Surrey City Centre Redevelopment Plans

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by sryboy

I would love to see the comments about Yaletown and Kits from 20 years ago! lol I bet they prob sounded the same as these do about Surrey Central.

Yaletown popped up so fast that there was no time to doubt its viability. It is/was a great location.

Kits was a great neighbourhood as far back as I can remember (mid 80s).

Surrey seems closer than it did decades ago but it's still on the edge of town. I wouldn't expect dramatic lifestyle/prestige changes anytime soon.

[mosup]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Woodwards?

But clearly you can't sell anything in a sketchy part of town. And besides, this proposal gets rid of a large focal point of that area being sketchy, the Flamingo. With the Dell closed down and teh Flamingo demolished with this proposal, the sketchy factor will reduce even more.

If I were an investor, I'd like to see the Flamingo demolished first and detailed plans of the community (ie: Bosa proposal for University Dr) prior to putting any money down on this property. The proposal just seems like a lot of smoke and mirrors, all talk and no action, which is common for 'developers' in the Whalley area. There are well over 40 proposed developments in the City Centre plan, about 50% of which are ON HOLD.


http://www.surrey.ca/files/Current_M...15_2012(1).pdf

Originally Posted by jhausner

As for Quatro 3, you will recall they had a massive fire that set back the overall project considerably. Most people invested pulled out and it takes time to start getting that interest back. I am however skeptical of any project until it breaks ground including this one.

I'd have to agree, I am extremely skeptical of any project until it breaks ground, even then there are chances of it failing and being saved by a bigger company with more money, for example the Infinity project. A lot of ups and downs in the Whalley area, at this point in time its mostly downs. Things _may _ change when all government funded projects are completed (ie City Hall, Hospital, and RCMP building).

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Yaletown popped up so fast that there was no time to doubt its viability. It is/was a great location.

Kits was a great neighbourhood as far back as I can remember (mid 80s).

Surrey seems closer than it did decades ago but it's still on the edge of town. I wouldn't expect dramatic lifestyle/prestige changes anytime soon.

i remember the early 90's people thought yaletown was gross and wondered why people would want to live there, it didn't pop up that fast, it wasn't until the early 2000's that it was liveable like it is today

it had hookers, pool halls, sketchy buildings, massage parlours, nightclubs etc. and he parks and seawall were hard to reach or not completed - we used to laugh that condos were $150,000 thinking people were crazy to pay that much - lol - if we only knew back than they would be worth upteenth times as much now

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by mosup

If I were an investor, I'd like to see the Flamingo demolished first and detailed plans of the community (ie: Bosa proposal for University Dr) prior to putting any money down on this property. The proposal just seems like a lot of smoke and mirrors, all talk and no action, which is common for 'developers' in the Whalley area. There are well over 40 proposed developments in the City Centre plan, about 50% of which are ON HOLD.


http://www.surrey.ca/files/Current_M...15_2012(1).pdf



I'd have to agree, I am extremely skeptical of any project until it breaks ground, even then there are chances of it failing and being saved by a bigger company with more money, for example the Infinity project. A lot of ups and downs in the Whalley area, at this point in time its mostly downs. Things _may _ change when all government funded projects are completed (ie City Hall, Hospital, and RCMP building).

I only am skeptical of major super tower projects now.
I see no reason for this one not to go through as it first proposal is two smaller towers at 28 and 30 stories only.

yes surrey has a few downs and slow downs but same can be said with a few towers in Vancouver...like the ritz....or we can even look at burnaby with its metrotower 3. We hit a down and Surrey had alot of big proposal before that.

I'm not even gonna get into government things like city hall and rcmp e division.
But if we look lately at surrey we can private owned big projects are starting to get done again with both park place and ultra getting done. quattro 3 is almost finish too. Guildford mall is looking more and more awesome every day. Even the office tower by the hospital has the crane up.

Personally I think things are taking a turn for the good in Surrey right now and providing nothing big and unseen screws everything up again it should hopefully stay on track for a while.

[jhausner]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Yaletown popped up so fast that there was no time to doubt its viability. It is/was a great location.

Kits was a great neighbourhood as far back as I can remember (mid 80s).

Surrey seems closer than it did decades ago but it's still on the edge of town. I wouldn't expect dramatic lifestyle/prestige changes anytime soon.

I don't get the "edge of town" comment. Surrey central is actually regionally and population wise pretty much dead center. New West and Central Surrey are as central as you can get. It takes as long from Metrotown via SkyTrain to get to Surrey Central as it does downtown Vancouver. And for the rest of the region out all the way to Abbotsford, it is faster to get to Surrey Central.

Downtown Vancouver is in the top corner of the region.

[jhausner]

Originally Posted by mosup

If I were an investor, I'd like to see the Flamingo demolished first and detailed plans of the community (ie: Bosa proposal for University Dr) prior to putting any money down on this property. The proposal just seems like a lot of smoke and mirrors, all talk and no action, which is common for 'developers' in the Whalley area. There are well over 40 proposed developments in the City Centre plan, about 50% of which are ON HOLD.

The bosa plans are already up on this site and in the city records. They've listed their phase 1 and on civicsurrey.com you can find the overall look of the plan for that. As for taking down the flamingo first, unfortunately this project is 2 phased. The second phase is the part with the flamingo. I would lean your direction that I'd like them to just take it down first and leave it empty when they start on phase 1 but I have my doubts.

Smoke and mirrors though, not sure I agree. You're looking at it a little off and I'll tell you why. Firstly that link you provided showing a lot of on hold projects, you can't just look at that. There is a large commercial office project that is on hold and makes sense given Metrotown's 3rd commercial tower was on hold for years before they continued construction on it. The other projects are all back from the day of the original gateway proposal for that area. I think they should just be put down as cancelled not on hold.

Finally, this is the developer of quatro. They're one of the only companies that has actually built there. They've already built a lot so to suddenly think they won't build something they propose is a stretch imo. I think it is a bit less than smoke and mirrors.

I'd have to agree, I am extremely skeptical of any project until it breaks ground, even then there are chances of it failing and being saved by a bigger company with more money, for example the Infinity project. A lot of ups and downs in the Whalley area, at this point in time its mostly downs. Things _may _ change when all government funded projects are completed (ie City Hall, Hospital, and RCMP building).

Not sure if it is as down as you think. There has been a huge amount of construction in the Whalley area. A lot more than many areas regionally. They haven't all been towers (only really City Pointe recently) but there's been 8+ 4-5 storey condo buildings constructed easy and there are more under construction. That's people, that's new developments, etc.

I think you're correct though on saying it is mostly downs from the perspective of high rise towers.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by jhausner

I don't get the "edge of town" comment. Surrey central is actually regionally and population wise pretty much dead center. New West and Central Surrey are as central as you can get. It takes as long from Metrotown via SkyTrain to get to Surrey Central as it does downtown Vancouver. And for the rest of the region out all the way to Abbotsford, it is faster to get to Surrey Central.

Downtown Vancouver is in the top corner of the region.

Central Surrey/Whalley may be the geographical centre of the region, but it is definitely not the population centre. If the SOF had a density similar to NOF, then Central Surrey could be considered the population centre. When you consider the financial, cultural, medical, entertainment and employment attributes of the region, the metropolitan core anchors the region as the hub of activities. That's why a significant part of the regional population is anchored a convenient commute away from the metropolitan core (probably also explains why 'downtown' Surrey is the northwest corner of the city). Generally, the further away from the metro core, there is less density and less intense use of land (minus the occasional town centres scattered across the region). That's why Central Surrey doesn't feels very central, especially when you have sprawling subdivisions and agricultural lands within close proximity.

Btw, Lions bay is in the top corner of the region.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by squeezied

Central Surrey/Whalley may be the geographical centre of the region, but it is definitely not the population centre. If the SOF had a density similar to NOF, then Central Surrey could be considered the population centre. When you consider the financial, cultural, medical, entertainment and employment attributes of the region, the metropolitan core anchors the region as the hub of activities. That's why a significant part of the regional population is anchored a convenient commute away from the metropolitan core (probably also explains why 'downtown' Surrey is the northwest corner of the city). Generally, the further away from the metro core, there is less density and less intense use of land (minus the occasional town centres scattered across the region). That's why Central Surrey doesn't feels very central, especially when you have sprawling subdivisions and agricultural lands within close proximity.

Btw, Lions bay is in the top corner of the region.

Well said. Especially the last line.

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by squeezied

Central Surrey/Whalley may be the geographical centre of the region, but it is definitely not the population centre. If the SOF had a density similar to NOF, then Central Surrey could be considered the population centre. When you consider the financial, cultural, medical, entertainment and employment attributes of the region, the metropolitan core anchors the region as the hub of activities. That's why a significant part of the regional population is anchored a convenient commute away from the metropolitan core (probably also explains why 'downtown' Surrey is the northwest corner of the city). Generally, the further away from the metro core, there is less density and less intense use of land (minus the occasional town centres scattered across the region). That's why Central Surrey doesn't feels very central, especially when you have sprawling subdivisions and agricultural lands within close proximity.

Btw, Lions bay is in the top corner of the region.

Yes true most of the population is right now in those certain areas. But its not where most of our future growth is coming from anymore. Also yes SoF may have town centre spread out with vase areas of green space and farm land but this is the way of smart thinking. Something cities like Vancouver did not do cause they could not see the need for farmland and green spaces back in the day when growing.

But its also worth noting while making these town centre node growth areas we create opportunity to build much more dense community with townhouse and small appartments in smaller places across the whole city in stead of filling up with house like Vancouver has. Which also gives use more green space and the ability to save farm land

[squeezied]

Smart thinking? Please, you might as well call every sprawling auto-oriented suburb on the fringe of gobbling up farmlands as 'smart thinking'. For the record Vancouver has plenty of green space. You are however right in that Vancouver does not see a need for farmlands; where's the economic logic in having farmlands in prime real estate? There are farmlands in the Fraser Valley and that's sufficient for our region.

It's also worth noting that even with the town centres in Surrey, Surrey is filled (and is still filling) with single-family detached houses on winding roads and cul-de-sacs. You know, the type of development that tends to remain single-family and does not redevelop into higher density unlike the grid network in Vancouver which readily sees redevelopment of higher intensity and mixed-use developments.

Speaking of mixed-use developments, that's why there doesn't need to be multiple town centres in Vancouver because retail, commercial, community facilities, and higher density housing is already integrated throughout much of the whole city. In Surrey things are more separated; you have large swaths of low density housing so there better be some form of retail, commercial, and community facilities to anchor in the neighbourhood. It's just a different form of development and planning; I wouldn't credit that as a way of saving green space and farm lands.

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by squeezied

Smart thinking? Please, you might as well call every sprawling auto-oriented suburb on the fringe of gobbling up farmlands as 'smart thinking'. For the record Vancouver has plenty of green space. You are however right in that Vancouver does not see a need for farmlands; where's the economic logic in having farmlands in prime real estate? There are farmlands in the Fraser Valley and that's sufficient for our region.

It's also worth noting that even with the town centres in Surrey, Surrey is filled (and is still filling) with single-family detached houses on winding roads and cul-de-sacs. You know, the type of development that tends to remain single-family and does not redevelop into higher density unlike the grid network in Vancouver which readily sees redevelopment of higher intensity and mixed-use developments.

Speaking of mixed-use developments, that's why there doesn't need to be multiple town centres in Vancouver because retail, commercial, community facilities, and higher density housing is already integrated throughout much of the whole city. In Surrey things are more separated; you have large swaths of low density housing so there better be some form of retail, commercial, and community facilities to anchor in the neighbourhood. It's just a different form of development and planning; I wouldn't credit that as a way of saving green space and farm lands.

You know back in the day Vancouver and other cities NoF use have a lot of farm space to that it spread out if you look they pretty much left none of it. Now Surrey and other SoF cities well pushing out into area toward farm land yes. But hey all other Cities NoF were no better back in the day. Except now there is ALR in place. Although its worth noting surrey had plans to save farm land way before the ALR was put in place.
As for green spaces you Lets compare big massive green parks between Vancouver and Surrey. Please tell me all the big green spaces you have around Vancouver that can compare to the amount in surrey
In just north Surrey alone: Green timbers, Bear creek, Tynhead, Surrey Bend(this alone pretty much is equal to stanley park), Hawthorn, Then on top of those green space we have are green veins that run all around the city to keep the green areas connected

Yes surrey is having cul-de-sac/winding road single detached development. But these are in areas where they do not want to see High development or lot of through traffic areas. Its called traffic calming. It allows cities to have nice quite neighbor hoods and not have to deal with high volumes of traffic.
Plus it pushes high density towards areas where the city wants it to be.

[squeezied]

First of all, try to use better grammar. It can be difficult trying to follow what you're saying. I'm not asking perfect grammar (it's the internet after all), just better grammar.

Second, you are way too defensive of Surrey and you're bringing the conversation off to a tangent so it's pointless addressing your points.

Third,

Plus it [sprawl] pushes high density towards areas where the city wants it to be.

Please......

[SFUVancouver]

SFU wants to expand, build in City Centre

By Christopher Poon, Now Staff October 31, 2012

With student demand now greater than ever, Simon Fraser University is looking to double the capacity of its Surrey facility, from 2,500 full-time students to 5,000 - hopefully starting within the next three years.

That's according to a proposal submitted by SFU to the provincial government earlier this month, looking not only for approval of the plan but funding for the project as well.

"SFU is the only research university that is trying to substantially grow its undergraduate population and that stems from our location in Surrey and the growth in Surrey and other south Fraser cities," said Joanne Curry, SFU executive director and associate VP of external relations for SFU Surrey.

According to Curry, SFU Surrey is at its max capacity, serving roughly 7,000 part-time and full-time students. The increase in demand has led to SFU Surrey offering courses on weekends and in the evening, but with all those avenues now exhausted, the only other option left is to expand. That expansion would essentially mean building additional infrastructure in the area, something Curry said SFU is prepared to do.

"So the ministry (of education) has given us funding and we have purchased or optioned land around our current location in Central City," she said. "So the intention is to develop further buildings and make it more of a multi-building campus."

The land it would use to build upon, said Curry, would be two corner lots on the west side of 102nd Avenue and University Drive.

Curry said SFU also has an option on the parking lot and bus loop in front of the North Surrey Indoor Pool.

Read more: http://www.thenownewspaper.com/news/...#ixzz2BO1Ean1j

This is a very positive piece of news. While it may take until the end of the decade to see the idea through to completion, the fact that crucial piece of land has been optioned by SFU is tremendous for downtown Surrey.

[CoryHolmes]

That's close to where they were going to build their towers of student residences. Whatever happened to that project?

[vansky]

langley, white rock and surrey "mainland" r combining to become one gigantic suburb, there is considerable future in projects like the berazan, if the economy could handle it...

why not build a gigantic casino - edgewater surrey, and an ice rink in this area...

[David]

Originally Posted by CoryHolmes

That's close to where they were going to build their towers of student residences. Whatever happened to that project?

It could be what they are planning on building there still, no?

[CoryHolmes]

Originally Posted by David

It could be what they are planning on building there still, no?

The article specifically references infrastructure, which would be classrooms, lecture halls, etc. Student housing towers wouldn't support any more full-time students in the order that they're looking to increase.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by CoryHolmes

The article specifically references infrastructure, which would be classrooms, lecture halls, etc. Student housing towers wouldn't support any more full-time students in the order that they're looking to increase.

They could build studen housing towers with classrooms in the podiums. 5 stories of classrooms and 20 stories of student accommodation above, for example.

[jhausner]

They are already working with the city on a proposal for residences and a lecture hall.

http://surreycitydevelopment.com/pro...ecture-theatre

Not sure how fresh this is (been on the site for a while) and I'm sure it will change, but it isn't entirely off the table yet. Though lecture hall isn't the same as classrooms so I think this article is discussing something different, full infrastructure expansion for the Uni which is a great thing.

[officedweller]

Thanks - I could see them expanding the podium to provide more classroom or lecture space versus what is shown in this pic:

Simon Fraser University – Student Residences/Lecture Theatre
This is a 78 unit (234 bed) student residence tower with a lecture theatre and health related space located in the City Centre area. The project is in the design and development stages.

http://surreycitydevelopment.com/pro...ecture-theatre