HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > SSP: Local Vancouver > Metro Vancouver & the Fraser Valley

    Central City Medical in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Surrey Skyscraper Diagram
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2010, 12:31 AM
Whalleyboy's Avatar
Whalleyboy Whalleyboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,858
[Surrey] Central City Medical | 18fl | Proposed

Central City Medical Print E-mail
Positioning itself as Surrey's leader in quality medical services, Central City Medical will be at the forefront of providing great patient experience. With over 180,000 Sq. Ft., Central City Medical will be able to provide significant benefits to the health services community, complimenting the already existing network and providing much needed support.

Central City Medical will be providing various levels of assisted living, medical office space, a medically based fitness centre, spa, cafe and more.

We are please to announce that we have submitted to the city of Surrey for development permit. Construction is anticipated to begin spring 2011.











http://www.circadianpm.com/index.php...d=14&Itemid=33
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2010, 12:36 AM
Whalleyboy's Avatar
Whalleyboy Whalleyboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,858
from civicsurrey.com

A new 18-storey, mixed use tower, proposed by Circadian Projects, appears ready to set a new standard for high density development in the City Centre. The development, at 9677 King George Boulevard, the current site of the Knight and Day restaurant, incorporates all the elements to be desired in new towers, such as interesting architecture, mixed-uses, street frontage, enhanced public green space, and LEED certification.

The design of the tower, led by Atelier Pacific, echoes the wide curves of the Central City tower, while adding a bold and modern podium and red vertical stripe. It is certainly far more interesting than the Infinity/Park Place towers, and definitely more unique than the D’Corize or CityPoint towers.

The podium, an essential component of the successful towers in Downtown Vancouver, incorporates a pharmacy, labs, and a coffee shop at the ground level, a restaurant and lounge on the second floor, and medical offices on the third floor. Even more importantly, these variety of uses will be accessible directly from the street, meaning a more engaging and exciting pedestrian experience.

The mixture of uses in this tower goes beyond the podium level however. Centred around a medical space theme that functions particularly well with the project’s proximity to Surrey Memorial, the tower is being designed to maximize leasing options. Plans include a possible care facility from the 4th to 10th floors, medical office space from the 11th to 16th floors, and a commons area and rooftop patio on the 17th floor. The floor plans can be changed to accommodate residential leases as well, if the market does not warrant a full medical tower.

The project will retain and enhance an existing creek on the west side of the property. A new public green space, with paths and a gazebo, will be constructed fronting onto this creek area. 84 new trees will be planted in the area, replacing the 1 mature tree that will be removed.

The development expects to meet LEED Silver certification. Green building features include tower orientation to ensure maximum daylight, on-site storm water management with bioswales, on-site renewable energy with a solar thermal water system, low e-glazing windows, low flow fixtures, LED lighting, energy efficient appliances, and recycled construction materials.

All in all, the project truly sets a new standard for developments in the City Centre. Most towers following Central City haven’t come close to that building’s success. This development however builds on Central City’s best elements, taking that standard to the next level with bolder architecture, even greater mixed uses, more active street frontage, and incorporating some of the most advanced green building technology available. There’s no doubt in my mind that if constructed, this will be the new bellwether for high density towers in the City.





































Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2010, 1:03 AM
VanCvl VanCvl is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 93
These renders are really nice. It's an imposing structure if you are travelling northbound on KGB towards the City Centre. I hope the City can ensure that high quality materials will be used for the facade.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2010, 1:06 AM
Dylan Leblanc's Avatar
Dylan Leblanc Dylan Leblanc is offline
Website Manager
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Victoria Canada
Posts: 7,898
Awesome!



.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2010, 1:09 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 17,749
Looks OK - not actually as nice as was described before as two ovals.

It's also being proposed as either all office, all residential or mixed office and residential.

I'll bet the renders, with large pane glass, shows the office version and a residential version will have operable windows and won;t look as sleek.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2010, 1:25 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 8,670
Quote:
he floor plans can be changed to accommodate residential leases as well, if the market does not warrant a full medical tower.
haha, how can the market not warrant a full medical tower? We are an aging society with many baby boomers already displaying failing health, in fact I just heard a report stating that by 2020, due to our aging demographic, over 30% of BC will have diabetes alone!

I really do wish we at least had a birth rate able to sustain our current population, having an old society will make Vancouver and area even more boring and less inventive...
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my video production website at: http://www.hailstorm-media.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2010, 2:45 AM
sryboy's Avatar
sryboy sryboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 107
sexy building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2010, 3:21 AM
geoff's two cents geoff's two cents is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 504
I like the building, but that park behind the building is awkwardly placed: It doesn't back onto a street where people can use it.

Indeed, one thing missing from this proposal, like so many others in Surrey (Ultra and Skytowers being the two most notable), is that the street grid remains unambiguously suburban and pedestrian-unfriendly.

Giant 400m mega-blocks discourage walking because they're difficult to walk around; Vancouver's average for downtown and the Broadway business district, by comparison, is less than half that. It is this aspect of urban design that will make or break Surrey's status as a city or suburb, imo, even if it lacks the panache of a flashy new tower.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2010, 3:28 AM
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,844
Meh, the architecture is bleh. The scale would have been nice on the Broadway Corridor, but here it looks ridiculous. The tower and podium model is so utterly boring. A couple of interconnected mid-rises would have been a better scale for an emerging urban area. Street interface looks decidedly suburban.


http://consult.liverpool.gov.uk/even...056208_0_1.jpg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2010, 3:40 AM
Diet Butcher Diet Butcher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 159
If this is scheduled to start Spring 2011, when is it scheduled to complete?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2010, 3:49 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,399
I agree with the above post. The above style is sorely lacking in our region. It provides a density on par with most towers but provides a vastly superior urban realm.
Not completely positive that this is the appropriate location for a medical tower probably better for general office, but hope someone that knows Surrey better can comment on that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2010, 5:38 AM
Spork's Avatar
Spork Spork is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,433
Meh. I agree with the comments about suburban block sizes. That will definitely break Surrey's ability to be a "real" downtown core. I know that there are plans to break up the blocks in the Central City area, but there needs to be more, IMO.

This is a perfect location, as it is nearly opposite SMH. It could maybe be a BIT closer, but is within a very reasonable walking distance (albeit after crossing two very busy streets).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2010, 9:19 AM
Whalleyboy's Avatar
Whalleyboy Whalleyboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,858
the main reason for no road being behind it and there being a park is that there is a creek bed that Surrey would like to keep and not cover up
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2010, 9:41 AM
CoryHolmes CoryHolmes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 571
This is nice but it won't happen. We're not allowed to have nice things in Surrey, remember.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2010, 9:58 AM
geoff's two cents geoff's two cents is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whalleyboy View Post
the main reason for no road being behind it and there being a park is that there is a creek bed that Surrey would like to keep and not cover up
Which I'm fine with, as long as some kind of provision is made for safe, well-lit pedestrian access through the creek/park from the other side in order to break up that monster block and allow people access to King George. There should at the very least be plans in the works to extend 97 ave eastwards so that it terminates at the creek bed; a West End-style parkette comprising the creek itself would then be all that separates residents from the businesses on King George. Mind you, those late 80s/early 90s low-rise sprawl buildings lining the north side of 96th aren't helping the situation any, but by the look of them I wouldn't be surprised if they are torn down in twenty years.

My point is that the city grid layout should be improved in lockstep with these major projects as much as possible (the same way Vancouver extracts community amenities from developers), else the newly built environment will simply reinforce a car-scale street grid that will be difficult to alter until after the buildings are ready to be torn down in another fifty or so years. In the interim, my feeling is that this pedestrian-unfriendly grid scale, if unchanged, will do very little to enhance the city centre's supposed status as the region's upcoming "second downtown."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2010, 6:14 PM
Gaijin Punch Gaijin Punch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa View Post
I agree with the above post. The above style is sorely lacking in our region. It provides a density on par with most towers but provides a vastly superior urban realm.
Not completely positive that this is the appropriate location for a medical tower probably better for general office, but hope someone that knows Surrey better can comment on that.
It's a good place for it because of Surrey Memorial Hospital nearby. Creates a medical cluster.

I like the renderings, but like other posters have mentioned, depends on the materials used and the final result.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2010, 7:59 PM
tybuilding tybuilding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 850
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff's two cents View Post
I like the building, but that park behind the building is awkwardly placed: It doesn't back onto a street where people can use it.

Indeed, one thing missing from this proposal, like so many others in Surrey (Ultra and Skytowers being the two most notable), is that the street grid remains unambiguously suburban and pedestrian-unfriendly.

Giant 400m mega-blocks discourage walking because they're difficult to walk around; Vancouver's average for downtown and the Broadway business district, by comparison, is less than half that. It is this aspect of urban design that will make or break Surrey's status as a city or suburb, imo, even if it lacks the panache of a flashy new tower.
http://www.surrey.ca/files/SurreyCit...oadNetwork.pdf
http://www.surrey.ca/files/SurreyCit...ityConcept.pdf

More roads coming
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2010, 9:46 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 26,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff's two cents View Post
Which I'm fine with, as long as some kind of provision is made for safe, well-lit pedestrian access through the creek/park from the other side in order to break up that monster block and allow people access to King George. There should at the very least be plans in the works to extend 97 ave eastwards so that it terminates at the creek bed; a West End-style parkette comprising the creek itself would then be all that separates residents from the businesses on King George. Mind you, those late 80s/early 90s low-rise sprawl buildings lining the north side of 96th aren't helping the situation any, but by the look of them I wouldn't be surprised if they are torn down in twenty years.

My point is that the city grid layout should be improved in lockstep with these major projects as much as possible (the same way Vancouver extracts community amenities from developers), else the newly built environment will simply reinforce a car-scale street grid that will be difficult to alter until after the buildings are ready to be torn down in another fifty or so years. In the interim, my feeling is that this pedestrian-unfriendly grid scale, if unchanged, will do very little to enhance the city centre's supposed status as the region's upcoming "second downtown."
its parking too on the other side they can wak through the tax centre parking lot if they decide to walk
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2010, 11:22 PM
geoff's two cents geoff's two cents is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
its parking too on the other side they can wak through the tax centre parking lot if they decide to walk
Point taken, though walking through parking lots is not quite the urban pedestrian experience I had in mind. It's ill-suited to a suburb fast approaching half a million people that wants to redefine itself as a trendy, modern, eco-conscious city, and especially ill-suited given how close this block is to the city centre.

tybuilding, thanks for the links, though it's discouraging to see in them absolutely no plans in place to break up the mega-block currently in question. Despite the mayor's lofty ideals and the city's pretty "Surrey 75 years from now" diagrams depicting a glistening metropolis, it's difficult to take these projections seriously if city planners can't even have solid plans in place (however long-term those plans might be) for something as basic and commonsensical as pedestrian-friendly, urban street grid.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2010, 12:00 AM
tybuilding tybuilding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 850
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff's two cents View Post
Point taken, though walking through parking lots is not quite the urban pedestrian experience I had in mind. It's ill-suited to a suburb fast approaching half a million people that wants to redefine itself as a trendy, modern, eco-conscious city, and especially ill-suited given how close this block is to the city centre.

tybuilding, thanks for the links, though it's discouraging to see in them absolutely no plans in place to break up the mega-block currently in question. Despite the mayor's lofty ideals and the city's pretty "Surrey 75 years from now" diagrams depicting a glistening metropolis, it's difficult to take these projections seriously if city planners can't even have solid plans in place (however long-term those plans might be) for something as basic and commonsensical as pedestrian-friendly, urban street grid.
There is a note at the bottom that describes the finer grid coming with development. Yes they are long term plans.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
   
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > SSP: Local Vancouver > Metro Vancouver & the Fraser Valley
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:11 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.