<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Civic Surrey</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.civicsurrey.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.civicsurrey.com</link>
	<description>Urban news from BC&#039;s 2nd largest city</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:51:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Time to revive the B-Line in Surrey by Marvin B</title>
		<link>http://www.civicsurrey.com/2012/01/09/time-to-revive-the-b-line-in-surrey/comment-page-1/#comment-3627</link>
		<dc:creator>Marvin B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:51:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.civicsurrey.com/?p=2959#comment-3627</guid>
		<description>I think it&#039;s brilliant to revive the name B-Line for rapid bus service.  It&#039;s truly a testament to their success that rapid rail transit has replace one service already (98) and about to replace another (97), and talk of rail along Broadway to replace the 99 someday.  They draw so many people, they are killed off by their own success.  It&#039;s a great way for Translink to get rapid transit into areas without killing the bank first.  

It can have a huge media splash, even mentioning that the previous successes led to rail rapid transit.  I can&#039;t see a B-Line through Surrey and out to White Rock being anything other than a huge success.

I will say that I disagree with labelling buses B-Line that are not rapid bus.  You can&#039;t simply change the 41.  That bus stops at almost every block.  Hardly a B-Line type service.  B-Lines have to be in addition to local service.  The 135 however is a great candidate for B-Line branding if the frequency is there.  If it isn&#039;t there now, it should be.  More people along Hastings taking the B-Line, and leaving the local buses less busy for those folks who need them instead of being passed up.  Sounds great to me!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it&#8217;s brilliant to revive the name B-Line for rapid bus service.  It&#8217;s truly a testament to their success that rapid rail transit has replace one service already (98) and about to replace another (97), and talk of rail along Broadway to replace the 99 someday.  They draw so many people, they are killed off by their own success.  It&#8217;s a great way for Translink to get rapid transit into areas without killing the bank first.  </p>
<p>It can have a huge media splash, even mentioning that the previous successes led to rail rapid transit.  I can&#8217;t see a B-Line through Surrey and out to White Rock being anything other than a huge success.</p>
<p>I will say that I disagree with labelling buses B-Line that are not rapid bus.  You can&#8217;t simply change the 41.  That bus stops at almost every block.  Hardly a B-Line type service.  B-Lines have to be in addition to local service.  The 135 however is a great candidate for B-Line branding if the frequency is there.  If it isn&#8217;t there now, it should be.  More people along Hastings taking the B-Line, and leaving the local buses less busy for those folks who need them instead of being passed up.  Sounds great to me!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on A debate on Smart Growth Policy and the South of Fraser by shawneen edwards</title>
		<link>http://www.civicsurrey.com/2012/02/01/a-debate-on-smart-growth-policy-and-the-south-of-fraser/comment-page-1/#comment-3620</link>
		<dc:creator>shawneen edwards</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:56:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.civicsurrey.com/?p=3019#comment-3620</guid>
		<description>yes it is only time now when my father&#039;s beautiful dairy farm will be eaten up by as they say growth!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>yes it is only time now when my father&#8217;s beautiful dairy farm will be eaten up by as they say growth!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Surrey&#8217;s Dual Personality &#8211; Cloverdale Mall by P. Gill</title>
		<link>http://www.civicsurrey.com/2012/01/05/surrey-dual-personality-cloverdale-mall/comment-page-1/#comment-3614</link>
		<dc:creator>P. Gill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:39:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.civicsurrey.com/?p=2930#comment-3614</guid>
		<description>Very good article and insight.  This will certainly take away from the Cloverdale town center.  

This site of this Brickyard development was an industrial site and very well located as one or as a key distribution center for warehousing, logistics, etc. being at the corner of Highways 10 and 15.

Incidentally I think the City also recently allowed this same developer (Anthem) to rezone from industrial to townhouse on the edge of Fleetwood for a 160 unit townhome project.

The City doesn&#039;t really care about industrial land and will take any development it seems, no matter if it is the best use or not of the land or the right thing to do in terms of urban planning - if the developer wants it, the City will give it to them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very good article and insight.  This will certainly take away from the Cloverdale town center.  </p>
<p>This site of this Brickyard development was an industrial site and very well located as one or as a key distribution center for warehousing, logistics, etc. being at the corner of Highways 10 and 15.</p>
<p>Incidentally I think the City also recently allowed this same developer (Anthem) to rezone from industrial to townhouse on the edge of Fleetwood for a 160 unit townhome project.</p>
<p>The City doesn&#8217;t really care about industrial land and will take any development it seems, no matter if it is the best use or not of the land or the right thing to do in terms of urban planning &#8211; if the developer wants it, the City will give it to them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Panorama Ridge misses the mark in providing a pedestrian friendly environment by Jesse L Hausner</title>
		<link>http://www.civicsurrey.com/2012/01/26/panorama-ridge-misses-the-mark-in-providing-a-pedestrian-friendly-environment/comment-page-1/#comment-3582</link>
		<dc:creator>Jesse L Hausner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:33:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.civicsurrey.com/?p=3001#comment-3582</guid>
		<description>I agree. The main issue though is that Highway 10 is just that, a highway, and unfortunately out of the jurisdiction of Surrey from what I recall. As such Council has little actual say in how it was or is designed.

I do think though that they could have did a better job in the actual commercial property projects in light of that. An example would be Fraser Highway and Venture Way. The new &quot;strip mall&quot; with the Starbuks that has been constructed. The sidewalk on that stretch is a good 10+ feet away from the highway with a median between . While it doesn&#039;t have trees like your drawing does, I know from personal experience that it is much more comfortable to walk that stretch of sidewalk than it is any other stretch on the majority of Fraser Highway.

So that&#039;s a case where I think Council could have did a better job. Forcing the design of the commercial to add that buffer themselves to the highway. When 152nd is widened straight through to Highway 99 and with the overpass being constructed now, that intersection is going to get doubly busy. Not to mention the pure density of Panorama. It really deserves a better feel. I think the neighborhood itself is quite amazing with the parks and winding streets though.

That&#039;s an area where I think Clayton has done well. Even though it too has other problem areas, along Fraser Highway the sidewalk buffer right side east bound makes it much more comfortable to walk along such a busy stretch of road.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree. The main issue though is that Highway 10 is just that, a highway, and unfortunately out of the jurisdiction of Surrey from what I recall. As such Council has little actual say in how it was or is designed.</p>
<p>I do think though that they could have did a better job in the actual commercial property projects in light of that. An example would be Fraser Highway and Venture Way. The new &#8220;strip mall&#8221; with the Starbuks that has been constructed. The sidewalk on that stretch is a good 10+ feet away from the highway with a median between . While it doesn&#8217;t have trees like your drawing does, I know from personal experience that it is much more comfortable to walk that stretch of sidewalk than it is any other stretch on the majority of Fraser Highway.</p>
<p>So that&#8217;s a case where I think Council could have did a better job. Forcing the design of the commercial to add that buffer themselves to the highway. When 152nd is widened straight through to Highway 99 and with the overpass being constructed now, that intersection is going to get doubly busy. Not to mention the pure density of Panorama. It really deserves a better feel. I think the neighborhood itself is quite amazing with the parks and winding streets though.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s an area where I think Clayton has done well. Even though it too has other problem areas, along Fraser Highway the sidewalk buffer right side east bound makes it much more comfortable to walk along such a busy stretch of road.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on City Hall launches arts centre offensive by Kevin</title>
		<link>http://www.civicsurrey.com/2012/01/25/city-hall-launches-arts-centre-offensive/comment-page-1/#comment-3574</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:10:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.civicsurrey.com/?p=2997#comment-3574</guid>
		<description>It&#039;d be great to see the project move forward.  As a resident of downtown Surrey, I think a 1,600 seat centre would be great, HOWEVER, I&#039;d be quite satisfied with a smaller theatre... Even 1,000 theatre would be acceptable (IMO).

I think it could be a real asset for SFU Surrey as well, maybe the city could get some funding from other levels of government if it could becomes a joint asset with SFU (or even a long term lease giving SFU a certain amount of access).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;d be great to see the project move forward.  As a resident of downtown Surrey, I think a 1,600 seat centre would be great, HOWEVER, I&#8217;d be quite satisfied with a smaller theatre&#8230; Even 1,000 theatre would be acceptable (IMO).</p>
<p>I think it could be a real asset for SFU Surrey as well, maybe the city could get some funding from other levels of government if it could becomes a joint asset with SFU (or even a long term lease giving SFU a certain amount of access).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on New performing arts centre? Don&#8217;t count on it. by T Ian McLeod</title>
		<link>http://www.civicsurrey.com/2012/01/20/new-performing-arts-centre-dont-count-on-it/comment-page-1/#comment-3570</link>
		<dc:creator>T Ian McLeod</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:07:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.civicsurrey.com/?p=2990#comment-3570</guid>
		<description>Hey folks: I flagged your Performing Arts Centre blog entry on Facebook because I thought the rendering you included was cool.  A friend in Saskatoon  pointed me to Danish urbanist Jan Gehl, who refers to this kind of decorative, monumental structure as &quot;birdshit architecture.&quot;  A &quot;Vancouver Public Space&quot; post on Gehl&#039;s 2011 appearance in Vancouver is available here: http://bit.ly/gYKZAQ.

 An excerpt from the Vancouver blog post:

“Birdshit architecture”
 
Gehl recounted his first experience with Dubai. Wandering around, the buildings began to remind him of his wife’s perfume shelf. Just as the designers of his wife’s perfume bottles competed for attention with distinct and seductive shapes, so did the architects of Dubai’s buildings. Complete indulgence of form, with no interest in function and day to day use. He coined “birdshit architecture” to describe this process of premium architects being flown in to drop their buildings onto a city with no regard for their impact on public life.
 
Scale, people
 
This is Gehl’s primary thesis: the design of cities has lost touch with the human scale. Renderings may be littered with depictions of “unspecified public life” – scale people – but they are rarely grounded in reality. They are ornamental. Form comes first; a building at eye level is an after thought. As Gehl wisely reminds us, “units are getting bigger and bigger – but people are still slow and small.” And this demands a new approach.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey folks: I flagged your Performing Arts Centre blog entry on Facebook because I thought the rendering you included was cool.  A friend in Saskatoon  pointed me to Danish urbanist Jan Gehl, who refers to this kind of decorative, monumental structure as &#8220;birdshit architecture.&#8221;  A &#8220;Vancouver Public Space&#8221; post on Gehl&#8217;s 2011 appearance in Vancouver is available here: <a href="http://bit.ly/gYKZAQ" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/gYKZAQ</a>.</p>
<p> An excerpt from the Vancouver blog post:</p>
<p>“Birdshit architecture”</p>
<p>Gehl recounted his first experience with Dubai. Wandering around, the buildings began to remind him of his wife’s perfume shelf. Just as the designers of his wife’s perfume bottles competed for attention with distinct and seductive shapes, so did the architects of Dubai’s buildings. Complete indulgence of form, with no interest in function and day to day use. He coined “birdshit architecture” to describe this process of premium architects being flown in to drop their buildings onto a city with no regard for their impact on public life.</p>
<p>Scale, people</p>
<p>This is Gehl’s primary thesis: the design of cities has lost touch with the human scale. Renderings may be littered with depictions of “unspecified public life” – scale people – but they are rarely grounded in reality. They are ornamental. Form comes first; a building at eye level is an after thought. As Gehl wisely reminds us, “units are getting bigger and bigger – but people are still slow and small.” And this demands a new approach.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 54-storey tower joining City Hall soon by Ron</title>
		<link>http://www.civicsurrey.com/2012/01/16/54-storey-tower-joining-city-hall-soon/comment-page-1/#comment-3563</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:23:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.civicsurrey.com/?p=2967#comment-3563</guid>
		<description>A large convention hotel may also be able to make use of the performing arts centre auditorium if a large conference is hosted.  
Maybe there should be provision for a future overhead walkway linking the two?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A large convention hotel may also be able to make use of the performing arts centre auditorium if a large conference is hosted.<br />
Maybe there should be provision for a future overhead walkway linking the two?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on New performing arts centre? Don&#8217;t count on it. by Ken</title>
		<link>http://www.civicsurrey.com/2012/01/20/new-performing-arts-centre-dont-count-on-it/comment-page-1/#comment-3553</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2012 00:11:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.civicsurrey.com/?p=2990#comment-3553</guid>
		<description>Even though a 1,600 seat performing arts centre might be quite large for the Metro Vancouver region, I think that some of the Surrey high schools would be able to use this facility to capacity when it comes to grad ceremonies.  Schools like Lord Tweedsmuir are already using the Bell Centre at capacity and have been limiting the number of family members per graduate that can attend simply because there is no more room.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even though a 1,600 seat performing arts centre might be quite large for the Metro Vancouver region, I think that some of the Surrey high schools would be able to use this facility to capacity when it comes to grad ceremonies.  Schools like Lord Tweedsmuir are already using the Bell Centre at capacity and have been limiting the number of family members per graduate that can attend simply because there is no more room.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 54-storey tower joining City Hall soon by Erik V</title>
		<link>http://www.civicsurrey.com/2012/01/16/54-storey-tower-joining-city-hall-soon/comment-page-1/#comment-3552</link>
		<dc:creator>Erik V</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:19:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.civicsurrey.com/?p=2967#comment-3552</guid>
		<description>This building would go where the old hockey shop and old library and stuff is. Nothing is really there anymore where this would go.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This building would go where the old hockey shop and old library and stuff is. Nothing is really there anymore where this would go.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The streetcar suburb in Surrey by Ray</title>
		<link>http://www.civicsurrey.com/2012/01/19/the-streetcar-suburb-in-surrey/comment-page-1/#comment-3551</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:26:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.civicsurrey.com/?p=2976#comment-3551</guid>
		<description>Hello Nathan,

I completely agree with your point that the city needs to plan to be transit-friendly at the outset, and not build the service after the population meets a certain threshold. I mean, Kevin Costner didn&#039;t do it that way in Field of Dreams right? He built it, and then they came.

I recently watched a documentary called Urbanized, maybe you have heard of it? Basically it&#039;s about the design of cities, and in one segment it showcased the transit system in Bogota, Colombia. There they have a bus system that operates like a subway system; &quot;stations&quot; are built as raised platforms, the buses are equal to or longer than our B-line buses here, and they have priority on roads, so cars are relegated to an entirely separate set of lanes. And to promote cycling, they prioritized building paved cycling lanes across the city, while cars had to drive on dirt roads in developing areas of the city.

Until now, most of Surrey has been a city built for cars. If we want to encourage transit use, we need to completely change our way of thinking and approaching the issue of moving people around. There a successful examples everywhere, we just need to start looking.

Thank you for your insightful article.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Nathan,</p>
<p>I completely agree with your point that the city needs to plan to be transit-friendly at the outset, and not build the service after the population meets a certain threshold. I mean, Kevin Costner didn&#8217;t do it that way in Field of Dreams right? He built it, and then they came.</p>
<p>I recently watched a documentary called Urbanized, maybe you have heard of it? Basically it&#8217;s about the design of cities, and in one segment it showcased the transit system in Bogota, Colombia. There they have a bus system that operates like a subway system; &#8220;stations&#8221; are built as raised platforms, the buses are equal to or longer than our B-line buses here, and they have priority on roads, so cars are relegated to an entirely separate set of lanes. And to promote cycling, they prioritized building paved cycling lanes across the city, while cars had to drive on dirt roads in developing areas of the city.</p>
<p>Until now, most of Surrey has been a city built for cars. If we want to encourage transit use, we need to completely change our way of thinking and approaching the issue of moving people around. There a successful examples everywhere, we just need to start looking.</p>
<p>Thank you for your insightful article.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

