[Surrey] King George Hub | U/C

[Millennium2002]

The only caveat I have about this development is this really oddly placed kiosk-like establishment that will be built right in front of the King George SkyTrain Station south entrance... Now... I wouldn't mind if they rebuilt the station with more stores inside, but having that thing in front of the entrance is just asking for trouble by blocking efficient pedestrian movements and commutes; creating a blind, unsupervised corner that may be prone to more seedy and criminal elements; and obscuring the visibility and identity of the station in general to tourists and other residents.

(One might think btw that my concerns sound a little weird, but they're more like a summary of what I think are the actual crime prevention through station design principles + station accessibility and identification principles that TransLink has.)

That kiosk aside, the rest of the development looks fine and I'd wish to see most of it go ahead as planned.

[VanCvl]

This is a good looking development. I can't understand for the life of me why people are complaining about a 10 storey office building not being tall enough. Not everything in downtown Vancouver is 40 stories. I also like the internal street system that they are making.

I don't think anyone mentioned that on the floor plans they have a proposed cinema on the second floor of one of the buildings. I look forward to seeing this go to construction.

[wrenegade]

This is a great looking plan, I too don't understand why people are complaining. You can't really go from nothing to a dozen 40 storey office towers just like that. As mentioned before, this is more on the edge of Surrey's downtown area and will fit really nicely in the area. Great to see a theatre included in the plan too. With PCI behind this it will happen a lot quicker than anything Berezan proposed.

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by VanCvl

This is a good looking development. I can't understand for the life of me why people are complaining about a 10 storey office building not being tall enough. Not everything in downtown Vancouver is 40 stories. I also like the internal street system that they are making.

I don't think anyone mentioned that on the floor plans they have a proposed cinema on the second floor of one of the buildings. I look forward to seeing this go to construction.

I said something. Cause i know all theaters have an agreement that they normally can't place them with in 12km(i think) of another one. Unless population is past a certain point.

[usog]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

With all that high-density residential going in, and assuming those big-box format grocery stores aren't going to be around forever (especially the Safeway), I'd like to see an urban-format grocery store, perhaps even a higher-end one - Urban Fare, etc.

Well, Surrey Central has a Safeway, Pricesmart, T&T, and Kins Market all within 5 minutes of each other. I don't see most of them disappearing any time soon either.

[Whalleyboy]

I could see them selling there land pretty easily actually. mainly cause of how much the land is worth. as long as they have some where to move in the same area

[nickinacan]

Originally Posted by racc

This is absolutely not the case. It the detail at the street level that total determines the pedestrian experience. The height of the building is not relevant at all.

It definitely does. There is a huge difference in the feel of district that has things designed at a more human scale. Don't get my wrong, I love skyscrapers, and the level of detail at street level definitely plays a part in it, but they definitely need to have breathing room and allow natural light to come down to street level. I was travelling from May to August and went everywhere Chicago to Athens, and I can tell you that the low to mid rise buildings definitely make a huge difference.

Originally Posted by racc

I am shocked that there is surface parking at all. It is right next to a rapid transit station and a soon to be B-Line route. There should be no surface parking at all. It will just waste everyone's time. All people seem to think that they are parking jedis and can magically claim one of the few surface parking spaces. More often than not, these spaces will be full forcing people to use the underground parking. Don't bother with the surface parking then they won't be wasting their time looking for it. It just creates more driving.

A perfect example of this is the development across from New Port Village in PoMo. It is total chaos with all the people driving by the few surface parking spaces to check if they are available before heading to the underground.

I definitely agree with you there, but I don't believe that Surrey is ready to give up surface parking completely. I believe that these stalls will probably just be something like 15 minute parking only so people can run into the pharmacy or whatever. If it were up to me, it would all be underground.

[officedweller]

KOHL's - yeah, that would be a good tenant for the upper large format space - and it would fit the demographic of the area (and of transit riders) and I could see the rent being lower than at a larger mall. Canadian Tire would be a bit strange for an upper storey store given the heavy equipment and bulky items they carry.

I could see Safeway moving to allow redevelopment of its site.
What about Save-on-Foods? Who does PCI have good relations with?
There is a Whole Foods at PCI's Crossroads, but I agree that the demographic at Surrey Central is wrong.

Ditto regarding a drug store? Is the local London Drugs in rough shape or has it been renovated?

WRT surface parking, remember that even downtown Vancouver has a lot of on-street metered parking.
These angled parking spaces fill the same role (as mentioned, short term, high turnover) - they're modelled after a lifestyle centre.
They also provide a buffer between the sidewalk and the street and add life to the street - otherwise you'd just have people parking undergound and coming into the stores via escalator/elevator.

[nickinacan]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

The only possible negative factor (IMHO) could be the shadow aspect caused by tall buildings, and the fact that low-rise buildings create a more "European" feel, while having high-rises creates something more "hybrid big-city" (a bit like Mississauga).

Yuck. That is exactly what Surrey should not strive to be. Sure Mississauga has a pretty nice skyscraper, but there is absolutely no cohesiveness to the downtown area, much like the Metrotown area in Burnaby. They took the "Lets cram highrises around a big mall" approach to planning, which kills any opportunity for vibrant street life.

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Regarding parking, it would be nice to cars out, of the way, creating a less cluttered atmosphere, although many people want to simply park next to where they want to go for convenience.

Again, I think that underground parking could be the better option, even if it requires a bit more access time. (The last thing I'd want to see is a latter-day "Kingsway")

Agreed. Although the surface parking is less surface parking and more angled street parking if you get where I am coming from. It looks like there is underground parking as well. I would prefer it to be completely underground, but as stated in my other response post, it is probably just 15 minute parking for convenience.

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Also, a magnificent fountain, like the one in Sergels Torg, playing somewhere within sight would be great, but I guess that's asking a bit too much!! And of course, this is suburban Surrey, not central Stockholm!!

That is funny that you brought up Stockholm as I have been there before. Sergels Torg is the type of central focal point Surrey needs, but I believe that this will be the more pedestrian oriented Civic Centre. Something like Sergels Torg (Or Kogens Nytorv or Radhuspladsen in Copenhagen) would be perfect in an area on the north end of the City Centre, like at the "5 Corners" area at 108th Avenue and King George. The north end is really missing a focal point. I know there were concepts of the area with a large fountain there, but I don't know what became of that.

[racc]

Originally Posted by nickinacan

It definitely does. There is a huge difference in the feel of district that has things designed at a more human scale. Don't get my wrong, I love skyscrapers, and the level of detail at street level definitely plays a part in it, but they definitely need to have breathing room and allow natural light to come down to street level. I was travelling from May to August and went everywhere Chicago to Athens, and I can tell you that the low to mid rise buildings definitely make a huge difference.

There is absolutely no evidence to support that shorter buildings are better for pedestrians. So called "human scale" building sizes is a bunch of BS invented by people who for whatever reason don't like towers. Even a two story building is much larger than a person so to say it is "human scale" is totally ridiculous.

As far as light goes, that depends more on street widths and the orientation of the buildings and the reflectively of the buildings. In summer, it is actually really nice to have taller buildings they can provide much needed shade.

Here is some actual research:
http://www.vancouversun.com/Pedestri...186/story.html

Design - not height - matters. Daniel Fusca, a planner with Project-Walk Canada, studied more than 60 highrises in the Toronto area. What he found is that if buildings have shops or homes at ground level, if they have few blank walls, if they're set back further from the street and designed to minimize wind, the pedestrian's experience is no different if the building is 10 storeys or 100.

[nickinacan]

Originally Posted by racc

There is absolutely no evidence to support that shorter buildings are better for pedestrians. So called "human scale" building sizes is a bunch of BS invented by people who for whatever reason don't like towers. Even a two story building is much larger than a person so to say it is "human scale" is totally ridiculous.

As far as light goes, that depends more on street widths and the orientation of the buildings and the reflectively of the buildings. In summer, it is actually really nice to have taller buildings they can provide much needed shade.

Here is some actual research:
http://www.vancouversun.com/Pedestri...186/story.html

Read this book for a countering opinion on human scale design in architecture and public spaces:

Life Between Buildings by Jan Gehl

It talks quite a bit about Copenhagen, Denmark which is a place that I am very familiar with. They are very strict about the design of their buildings and actually use human scale to dictate building codes. Take a look on google maps street view at places like Nyhavn, Kogens Nytorv, The Stroget, Christianshavn and even the newly developed Sydhavn for some examples of what I mean.

[tybuilding]

I like the concepts, as long as they take into account the extension of the BC Parkway through the site an have a proper multi-use urban trail that allows for cycling I will be happy.

The low rise office tower reminds me of the AMEC building across from Stadium Skytrain station.

[officedweller]

Compare to the projects proposed for Gateway Station (also on the fringe of Surrey's downtown
- but maybe the smaller scale office blocks at King George Station are more likely to proceed?

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

Oh and heres some pictures not on here







pics from my photobucket

[invisibleairwaves]

Looks awesome. My only concern isn't the height of the buildings along King George (the massive streetwall more than makes up for that), it's the tower-in-the-park-ish look of the residential buildings. Not really appropriate for such a major intersection IMO. Would be nice to have a podium of some sort.

[Whalleyboy]

Now that i have thought about it there is one thing i don't really like about this project. Its removing the only real hotel thats in the central area. I mean i still love it and hope it goes through. I just wonder if there is anyway they can work in adding a new hotel to the area in there plan. maybe either find away to add another building or replace one of their residential towers.

[Whalleyboy]

so i was looking at the photos on civic surrey while they say 2 office towers and 3 residential tower. I noticed there is another one right above the drug store in this one photo. So i'm starting to think 3 office towers are going in. That or they are building a new hotel

and heres another

(Img from civicsurrey)

[WaxItYourself]

On the picture they also have a pedestrian walkway on some and another road on the others opposite the skytrain from the drug store. I'm hoping it's the pedestrian walkway that is put in there.

[trofirhen]

Whatever is built, low-rise or high rise, I have a gut feeling we're heading for another "Mississauga of the West." Oh well, nothing's perfect.

[idunno]

I'm not so sure about that Trofirhen - the scale of this development is exactly what Missassauga isn't. You just have to look at it. It goes right to the street, involves a walkable internal grid system, and I would say has a lot less 'dead space' than most Missassauga developments. Just check out this one for example http://g.co/maps/9spz9

[GMasterAres]

Looks great. Gets more people to the area, adds some needed office space, adds a lot of retail elements, gets rid of that fugly parking lot, and anchors the edge. I think it would go a long way to bringing more development to that area and it addresses some concerns people have had about 'retail' streets. Not all concerns, but some.

Not to mention it will bring up my property value.

As for height? How's that 3rd office tower in Metrotown? If Surrey can actually get some office space built and filled it will be a step in the right direction. People have to remember there aren't massive office towers all over Vancouver either. I seem to repeat myself a lot.... LOOK AT VANCOUVER PEOPLE! There is a business district and that's where the consentration is. Outside of the business district, office towers in downtown Vancouver are smaller and about this scale we seen in this project.

The big Office towers will come eventually and you will see them situated around Surrey Central. I'd imagine the main business section will be the square blocks of 102 to 104, University BVD to Whalley BVD. Station Square and the "proposed" office towers for Gateway are also not massively high.