Skip to content

An East-Sider in Surrey

December 1, 2009

Mike Klassen, the acerbic blogger at citycaucus.com, was invited out to Surrey last week to speak at a public meeting on the future of a community known as St. Helen’s Park .  ( He blogged on the subject here, also providing a link to the grassroots community group looking to resist larger ‘megahomes’ – www.sthelenspark.com.) 

Before he went, Mike did a little tour on Google using Streetview to get a sense of the community.  He also created a rather brilliant little slideshow using images from the streets.

Mike lives in a classic streetcar neighbourhood off Fraser Street on the East Side of Vancouver, and is an articulate fan of the kind of intermediate urbanism that so characterized the development of this city before Motordom took over.

St. Helen’s Park, on the other hand, is a classic 50′s subdivision of the kind that pioneered post-war sprawl south of the Fraser.  

As I traveled around SHP the first thing I noted was there are no sidewalks. Most of Surrey’s older residential communities don’t have them. Cars were always present and gas was cheap, after all. Who needed to walk? Fortunately, city planners today are making walking more of a priority.

There were many other things that struck me.

  • Everything was low, low density. One storey homes + basement. Probably few, or no suites;
  • Local shopping was practically non-existent;
  • Homes were set so far back from the street that visibility was a problem, which invites crime;
  • Streets were tidy, but dull. Little effort was made to improve the curb appeal of streets;
  • There are no curbs at all;
  • Apartment buildings on the outer edge of the community were old and tiny in comparison to the lot sizes;
  • Streets were narrow and dangerous for walking – I bet most kids around here either drive or bus to school;
  • There are no parks or public space inside of SHP’s boundaries.

Not a bad summary of the challenges facing these aging suburbs.  But what Mike found out, of course, was that the people who live there, aging in place, rather like it that way.  Sidewalks?  No thanks.

Mike (and the leaders of St. Helen’s Park) might want to pick up the Summer-Fall issue of spacing magazine out of Toronto that consistently wins awards for its coverage of the urban landscape.  This issue is devoted to “The Return of Suburbia” – and while regrettably the stories are not on line, it’s worth finding a copy to read Dylan Reid’s piece on “Suburban Evolution.” 

In it, he discusses the character of the inner suburbs of Toronto which, having lost of the bloom of youth, are confronting distinctly urban issues.  But thanks to the strong planning of past Metro governments, he argues, they are twice as dense as the newer outer suburbs and can build on the fabric of towers and transit to evolve into something more urban.  Unfortunately, this is not going to be sufficient for the later suburbs, often described as the ’905 Belt.’

“Much of the inner suburbs, and most of the outer suburbs, are made up of  low-density housing subdivisions with indirect, dead-end road patterns deliberately designed to not connect well with neighbouring arterial roads.  They can’t become traditionally urban …”

Fortunately, Dylan has a suggestion:

… a first step is to make subdivisions more walkable.  But the obvious solutuion, to put in sidewalks where they are missing, gets a lot of resistance.  When I’ve talked to people who live on these kinds of streets, they’ve told me they don’t want sidewalks because the street feels shared at the moment, a sheltered space where people can walk, kids can bike, and drivers are aware of them.

Rather than putting in sidewalks, such streets could build on this sentiment by being formalized as “shared streets” … 

The basic steps for creating residential shared streets are simple: narrow the entry points and sign them so that cars know they are in a special zone, and implement a super-slow speed limit (20 kilometres an hour)…  A Canadian twist could be to specifically allow street hockey to be played at all times of the day, with appropriate warning signs for drivers (or even painted street markings).

There’s more, like supporting itinerant vendors (people who drive a van to a community at a set time every week to sell fresh fruit and vegetables), or allowing people to run businesses out of their homes.  (Think of all those street-facing two- and three-car garages, already wired and plumbed, perfectly suitable for a hairdresser, an accountant, even car repair.  Many of them aren’t even used for parking cars, given the amount of alternative asphalt available.)  

Of course none of this matters to those who simply don’t want change.  But as the residents of St. Helen’s Park are discovering, change comes to them – whether in the form of megahouses or more traffic.  The challenge of suburban change, which spacing explores in detail, is the primary challenge of our region as well as theirs.

 

10 Comments leave one →
  1. Ron C. permalink
    December 1, 2009 2:35 pm

    Growing up in Nanaimo, none of the neighbourhood streets had sidewalks – but that didn’t stop us from walking to school or bikig around the neighbourhood or across town.

    They teach kids to walk facing traffic for that reason – so you can see approaching cars. And maybe sharing the road with pedestrians also makes drivers a bit more likely to slow down, especially in a residential area (think of Granville Island).

    Standing or walking on a sidewalk doesn’t suddenly immunize you from injury – an out of control car, truck or bus can easily jump a curb and strike a pedestrian on a sidewalk.

  2. Joe Just Joe permalink
    December 1, 2009 3:06 pm

    What sidewalks also do is they take away private space from homeowners, creating shorter lots, hence bringing the houses closer to the front. This has numerous postive side effects such as improved eyes on the street and a closer sense of community.
    Traffic can still be easily regulated to lower speed by simple techniques like corner bulges at intersections which narrow the street and cause drivers to slow as they pass thru them.

  3. December 1, 2009 3:52 pm

    This is nothing more than typical NIMBYism Gord. Megahomes, as everyone knows, are primarily constructed by new Canadians as multi-generational housing. This is what swept through Newton the past twenty years, and which has also resulted in that community becoming the most dense in the City of Surrey – which, as we all know, is a good thing for urbanity.

    Sidewalks won’t encourage a huge shift over to walking. That’s a ridiculous red herring. It’s all about the built form and tiny retrofits aren’t enough.

    From a regional perspective, density is occurring in the City’s town centres as they are redeveloped. Cloverdale, Fleetwood, City Centre, Semiamoo – all featuring four storey walk ups, apartment buildings, or townhouses (plus sidewalks!).

    The issue of transforming the suburb will take decades, but let’s not shift focus from densifying regional centres to adding sidewalks into old communities that are set to redevelop themselves anyway. Efforts need to be focused on centres and that’s where they should remain.

    Besides, Vancouverites shouldn’t exactly boast. Outside of Downtown, Vancouver is primarily composed of “suburban” single family homes. Not to mention, you guys have failed at densifying around SkyTrain.

    So the last thing you guys should be doing is coming into Surrey and telling us how we should be running things. What a load of crock.

  4. Joe Just Joe permalink
    December 1, 2009 5:27 pm

    Paul, I have to argue the fact about Vancouver not densifying around it’s skytrain stations, every station has been visibly densified. Even the two have have been the least visibly densified (29th+Nanaimo) have been densified quite a bit. Note that Renfrew-Collingwood between 1996-2006 had the largest increase in population after downtown. Do not underesitimate the legalization of secondary suites, not to mention most new homes have two basements suites, one legal one illegal, they have done wonders at densifying what might appear to be suburban areas, the new laneway housing policy will even further enhance density without changing the appearance of the neighbourhood. Lastely it’s worth noting that it is much harder to change existing residential areas then it is to start from scratch as was the case as a lot of the stations. The COV has done a fairly good job at increasing the amount of people in those areas without causing a rezoning uprising.

  5. Sungsu permalink
    December 1, 2009 8:43 pm

    I agree that sidewalks are not necessary for a walkable street. Just make the streets like woonerf street in the Netherlands or those in Germany where cars are “guests.”

  6. Ron C. permalink
    December 2, 2009 1:20 pm

    Vancouver has had a long standing policy of NOT densifying merely because of the existence of a rapid transit station.

    The examples of transit-oriented developments within the City of Vancouver are all examples of “opportunitsic rezonings” of previously consolidated parcels where “ugly” industrial lands have been been replaced with “pretty” residential projects.
    i.e. CityGate @ Main Street and Collingwood Village @ Joyce.
    Broadway & Commercial is under developed for the crossroads or two rapid transit lines.
    Nanaimo Station is surrounded by empty lots awaiting future redevelopment because the City froze zoning when the Expo Line was built to allow only single family housing.
    29th Ave. station is so “quiet” and “parklike” that it’s a major centre for assaults on women.
    Rupert Station and Renfrew Station have been upzoned for office space with some success (primarily near Renfrew Station).
    The plans for the Oakridge area ignore the redevelopment of the southeast, northwest and northeast corners of the intersection – focussing on the already consolidated parcel on whihc the mall sits.

    Broadway and Commercial should be a major office and residential hub – akin to Bloor and Yonge or Yonge and Eglinton in Toronto – but what do we get? Beautification with pretty sidewalks, benches and planters as part of the “Transit Villages” initiative. That shouldn’t be a “village” – it should be an urban centre. Imagine all of the residents that could live within a stone’s throw of the Commerial Drive shopping area.

    But the City of Vancouver caters to the NIMBYs.

  7. flowmass permalink
    December 2, 2009 4:43 pm

    Gordon,

    I went and saw the panel that Mike Klassen was on rencently in Surrey (as was Peter Simpson of the GVHBA and a regular contributor to the Vancouver Sun.) Mike’s talk was good and quite accurate about the things he observed. But I got the distinct impression that most of the audience did not grasp the significance of what he was saying about sustainability and change. In a recent article in the Globe and Mail, it was reported that one thousand people a month move to Surrey. So change in one form or another is inevidable. And you are right, most don’t want change. Especially those living in low density areas.
    So the question we will have to ask ourselves as a region is: Is sustainability negotiable? Can some areas ‘resist’ ? How will we deal with change? This is something the municipal politicians in Surrey must deal with. Sooner than later.

  8. Rod Smelser permalink
    December 8, 2009 2:33 pm

    Ron C. – you’re absolutely right about Vancouver City’s resistance to higher density zoning around transit routes. And they made sure that the number of housing units on the old Expo lands was cut in half. Vancouver uses its zoning power as a price support instrument, allowing for enough increments in zoning to accommodate the next round of construction, but no more.

    The key policy goal is to parcel out zoning increments in doses that are large enough to allow for the development industry to build a certain number of units, but not so large as to have a depressing impact on land prices. That would imperil the non-taxable capital gainst that city voters have in the principal residences. That’s the number pre-occupation of both voters and politicians in Vancouver, and indeed across Greater Vancouver.

    If a lower denisty neighborhood in Surrey wants to keep it’s 1950s character, I don’t see why that is bad, provided that sympathetic redevelopment is not unduly restricted. I have never approved of FSRs anywhere, but believe that setbacks and ground coverage restrictions are perfectly justificable. In many instances the side setbacks should be larger, at least 10 and probably more like 12 to 15 feet for safety, privacy and just plain decent architecture.

    I live in a neighborhood in Maple Ridge that is similar to the one pictured, flat terrain, uncurbed streets, no sidewalks. And yes, everyone uses the street to walk, cycle, skateboard, play hockey, etc. If Liberal Party man Mike Klassen doesn’t approve of our neighborhood, … try to imagine how little I care.

  9. December 20, 2009 6:44 pm

    I normally don’t take the time out to thank people when i read their information but this was really informative.
    I look forward to reading more on your blog.
    Thank You.

Trackbacks

  1. re:place Magazine

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,008 other followers