[Surrey] Wave | 87 m | 28 Stories | Completed

[Whalleyboy]

Well currently two unnamed towers proposed to go up in the city centre in the urban village area right off 104 ave. its being done by rize alliance. There will be two 28 floor apartment towers containing approximately 450 apartment units and 21 ground-oriented units, for a total of 471 units. They will being opening up a sales centre on the corner of 133rd street and 104 ave
more info can be found here
http://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcounci...11-0075-00.pdf

Personally i love the look of these towers heres some picture

[invisibleairwaves]

Wow, those are some sexy towers.

I don't like the way it meets 104th Avenue. Way too much like Infinity 1. Other than that, though...very nice.

[VanCvl]

Those are good looking towers. I read the development application and it seems like they are not using the district energy. I hope they change their minds about that.

[SpongeG]

looks good, much better than the dumpy looking lots there now

[geoff's two cents]

If the 104th frontage has retail streetwall, I'm in. Otherwise, I consider this project a complete failure in terms of city building. The tower design is nice, but I think it's (relatively speaking) immaterial to the urban transformation project (pedestrian-friendly, community-creating, place-making, eyes on the street for safety, etc.) many would like to see in Surrey.

Hopefully that "to be updated" notation on the rendering is a sign of positive things to come.

[invisibleairwaves]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

If the 104th frontage has retail streetwall, I'm in. Otherwise, I consider this project a complete failure in terms of city building. The tower design is nice, but I think it's (relatively speaking) immaterial to the urban transformation project (pedestrian-friendly, community-creating, place-making, eyes on the street for safety, etc.) many would like to see in Surrey.

Hopefully that "to be updated" notation on the rendering is a sign of positive things to come.

My thoughts exactly. Even townhouses or a building entrance would be an improvement over a big cement wall right on Whalley's busiest east-west route. But I'm not going to get my hopes up about the "to be updated" part; Surrey's planners have repeatedly demonstrated that they aren't interested in any of the features of urban transformation you described.

[geoff's two cents]

Good to know I'm not alone. I spent 23 years in Surrey, and so get excited (or in this case very worried/disappointed) every time a new proposal comes along promising to help the place transform into a more livable city.

In my view, city planners can still redeem themselves for past mistakes (Infinity/Park Place, d'Corize) by demonstrating leadership on the implementation (as opposed to mere talk of it) of a truly urban form - including pedestrian- and community-friendly streets and shopping, and of course a finer-grained road network.

If Surrey pulls off this transformation, it could very well be the poster child for North American reformation and revitalization of defunct, postwar, automobile-centric suburbs. If it fails (as it for the most part seems to be in the early stages thus far), such failure will speak volumes to North American city planner pondering similar moves.

Dianne Watts has been quoted as saying she'd like to rip down most of the city's big box stores and parking lots. I genuinely wonder whether or not her thoughts venture beyond simply replacing parking lots with skyscrapers, keeping mall tenants happy, streetwalls generic, sterile and/or nonexistent, adding a train or two, and thus turning the "city" into Western Canada's answer to Mississauga. I wonder as well what Bing Thom would have to say about the city's progress thus far on his own vision.

[SpongeG]

retail in that area would be weird i think

it's not like most of the west end is stuffed with retail at the base

[invisibleairwaves]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

retail in that area would be weird i think

it's not like most of the west end is stuffed with retail at the base

I would agree on the 133rd side. But 104th is the busiest east-west route in Whalley, and it's only a couple of blocks from the new library and city hall. It isn't exactly Cardero Street. If 104th isn't suited for a retail streetwall, what is?


geoff's two cents, I think the Mississauga analogy is a great one. It's proof that when you take a car-oriented suburb and throw in some towers without any regard for the street, you just end up with a car-oriented suburb with a skyline. Definitely not something we should be striving for in Surrey.

[Whalleyboy]

Personally i think its not a huge miss just yet on this with not having retail as far as the city centre goes and 104 being a main road its kinda dead by this point. Beside its not like retail could be drag to far up that way anyways with the school and park being up the road. As long as they dont miss out on pulling retail going the other way down 104 i`m not gonna complain.

[SpongeG]

I could see the east side of 133rd being the end of the retail and this one seems to fall on the west side of 133rd than 104th - to 108th could be retail

anyway i think they want the "city" to be more around the stations to the south - isn't that how they show it on their planned idea?

[Whalleyboy]

I can't say i see that myself i see univeristy drive being more the end/start and them pulling it up the road. Can't really add to much retail to the base of city hall since its already gonna be a busy place. Personally i hope they aim to use city park way and strech it past the mall. with zellers being taken out of there they could rebuild that side and push some street facing retail. also once the parking lot get taken away from them have more retail along there.

Also i'd just like to add i like how they include the master plan for the area with urban village its pretty cool to think there hoping to fit nine towers there all in that one area alone. but who knows how long that could take to fill out.

[Nites]

It's funny how the second last picture has a lambo and a Aston Martin in it. Not the type of cars you would see in that area lol.

[CoryHolmes]

I do so like those balconies. Much, much better than the generic concrete rectangles that other towers embrace.

I'm kinda iffy on the streetwall concept. It's a great idea, but 104 is mighty busy with traffic and adding in some unthinking primates who jaywalk is a recipie for disaster. Adding in a crosswalk at 133rd would make it better, especially for a walking/transit oriented establishment since otherwise people would have to walk to Universtiy drive, cross there, and walk back to the shops. Not likely to happen that often.

[Gaijin Punch]

Retail wouldn't survive in this location. The current closest retail is approximately 1,200 feet away, and shoppers won't walk more than 1,000 feet in any direction on average. It's easy enough to say, "yah we need retail", but you would need quite a large amount of retail in this project to create some type of retail density needed to make it viable, probably 20 to 30,000 SF which isn't going to happen. A few small stores along the street at the podium are pretty much destined for failure.

I do agree that the project doesn't meet the street very well, and I wish they would wrap the 3 story townhouses from 133 st to 104 avenue as well.

[invisibleairwaves]

Originally Posted by Gaijin Punch

Retail wouldn't survive in this location. The current closest retail is approximately 1,200 feet away, and shoppers won't walk more than 1,000 feet in any direction on average. It's easy enough to say, "yah we need retail", but you would need quite a large amount of retail in this project to create some type of retail density needed to make it viable, probably 20 to 30,000 SF which isn't going to happen. A few small stores along the street at the podium are pretty much destined for failure.

At first, yes. It isn't going to be immediately successful all by itself. But you have to start somewhere, and as the neighbouring blocks are built out, the retail concentration in that area goes up and the street becomes a destination for shoppers, especially if it becomes a mostly continuous streetwall all the way down to the library/city hall/civic square. It seems awfully short-sighted to put nothing there because it won't be immediately successful all on its own. If Surrey "renews" itself that way, it won't get anything done.

[Gaijin Punch]

Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves

At first, yes. It isn't going to be immediately successful all by itself. But you have to start somewhere, and as the neighbouring blocks are built out, the retail concentration in that area goes up and the street becomes a destination for shoppers, especially if it becomes a mostly continuous streetwall all the way down to the library/city hall/civic square. It seems awfully short-sighted to put nothing there because it won't be immediately successful all on its own. If Surrey "renews" itself that way, it won't get anything done.

I totally agree with you, but those first few retail units will end up standing empty for the first 5-10 years until there is some sort of critical mass constructed in the area. Finding end users to lease the space in the meantime will be very difficult.

I think concentrating on redeveloping and densifying the retail offering on 104th between 134th and Whalley Blvd. would be more beneficial long term, and most likely more feasible from a leasing perspective.

[DKaz]

Different. A bit too organic for my tastes but good to see something that's not the same old same old.

[rbostyle]

Originally Posted by Gaijin Punch

I totally agree with you, but those first few retail units will end up standing empty for the first 5-10 years until there is some sort of critical mass constructed in the area. Finding end users to lease the space in the meantime will be very difficult.

And that should be an opportunity rather than a reason to NOT include them. If the spaces aren't going to be leased for the first 5-10 years, use them as a city-funded startup space. Let people come in and get a taste for what running their own business might be like - you never know, it might work here, because it certainly has in other areas around the globe, i.e. there was one amazing example of a nearly abandoned pedestrian mall in Australia somewhere offering this sort of program, and it got to the point where the building owners had competition for new leases due to the huge increase in traffic (yes I know this is not a pedestrian mall, but it will be on a major downtown Surrey arterial). Unfortunately I can't find reference to it anywhere, but will post it when I do.

I also think saying that "shoppers won't walk more than 1,000 feet in any direction on average" is ignoring the simple fact that this is the base of 2 large towers, within a block of at least 2 other significant towers, and many multi-story residential developments. Residents can be shoppers too.

Though I find the design of the towers to be an encouraging breath of fresh air, if this segregation of residential and commercial/other is the downtown the City has in mind, then I've been completely and utterly mislead.

If nothing else, why can't we explore building the first 1-3 floors of ALL NEW DEVELOPMENTS as adaptable space, to rent out as apartments or live/work units until the city builds up more, at which time they can be converted into commercial spaces. That's where the future lives. Not here, apparently.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

If the 104th frontage has retail streetwall, I'm in. Otherwise, I consider this project a complete failure in terms of city building. The tower design is nice, but I think it's (relatively speaking) immaterial to the urban transformation project (pedestrian-friendly, community-creating, place-making, eyes on the street for safety, etc.) many would like to see in Surrey.

Hopefully that "to be updated" notation on the rendering is a sign of positive things to come.

Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves

My thoughts exactly. Even townhouses or a building entrance would be an improvement over a big cement wall right on Whalley's busiest east-west route. But I'm not going to get my hopes up about the "to be updated" part; Surrey's planners have repeatedly demonstrated that they aren't interested in any of the features of urban transformation you described.

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

Good to know I'm not alone. I spent 23 years in Surrey, and so get excited (or in this case very worried/disappointed) every time a new proposal comes along promising to help the place transform into a more livable city.

In my view, city planners can still redeem themselves for past mistakes (Infinity/Park Place, d'Corize) by demonstrating leadership on the implementation (as opposed to mere talk of it) of a truly urban form - including pedestrian- and community-friendly streets and shopping, and of course a finer-grained road network.

If Surrey pulls off this transformation, it could very well be the poster child for North American reformation and revitalization of defunct, postwar, automobile-centric suburbs. If it fails (as it for the most part seems to be in the early stages thus far), such failure will speak volumes to North American city planner pondering similar moves.

Dianne Watts has been quoted as saying she'd like to rip down most of the city's big box stores and parking lots. I genuinely wonder whether or not her thoughts venture beyond simply replacing parking lots with skyscrapers, keeping mall tenants happy, streetwalls generic, sterile and/or nonexistent, adding a train or two, and thus turning the "city" into Western Canada's answer to Mississauga. I wonder as well what Bing Thom would have to say about the city's progress thus far on his own vision.

You may laugh, but that cement wall could be made into a cement wall with protruding urns and vases in which to grow ornamental plants. I don't know how expensive this would be, but it's sometimes done in Europe (I'm thinking of Italy for some reason ...) and here and there ornamentally in Paris.

With a bit of creativity and resourcefulness, maybe something of beauty, yet still relatively inexpensive (say, compared to installation of retail space) .... it might be a good place and time to put some real public art in Surrey.