Surrey/South Fraser Updates - Page 114

iron · #**2261** Posted **Apr 10, 2018, 8:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shift

This is actually within the City Centre Plan boundary. Staff is not supportive of it however - they want 4-6 stories on this site as it is on the fringe of City Centre and it should be used a transition site to towers concentrated elsewhere in City Centre.

It's heading to Council tonight for 1st / 2nd but staff is recommending it be referred back. Will be interesting to see what happens. I'm supportive of it - regardless of the City Centre Plan - it's an appropriate site for towers and the design is interesting. On the other hand, I see where the City is coming from, and support their vision for a 4-6 storey edge to City Centre. I'm really fine with any outcome here.

Council picked Option C instead of staff's recommendation: https://www.surreynowleader.com/news...n-city-centre/

officedweller · #**2262** Posted **Apr 10, 2018, 10:53 PM**

Good to hear!

**************

West Village District Energy Centre

from Scott Construction twitter April 9th:

https://twitter.com/ScottConstructs

Shift · #**2263** Posted **Apr 10, 2018, 11:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iron

Council picked Option C instead of staff's recommendation: https://www.surreynowleader.com/news...n-city-centre/

Yeah good news. I think they made the right decision. That site does really form a 'Gateway' site. Matching the density directly across King George to the south makes sense.

Option C for reference:

Basically supportive of the proposed density, but referred back to staff to work on improvements to the proposal. Council really emphasized a need for a more "iconic" tower or design for this site if the increased density is to be allowed.

As for District Energy - Looking great! Liking those beams.

invisibleairwaves · #**2264** Posted **Apr 11, 2018, 3:49 AM**

I'm curious about what the actual objections to the density are. I'm not usually a fan of politicians overruling expert advice from staff, but if the concerns are just aesthetic nitpicking about the "vision for the skyline", then council made the right call. Would love to know if there are issues relating to infrastructure, services, etc. behind the recommendation from staff.

iron · #**2265** Posted **Apr 11, 2018, 5:03 AM**

My take on the report is that the primary concern is for setting a potentially bad precedent. It diminishes the authority of the NCP if developers can regularly get council to disregard it for reasons as simple as "we like more density".

invisibleairwaves · #**2266** Posted **Apr 11, 2018, 6:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iron

My take on the report is that the primary concern is for setting a potentially bad precedent. It diminishes the authority of the NCP if developers can regularly get council to disregard it for reasons as simple as "we like more density".

I dunno, I think "we like more density" is a pretty great reason when you're close to transit and stuck in the middle of a housing crisis. Political support for higher buildings is such a rare and fleeting thing sometimes, so if you have it, why not take advantage?

Again, if staff has real concerns about infrastructure or liveability, they should be heeded. But we live in a region where planning documents are rife with voodoo about "domed skylines" and other such nonsense, which can and should be disregarded if it ever means less housing. Besides, Surrey's NCPs have never had much authority anyways; they've always been guidelines, loosely adhered to and routinely ignored whenever they involve the possibility of the City actually spending any money on anything.

officedweller · #**2267** Posted **Apr 11, 2018, 10:33 AM**

Those towers need to make up for the low density closer to the station!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shift

Shift · #**2268** Posted **Apr 11, 2018, 6:41 PM**

^Yeah - ironically, those 4-storey buildings are designated high-rise 5.5 FAR in the plan (Purple Area).

They will likely be replaced with higher density one day.

Makes sense to extend the purple to the other side of King George - and Council agrees.

officedweller · #**2269** Posted **Apr 11, 2018, 6:59 PM**

The proposed highrise site is within easy walking distance (despite the hill) from the station.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shift

^Yeah - ironically, those 4-storey buildings are designated high-rise 5.5 FAR in the plan (Purple Area).

They will likely be replaced with higher density one day.

Makes sense to extend the purple to the other side of King George - and Council agrees.

kh177 · #**2270** Posted **Apr 12, 2018, 3:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by skymaster

As far as I know most of these properties have been boarded up and are set to be demolished. I believe one of the empty lots was once a house that got burnt down a number of years back. I always wondered how that happened when the fire hall is right out in front.

Glad to see some development in this part of town - would think it's a traffic/access nightmare for residents though. Right across a fire hall also. 88 Ave is busy (with lots of accidents on 88 and King George), not a lot of pedestrian traffic so might be tough to make the retail work. LRT construction until 2024/2025 on King George will make traffic on 132 even more of a nightmare.

All that said - region needs more supply so anything's better than a few vacant homes.

GMasterAres · #**2271** Posted **Apr 13, 2018, 3:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iron

My take on the report is that the primary concern is for setting a potentially bad precedent. It diminishes the authority of the NCP if developers can regularly get council to disregard it for reasons as simple as "we like more density".

True but the NCP for Surrey Central is stupid. They want to create an iconic downtown but they limit to under 10 FAR on all sites even the iconic site. You look at any major downtown of prominence around the world and they have buildings of 15-30 FAR in their main core.

"We want high rises and density but not really super density and well a lot of trees on roof renders!!!! BECAUSE TREEZ!"

Have no issue with Council's decision, these aren't 90 storey towers and if you look at land use, right across the street is a proposal for 30+ storey towers and just North of this development are already proposals for 5+ storey condos. Those are your gradual "gateway." Honestly the worry of staff is likely because of the single family homes directly behind and a worry that all those properties will want to consolidate and upscale beyond the NCP to cash in on higher land values.

Finally let's face it, at the pace that development happens in Surrey, we'll likely go through 3 or 4 more complete rewrites to the NCP before any major core downtown is completed or well formed.

Shift · #**2272** Posted **Apr 13, 2018, 6:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jhausner

True but the NCP for Surrey Central is stupid. They want to create an iconic downtown but they limit to under 10 FAR on all sites even the iconic site. You look at any major downtown of prominence around the world and they have buildings of 15-30 FAR in their main core.

"We want high rises and density but not really super density and well a lot of trees on roof renders!!!! BECAUSE TREEZ!"

I don't think the City Centre Plan is limiting in any way - unless you mean they should be allowing more 60+ storey towers all over the place?

The 30-40 storey range of most proposals under application seems like pretty decent density for a secondary metropolitan downtown.

Also, iconic can be created through buildings that aren't 60-storeys tall. The new SFU building, City Hall, and Library are quite iconic and all less than 10 FAR.

officedweller · #**2273** Posted **Apr 13, 2018, 10:29 PM**

I think a good secondary core to compare to - with substantial office space - is Bellevue, Washington.

osirisboy · #**2274** Posted **Apr 13, 2018, 11:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shift

I don't think the City Centre Plan is limiting in any way - unless you mean they should be allowing more 60+ storey towers all over the place?

The 30-40 storey range of most proposals under application seems like pretty decent density for a secondary metropolitan downtown.

Also, iconic can be created through buildings that aren't 60-storeys tall. The new SFU building, City Hall, and Library are quite iconic and all less than 10 FAR.

You are conflating height with high fsr. Yes i wouldn't object to lots of 60 plus storey tall buildings, that would be great. But you can have high fsr like 15-20 with 20 storey buildings. I was looking at la proposals and there's tons of 20-30 storey buildings with 400-500 units in them. That would be great here

Shift · #**2275** Posted **Apr 18, 2018, 11:44 PM**

New application submitted for a 35-storey residential tower and 3-storey commercial building on the grass field site just north of the Canadian Tire/Anthem Site on Whalley Blvd.

341 Units
20,000 sq.ft. of ground floor retail
23,800 sq.ft of office

Architect is Focus Architecture - same as Delta Rise.

Seems like quite a large site for just a single tower... but maybe not. There will be a new green lane dedicated through it.

https://apps.surrey.ca/Online-Develo...ar=18&seq=0141

CoryHolmes · #**2276** Posted **Apr 19, 2018, 1:00 AM**

About time that site got some action. It's been an eyesore for as long as I can remember.

osirisboy · #**2277** Posted **Apr 19, 2018, 1:06 AM**

Roughly 10 units per floor so should be a pretty decently sized tower. However, the podium should be larger than 3 stories.

Shift · #**2278** Posted **Apr 19, 2018, 4:00 AM**

Agreed - such an eyesore. Although given the application was just submitted - still likely 2-3 years away from start of construction. But nice to know its in the works. Along with Anthem's project, that side of King George will finally start to see some improvement.

The podium will actually be 4-stories. The 3-storey commercial building is stand-alone.. so guessing something similar to Evolve?

Curious to see the plan and how they manage to fill the site. It looks big enough for 2 towers.

Also, a 35-storey tower here will appear quite tall - given this site is up on a hill.

Westbased · #**2279** Posted **Apr 19, 2018, 4:58 AM**

Toys R’ Us site has reportedly sold for around $60 million.

clee7903 · #**2280** Posted **Apr 19, 2018, 6:41 AM**

That empty land has been there for as long as I can remember too. I am surprised it sat empty for so long given it's pretty close to the city centre and surrounded by buildings. Hope they can start soon.