Stephanie Ryan: Surrey must manage growth to thrive in the future
Last week’s census numbers showed Surrey’s population grew by 19 percent, almost 75,000 new citizens, in just five years.
To the growth-at-all-costs folks, this is good news for the economy.
But for those of us who actually live in Surrey, who get stuck on congested roads and overcrowded buses, in crammed emergency rooms and in portable classrooms bursting at the seams, it’s the same old story.
Mayor Dianne Watts says we must continue to develop at a breakneck pace in Surrey because slowing down—managing growth—would cost us jobs. At the same time, she wishes there were more hospitals, schools, and buses, especially in chronically underserved neighbourhoods like East Clayton.
The responsibility for growth management ultimately lies with city council. Surrey council has failed miserably to negotiate key infrastructure improvements like new schools, hospitals, roads, and enough buses. Despite this, they continue to approve almost every new development.
When you don’t plan for growth, you suffer perpetual growing pains.
Surrey’s infrastructure is constantly lagging behind its true needs while its rate of growth shows no sign of slowing down anytime soon. It’s sort of like being on a treadmill that never ends.
And it doesn’t appear that the city will be changing tack anytime soon. Surrey is pushing to build brand-new neighbourhoods out of vast areas of green fields in the Anniedale-Tynehead and Grandview Heights areas.
Because these areas are currently rural, they lack any services whatsoever: no roads, transit, water, sewer, schools, et cetera. The city estimates that it will spend $22 million more on water and sewer for Tynehead than it can recoup through development cost charges. So why is this expansion allowed to proceed? Who is actually calling the shots?
The current council will undoubtedly proceed with pop-up neighbourhoods in these two areas.
Tynehead and Grandview Heights residents will suffer the same effects currently experienced by residents of East Clayton and throughout Surrey: kids stuffed into schools like sardines and car-dependent families backed up in rush-hour traffic, unable to get into an ER should someone fall ill.
Exponential growth that is not sustainable is nothing to brag about. Surrey’s growth is currently emerging as the worst kind of suburban sprawl, and this must change if the city is going to thrive in the long term.
Stephanie Ryan was a 2011 candidate for city council with the Surrey Civic Coalition.
Comments
6 Comments
Daryl Dela Cruz
Feb 14, 2012 at 10:11pm
You make a great point concerning the poor choices being made for development in the City of Surrey.
Planning such new communities when existing ones are incomplete is truly detrimental in the ways you do so describe. I have heard from some who argued that the density in the new Clayton Heights development makes it more worthwhile for rapid transit implementation than Guildford - that's ridiculous for one as Guildford has plenty of opportunities in itself and is also unlike Clayton a major centre-for-commerce (i.e. retail and office, people go there to work!). These new communities like Clayton and Grandview Heights are nice in that they are being built with improved densities but that's not what makes up the entire picture. Have you seen the amount of empty grassfield lots sitting right in the middle of urban area around Guildford and Surrey City Centre, where there are plenty of opportunities? It's ridiculous! And yet trees are being cut down for these new dense outward lying communities that are being provided with inadequate services for the amount of people living there.
Surrey is doing a poor job of encouraging growth in the right areas, and it seems most of this new growth and population is being put in the wrong places. This is a problem because (you're totally right,) it increases yearly capital spending in order to allow for the provision of services and infrastructure - often at the expense of needed improvements in existing communities. The problems in design and planning seem to be everywhere; have a look at the City Centre land use plan: mixed-use, "walkable" development on the wrong corridors and areas and no mixed-use development in the places they would be more suited for! /gags/
I thoroughly believe that the City of Surrey needs to conduct a comprehensive review of its land-use planning policies and create initiatives to encourage the build-up of development where no trees need to be cut down for it. For example: the planning of competitive, practical rapid transit will have a role in shaping such growth in an appropriate way here in Surrey, one of the fastest growing cities in Canada.
full throttle
Feb 14, 2012 at 11:24pm
Surrey is full of scum. There should be a border at the Surrey SkyTrain station and armed AK47 border guards keeping Surrey dirtbags out of Vancouver during the Stanley Cup playoffs this year.
Chris Green
Feb 15, 2012 at 1:24am
Although I agree with you that it is a problem that services have not kept up with population growth, I think that it is time that the left in Surrey stopped pretending that slowing down growth is possible. I moved here with my son in 2010 because there is simply no affordable housing left any closer to downtown Vancouver. I suspect those of us who have the means to (barely) afford a mortgage settle here for the same reason. I think Surrey is where the Lower Mainland's future is, just as New Westminster is where this metropolis began. If the beating the Surrey Civic Coalition took from the voters in November (which I didn't participate in - you had my vote) indicates anything, it is that a broad majority of voters support continued development and urbanization. While it is necessary to greatly improve services (the bus system seems stuck in the 1970's or 80's, with frequent, if crowded, service along Scott Rd., King George, and the Fraser Hwy., but at best half-hourly service for the south end of Fleetwood, never mind the newer town centres; and no night bus service), there is no point in opposing growth that cannot be stopped. Let's put the blame for poor schools, hospitals, and transit where it belongs - on the gang of vandals in Victoria who have gutted our provincial government to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest.
stephanieryan86
Feb 15, 2012 at 6:45am
Chris: if growth is going to continue at the current rate in Surrey, we should at least be choosing to grow sustainably. That means smart growth that takes place in existing town centres, where city services already exist. Smart, sustainable growth will make our neighbourhoods more walkable and more viable to serve with public transit. Greenfield development in farflung rural locations does the opposite and only makes our problems worse than they were to begin with.
Arthur Vandelay
Feb 15, 2012 at 7:07am
Sorry ... where is Surrey?
Daryl Dela Cruz
Feb 15, 2012 at 7:55pm
Readers and Stephanie Ryan should check this out: 900 students in a Clayton Heights ELEMENTARY school http://www.globaltvbc.com/surrey+laments+delays+in+school+construction/6... - that rivals the enrollment at some secondary schools. (Clayton Heights is one of these new communities, built in an outward location of Surrey closer to Langley where of course nothing existed before)
The type of dense development development you are seeing in Clayton is the type of development that should be seen in places like Guildford, where there are SEVERAL empty lots and areas being rezoned that can accommodate this type of development and services that are already much better, can be expanded for low cost and can more easily accommodate everyone.
There are already several elementary schools in Guildford that could accommodate such students - I can list 3 that are all within 8 blocks of each other. North Surrey and Johnston Heights Secondary Schools, which both serve the local area, are also apparently among the largest secondary school institutions in the province. If I'm not mistaken (I can only confirm this for JHSS because it is the school I actually go to), at the moment neither of these two schools require any portables for extra teaching space as there is plenty within the school - whereas new schools like Clayton Heights, Fraser Heights, etc. are overflowing with portables - although this can also be attributed to very poor (did you notice, internally all of the new schools in Surrey are laid out similarly? They are also among the schools in Surrey that have the most portables installed - Fraser Heights, which is near my residence, uses SEVENTEEN) school design.
Why people aren't being made fully aware of (or speaking out on) these problems and why no one seems to be wanting to step forward to solve these problems is astounding me.