Rebecca recently wrote a short post about Surrey and it’s old moniker as the City of Parks. I’m quite supportive of the move to update Surrey’s motto (and logo), in particular because I do not believe the city is worth of labeling itself a “City of Parks”. Not only does it imply the city has many parks, which is up for debate, but it also suggests that the city is green, and trust me, Surrey is anything but green.

When I first heard that the whole point of the LRSP was for the region to be a series of town centres in a “sea of green”, I couldn’t help but laugh. Sure, there may be good number of stand alone trees, a few urban parks, and a few untouched nature reserves, but overall, I would not classify this area as a “sea of green”. It’s more like a few patchy parks in a sea of grey buildings.

A “sea of green” doesn’t matter if it isn’t within close reach to people. Maybe that’s why Downtown is the closest model to a success – because the higher density allows more people to take up less land, which is then available for recreational use. The parks there are close and are in constant use. When everything is sprawled out, people end up farther from nature.

Surrey has never been worthy of the “City of Parks” designation. It boasts about it’s 500 parks, and expansive trail system. Psht. It’s all marketing. If you ask me, just from a quick look at Google Maps, two other cities are more deserving of the title.  Burnaby has Burnaby Lake Regional Park, Deer Lake, and Burnaby Mountain, all taking up significant area in the city, not to mention the large Central Park. Vancouver has it beat though, with it’s numerous golf courses and the protected UBC lands making up a huge biotope along the south east side of the city – plus it’s also got QE Park and the crown jewel that is Stanley Park.

What makes the situation worse in Surrey is that is continues to pave over large swaths of old age forest for townhomes. I just don’t understand why council accepts the proposals! They should be acting for the betterment of the city, not to increase the tax base (which, by the way, is only there to support city services for the residents!). I don’t have a problem with the redevelopment of large exurban properties, but there is something wrong with knocking down what amounts to be an “unprotected” Green Timbers.

I understand the whole tree by-law issue, and yes, they are replacing trees at a higher than 1:1 ratio. That’s not what gets me. It’s that, for naming itself the “City of Parks”, I have to drive to get to one. How’s that for irony? Or if I want to walk 30 minutes to one, I need to cross a highway, bordered with a large wall to reduce residential noise concerns.

Surrey has a bylaw that states there should be 10.5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. That means that Surrey could grow by  180,000 residents before they would even hit the wall on that bylaw. The problem with such a bylaw is that it fails to recognize the need for all people to be within a short distance from nature. The current bylaw would basically allow for a huge park in the corner of the city, while the rest is paved over with construction.

Surrey is at a vital time in it’s young life as a city. Doug McCallum didn’t do many wonders for the city, and Dianne Watts, as balanced as she is, is something of a jack of all trades, not really able to successfully pull off any one thing with flying colours. Before all the usable land is built on, can the city at least do a few things to improve the green situation? Not only will the politicians get some street cred with the environmentalists – heck, their lives might be healthier in the long run as well. My suggestions:

1. Update the park bylaw requiring a certain amount of parkland be within a reasonable walking distance from any developed land (say, 800 m or so). This will allow for green space to be accessible to all people, no matter the density, but will also tighten up the amount of land that is developable and thus encourage higher density to shoot up.
2. Update the park bylaw requiring at least 60% of parkland be in it’s natural state, while 40% can be designed for recreational use.
3. Partner with Metro Vancouver to establish regional guidelines for the preservation of green space, while also establishing a means of cost sharing the purchase of properties to secure said green space when necessary.
4. Create a city-wide plan, with supportive laws in place, to develop a network of parks (or biotopes) – in effect, a true sea of green. This is accompanied by a greenway/trail network for public recreation.