Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts make heavy bet on new downtown — but it won’t come instantly

February 24th, 2014 · 35 Comments

Surrey’s efforts to remake itself as an urban place, rather than just a bedroom suburb, are exciting and have generated a lot of media coverage.

What that coverage (some of it mine) doesn’t always convey is the reality of what a big job this is. Surrey doesn’t even have a vestigial version of a downtown at the Surrey Central SkyTrain station that it’s trying to fashion into its urban core. There was really almost nothing there that resembled a normal downtown when the mayor started in 2005 to talk about creating a downtown. There was a tower built on top of a mall, a lot of big-box parking lots, even more low-end fast-food joints, some fields, and, off in the distance, a few older houses and apartment buildings.

This is not a question of revitalizing or adding to an existing downtown. It’s really creating one out of whole cloth.

In my story for the Globe on the opening of the city’s new $97-million city hall, I addressed some of the real challenges Surrey has.  It’s in competition with other suburbs and with downtown Vancouver for the offices that need to be in any downtown. The retail part isn’t really there yet. Mostly there is a huge investment by the city (close to $200 million) and a lot of condo projects in the works.

That’s not to say that this won’t happen. But it’s going to take a really sustained, focused effort.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • neil21 (@neil21)

    It’s going to take a lot more attention to the pedestrian experience, the classic JJ stuff: little streets, short active frontages. I’ve yet to hear a recommendation of a place that’s nice to sit and people-watch. Perhaps readers can enlighten me?

    As far as I can tell they’re whacking in condos on stroads with barely a thought for enclosure, pedestrian comfort and priority etc. Even the ones with pedestals ape coal harbour’s desolate hedge, fence and concierge barriers, not (say) Yaletown’s active retail frontages.

  • neil21 (@neil21)

    Surrey need to read the Strong Towns blog and book, and retool all its regulations to incent small-scale, incremental development. If you make the red-tape near-zero – walk in and out in an afternoon with a $200 fee to rubber-stamp a design that meets the code – you’ll get all the funky young entrepreneurial retailers you can shake a stick at.

    Megaprojects don’t build a downtown.

  • Threadkiller

    Lipstick on a very big pig.

  • Guest

    In terms of public gathering spaces , there are are 2 – the plaza at Cnetral City (north side of the street not yet redveloped) and Holland Park (site of New Year’s Eve and other concerts and events).

    The form of redevelopment is still somewhat suburban. Even the complex at King George Station is more like a suburban office park merged with a “lifestyle” retail centre than an urban complex (i.e. the site is bisected by curvey streets and there is some curbside parking).

    That could be because the real “core” of the downtown has not yet been redeveloped. The blocks fronting King George Blvd to the north (east of the new City Hall) is where you’d expect to see zero setbacks and tall office towers built.

  • brian.

    Its really fascinating to watch the urbanization process in Surrey. It has the size, population, and economy to transition from suburb to urb- and with non-ALR greenspace all but gone, it basically has to start urbanizing somewhere.

    The interesting thing about this part of the life of a city is that it will shape the place for decades or even centuries to come. European cities had their moment of definition ages ago. Most North American cities were shaped in the last century. Vancouver-as-we-know-it was largely shaped by factors in the later part of this century, in the first wave of backlash against autocentric city planning. The interesting thing about Surrey building up at this point in history is that it is relatively novel to see auto-dependent suburbia retrofitted into a denser city. Its fun to think about what that will/should look like, but we don’t know for sure because its never really happened before.

  • Voony

    Agree with Neil21@1 and @2

    Surrey new downtown design seems to be reminescent of the “ex-vitro” urbanism in vogue in the 60’s and 70’s in Europe (mainly aka “urbanisme sur dalle” in France) which ignored the street.

    On the other hand, not necessaraly going small scale, you have Richmond road number#3 or Yonge street in North York center:
    this “kind” of (“non?”-urbanism typically despised by the urbanist/planner planners, but one will eventually have to conclude: it will simply works better.

    One reason is summed up in a comment relative to this picture:
    http://blog.elle.fr/ras-la-toque/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2010/08/CAFE-DE-FLORE-Doisneau1.jpg

    Cafe de Flore, I don’t go there anymore: all the pedestrians are blocking the view to the traffic on the Boulevard! could have said Jean Paul Satrtre

    “Traffic” is an asset able to activate a place (it provides something to watch, and give an urban buzz sense). It is the main assest from which to build a successful downtown in a suburb like Surrey and it should have beem, treated as such
    (that is by treating its arteries like 104th or KG as Boulevards in function, and not as “service roads”)

  • Jay

    In one month, Skytrain and it’s 3 stations in Surrey City Center will be 20 years old, and in that 20 years we have seen relatively few developments. I don’t see how this trend will be broken with priority given to Metrotown, Brentwood and pretty much all the other town centers. Even a second tier center like Edmonds competes well. Now Skytrain will be in much more scenic municipalities like Port Moody and Coquitlam, pushing Surrey even further back of the line. Surrey is going to have a hard time competing for residents in the coming decades and I can’t see too many office jobs developing in Surrey. I think those are headed Metrotown’s way.

    One route Surrey could take is to proclaim itself “The City of Architecture”. Surrey’s not blessed with beautiful natural surroundings, but it could level the playing field by exploiting the architectural weakness (imo) of the rest of Metro Vancouver by demanding from developers a level of architecture not seen anywhere in… oh that’s probly crazy talk. Go Surrey!!!

  • Rico

    Not a huge fan of many development policies in Surrey, but Surrey Center really has made huge strides. Definitely not perfect but the world is not perfect. Consistent positive change is good enough for me. I think time will show Surrey Center will work. Now about just about every where else in Surrey….

  • Roger Kemble

    “We are creating B.C.’s next great metropolitan center and our new City Centre projects will attract economic investment and create a vibrant urban center that serves the needs of all our residents“.

    The hell you are Madame Mayor. This . . .
    http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Surrey+City+Hall+open/9510984/story.html?tab=PHOT
    . . . is just another debt pit obeisance to your bloated ego.

    Bing Thom must be brought down a peg. When it comes to city building doesn’t have a clue . . .

    I haven’t seen it in the round yet but as soon as the weather clears I’m off with my camera.

    It ties in with that other obscene debt pit Oakridge shopping mall foisted on the town by that other delusional ego Gregory Henriquez.

    This afternoon take charge of your town.

  • Threadkiller

    In Surrey, “building an urban core” will mean building the malls, large and small, closer together so people won’t have to walk quite so far across those enormous parking lots to start their shopping (there’s nothing else to do in Surrey, except plot ways of escape). The end result will likely resemble what Las Vegas would look like without the casinos. I count almost every hour I’ve spent in Surrey (and I’ve spent far too many there) to be hours of my life I will never get back. A far better plan would be to simply cut the whole damn place adrift and let it drift down the river to the sea where, with any luck, it will eventually sink. Oh, all right, you can keep Crescent Beach, I suppose…

  • boohoo

    I love the utter disdain for Surrey…’out there’ and hardly worth mentioning. A sweeping characterization of any City is nothing but tripe.

    Sure, it’s got flaws, big ones. But there’s a lot happening, a lot that can happen. How about a few possibilities rather than throw the baby out with the bath water? Like it or not, Surrey and it’s ‘ugly’ sisters ie. everywhere outside of Vancouver are major players in this whole game.

    I know it’s fun to have 1000 comments and endless news media on a freaking bike path in a park, but that’s insignificant relative to what could be influenced and helped to develop. I’m not surprised, yet I remain surprised at the over the top insular thinking of people here as though the world ends at Boundary (if that far…) and everything else is irrelevant, as though decisions made in Port Moody, Richmond and yes, Surrey don’t influence Vancouver.

  • rph

    Well said boohoo @11.

    Very well said.

  • Threadkiller

    @boohoo:
    Believe me, no one, least of all me, is denying Surrey is “out there”, as you put it (in more ways than one). A cursory listen to any local morning newscast will indicate that; there deem to be more traffic fatalities, house fires, assaults, breakins, robberies, assorted other petty crimes, and the like in Surrey on a near-daily basis than anywhere else in the country. I don’t know how much time you’ve spent in Surrey, but I was a visitor biweekly and many times more often than that for 30 years, and that was enough for a lifetime, thank you. I applaud whoever thinks they can fix the place, but they face a long, uphill struggle.

  • Roger Kemble

    With architects Thom and Henriquez and Mayor Watts of Surrey self-servingly bandying the term around loosely to justify their monstrous intrusions maybe a look at sustainability is worth a second look.

    SUSTAINABLE. NOTHING IS SUSTAINABLE!

    “ . . . One of the first uses of the term was in the UN’s 1987 Brundtland Report, which said:
    “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/22/nothing-is-sustainable/

    boohoo @ #11 “A sweeping characterization of any City is nothing but tripe.” Okay let’s get down to brass tacks . . .This Surrey monstrosity is justified as one of the first components of a new Surrey Town centre.

    To start lacking a sense of potential integration with its future neighbours. like the Oakridge thing, it misses the point as a component of a functioning city because it is ego driven bad planning, bad architecture.

    It lacks all the necessary measures: not the least being its brobdingnagian proportions and its inchoate sharp edged form discouraging neighbourliness so important if it is to accrete neighbours into a human scale sense of place.

    Don’t forget Surrey’s existence depends on a coaling jetty. Like so many previously it can expect a very short life span! When Beijing realizes its coal induced industrial smog is killing its people good bye Surrey. I remember when we called London the smoke. Its buildings were soot black and we breathed that stuff.

    Does Mayor Watt want that for her people so she can over-build her need for temporary glory.

    As for Oakridge! We are already the most credit card/mortgaged debt induced people in the world. Empty condos! Draining the surrounding streets of people activity and commerce! How long can we shop in yet another remarkably vulgar, unsustainable, emporium of credit card junk before we drop.

    SUSTAINABLITY. DON’T LET THEM SUCKER YOU???

  • boohoo

    @13

    I’ve spent more time than you and know there are issues. But your ‘screw it it’s beyond repair’ attitude…I don’t know what that serves or how that helps. Nor do I understand how you don’t see how it impacts your flawless Vancouver. (Exaggeration for effect hopefully obvious)

  • Tiktaalik

    It still seems like a lot of talk and flash with no strong changes in policy to back it up. Ok there’s a sparkling new library building and talk about changing the tone of the neighbourhood, but then at the same time the city has built Grandview Corners, a massive new strip mall development in South Surrey. Has anything really changed?

  • Threadkiller

    boohoo:
    Heh. “Flawless”?! Exaggeration indeed. If you and I ever had a face-to-face, you’d quickly discover just how deeply, deeply flawed I think Vancouver has become (and it’s becoming more so all the time). But Surrey, to me, is flawed to an even greater degree and has been for a long time. Oh, did I mention “years of out-of-control residential and commercial development”? Among other, um, flaws…

  • boohoo

    @17

    Again, just ignoring it and hoping it goes away isn’t much of an approach.

  • teririch

    Surrey has far more area to spread out and more opportunity to attract ‘industrial’ business versus the just retail or head offices that we seein Vancouver. The new FedEx facility is a good example.

    As for the new ‘core’ being created, how is this different than most other cities – there is typically a central district. The current location of Surrey’s City Hall is somewhat out of the way.

    The new library is a beautiful, creative looking building, as is the inside of the building housing the SFU campus – down the street.

    Surrey gets a bad rap and yes it does have its fair share of problems, but remember, they have a lot of immigrants and refugees settling in Surrey – and not the ‘rich’ immigrants that we see buying up Vancouver. Surrey is still an affordable area for families.

    If you have the opportunity to attend the Surrey Fusion Festival – do. It is probably one of the best run events that I have been to and look forward to, every year. It is held at Holland Park – right across the street from the King George SkyTrain Station – so easy access.

  • rph

    Although I do not reside there now, I have spent more than a few years living in Surrey, and I could never understand the venom and ridicule it faced.

    Tacky rundown apartment blocks? 132nd or the cluster south of 70th near Granville. Older working class neighbourhoods with cheap build sf detached? Bear Creek or the east side of Vancouver.

    Prostitutes, addicts and crime? Are we talking about the dtes or Whalley?

    Ugly big box stores? Would that be SE Marine or King George Hwy?

    Surrey has it’s issue and problems, and yes, going decades without a cohesive responsible plan for growth has taken it’s toll.

    But crime? If housing costs in Vancouver were the same as Surrey, then Surrey would not have been the major recipient of the myriad of socio-economic problems that come with housing the poor and working poor. Vancouver with it’s absurd housing prices has been able to push off those problems somewhere else.

  • Guest

    It’s an evolution – and it will take time.

    A scant 10-20 years ago, much of Vancouver’s Downtown South was occupied by surface parking lots and single storey pseudo-industrial warehouses (many converted to nightclubs, etc.).

  • Threadkiller

    rph:
    You may find that cluster of Marpole apartment blocks “tacky/rundown”, and I suppose some of them are, but that neighbourhood is also one of the very last pockets of semi-affordable housing on the west side of Vancouver. Sometimes tackiness can conceal a higher purpose. It’s hardly an ideal situation, but you know… beggars, choosers…

  • Threadkiller

    @guest:
    Are you going to finish that thought, or let it stand as it is? 20 years ago I was working in a Yaletown office and the upscaling/Yuppieization process was largely a fait accompli even then. Care to adjust your timeline?

  • gman

    Surrey has to do something and I think the best thing they can do is surface transportation. Above ground(sky train) or below ground will never serve a neighborhood.The only thing it will serve is developers that profit from building these so called nodes of density.Surrey is at a very important part of their history right now,will they opt for more friendly street cars and a more human environment or 60 story glass towers on podiums.I guess we will see.

  • gman

    Business is running from Vancouver right now,they cant afford the taxes.They will move from 4rth ave to King George in a minute if offered a better environment.

  • Roger Kemble

    Why don’t you guys stop your infighting and petty bickering: there’s enough to do without blooding each other.

    “But Surrey, to me, is flawed to an even greater degree and has been for a long time.” And that’s an understatement Threadkiller @ #17

    Next time you’re on the move pop down to South America. Witness, first hand, the depleted resource based husks that used to be towns like Surrey!

    My first job, on arrival 1951, was on Water Street. I had a grandstand view of the damaged, waste and destruction of a people in the men’s only, no street windows, beer parlors, that didn’t hide the rot that even now is still big mouthed by good intentions.

    City Hall was hell bent, even back then, on flogging off the city to its cronies jut like that woman in Surrey is doing now. Coal wont cut it after the Chinese stop coughing!

    We’ve killed off the trees and fish: nothing’s left.

    Developers and their willing bum sucking enablers, architects, planners, what ever they like to call themselves, were the same then as they are now.

    I was there when George Puil gave half the city away to Li ka shing, willingly assisted by the cavelling, say goodbye to good planning, Larry Beasley who is still giving head at my old alma mater.

    The Beasley on Homer . . . tells you all you need to know!

    Scratching each other’s eyeballs wont turn the wreck around!

  • rph

    @threadkiller #22. I know that those apartments on Marpole provide affordable housing for many, in the past I have lived in my share of affordable basement suites and older apartments.

    The cluster of misery in the dtes is where it is in part due to the cheap sros in that area. As these areas gentrify and the rents kick up, people are moving elsewhere.

    Surrey has been the recipient. Unscrupulous landlords in Newton and Whalley convert their teardown large homes to fake rehab b+b’s and keep/charge the welfare rates for accommodation. Investment companies that own older run down apartment blocks in the Guildford area do as little as possible for upkeep and attention pending their future redevelopment (waiting for a shiny new rapid transit extension).

    Sky high property values has been the best thing to happen to Vancouver in clearing out the so-called riff raff. Gang problems? Drug turf wars? Poverty problems? They are going where they can more easily afford to live.

  • rph

    @Roger #26. I agree with you that many of the development decisions in Surrey are head scratchers.

    Too much and too fast, and too little control on developers. South Surrey is a car-centric mess, I have no idea what the vision is supposed to be there. The only vision I see is allowing developers to do their own thing.

  • Threadkiller

    rph#27:

    I’d be a good deal more careful of my phrasing if I were you. Vancouver’s “sky-high property values” are “clearing out” an awful lot more people– and businesses– than just the “so-called riff raff”. There’s nothing at all good about that. As should be perfectly bloody obvious.

  • Bill

    @Roger #26

    “Next time you’re on the move pop down to South America. Witness, first hand, the depleted resource based husks that used to be towns like Surrey!”

    I think Surrey has a lot more going for it than you are giving it credit for.

    http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Barbara+Yaffe+Unique+Surrey+Israeli+partnership+driving+innovation/9554171/story.html

  • Voony

    Article linked by Bill:

    To its credit, the city [of Surrey] is paying no heed to proponents of a growing boycott movement targeting Israel, a movement seeking to demonize the democratic state for “apartheid” policies. (This, when Israeli Arabs hold seats in the Knesset and an Israeli Arab judge sits on Israel’s Supreme Court.)

    …And the Iranian parliament as also Jewish MP…
    So, not sure what Barbara Yaffe want to prove here, …but this section reflecting the own opinion of the journalist on Middle east politic, is off topic and doesn’t speak well of the said Journalist (Barbara Yaffe).

  • Bill

    @voony #31

    “but this section reflecting the own opinion of the journalist on Middle east politic,”

    Isn’t that what columnists are paid to do, give their opinion? You may agree or disagree but you really can’t criticize her for giving her opinion.

    “is off topic”

    Hardly. It gives the reader some background as to how Surrey may have been able to attract this partnership where other cities may not have pursued it because of a boycott backlash.

    “doesn’t speak well of the said Journalist”

    How can expressing an opinion “not speak well” of Ms. Yaffe.

    This all leads to the question of why you would choose to focus on a minor aspect of the story which is “off topic” and not focus on the topic which is Surrey.

  • rph

    @Threadkiller #29.

    Agreed. Vancouver is losing the middle class, especially families with children, too.

    The poor and working poor are not the only casualties of Vancouver’s rise to the Best and Greenest City Ever!

  • Alan

    There’s nothing to see in Surrey. A tourist has no reason to go to Surrey. It’s mainly flat and totally unsuited to one of the more important facets of a city – people walking around outside. The streets are very wide and discourage people from getting out of their cars and walking. It’s main cultural centers are malls!! Just go in to Vancouver sometimes and walk down Main St, Commercial Drv. 4th Ave and Robson St and you’ll see what Surrey is sorely lacking and probably will not be able to build from scratch. It has no character and probably it’s main attributes will be their ability to offer cheap rent for distribution facilities and cheap housing for the people who work in them. Other than that, I suppose one good thing is that when people want to do or see something interesting they can hop on the Skytrain to Vancouver. So it will still remain a suburb, but with tall buildings. Metrotown and Brentwood are much the same. The only attractions are the malls.

  • Guest

    Threadkiller@23 –
    I said Downtown South, not Yaletown (i.e. not the heritage zoned area). There have been offices in Yaletown for some time. I remember when there was a Bank of Montreal in the then ShowMart Building (only to close up and then re-oipne a branch a block away about 10 years later).

    Downtown South is largely the area west of Yaletown from Homer to Granville – most of which was developed in the late 90s and early 00s.

    Emery Barnes Park (a key part of the redevelopment) was fully completed only a few years ago.