Surrey/South Fraser Updates

[osirisboy]

How difficult could it be when twenty or so projects have either started or completed in the last five years within one square-kilometre of Surrey City Centre.

No sorry. I didn't mean there were no projects that get developed. I'm saying in relation to other cities in Vancouver it seems to take longer here. like park place, It's only taken 10 years to get it topped off. How bout across the street, 12 years and concord still hasn't fully completed it. How bout wave? didn't even bother trying to market the second tower still. But I was thinking more of the smaller infill sites. In south Surrey there are a bunch that are just sitting cleared and fenced off and it's been a decade and nothing has happened. The Bosa site on Johnson (technically in white rock) still not developed with the developer saying in 2014 that they didn't want to proceed due to market conditions! So when I hear and see things like that I just think wtf,

I'm not trying to shit on the success Surrey is having with the city centre renewal. I'm just pointing out how odd it is seeing these vacant lots sit empty when I'm always hearing how Surrey is the fastest growing city etc

[Shift]

^This is a good point.

The booming areas of Surrey in the past 5 years have been in the south (Grandview Heights, Sunnyside Heights), South Newton, and Clayton near Cloverdale. The market is buying up Single Family housing and townhouses as that is the draw of the South Fraser region.

Condos in Surrey Centre have likely been a harder sell, but it seems like that may be changing. There were really only 1-2 towers added between 2011-2016 (Ultra and Wave?). Between 2016-2021 that number will quadruple or more. There's already 4 under construction and 2 that just finished, and we're barely into the next 5 years.

Now that the ball is rolling and the area's image improves, condos will likely become more appealing to the market and develop quicker than in the past. Houses and townhouses will still make up the majority of growth, but I predict City Centre growth is going to spike in the next 5 years and take up a bigger proportion.

[Shift]

Early look at the Anthem Properties site and how they plan to break it up. No renders or any more details so far.

There are a total of 7 different sites, with 7 towers, although the towers are hard to see in this.

Site 1 is at the bottom right corner where the A&W currently is. Seems like this will be developed first with a 30 storey tower.


Other noticeable bits:


A central plaza with a restaurant fronting onto it.
Site broken up with 4 new streets as per City Centre Plan
Office use on upper levels facing King George Blvd (Ground entrance in blue), but unclear how many floors.
Townhouses in orange at the north of the site
Commercial CRU throughout in pink with residential towers above
Looks like surface parking on site 1? Similar to Station Square? Hopefully not..




http://i.imgur.com/PjFFnSz.jpg?1

Full-size:

https://anthemproperties.com/content/site_plans/0244_SitePlan.pdf


Site:

http://i.imgur.com/6GQbcQQ.jpg?1


City Centre Plan:

Red is 'Mixed-Use 3.5 FAR'
Purple is 'Mixed-Use 7.5 FAR'

http://i.imgur.com/7aKjHJh.png

[officedweller]

Other noticeable bits:

Looks like surface parking on site 1? Similar to Station Square? Hopefully not..



Looks like interior at-grade parking and a large adjacent loading area, which suggests a big box retailer/supermarket on the second floor (?)
- i.e. like Safeway on Robson @ Denman. I see escalators to the 2nd floor retail in the northeast corner of that building and a vestibule from the parking.

There seems to be a long stretch of blank wall and service uses (parking access and loading) on the new street on the west side of that block (southernmost block). It would be better if the at-grade parking ad the loading area shared a common entrance from the street (like the 8th Ave entrance of The Rise), allowing more streetfront retail use.

[Shift]

Looks like interior at-grade parking and a large adjacent loading area, which suggests a big box retailer/supermarket on the second floor (?)
- i.e. like Safeway on Robson @ Denman. I see escalators to the 2nd floor retail in the northeast corner of that building and a vestibule from the parking.

There seems to be a long stretch of blank wall and service uses (parking access and loading) on the new street on the west side of that block (southernmost block). It would be better if the at-grade parking ad the loading area shared a common entrance from the street (like the 8th Ave entrance of The Rise), allowing more streetfront retail use.

Ahh yes that makes sense for the parking, with a supermarket / big box retail on the 2nd floor above it. There is even a cart storage area shown on the plan for that building. Possibly a relocated Save-On-Foods allowing for the existing to be demolished?

The new N-S street to the west is actually a lane. Makes sense that the loading/access would be off of it.

[officedweller]

Ah, so that 's Save-on-Foods on the site (not familiar with the area much) - so that makes a lot of sense.

Also makes sense for the loading if that's a lane.

[EhJay]

For Park Boulevard I came across this extention of the plaza at Infinity / Park Place.

https://www.parkavenueliving.ca/img/Location/10-1.jpg

[GMasterAres]

You may not see that trend continue for a while. Vancouver is now building housing units faster than Surrey. Burnaby is also building very quickly.

I wouldn't be surprised if the next census has Burnaby and Vancouver both growing faster than Surrey due to the amount of backlogged condo developments underway.

Not going to be the case. Surrey not only has more people coming but it outpaces housing units 4 to 1 or more than Burnaby and Vancouver. Burnaby and Vancouver don't have the space to add as quickly as Surrey is. Everyone on these forums focus on high rises being built in Vancouver, Burnaby (Brentwood, Metrotown), and even Surrey because this is "SkyScraper Page" but 90% of the development in Surrey that contributed to that number being nearly 50,000 were all townhouses and row houses which don't get any discussion here. 1 36 storey high rise =

So unless you can find space in Vancouver or Burnaby where they can turn out 100+ new townhouse complexes per year or 5 acre row house developments all at the same time, they'll never catch up or pass the pace but rather would need to wait until Surrey slowed down. Remember the amount of land Surrey has empty that can get new development is basically the entire size of Burnaby's land area combined today. That's what they can build on net new so if Surrey develops 100% of that land to match Burnaby, that's another 250,000+ people easy without any redevelopment of existing or ALR re-allocation required.

And Surrey has been doing this for 20 years now and now showing any sign.

Let's put it in perspective, Surrey in 5 years grew by basically all of North Vancouver City + District combined.

[GMasterAres]

Good old Surrey from 2 lanes to 4 lanes, 2 lanes to 4 lanes etc etc etc. Look at 160, 168, 152, KGB in South Surrey, 72, it just never ends the inconsistency.

Yah it's annoying. In one hand I can understand the costs and complexity of expanding some of these roads and the volume Surrey has to deal with with such a large land mass.

But on the other hand, when they do silly things like this on 100th or 160th like you pointed out, I scratch my head. I would rather they skip another road and just do the whole damned thing right. Or at least do it in quick succession.

Like for 160th. They did 104th > 96th so 1 major road to another major. That leaves 96th > Fraser Highway. They should start that this year. But I would be surprised if it is done in the next 5 years. Like 140th where they widened to 2 lanes around 80th to 88th then it goes to 1 lane until 92nd then back to 2 lanes until 100th then back to 1 lane. It's just ridiculous.

Do the whole thing.

[GMasterAres]

That may be true, but it's also true that developments in Surrey are the first on the chopping block when markets slow because the margins are lower.

For reference, Vancouver had almost 3x as many housing compared to Surrey last year and Burnaby had 1.5x as many.

Don't fall into the statistic trap. 2016 Surrey added roughly 3500 housing units. Vancouver was 5500 or so or a bit more. Not 3x (this is from their own websites) but still more.

But here is where you get "trapped" by statistics. The majority of development in Vancouver are condos of 1 or 2 bedroom. So on average a housing unit = 1.5 population conservatively. In Surrey, the majority of the 3500 units were 3+ bedroom townhouses or row-houses so at least 2.5 population average given it is typically families of 2 or more.

So if we go 1.5 per unit x 5500 = 8250 potential people
If we then go 2.5 x 3500 = 8750 potential people so more than Vancouver

Don't JUST go by housing numbers. It is easy for Vancouver for example to throw out "2.8 billion in development permits" or "6000 housing units" but at the end of the day when you're talking about population growth it is how many people per housing unit you're growing by.

The stats from 2011 -> 2016 show very clearly that on average there are more physical human beings per housing unit in Surrey than in Vancouver or Burnaby or other cities. So count is not the whole story. :)

With respect to high-rises though, you are absolutely correct. Market conditions are still such that a condo project in Vancouver, Burnaby or even Richmond is likely higher a priority for a developer than one in Surrey. That is changing but it certainly the case I agree 100%.

But statistically the cast majority of "residential units" being built in Surrey are townhouses or multi-person dwellings, 3+ bedrooms. That's not the case in most other cities with the exception of some of the other suburbs like Langley, Abbotsford, Coquitlam, and Maple Ridge.

[GMasterAres]

No sorry. I didn't mean there were no projects that get developed. I'm saying in relation to other cities in Vancouver it seems to take longer here. like park place, It's only taken 10 years to get it topped off. How bout across the street, 12 years and concord still hasn't fully completed it. How bout wave? didn't even bother trying to market the second tower still. But I was thinking more of the smaller infill sites. In south Surrey there are a bunch that are just sitting cleared and fenced off and it's been a decade and nothing has happened. The Bosa site on Johnson (technically in white rock) still not developed with the developer saying in 2014 that they didn't want to proceed due to market conditions! So when I hear and see things like that I just think wtf,

I'm not trying to shit on the success Surrey is having with the city centre renewal. I'm just pointing out how odd it is seeing these vacant lots sit empty when I'm always hearing how Surrey is the fastest growing city etc

Very true. But I think that is a reflection of the immature high-rise tower market rather than a reflection on development across the city itself. The large population increases are a result of the row houses and townhouse complexes being built everywhere. Surrey Central is what sticks out with the high rises under construction but if you drive through Clayton Heights, or Morgan Crossing, Panorama, or even Cloverdale and Fleetwood it is quite apparent that's where the vast majority of the development is happening in Surrey.

I also think that is contributing to the lag in densification really in the central core. Yes there is effort today, but it is a hell of a lot cheaper and there is a hell of a lot more money for a developer to subdivide a 1 acre plot of land and lay down townhouses than to go through the complexities of a large highrise development with commercial or retail space. Not to mention land in Clayton or Fleetwood <<< Surrey Central. There are not many developers around in Metro Vancouver that build high-rise projects and the majority have had focus in Vancouver, Burnaby, and Richmond over the past 10 years or so. Now you're seeing the Concord Pacifics and Bosas of Metro-Vancouver looking to build projects and executing some projects.

Let's not kid ourselves, Concord Pacific has not build a new project in Surrey Central yet to date honestly. This new Park Boulevard will officially be their FIRST project start to finish. Both Park Place and Park Avenue were bankruptcy purchases by them and the projects were either (Park Place) substantially completed already so they just had to keep construction going and dot the i's and t's, or (Park Avenue) the development permit process and architecture process was largely complete and they only tweaked a bit before starting construction. So now they're actually starting to build some projects.

Takes time. The health of development in Surrey though is AOK overall though, just the high-rise market in the core is not at all as mature as surrounding cities.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Don't fall into the statistic trap. 2016 Surrey added roughly 3500 housing units. Vancouver was 5500 or so or a bit more. Not 3x (this is from their own websites) but still more.

But here is where you get "trapped" by statistics. The majority of development in Vancouver are condos of 1 or 2 bedroom. So on average a housing unit = 1.5 population conservatively. In Surrey, the majority of the 3500 units were 3+ bedroom townhouses or row-houses so at least 2.5 population average given it is typically families of 2 or more.

So if we go 1.5 per unit x 5500 = 8250 potential people
If we then go 2.5 x 3500 = 8750 potential people so more than Vancouver

Don't JUST go by housing numbers. It is easy for Vancouver for example to throw out "2.8 billion in development permits" or "6000 housing units" but at the end of the day when you're talking about population growth it is how many people per housing unit you're growing by.

The stats from 2011 -> 2016 show very clearly that on average there are more physical human beings per housing unit in Surrey than in Vancouver or Burnaby or other cities. So count is not the whole story. :)

With respect to high-rises though, you are absolutely correct. Market conditions are still such that a condo project in Vancouver, Burnaby or even Richmond is likely higher a priority for a developer than one in Surrey. That is changing but it certainly the case I agree 100%.

But statistically the cast majority of "residential units" being built in Surrey are townhouses or multi-person dwellings, 3+ bedrooms. That's not the case in most other cities with the exception of some of the other suburbs like Langley, Abbotsford, Coquitlam, and Maple Ridge.

CMHC says otherwise. (https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/corp/nero/nere/2017/2017-01-10-0816b.cfm)

9,759 in Van to 3,471 in Surrey.

[flipper316]

Yah it's annoying. In one hand I can understand the costs and complexity of expanding some of these roads and the volume Surrey has to deal with with such a large land mass.

But on the other hand, when they do silly things like this on 100th or 160th like you pointed out, I scratch my head. I would rather they skip another road and just do the whole damned thing right. Or at least do it in quick succession.

Like for 160th. They did 104th > 96th so 1 major road to another major. That leaves 96th > Fraser Highway. They should start that this year. But I would be surprised if it is done in the next 5 years. Like 140th where they widened to 2 lanes around 80th to 88th then it goes to 1 lane until 92nd then back to 2 lanes until 100th then back to 1 lane. It's just ridiculous.

Do the whole thing.
I totally agree. u can throw in the inconsistencies with sidewalk building as well or lack thereof. Also when a road does get expanded it takes forever. Just look at KGB from Crescent Road to 156th. For the longest time it was a pathetic 2 lane piece of shit. Now it looks like a proper boulevard. I just don't understand it took years to get done in phases. Why not just get all the sections done in one construction season. Sure the traffic tie ups will be longer stretch of road but in the end it'll get done.

[Urbanmetro]

There is a new proposal at KGB and 98 Ave under development proposal 7916-0183-00. 30 story, 94 meter mixed use building. 209 residential suites, 108 hotel rooms included with 8000m2 of commercial space... Impressive location just across from the hub at King George station.

[Flynn86]

Nice is there any photos of what it should look like?

[Shift]

There is a new proposal at KGB and 98 Ave under development proposal 7916-0183-00. 30 story, 94 meter mixed use building. 209 residential suites, 108 hotel rooms included with 8000m2 of commercial space... Impressive location just across from the hub at King George station.

Not new. That is a 2016 application. Has been under initial review for a while now. Likely won't see any renderings until it is ready to go to council.. unclear when that will be.

[Shift]

For Park Boulevard I came across this extention of the plaza at Infinity / Park Place.

https://www.parkavenueliving.ca/img/Location/10-1.jpg

That is an outdated rendering and not what Park Boulevard will look like. The tower won't even be in that location. It will be closer to King George Station right beside the current drop off loop.

https://urbansurrey.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/9y6y4nu.jpg?w=863

https://urbansurrey.com/2017/01/14/concord-pacifics-final-park-place-tower-heading-to-council-jan-16/

[GMasterAres]

CMHC says otherwise. (https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/corp/nero/nere/2017/2017-01-10-0816b.cfm)

9,759 in Van to 3,471 in Surrey.

I pulled the numbers from CoV's website so can blame them for the 5500 being incorrect. Regardless, your stats illustrate my point that the majority of the Vancouver units were "multiples" which typically translates to condos, though it can include town houses.

Surrey had multiples as the highest but not such a huge spread between single detached (roughly 2.3:1)+ vs Vancouver (roughly 6.5:1)+. There are a lot of factors. Also keep in mind that quite a few "single detached" are just replacements not net-new. A housing start is just that, a new constructed unit, but doesn't take into account what was removed.

In Surrey typically new housing starts are on empty land. In Vancouver, it is typically replacing something previously. Where my wife used to live for example, there were 10 houses that were torn down and rebuilt. That's 10 houses torn down.. then 10 put in their place so a net increase of _0_ even though on the chart you link it would show "10 single housing starts!"

Stats simply don't tell the whole story. Believe me or not, your choice.

[Alex Mackinnon]

I pulled the numbers from CoV's website so can blame them for the 5500 being incorrect. Regardless, your stats illustrate my point that the majority of the Vancouver units were "multiples" which typically translates to condos, though it can include town houses.

Surrey had multiples as the highest but not such a huge spread between single detached (roughly 2.3:1)+ vs Vancouver (roughly 6.5:1)+. There are a lot of factors. Also keep in mind that quite a few "single detached" are just replacements not net-new. A housing start is just that, a new constructed unit, but doesn't take into account what was removed.

In Surrey typically new housing starts are on empty land. In Vancouver, it is typically replacing something previously. Where my wife used to live for example, there were 10 houses that were torn down and rebuilt. That's 10 houses torn down.. then 10 put in their place so a net increase of _0_ even though on the chart you link it would show "10 single housing starts!"

Stats simply don't tell the whole story. Believe me or not, your choice.

I put that disclamer in there, I get that there isn't a direct correlation there.

It doesn't change the narrative of there being 3x the typical amount of development being done this year though. Lot of those multi-families are happening on brown fields and mixed use areas though. Just look at OV, the Fraserlands, etc...

[officedweller]

Nice summary here:

Growth in Surrey City Centre accelerating

https://urbansurrey.com/2017/03/19/growth-accelerating-in-surrey-city-centre/

[SFUVancouver]

[...]In Vancouver, it is typically replacing something previously. Where my wife used to live for example, there were 10 houses that were torn down and rebuilt. That's 10 houses torn down.. then 10 put in their place so a net increase of _0_ even though on the chart you link it would show "10 single housing starts!"

I think that you are off on your assessment of replacement single family houses (SFHs) in the City of Vancouver only constituting a 1:1 replacement of dwellings. Almost without exception, new detached single family homes are being built with secondary suites, or as small lot duplexes, and with some frequency lane way houses are also being included. With some frequency, too, they are small(er) lot houses that fit in more SFHs per block-face.

Here's an example (https://goo.gl/maps/LtyafaQYvGH2) of that.

The new SFHs are almost half the width of the older existing SFHs across the lane. There are five older houses and nine new duplex houses in the same amount of block-face; a 260% increase in dwelling count (not including basement suites that I assume are present in most of the older houses).

Here (https://goo.gl/maps/Gw2WyHD6bRH2) are a couple of duplexes built that were built on the site of a former SFH for a four-fold increase in dwelling count.

[GMasterAres]

Ok fair enough you found a few examples out of 9000 housing starts in 1 year. Population increase numbers over the last 20 years seem to contradict unless Surrey added 200,000 homeless people. Nobody has yet to reconcile while the housing numbers seem so amazing for Vancouver yet population growth is consistently higher SoF.

Either population numbers are lying or, like I'm saying, housing start statistics are not telling the whole or much of the true story.

[Blease]

Good news for Surrey LRT as the BC government agrees to increase funding contribution for the project. Altogether the Feds and Provincial governments will now cover 80% of the costs, up until yesterday that figure was only 73%. Mayor Linda Hephner's promise of having shovels on the ground by 2018 just got a little bit closer coming to fruition.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-to-match-2-2b-contribution-for-surrey-light-rail-broadway-subway-1.3349208

[EhJay]

Good news for Surrey LRT as the BC government agrees to increase funding contribution for the project. Altogether the Feds and Provincial governments will now cover 80% of the costs, up until yesterday that figure was only 73%. Mayor Linda Hephner's promise of having shovels on the ground by 2018 just got a little bit closer coming to fruition.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-to-match-2-2b-contribution-for-surrey-light-rail-broadway-subway-1.3349208

Now just to hope that the muni gov can find that 20% of funding that they need and can get this going. A whole bunch of other buildings are on hold while waiting for the LRT to get going.

[officedweller]

So there's no "rumour" thread for Surrey, so I'll post this here.

It's gotta be just a pie in the sky concept, but worth posting:

Surrey Signature

Project Description

Master planning and conceptual design for phased redevelopment of one complete block of land sitting
between Hilton Rd and Grosvenor Rd along George Ave, Surrey City Centre, Surrey BC:

A tall architecturally significant, new age building will be highly visible from the Freeway and beyond.
The façade of the building is designed to give the effect of the footprint of the structure wrapping around itself
creating a gap which when illuminated will create a 400 ft tall “S” as a symbol for Surrey.

The second phase of the project is expected to host 4 residential towers as well as retail and public spaces
which would serve as a hub by bringing in together businesses and public alike.


https://www.jka.cc/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Surrey-Signature-Iconic-Tower-4-1.jpg
https://www.jka.cc/projects/mixed-use-high-rise/surrey-signature/?portfolioCats=8

https://www.jka.cc/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Surrey-Signature-Iconic-Tower-1-1.jpg
https://www.jka.cc/projects/mixed-use-high-rise/surrey-signature/?portfolioCats=8

https://www.jka.cc/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Surrey-Signature-Iconic-Tower-2-1.jpg
https://www.jka.cc/projects/mixed-use-high-rise/surrey-signature/?portfolioCats=8

https://www.jka.cc/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Surrey-Signature-Iconic-Tower-3-1.jpg
https://www.jka.cc/projects/mixed-use-high-rise/surrey-signature/?portfolioCats=8

For reference (not high-rise purple at the proposed site)
- and not really a good site for office space (being somewhat removed from Gateway Station, with low-rise condos between):


http://i.imgur.com/gK5E8y4.jpg?1

[officedweller]

Also, this Surrey Central plan apparently from June 2016 (according to URLs):.
It's for thr bus exchange but shows surrounding buildings too.

Surrey Central Exchange Concept Plan

Surrey, BC

VIA worked with the City of Surrey, TransLink, and Simon Fraser University (SFU),
to reconfigure the Surrey Central SkyTrain Station transit exchange in support of the City of Surrey’s vision
for a City Centre and to facilitate future expansion of SFU.

•Major goal was to meet TransLink’s long-term capacity needs (rapid transit & local bus)
•Plan provides high-quality passenger and pedestrian environment
•Study involved evaluation of multiple bus operation scenarios to address the relocation of pick up/drop off and layover facilities

http://www.via-architecture.com/project/surrey-central-exchange-concept-plan/

http://www.via-architecture.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/4.jpg
http://www.via-architecture.com/project/surrey-central-exchange-concept-plan/

http://www.via-architecture.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2.jpg
http://www.via-architecture.com/project/surrey-central-exchange-concept-plan/

http://www.via-architecture.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/1.jpg
http://www.via-architecture.com/project/surrey-central-exchange-concept-plan/

http://www.via-architecture.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/3.jpg
http://www.via-architecture.com/project/surrey-central-exchange-concept-plan/

[xd_1771]

Good news for Surrey LRT as the BC government agrees to increase funding contribution for the project. Altogether the Feds and Provincial governments will now cover 80% of the costs, up until yesterday that figure was only 73%. Mayor Linda Hephner's promise of having shovels on the ground by 2018 just got a little bit closer coming to fruition.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-to-match-2-2b-contribution-for-surrey-light-rail-broadway-subway-1.3349208
Um, no they didn't.

I don't know if you haven't noticed but these past few years the media has been attaching a lot of the senior-level funding announcements to the "LRT" buzzword even though there has been little in terms of a specific commitment to LRT technology or the currently planned project. The announcement last week was to match the amount of money the Federal government would put on the table not for specific projects but for transit in general - all projects are still subject to the usual business case process.

Take it from me, I was at the announcement and the Minister didn't actually use the word "LRT" when asked, instead using the terms "L-Line" and "Langley extension" and also noting that the design and business case work being done is still in progress, and that both will need to be completed.

Now just to hope that the muni gov can find that 20% of funding that they need and can get this going. A whole bunch of other buildings are on hold while waiting for the LRT to get going.

If any developers are actually holding out their development plans for the L-Line LRT, they're in for some bad news when the project team finally releases the (already frequently delayed) project business case which is almost certainly going to look bad. As far as I'm aware the only building that's waiting for the LRT Project is Coast Capital Phase II, and that's because the City made a change to the LRT plan, which is going to require the relocation of a new road through a part of a site where one of the Phase II buildings was supposed to go.

[Blease]

Um, no they didn't.

I don't know if you haven't noticed but these past few years the media has been attaching a lot of the senior-level funding announcements to the "LRT" buzzword even though there has been little in terms of a specific commitment to LRT technology or the currently planned project. The announcement last week was to match the amount of money the Federal government would put on the table not for specific projects but for transit in general - all projects are still subject to the usual business case process.

Take it from me, I was at the announcement and the Minister didn't actually use the word "LRT" when asked, instead using the terms "L-Line" and "Langley extension" and also noting that the design and business case work being done is still in progress, and that both will need to be completed.

If any developers are actually holding out their development plans for the L-Line LRT, they're in for some bad news when the project team finally releases the (already frequently delayed) project business case which is almost certainly going to look bad. As far as I'm aware the only building that's waiting for the LRT Project is Coast Capital Phase II, and that's because the City made a change to the LRT plan, which is going to require the relocation of a new road through a part of a site where one of the Phase II buildings was supposed to go.

There's a general concensus that Surrey's transit system will be LRT, I don't think it's really up for debate anymore.

[Sheba]

So there's no "rumour" thread for Surrey, so I'll post this here.

It's gotta be just a pie in the sky concept, but worth posting:


https://www.jka.cc/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Surrey-Signature-Iconic-Tower-4-1.jpg
https://www.jka.cc/projects/mixed-use-high-rise/surrey-signature/?portfolioCats=8


For reference (not high-rise purple at the proposed site)
- and not really a good site for office space (being somewhat removed from Gateway Station, with low-rise condos between):

According to google maps it's only a 5 min walk from Gateway Station over to King George Blvd, which is still the main drag. It's not unreasonable to expect taller buildings and some non-residential in that location. Also it's marked as striped red - mid to high rise, mixed use.

[Sheba]

Um, no they didn't.

I don't know if you haven't noticed but these past few years the media has been attaching a lot of the senior-level funding announcements to the "LRT" buzzword even though there has been little in terms of a specific commitment to LRT technology or the currently planned project. The announcement last week was to match the amount of money the Federal government would put on the table not for specific projects but for transit in general - all projects are still subject to the usual business case process.

Take it from me, I was at the announcement and the Minister didn't actually use the word "LRT" when asked, instead using the terms "L-Line" and "Langley extension" and also noting that the design and business case work being done is still in progress, and that both will need to be completed.


I am sooo waiting for the business case announcement. Maybe if the LRT plan is scuppered then it'll go ahead as Phase 1 of the Langley Skytrain extension instead (it's not as if there's been no planning on that). Honestly there's more need for that and King George can stay as a B Line for the time being.

They did work on King George not that long ago to help out the B Line, and now they want to cancel that out with rail down the middle of the road instead? That doesn't seem like the best planning ever.


There's a general concensus that Surrey's transit system will be LRT, I don't think it's really up for debate anymore.

It's open season until until shovels are in the ground. The Evergreen Extension was supposed to be LRT too.

[Blease]

Surrey's current mayor as well as all parties who ran for the mayor's office in the last election supported LRT. Asides one particular citizens coalition that makes it into the press from time to time, there's no one pushing for skytrain in Surrey. The City of Surrey has preliminary plans for LRT in place and it looks like this train has left the station.

[Shift]

So there's no "rumour" thread for Surrey, so I'll post this here.

It's gotta be just a pie in the sky concept, but worth posting:

https://www.jka.cc/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Surrey-Signature-Iconic-Tower-4-1.jpg
https://www.jka.cc/projects/mixed-use-high-rise/surrey-signature/?portfolioCats=8
:

Yeah I really don't see this happening in this form anyway.

It doesn't go with the City Centre Plan, and the placement of the tallest, signature tower towards the back of the site adjacent to Single Family doesn't make sense either.

That corner of 108/King George is designated for High-Rise, but it's more likely to see the tallest tower brought closer to that intersection.

Surrey wants to concentrate the tallest towers in the City Centre directly around SkyTrain Station nodes however. Not sure of the radius of these nodes but 108/KGB could qualify for Gateway.

Tien Sher has their 41, 35, 30, and 28 storey towers proposed across the street. They are also proposing a similar concept of retail/plaza space at the base.

This JKA concept looks kinda tacky really, and wouldn't be visible from the Freeway as they claim (unless they mean the Coquitlam side).

[cornholio]

There's a general concensus that Surrey's transit system will be LRT, I don't think it's really up for debate anymore.

There certainly is no consensus. Anywhere. Though you certainly wish there was for what ever reason. There has not even been a business case released yet. I am also of the opinion that politicians/officials that try to fabricate business case's, or try to start a project before a business case is completed and audited because it would kill the project, should end up sitting a few years in prison. I certainly hope they are not trying to fudge the business case right now so as to force this multi billion dollar waste of tax payer money project through, for a bit of meaningless political gain.

[officedweller]

According to google maps it's only a 5 min walk from Gateway Station over to King George Blvd, which is still the main drag. It's not unreasonable to expect taller buildings and some non-residential in that location. Also it's marked as striped red - mid to high rise, mixed use.

The tallest signature tower is actually on the orange zoning across from the red.

[Shift]

Tien Sher has submitted an application for a new 5-storey residential project, similar to Quatro, and across the street from this "Signature Tower" site.

Adds to their growing presence in the area.

https://urbansurrey.com/2017/04/04/tien-sher-submits-application-for-new-5-storey-development/

https://urbansurrey.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/whwdncj.jpg?w=863

https://urbansurrey.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/sbkjqlw.jpg?w=863

https://urbansurrey.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/yhqqbxv.jpg?w=863

[Sheba]

The tallest signature tower is actually on the orange zoning across from the red.

It would make more sense if they flipped it so the tallest buildings are closest to King George. Let's see if this turns out to be anything more than a fantasy plan.

[EhJay]

Tien Sher has submitted an application for a new 5-storey residential project, similar to Quatro, and across the street from this "Signature Tower" site.

Adds to their growing presence in the area.



Just saw this and pretty excited. Hopefully they break ground and get going on it quickly!

[flipper316]

I am sooo waiting for the business case announcement. Maybe if the LRT plan is scuppered then it'll go ahead as Phase 1 of the Langley Skytrain extension instead (it's not as if there's been no planning on that). Honestly there's more need for that and King George can stay as a B Line for the time being.

They did work on King George not that long ago to help out the B Line, and now they want to cancel that out with rail down the middle of the road instead? That doesn't seem like the best planning ever.




It's open season until until shovels are in the ground. The Evergreen Extension was supposed to be LRT too.

They're remodelling Surrey Central Skytrain station as well for like 25 million. I mentioned in another thread how that doesn't make sense either when they haven't decided on LRT yet and how that would configure with Surrey Central.

[iron]

The Surrey Central station renovation is basically prep work for the bus loop rearrangement, and to catch all the people currently using the fire escape. The renovation drawings sketch out the LRT station taking over the section of City Parkway right beside the station. No idea how long it will take for the bus loop plan to be implemented after the station upgrade is done. I'm guessing it can't happen until the rec centre is removed.

There was a PDF that went by to lay down the district energy pipes through from 3 Civic Plaza to the opposite side of City Parkway, just to get that taken care of ahead of future LRT construction on top. I saw they're putting the pipes in now.

[Shift]

The Surrey Central station renovation is basically prep work for the bus loop rearrangement, and to catch all the people currently using the fire escape. The renovation drawings sketch out the LRT station taking over the section of City Parkway right beside the station. No idea how long it will take for the bus loop plan to be implemented after the station upgrade is done. I'm guessing it can't happen until the rec centre is removed.

There was a PDF that went by to lay down the district energy pipes through from 3 Civic Plaza to the opposite side of City Parkway, just to get that taken care of ahead of future LRT construction on top. I saw they're putting the pipes in now.

I believe they will move forward with the demolition of the current rec centre once the new ice rinks by Scott Rd Station are complete in 2019. So 2019-2020 will likely be when the bus loop is removed and reconfigured and the rest of the block between Civic Plaza and Central City parceled off for re-development.

District Energy pipes are being laid down right now along future 103 Avenue (to be renamed Central Ave). The plan is to extend/widen 103 Ave from City Parkway to KGB within the next 1-3 years.

Once this is done, and the LRT Station is built at Surrey Central, City Parkway will become pedestrian only between 102 and 103 Ave.

[officedweller]

It would make more sense if they flipped it so the tallest buildings are closest to King George. Let's see if this turns out to be anything more than a fantasy plan.

Yeah, it would if it's office space - closer to the station - but then as a "signature" tower it would get buried among the other towers - although it would make a nice "gateway" tower along King George.

[Shift]

Signature tower makes more sense right at the corner of 108th and King George. Historic heart of Surrey (Whalley's Corner), and next to the future plaza on this corner (see teal blue on map below).

Tien Sher's signature 41-storey tower will be on the south-east corner next to the plaza.

Looking at the City Centre Plan, the City wants to extend Whalley Blvd through the site, and widen Binnie Lane to a full road standard, breaking the site into 2 sections. JKA's concept doesn't match this plan. They could apply to amend this though, as the block created south of Binnie lane looks very narrow.

On the second map the pink colour indicates that much of the site is City owned land.



http://i.imgur.com/aNOXZwc.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/4LmWXf5.jpg

https://www.jka.cc/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Surrey-Signature-Iconic-Tower-4-1.jpg

[GMasterAres]

Surrey's current mayor as well as all parties who ran for the mayor's office in the last election supported LRT. Asides one particular citizens coalition that makes it into the press from time to time, there's no one pushing for skytrain in Surrey. The City of Surrey has preliminary plans for LRT in place and it looks like this train has left the station.

Maybe the L-Line but the extension down Fraser Highway will almost certainly be SkyTrain. But I agree until shovels hit the ground it is not always for sure, and there is a municipal election next year so by the time we get all the funding in place, the current council and Mayor in Surrey could be gone.

Likely not, but could be.

[GMasterAres]

I'm also curious with respect to them calling it a signature tower. It is a good point about it being lost since it also seems to mention 400 ft. That would make it actually quite short. Then again Coast Capital is a signature building and not terribly tall I guess. The Tien Sher 41 storey tower would likely be taller. That may be why they are looking to stand it away from King George and 108th.

We also have to keep in mind that area plans are just that, plans. They are subject to change and evolution. Surrey has had multiple plans for Surrey Central over the decades and I'm fairly certain how Surrey Central has _actually_ developed hasn't matched any of the plans.

They're suggestions. But I do agree it would be odd to have a "signature" high rise directly across the street from flat single family houses especially in that area where there are virtually no sidewalks an the houses are small and on the older scale.

We shall see what happens.

[Shift]

^There have been 2 City Centre Plans. The first from 1991-2016. And the current that was adopted in January 2017 (but in the works since 2006).

I wouldn't say development hasn't matched the plans. There was just a lack of demand for development during the first plan, so it did not come to fruition. The development that did happen generally matched the plan, there just wasn't much of it.

Now that there is demand and momentum building, the plan is starting to be built out more as envisioned. Amendments will be applied for here and there, but generally all proposals under application right now are following the plan.

[EhJay]

I think jhausner was referring to the mall, but I could be wrong.

It also looks like it may have just been an architect putting their plans out there to build their resume as opposed to being something that was agreed on.

[Shift]

I think jhausner was referring to the mall, but I could be wrong.

It also looks like it may have just been an architect putting their plans out there to build their resume as opposed to being something that was agreed on.

Those plans look like a crude sketch-up model that could be thrown together in an hour and overlaid into google earth. Not really portfolio material.

Must have been hired to undertake some form of study. Would be odd for them to be posting that on their website otherwise.

[s211]

https://www.jka.cc/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Surrey-Signature-Iconic-Tower-4-1.jpg

Considering what a flop and no-mans'-land the Gateway area is, I find this proposal to be pretty much pie-in-the-sky. It has to be the least desirable site in the broader core area.

[Calgarian]

You guys should post that signature tower in teh Canadian Proposals thread, it's pretty nice looking. What are the odds of it getting built, 4/10?

[LeftCoaster]

You missed the negative sign.

-4/10

If it were built to that spec it would be one of if not the most expensive towers ever built in Canada. The what looks to be curved curtain wall adhered to a steel exoskeleton on non-repeating floor plates... in the middle of nowhere surrey?

Very attractive design though.

[Shift]

Considering what a flop and no-mans'-land the Gateway area is, I find this proposal to be pretty much pie-in-the-sky. It has to be the least desirable site in the broader core area.

Hardly least desirable. That site is a prime location for a significant project, hence why the city has bought up the land there. It directly fronts the future plaza at 108th & King George, and will have very high visibility at the bend of King George.

This is clearly a very preliminary concept at this stage, but I would expect something significant to go here eventually. Probably nothing like what is depicted though.

The area is run down now, but with the Tien Sher projects in the works, and Bosa's stuff at Gateway, the area is on course for change.

http://i.imgur.com/aNOXZwc.jpg

https://urbansurrey.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/whwdncj.jpg?w=863

[Shift]

in the middle of nowhere surrey?

Very attractive design though.

Maybe middle of nowhere looking backwards, but looking forward, this will be one of the main nodes of Surrey City Centre.

This is already under application across the street:

https://urbansurrey.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/vmxtjkm.jpg?w=863

[LeftCoaster]

Maybe middle of nowhere looking backwards, but looking forward, this will be one of the main nodes of Surrey City Centre.

This is already under application across the street:

https://urbansurrey.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/vmxtjkm.jpg?w=863

I'm aware of what's being planned for that area. The issue is a matter of what they are proposing. If they were proposing the condo towers, sure that's a no brainer, but that signature tower is far too expensive and extravagant for the far edge of a secondary node in a suburban town centre. No way anyone pays the rent/sales figures needed to make that economic.

[Blease]

Provincial Government commits funds for Surrey City Centre YMCA.

http://www.peacearchnews.com/news/418684293.html

[EhJay]

Provincial Government commits funds for Surrey City Centre YMCA.

http://www.peacearchnews.com/news/418684293.html

That's exciting.

It is expected the new Surrey facility will be 60,000 square feet, have an aquatics centre with two pools, a fitness centre, a gym, multipurpose rooms and a family development centre.
I wonder where they are planning to put this.

[Blease]

Ideally speaking the Safeway property would work really well for the YMCA. The store would have to come down but that is quite okay.

[iron]

What's the plan with the Sears Outlet on 104? Didn't it shut down awhile ago?

[CoryHolmes]

What's the plan with the Sears Outlet on 104? Didn't it shut down awhile ago?

That's owned by the same group that build University District. It's a part of the UD development, actually.

[Shift]

I'm aware of what's being planned for that area. The issue is a matter of what they are proposing. If they were proposing the condo towers, sure that's a no brainer, but that signature tower is far too expensive and extravagant for the far edge of a secondary node in a suburban town centre. No way anyone pays the rent/sales figures needed to make that economic.

For sure, I never said that tower would be built. I don't see that proposal happening at all as depicted.

Site could likely have a signature tower of some sort on it though, just a different design / materials. Civic Plaza is signature, more traditional construction methods, materials.

[Shift]

From Adessa Visuals instagram

Early rendering of the proposed Anthem Properties Surrey City Centre development:

http://i.imgur.com/VptiUvJ.jpg

Site for reference:

http://i.imgur.com/PjFFnSz.jpg?1

http://i.imgur.com/6GQbcQQ.jpg?1

http://i.imgur.com/7aKjHJh.png

[EhJay]

That puts things nicely into context a bit better. Nothing "wow" about the buildings in the early renders, but I'm sure that's bound to change.

[flipper316]

that mcdonalds on kgb and 102 needs to go. nothing but junkies hanging out there.

[Blease]

that mcdonalds on kgb and 102 needs to go. nothing but junkies hanging out there.

Be careful what you say or the bleeding heart brigade will be out here beating you over the head for being mean to the junkies. People who urinate in public places and dispose of used needles in public places have their rights too I guess!!?? 😖😖

[EhJay]

that mcdonalds on kgb and 102 needs to go. nothing but junkies hanging out there.

Agreed that cleaning up the neighbourhood is highly needed, but how is getting rid of a mcdonalds going to do that? Leave it as another empty lot? Do you think they'll go somewhere else?

[GMasterAres]

Ideally speaking the Safeway property would work really well for the YMCA. The store would have to come down but that is quite okay.

I believe the YMCA will be placed where the North Surrey Rec Center currently exists aka it will be demolished and the YMCA would replace it OR it will be build beside on the land where the parking lot/bus loop currently stands and then when complete the North Surrey rec centre will be demolished. Either way it will very much likely be in the square with 3 Civic, City Hall, and the Library.

[flipper316]

Agreed that cleaning up the neighbourhood is highly needed, but how is getting rid of a mcdonalds going to do that? Leave it as another empty lot? Do you think they'll go somewhere else?
Well that lot and the Chevron could get redeveloped when Anthem starts building out that whole block.

[Shift]

Recent photo of Surrey City Centre from Paul Hillsdon's instagram:

http://i.imgur.com/Z4BOXTQ.jpg

https://www.instagram.com/paulhillsdon/

[EhJay]

That almost doesn't look real, Shift

Well that lot and the Chevron could get redeveloped when Anthem starts building out that whole block.

True!

[GMasterAres]

Developers planning a 50 storey building in Surrey City Centre. Building to be an education centre for international students.

http://webpapersadmin.bpnewmedia.com/portals/uploads/surreynow/.DIR288/10240CP50-Storeys.jpg


If anyone was curious, this building (where the Stardust used to be) has shown up again this time in the form of a Development Application:

https://apps.surrey.ca/Online-Development-Inquiry/?year=17&seq=0159

So they are evidently proceeding. Nothing additional other than:

Development Permit, OCP & NCP Amendment, Rezoning from C-8 to CD, to construct a new 50 level mixed use building (consisting of commercial, college, dorm and hotel).

[flipper316]

Recent photo of Surrey City Centre from Paul Hillsdon's instagram:

http://i.imgur.com/Z4BOXTQ.jpg

https://www.instagram.com/paulhillsdon/

Green Timbers looking like a shell of its former self. What a shame.

[clee7903]

From the air, downtown Surrey still looks pretty sparse. Still someways to go before it'll dense up. 3 Civic plaza adds a good contrast with its height.

[Shift]

From the air, downtown Surrey still looks pretty sparse. Still someways to go before it'll dense up. 3 Civic plaza adds a good contrast with its height.

It's quite a large area really, with the 3 nodes (Gateway, Surrey Central, King George) separated from each other. If all of it was clustered it would appear denser.

Over the next 10 years those nodes will each grow quite a bit.

By 2040 it will be a pretty substantial downtown with areas between the nodes filling in.

[clee7903]

It's quite a large area really, with the 3 nodes (Gateway, Surrey Central, King George) separated from each other. If all of it was clustered it would appear denser.

Over the next 10 years those nodes will each grow quite a bit.

By 2040 it will be a pretty substantial downtown with areas between the nodes filling in.

I agree! It is a huge area and with so many projects, both planned and under construction now, the changes will be very apparent compared to the previous 2 decades past.

[officedweller]

Surrey Museum expansion:

The $10.3-million expansion project will add 12,000 square feet of space to the existing city-owned facility, which is 24,000 square feet in size and was built in 2005.

Construction will begin in June, and the completion is targeted for September 2018, museum manager Lynn Saffery told the Now on Friday.
...

http://www.surreynowleader.com/news/photos-new-look-name-and-logo-for-expanded-surrey-museum/


http://webpapersadmin.bpnewmedia.com/portals/uploads/surreynow/.DIR288/Museumexpansionexteriorstreetview.jpg

http://www.surreynowleader.com/news/photos-new-look-name-and-logo-for-expanded-surrey-museum/
Street view of the expansion.
http://webpapersadmin.bpnewmedia.com/portals/uploads/surreynow/.DIR288/Museumexpansionexteriorparkinglotview.jpg
View of expanded museum from the parking lot. http://www.surreynowleader.com/news/photos-new-look-name-and-logo-for-expanded-surrey-museum/

[EhJay]

The widening of 100th Ave is coming along well. They've installed the lights on 140th for two lanes each way and have started laying the curb and the pillars for the light standards on the south side of the road.

[Shift]

^Nice. Surprised it will take a full year to complete though. Seems like you should be able to widen/pave a road between now and fall.

[Urbanmetro]

It's the city's fault. Contactors take on as much work as possible, bidding on everything and then divide up the work so completion is over a longer period of time. May have to do with the LRT ... Gives city officials more room to play their game ������

[EhJay]

Speaking of LRT:
TransLink’s CEO had good news and bad news for Vancouver city council on May 2.

If all goes to plan, TransLink plans to break ground on Vancouver’s Broadway Corridor subway expansion and the first part of Surrey’s light rail line in fall of 2019

Link (http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2017/05/02/referendum-threat-hangs-over-metro-vancouver-transit-plans-.html)

Which goes against what Mayor Hepner said about shovels in the ground 2018

[officedweller]

From Lark twitter:

Bill Reid Memorial Shelter, Cloverdale.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-114CEXkAAC8UQ.jpg
https://twitter.com/larkgroup1

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-114CuXgAQIoah.jpg
https://twitter.com/larkgroup1

[Shift]

WestStone's transit-oriented development next to Scott Rd Station going to Council tonight for 1st/2nd reading. Site is across the street from where the new North Surrey Rec Centre / Ice Rinks will be.

Details:

Four buildings (6 storeys each)
Ground level retail with rental apartments above
514 units total


http://i.imgur.com/ELgEW1c.jpg?1

http://i.imgur.com/xjfBWkn.jpg?1

http://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/PLR_7916-0685-00.pdf

[clee7903]

Nice! It'll be a nice fill in gap for that area as well as creating new residential area as there are currently none there.

[Galaxy]

It would be nice to see the area of the park and ride eventually be redeveloped to have the parking but also have other uses like that development. The areas pretty dead when all the cars that park there are gone so making better use of the station and space would be awesome.

[Shift]

The South Westminster Plan for that area calls for that. The WestStone development and the Ice Rinks/Rec Centre should help kick-start the build-out of that plan.

The entire Scott Rd parking lot is designated as 'Transit Oriented Urban Village'. The plan is quite old now though, completed back in 2003. Has seen virtually no development activity according to it since being adopted.

[flipper316]

WestStone's transit-oriented development next to Scott Rd Station going to Council tonight for 1st/2nd reading. Site is across the street from where the new North Surrey Rec Centre / Ice Rinks will be.

Details:

Four buildings (6 storeys each)
Ground level retail with rental apartments above
514 units total


http://i.imgur.com/ELgEW1c.jpg?1

http://i.imgur.com/xjfBWkn.jpg?1

http://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/PLR_7916-0685-00.pdf

Who in their right mind would want to live in that area.

[clee7903]

It's not an appealing place to live now for sure but it's a good investment opportunity...as I don't imagine it'll be to expensive to buy initially. Once the area builds up and when it's becomes more livable (more developments, more commercials, nicer landscaping), chances are others will take a second look. If you get in early, you could* potentially make a profit. Don't forget transit is there and there aren't that many locales with direct access to transit. With prices everywhere so high, unless the person is loaded, this is a good place to start getting into the market.

[Pinion]

How much of that industrial area in northwest Surrey has been rezoned for residential? In many municipalities they're trying to stop doing that.

[Shift]

Who in their right mind would want to live in that area.

A rental property with SkyTrain at your doorstep? Downtown New West or Surrey City Centre 5 mins away by train? A lot of people would. It's not like youre venturing out into the junk-yard sprawl. There will be retail and amenity space in the complex itself, with the train steps away for everything else.

[officedweller]

There'll be a main street plus retention of industrial to the southwest.

South Westminster Neighbourhood Plan
(December 2003):

http://www.surrey.ca/city-services/6059.aspx

http://i.imgur.com/0P1N2gi.jpg
http://surrey.ca/files/SouthWestminster110704.pdf

[Shift]

How much of that industrial area in northwest Surrey has been rezoned for residential? In many municipalities they're trying to stop doing that.

Surrey designates future land-use through the OCP. Much of South Westminster is Industrial, Mixed-Employment, Commercial. Within the Commercial lands is where Surrey is allowing Mixed-Use Residential.

The Subject site is currently designated Mixed-Employment, but they are applying for an OCP amendment.

http://i.imgur.com/2WrgDX1.jpg

http://www.surrey.ca/files/05_Land_Uses_and_Densities_BK2.pdf

[officedweller]

From Bob Ransford's twitter:

Northgate - strata office building in Tsawwassen.

http://www.northgate-delta.ca/

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_ljfaHUwAAZk9E.jpg
Own an office at the new Northgate, located on 56th St at the entrance to idyllic Tsawwassen. 30 mins from downtown. 7 mins from the ferry.
https://twitter.com/BobRansford

[CanSpice]

From Bob Ransford's twitter:

Northgate - strata office building in Tsawwassen.

Honestly, they shouldn't be allowed to call it Northgate, given there's already a Northgate in Burnaby, and it's not in a location anybody would consider north! It's in south Delta!

[Shift]

"30 mins to Downtown"

Bit of a stretch.. More of a solid 45

[Shift]

Surrey's 10-year Economic Strategy launched at the 2017 State of the City Address:

https://investsurrey.ca/

PDF's available on the website

http://i.imgur.com/nLsCFJF.jpg?1

[EhJay]

Surrey's 10-year Economic Strategy launched at the 2017 State of the City Address:

https://investsurrey.ca/

PDF's available on the website



That video was pretty cool and catchy. Hopefully they can keep the ball rolling. October 2017 though for the new website. COME ON!!!

[Shift]

^Given the number of development applications already in process (including 40+ towers), affordability compared to North of the Fraser, shifting market towards condos, and Surrey leading in population growth, the ball will roll itself.

[red-paladin]

Possible Great Wolf Lodge for South Surrey:
http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/great-wolf-lodge-water-park-surrey

[djmk]

Possible Great Wolf Lodge for South Surrey:
http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/great-wolf-lodge-water-park-surrey

Will Seattle tourists drive a little less than two hours south to Great Wolf Lodge or drive about two hours north to Great Wolf Lodge.

[SFUVancouver]

Possible Great Wolf Lodge for South Surrey:
http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/great-wolf-lodge-water-park-surrey

That is a great addition to the South of the Fraser part of the region. I thought that, if anywhere, it would be built at the Tsawwassen Commons/Mills.

[Shift]

^I could see the Great Wolf Lodge being built on the Semiahmoo First Nations land right next to the border / White Rock on the waterfront. The band has been wanting to do something with that land for a while, and I believe this could be it.

[flipper316]

RIP Pacific Inn Resort and Conference Centre. Unless they offer rooms at like 50$ a night it'll be the nail in the coffin.