Originally Posted by nickinacan
This is the type of development Surrey should really be pushing for. Highrises are not always the best solution for density. Low rise buildings are much better when it comes to the whole pedestrian experience. The commercial component is right where it ought to be, there is limited surface parking, and three high rises? I am all for it. In addition, since the commercial component is sandwiched between the Infinity development and the giant Holland Pointe development across the street, it really offers some breathing room.
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.
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..
I largely agree with RACC that it is the street level and what it provides, both in amenities and services, plus the aesthetic/design aspect that determines how good the pedestrian experience will be.
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).
- - -
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")
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!!