City of Parks?
Posted on October 9th, 2007 in environment, health, politics, rants, surrey, urban planning |
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:
- 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.
- Update the park bylaw requiring at least 60% of parkland be in it’s natural state, while 40% can be designed for recreational use.
- 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.
- 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.
6 Responses
Yeah, it’s to be updated - and I was reading about the Campbell River salmon habitat destruction this morning as well… more boxed townhomes in what used to be natural habitat… um super… it’s pretty sad.
All the while the provincial government is suggesting we’re running out of room for development. Uhhh huh…
Every time I see a patch of green space gone wild it’s got a damn development notice on it. I just want to see them clean it up and make it into a park, add a playground perhaps, some benches and a soft trail. Don’t parks increase the value of the land? It’s in a housing developer’s best interests. It’s going to take decades for the tree-lined bits of Fraser Hwy and residential streets to look anything like the tree-lined streets of Vancouver, if ever, because their strategy is cut now, replant later rather than taking the time to preserve. I’d hate to think what road widening would do to Green Timbers which is already half inaccessible because of several major roads intersecting it. And thanks to TransLink, I, too, have to drive there.
I have to come to Surrey this Sunday morning. The prospect of commuting over an hour is not pretty :( And if Surrey isn’t pretty then I am gonna be sad :(
As for Erika’s comment, there has been some research done in the US by two professors whose names escape me that deal with the value of land in the proximity of parks. Apparently yeah, they go up!
See!
Actually they’re making a little effort to put in a nice “park” across from Central City, replete with hideous sculptures of trees/flowers (I went to art school, I know what art looks like!) and lots of cement, but hopefully it’ll be a good public space. Unfortunately the trees they put in are teeny tiny, but I’m happy it’s not a highrise instead. I wonder what they’ll do with the area around the new building?
[...] …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! [PaulHillsdon] [...]
Thanks Paul for your excellent essay.
I just wanted to add a piece of my own experience.
Many years ago (about 1994) I outlined to the Surrey Bicycle coordinator the excellent potential and the need for an east west bicycle connection along 106 Avenue between Guildford and Whalley. Even at that time this was old news as the 1983 official community plan has oultined the 105-106 Avenue as a green corridor. Quoting from the plan, The greenway “concept is intended to incorporate bicycling routes.” The particular problem with this corridor is that there are no east west crossroads between 140th street and 138th street. The housing blocks in this area extend from 104th avenue all the way to 108th avenue, creating a barrier to pedestrians and cyclists. The situation screams for a remedy, especially since traffic on 104 and 108 is so heavy that no sensible person will bike there. Back in 1978 thraffic was still so light that I could bicycle along 108th avenue to whalley from Guildford.
The response in 1994 from the bicycle coordinator at the time is that crossroads would be created when development applications were received for properties in this area. There would be no municipal funding for this improvement. The improvement would have to be funded by the developer. Now 13 years later and 24 years after the publication of the Surrey Land Use Plan, there is still no development and no throughway.For 24 years people have been denied the potential use of the greenway or path. The cost to purchasing a small sliver of land to allow bicycles and pedestrians to pass would have been minimal. Since I did not start any community activism in this regard, maybe councillors conveniently overlooked this tiny piece of the transportation puzzle despite its obvious benefits. What it does teach is that even the most obvious improvements will not take place if people don’t become active in requesting this improvement.
Here is a piece of the 1983 Surrey Land Use Plan:
I don’t seem to be able to past it in, so I’ll just send it to your e-mail address.
Regards,
Ken