts centre, commercial space and parking garage.

The city has managed to buy every property in the civic centre project area except for the Dales holdings and one other location where a medical centre stands.

During the court hearing, the Dales complained the expropriation would see their properties turned over to other private developers, something the city lawyer said was based on "hearsay" and something the judge ruled does not violate the law against municipalities offering a "grant, benefit, advantage or other form of assistance" to a specific business.

"It's very scary, because with economic expropriation, they can take any property," Rod Dales said.

"I don't feel as confident in being able to hold land and having the rights that we thought we did."

He said he and his father don't plan to appeal the decision.

The family has had the property appraised at $4.54 million, but the last offer from the city was for $3.5 million, down from a previous $3.7 million.

"Our problem with Surrey is that they never truly wanted to negotiate," Dales said. "This could have been resolved long ago, if they truly wanted to sit down and work out a deal."

No one from the City of Surrey was available for comment.

In a letter addressed to the Dales dated June 15, Surrey Mayor Diane Watts said the city "remains committed to ensuring that all affected property owners are treated fairly and equitably."
http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/surreyleader/business/102181209.html

[Spork]

Somebody please send him this link:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fee+simple+interest

Great to hear that they are getting very close to having all of the land necessary for this fantastic project! I will be very excited when this gets started!

[SpongeG]

sounds like it could get going

[Spork]

Here is a photo of the library taken by me today. It is up to 3 stories and is surrounded by scaffolding. I'm actually quite pleased with the size of this thing. Sorry for forgetting to take a photo when going the other way on the train :P

http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/6796/cimg0542.jpg (http://img829.imageshack.us/i/cimg0542.jpg/)

[SFUVancouver]

^ I took a similar photo a few days ago.

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/8421/surreyctrllibraryseptem.jpg
http://creativecommons.org/images/public/somerights20.png (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ca/) Taken by SFUVancouver, September 5th, 2010.

[officedweller]

Global Air Photo dated August 24, 2010 showing Infinity / Park Place, Surrey Outpatient Hospital and the RCMP Headquarters site (clearing in background) - maybe the SkyTrain extension to Guildford could cut across the RCMP property to 100th Ave?:

http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/bc/surrey/2010/syh2010_0300.jpg
http://www.globalairphotos.com/large/BC/Surrey/Guildford/2010/0300/2

Note the Port Mann Bridge in the background of this shot:
http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/bc/surrey/2010/syh2010_0301.jpg
http://www.globalairphotos.com/large/BC/Surrey/Guildford/2010/0301/2

[tybuilding]

Global Air Photo dated August 24, 2010 showing Infinity / Park Place, Surrey Outpatient Hospital and the RCMP Headquarters site (clearing in background) - maybe the SkyTrain extension to Guildford could cut across the RCMP property to 100th Ave?:


There is a lot of opposition with any deforestation of the park. It wouldn't happen.

[BCPhil]

Is it just me or is there a whole lot of absolute nothing between King George Station and a possible Guildford station?

[tybuilding]

Is it just me or is there a whole lot of absolute nothing between King George Station and a possible Guildford station?

Well not quite nothing. Green Timbers is a major park. On 104th Ave is that large empty building that was supposed to be the Chinese cultural centre back in the day, that could easily be something pretty big. 104th Ave has great potential for redevelopment especially if that was the route.

[Whalleyboy]

yeah just look at the node area being built up there by the empty builing on 104. There is also a huge complex being built around there. They really need to get rid of the car lot there.

[officedweller]

Anyone know where/what this might be?

http://www.bozyk.com/HTML/CtrofSurrey.html


Project: Centre of Surrey
Client: Value Group of Companies
Site: Surrey, BC
Building Area: 300,000 sq.ft.
Project Cost: N/A
Completion Date: TBD
Key Personnel: Chris Bozyk, Pru Pinfold

http://www.bozyk.com/IMAGES/Commercial/CenterofSurrey/CtrofSurrey_image01.jpg

http://www.bozyk.com/IMAGES/Commercial/CenterofSurrey/CtrofSurrey_image03.jpg

This is probably the developer:

http://www.valuegroupproperties.com/

[SpongeG]

CIBC bank centre?

[wrenegade]

That's a pretty cool looking little building (well, not that little)!

[Whalleyboy]

I'm wondering if thats for one of the lots by the tax centre

[sryboy]

Here's a couple of pics I took yesterday of the Central City Library. I really like how it curves with University Drive.

All pics were taken by me.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/5042976988_61203de3fb_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4090/5042353187_f2d291af21_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/5042399997_8419f7875f_b.jpg

[whalley13]

Anybody read/understand the vancouver sun article about grandview heights comparing the surrey developement co. purchase there to the olympic village

[Whalleyboy]

with all this work being done in the city centre they should steal the giant flag from Guildford and put it around there

[Whalleyboy]

I came across some pictures i thought i'd share
first is just a overview photo of the plaza full build out hopes
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/Fullplazaplan.jpg
These are from marine way
nexts are some future.current skyline concepts
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/coqmarcurrent.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/coqmar2080.jpg
coming over the bridge
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/bridgecurrent.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/bridgefuture.jpg
now some other growing over the year photos
1992
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/Skyline1992.jpg
2009
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/Skyline2009.jpg
2011
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/Skyline2011.jpg
2015
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/Skyline2015.jpg
2020
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/Skyline2020.jpg
2024
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/Skyline2024.jpg
2028
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/Skyline2028.jpg
2031
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/Skyline2031.jpg
Phoyos from my photobucket

[Spork]

Looks like they are planning on tearing down the rec centre in the next few years. Any discussion on plans to replace it?

[surrey1]

they wont be replacing the rec center for a long time. they are already spending a lot on the new library and city hall and king george highway beatification...plus the next big project for the city center will be an arts center...so it might be 10 years before a new rec center gets built.

[invisibleairwaves]

They've been doing some work on the rec centre lately...is this prep work for demolition?

Too bad Surrey won't be replacing it. The situation with rec centres city-wide is bad enough already, and it's really a no-brainer that the city centre area should have one.

[Equinox71]

Re: rec centre, if they ever just got working on light rail along 104th to Guildford, that would give Central City residents easy access to a great rec facility just a short ride away.

[Whalleyboy]

There have been plans in place of remove of the north surrey rec centre from its current location for years. Its just things like fleetwood has to have all four arenas added to it and newton should likely get a second plus a new location for a new north surrey rec has to be dealt with first. Pretty much ever since central tower was first built its been knownt the rec centre would one day have to go

[theQ]

I'd be happy to see the North Surrey Recreation Centre destroyed! The rinks could be moved, and the Chuck Bailey centre could be expanded - they actually built it with an expansion in mind.

HOWEVER, I was looking at the building the other day, and I think that it'd be quite easy to remove the ice rinks, and leave the pool/fitness in place. This would create the green space between SFU and City hall. It actually looks like the ice rinks were an addition that were built on to the pool at some point in time, and that removing them would be quite easy. Then, at some later point in time, they could also remove the pool and relocate it somewhere (like Chuck Bailey).

Even when looking at the rec centre on google earth, three buildings are clearly visible (pool and 2 arena buildings), removing the 2 arena buildings would open the whole place up and would make the block more closely resemble the City Centre plans, with a nice open green "commons" area.

Does anybody know what the purpose of the contruction is at the rec centre? When they expanded the fitness facility a few years back, they put a curvy glass front around the finess area and entrance to make it more closely resemble the Central City tower. It looks like they might be doing something similar with the south brick wall. They've cut many holes out of the brick and it would seem that it's to put windows in (instead of a solid brick wall) which could make it look more modern and a better match to the new library/city hall and the existing tower. If that is in fact what they're doing, then it would seem that they don't plan on tearing down the pool for a long time. Though I hope that they might consider taking down the arenas. I really like the schematic as released, and I would be disappointed if they weren't planning on building the commons/plaza for many years to come.

[cc85]

the former olympic volunteer centre is suppose to become a community centre if i remember correctly.

[jhausner]

I'd rather see Chuck Bailey centre expanded to become a new rec center for the area and the removal of the North Surrey Rec Center simply due to the land use currently. The land can be better used as the heart of downtown Surrey in being high rises and commercial/residential development.

Chuck Bailey is located in an already established recreation zone and makes more sense being there.

[Whalleyboy]

The pool at north surrey rec is expremely date i think it was the second part to be added on orginally. They should just look at rebuilding a new one else where maybe an pool at chuck bailey would be nice. Well they could look at adding new ice sheets else where in the city centre. They wouldnt need an arena as big as arena 1 in north surrey rec since the fan seats are useless normally there.

[officedweller]

Library construction pics from the Fast+Epp website:

http://www.fastepp.com/index.php/en/projects/current/surrey-city-centre-library

http://www.fastepp.com/components/com_fpss/images/SurreyLib3s.jpg

http://www.fastepp.com/components/com_fpss/images/SurreyLib4s.jpg

http://www.fastepp.com/components/com_fpss/images/SurreyLib5s.jpg

[officedweller]

can be found at www.surreycitycentrelibrary.wordpress.com

and here's their flickr account:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/surreycitycentrelibrary/

Lots of pics dated January 25th, 2011

[Spork]

Anybody know if they are going to paint or seal the concrete at all?

[invisibleairwaves]

Anybody know if they are going to paint or seal the concrete at all?

Ugh, I sure hope so.

Also not a fan of the big blank wall on the upper floors along University Drive, but I guess they'll put a sign or something on it. It'll be the finishings that make the difference between a striking piece of architecture and an overthought turd here.

[Sprawl]

Anybody know if they are going to paint or seal the concrete at all?

It looks like it's going to be left as is. I found this exchange on one of Surrey City Centre Library's Facebook photos:


James Hansen
Looking great there, I was wondering though, is the library going to be painted? You would think they would do that before the glass went in... though I know nothing about the order that these things normally go in.
November 17, 2010 at 8:13am

Surrey City Centre Library
I'll find out for you, James.
November 18, 2010 at 7:31am

Surrey City Centre Library
‎@James: I spoke to the manager of the Whalley library - she says as far as she knows, there are no plans to paint the exterior of the building.
November 18, 2010 at 9:02am


http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=497213794433&set=a.433552279433.218257.284980779433

[invisibleairwaves]

Speaking of painted concrete, the podium of Infinity/Park Place looks like it's getting done in purple and white. Nice to see some colour, what with the sheer blandness of Infinity I.

[officedweller]

New Library pics dated Feb 23rd:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/surreycitycentrelibrary/

[CoryHolmes]

According to GlobalBC's 6pm newscast, the pizza place occuping the soon-to-be-City Hall land has moved out. The owner said they were given until March 1st to leave and they have now vacated.

Apparently, Mayor Watts will have a ground-breaking ceremony sometime tomorrow to officially start the development.

[Diet Butcher]

According to GlobalBC's 6pm newscast, the pizza place occuping the soon-to-be-City Hall land has moved out. The owner said they were given until March 1st to leave and they have now vacated.

Apparently, Mayor Watts will have a ground-breaking ceremony sometime tomorrow to officially start the development.

Ceremony is at 11:30am tomorrow morning on site.

[Whalleyboy]

I got a few new renders of the new library

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/1floor.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/2floor.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/3floor.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/4floor.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/LivingRoomtoEast.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/whalley_boy/LivingRoomtoNorth.jpg
pics all from my photobucket

[Whalleyboy]

pictures of surrey city halls atrium

http://www.civicsurrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Atrium_looking_south.jpg

http://www.civicsurrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Atrium_looking_north.jpg

http://www.civicsurrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Atrium_looking_east.jpg

http://www.civicsurrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Atrium_ground_level_looking_south.jpg

http://www.civicsurrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Atrium_ground_level_looking__north-10.jpg

http://www.civicsurrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/09-bldg_main-Dec6th_2010_2.jpg
pictures from www.civicsurrey.com

[Alomago]

Hi I am working on a model meant to be inserted into the city hall. does anyone know if i can get the actual architectural 3d model. like as a download somewhere?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[vanman]

Is the city hall design now official or just another pipe dream?

[Whalleyboy]

Its offical and the build has already started....well clearing the land for the building has. They just had ground breaking last weekend i believe

[Alomago]

I think its official

[invisibleairwaves]

Looks like the older concept, with the building spanning part of the plaza to connect to the future tower, went the way of almost every other cool Surrey proposal. Shame, I really liked that. Not a bad-looking building though. Could use some windows or something at ground level on the west side, it's a little dark there. And the blocky bench things will take away from the plaza's versatility for outdoor events, but I'm not sure if that's supposed to be the final plan for the plaza or just a general concept.

[allan_kuan]

Frankly I look at the design and it seems somewhat boring. Modern yes, but the interior reminds me somewhat of SFU Surrey which is just next door. (shrug)

Also I'm not too sure about the size of the building. Something in me screams that the building may be a tad small for a rapidly growing city, considering the size of Vancouver City Hall (even though half of it is abandoned).

[Alomago]

Hi I am working on a model meant to be inserted into the city hall. does anyone know if i can get the actual architectural 3d model. like as a download somewhere?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I actually really need to know this so please. if you know anything let me know.

[officedweller]

Library pics dated March 8, 2011:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/surreycitycentrelibrary/

A lot of blank wall there, but the green glass certainly livens up the building.

[Whalleyboy]

Looks like the older concept, with the building spanning part of the plaza to connect to the future tower, went the way of almost every other cool Surrey proposal. Shame, I really liked that. Not a bad-looking building though. Could use some windows or something at ground level on the west side, it's a little dark there. And the blocky bench things will take away from the plaza's versatility for outdoor events, but I'm not sure if that's supposed to be the final plan for the plaza or just a general concept.

If your talking about the benches outside there beign designed to be able to be moved during times of events being held in the area

Frankly I look at the design and it seems somewhat boring. Modern yes, but the interior reminds me somewhat of SFU Surrey which is just next door. (shrug)

Also I'm not too sure about the size of the building. Something in me screams that the building may be a tad small for a rapidly growing city, considering the size of Vancouver City Hall (even though half of it is abandoned).
this is the currently only phase 1 of city hall. A tower is being planed to be added on next to it. But instead of wasting money one something not needed right now they are going at it in phases. They plan to work on a performing arts theater with a hopefull hotel or office building add on next.

Atleast thats all i've learned from all the things i've gone to

[jhausner]

Yes it would take a number of years for the new city hall to require the extra space. The new city hall is larger than the current one and design wise it seems somewhat similar to Richmond city hall. You have to also remember that while it can be neat to have crazy architecture everywhere, this is still a place to do business so there has to be some normalcy. Swoopy custom counters are a pain in the behind when placing computers, building customer counters, and quite frankly working at. There's a reason many customer based office spaces are designed the way they are as 'blocky' and 'square' as they may seem.

I like the design and will look forward to seeing it when it is completed. The rest has been stated already though. The plaza would allow the benches to be removed fairly easy, they will be building a tower next attached with additional city services when the need is required, and so on. The key is just getting city hall in the center of the city.

[Sprawl]

I didn't know the library design included these recessed windows.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5177/5509332415_bc3da8a9da_z.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5139/5509930342_54773a4a2f_z.jpg
I think they look great, adding some much needed visual interest to the project. The glass around the roofline will also contribute to that.
It reminds me of the VPL in a way.

More photos available here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/surreycitycentrelibrary/).

[Spork]

Cool! Hopefully they add something of visual interest to those huge swaths of blank concrete on the broad sides.

[tybuilding]

Human Transit Blog has this sketch of a new central square at Surrey Central

http://www.humantransit.org/2011/03/information-request-connection-activated-civic-squares.html

http://urbanist.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83454714d69e20147e3549923970b-800wi

[SpongeG]

is that just an idea? or an actual thing they are planning to do and we will see happen?

theres a lot of undesirables that hang out near there - i knew some of them - and they would probably love a nice place like that to loiter and scare away the general population

[paradigm4]

Old sketch. The plaza will be part of the City Hall project, not opposite it.

[invisibleairwaves]

Well, that's good news. I'd much rather see towers on that prime block instead of a redundant plaza. The overhead walkway would be nice though.

Anyone know what the timeline is on building the new street next to the new library? Is that still part of the plan?

[paradigm4]

Well, that's good news. I'd much rather see towers on that prime block instead of a redundant plaza. The overhead walkway would be nice though.

Anyone know what the timeline is on building the new street next to the new library? Is that still part of the plan?

It's part of the City Hall project. Completion 2013 I believe.

[Whalleyboy]

seeing how its government buildign stuff i'm hoping its gonna be done earlier. or atleast maybe they'll have the plaza opened up earlier then city hall. given its gonna take a while to make those 3 levels of underground parking for the plaza but i still think it can be done way before 2013.

[paradigm4]

seeing how its government buildign stuff i'm hoping its gonna be done earlier. or atleast maybe they'll have the plaza opened up earlier then city hall. given its gonna take a while to make those 3 levels of underground parking for the plaza but i still think it can be done way before 2013.

What makes you think the government moves fast? The library will have taken a year and a half once completed and that was an expedited, smaller project.

[officedweller]

New library pics dated March 9th and March 22nd:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/surreycitycentrelibrary/

[Whalleyboy]

What makes you think the government moves fast? The library will have taken a year and a half once completed and that was an expedited, smaller project.

compare it to any of the other private building being built up around central and that thing is flying along. Look at quattro or ubran village or any other thing going on. Its take all these other projects way long to even get going. heck also look at e-division. government stuff never seems to see to many delays these days cause they all want to look good.

[whalley13]

Does anyone know what's going on at the brick site???saw some excavators down there

[CoryHolmes]

Does anyone know what's going on at the brick site???saw some excavators down there

I dunno but a few weeks back they had another of their 80% off "closing out forever" signs up. I swear, that sign hasn't come down since the Brick moved and the building became the Bright...

[Whalleyboy]

its a common thing with all smaller furniture stores. they "go out of business" and "re open all the time" Its most to bait in people new to the area.
As for whats going on around there i think there likely just doing some pipe work. I keep seeing idiots crash into the construction zone on 104ave

[SpongeG]

if you read the small print it will something like closeout sale - we are closing out on blah blah blah not actually closing

[officedweller]

New Library pics dated April 15th:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/surreycitycentrelibrary/

[officedweller]

More pics dated April 26th:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/surreycitycentrelibrary/

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5029/5658035213_5f8beac505.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/surreycitycentrelibrary/5658035213/sizes/m/in/photostream/

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5022/5658600368_2940531d22.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/surreycitycentrelibrary/5658600368/sizes/m/in/photostream/

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5229/5658018905_03bc7a9d2d.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/surreycitycentrelibrary/5658018905/sizes/m/in/photostream/

[vanman]

Wow, that is really nice. I think I like it better than Vancouver's coliseum.

[Gaijin Punch]

While I am still unsure about the exterior, those interior shots look great. Can't wait to check it out when its all finished!