Surrey/South Fraser Updates - Page 149

trofirhen · #**2961** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 6:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dferch

I know this area will change with the skytrain coming, but I feel like it would still be SO out of place!

You mean the 57-storey tower, if so, yes!!!! It could feel more appropriate if tall densley placed buildings like a town centre are put around it, but even Metrotown or Brentwood seem better.

Klazu · #**2962** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 6:09 AM**

Such height will be completely stupid that far outside of the urban core. I hope those towers come down to some 20 stories tall

GlassCity · #**2963** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 6:10 AM**

Definitely out of place for it. Density around SkyTrain is important but regardless of design, 57 storeys is vastly out of proportion to what a low-level Neighbourhood Town Centre should look like. I'd like to see something more like 12-15.

I wonder if the applicant is just testing the waters of what could be possible, given that Surrey is updating/creating neighbourhood plans for all the areas around the SkyTrain line.

scryer · #**2964** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 6:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArmoredinRed

Possible redevelopment which is proposed to include 3 towers along Fraser Highway and 160th in Fleetwood. Proposal includes 2 x 40 story buildings and 1 x 57 story building. No rendering from Bucci Investment Corporation. The proposal has been submitted to Surrey as per Dailyhive below;

1,300 homes in towers up to 57 floors proposed for new Fleetwood SkyTrain station
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/1606...lh2wkvRvhei7Ak

In a modern day housing crisis that is causing families to flee the Lower Mainland because of high housing costs? I'll take it, easily!

Out of place? No. Not when we have Nimbys left and right choking the city by opposing anything taller than 3 floors, and when we have view cones that are stifling significant developments. We need to start thinking about saving our families and the environment with denser developments like this. It makes sense to build densely around Skytrain stations.

Do I think that 57 floors is going to happen? Probably not but if you shoot for the moon then you might land on a star. Realistically I could see this maybe ending up at 50, 46, 44 floors. This has the potential to become a southern Brentwood or Lougheed if it is designed right.

dferch · #**2965** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 6:36 AM**

I'm guessing that infrastructure will need to be amped up significantly if there will be large scale development of this area. It also makes me wonder what is in the works for Fraser and 152.

SpongeG · #**2966** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 6:51 AM**

I think the height is ok. It's an area ripe for density.

officedweller · #**2967** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 9:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flynn86

57 that would make it that tallest tower in Surrey and it wouldn't be downtown

Then that'll incentive to build higher in downtown Surrey!

cornholio · #**2968** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 4:21 PM**

Out of place means nice bright views for pretty much every unit. I dont see the problem with having towers scattered arriund the region. Its in a way better then sticking them all in one area where they shade each other and block each others views. As long as they dont impact their neighbours and shade them go for it.

Urbanmetro · #**2969** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 4:26 PM**

This is wrong on so many levels. Surrey was wanting to focus development in the city centre... Yes there has been tremendous growth, but still not enough too catch up to even downtown New Westminster by 2040. By increasing FAR outside of the city centre by that much, Surrey city centre will be devalued immensely. Land is so cheap the further east you go. Developers will be given an incentive to move east instead of developing city centre. This is development 101. This will not spurn growth but slow it down and cause crazy infrastructure issues. Why waste money upgrading sewer and water and road systems in a less desirable location. Let the growth move east organically...

Shift · #**2970** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 6:04 PM**

Agree that 57 storeys is completely out of touch with this neighbourhood. The Fleetwood Town Centre Plan is undergoing an update, but not yet completed. I wonder how this proposed density / building height fits with that plan. I really doubt this will get built at this height, and if it does, it's a long way out (late 20's).

I wouldn't worry about it devaluing / taking away from growth in the City Centre. There are so many projects in the pipeline in City Centre right now, and so much other land accounted for behind the scenes by major developers.

Currently in City Centre there are 65 applications in process, approved, or under construction. These represent:

over 70 high-rises
over 40 low-rises
approx. 23,000 units
1,600,000 sq.ft. of retail / office

This doesn't include all the sites known to be bought up behind the scenes, nor even future phases of current projects (ie remaining towers of georgetown not currently under application)

https://urbansurrey.blog/active-proj...y-city-centre/

officedweller · #**2971** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 9:00 PM**

I don't see why Surrey can't have multiple town centres like Burnaby.
This may help preserve space in downtown Surrey for office towers rather than residential towers.

Sheba · #**2972** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 9:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

I don't see why Surrey can't have multiple town centres like Burnaby.
This may help preserve space in downtown Surrey for office towers rather than residential towers.

Surrey has town centres - they just haven't done much with them yet. Aside from Surrey Central (downtown) there's Guildford, Fleetwood, Newton, Cloverdale and Semiahmoo town centres.

officedweller · #**2973** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 12:12 AM**

So 57 storeys at Fleetwood is consistent with Brentwood or Lougheed versus Metrotown.

Cypherus · #**2974** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 12:28 AM**

I think this is great. The region has always embraced high density around skytrain stations - this is why we have town centres clutered with residential towers. That in of itself is unique in North America and many cities try to mimic that.

Why should Fleetwood be treated any different than Metrotown, Brentwood or Loughheed town centres who were also once surrounded by low rise apartments? The fact that we have density in our Burnaby town centres speaks volumes to the successes of skytrain and urban planning.

Sheba · #**2975** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 12:45 AM**

Metrotown is being made into the downtown for Burnaby - so Surrey Central should be compared to it, while Lougheed and Brentwood can be compared to the other town centres in Surrey.

That said I don't know how tall Surrey wants to build outside of Surrey Central. I know there's been talk of more density in the town centres and have SFH outside of them (just like Burnaby) but I'm pretty sure I haven't seen anything about 57 storey towers outside of Surrey Central.

scryer · #**2976** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 2:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cypherus

I think this is great. The region has always embraced high density around skytrain stations - this is why we have town centres clutered with residential towers. That in of itself is unique in North America and many cities try to mimic that.

Why should Fleetwood be treated any different than Metrotown, Brentwood or Loughheed town centres who were also once surrounded by low rise apartments? The fact that we have density in our Burnaby town centres speaks volumes to the successes of skytrain and urban planning.

I actually think it is just healthy competition for the entire region. In fact I would like to see towers this size in Langley as well.

Urbanmetro · #**2977** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 4:27 PM**

I think town centres need to be really modest if metro Vancouver wants to make a second downtown for south of the Fraser river. With Burnaby having as much growth as it is, couple that with Coquitlam, DT, South flats, richmond... Surrey can't be spread thin too. With 5 town centres, build out will take for.everrrrr. If very high density was limited to city centre, build out would happen substantially quicker. I.e. look at Brentwood, Lougheed, Edmonds and Metrotown. Take most of the projects in those town centres and pile them into Metrotown... wow. That would be needed if Metrotown were to be the next downtown of metro Vancouver and it would grow so farm fast into something substantial like Brooklyn. Therefore, for the next ten or twenty years, I hope council limits major projects along the new Skytrain line... especially that the project isn't even in procurement phase yet... have focus council. Please have focus while trying to build for the future. We only have one shot at this early stage.

SpongeG · #**2978** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 6:10 PM**

If you read the article it says Surrey has committed/promised to increase density around the future skytrain stations to justify building it basically.

EhJay · #**2979** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 10:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpongeG

If you read the article it says Surrey has committed/promised to increase density around the future skytrain stations to justify building it basically.

Increasing density doesn't have to require 57 floors. It can be a bunch of 6 floor wood builds or going with the new rules, 8 or 9 floors. Putting 2-3 towers doesn't build out a neighbourhood either.

SpongeG · #**2980** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 11:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EhJay

Increasing density doesn't have to require 57 floors. It can be a bunch of 6 floor wood builds or going with the new rules, 8 or 9 floors. Putting 2-3 towers doesn't build out a neighbourhood either.

the area is already like that, now its time to go up.