Jump to content

      












Photo

[Downtown Victoria] Crystal Garden Block announcement


  • Please log in to reply
317 replies to this topic

#81 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 11 June 2008 - 11:59 AM

I think I agree. Shut the d/t one and merge the two.

#82 Lorne Carnes

Lorne Carnes
  • Member
  • 61 posts

Posted 12 June 2008 - 08:46 AM

There's that utilization red herring thrown out again.

Why are these same standards not applied to every other active green space in town? How may people use the cricket pitch daily at Beacon Hill... the soccer field at Fisherman's Park, the ball diamond at Hillside Park?

Royal Athletic Park sits empty 95% of the year, costs gobs to maintain and has just lost all it's major tenants to Langford. It too is a valuable piece of downtown real estate which could accommodate both a children's museum and art gallery. Visitors would even have someplace to park their buses... yet no one is calling for that space to be paved over.

The City is merrily filling the core with high density high-rises to accommodate the silver tsunami headed our way. What do they think these people are going to do all day? Consume?

We should anticipate the need for more recreational facilities downtown... building more bowling greens, not less. These people need to live, work and PLAY downtown... or else the entire justification for higher density is a crock.

As for Cridge Park... it is what it is because the City has abandoned it. Once residents start moving into the surrounding towers they'll be clamouring for council to refurbish that space for neighbourhood use. It's extremely short sighted to give up on it now.

#83 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,287 posts

Posted 12 June 2008 - 09:40 AM

I agree 100% on the bowling green but as for Cridge Park I disagree you could pump as many residents into that neighbouhood as you want. (I would argue this is and has been done and there is still too much Park space St. Ann's, Thunderbird Park, Beacon Hill Park, The ledge grounds, the Empress grounds, the Causeway. Lets redevelop Cridge park and keep the bowling green.

#84 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 64,948 posts

Posted 12 June 2008 - 09:44 AM

We should anticipate the need for more recreational facilities downtown... building more bowling greens, not less.

Some would argue that we already have more than enough green space in close proximity to downtown.

I'm not saying we should be bulldozing the bowling green, but building more niche greenspaces (semi private) may not be wise in light of their infrequent use.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#85 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 12 June 2008 - 10:22 AM

There's that utilization red herring thrown out again.

Why are these same standards not applied to every other active green space in town? How may people use the cricket pitch daily at Beacon Hill... the soccer field at Fisherman's Park, the ball diamond at Hillside Park?


Utility is a red herring? If there is a specialized facility that occupies city land that few use, the city has every right, and I would say duty, to decide if that is the best use of the land.

For what its worth, I see people on the cricket pitch quite often, and it is part of a large urban park - the public is welcome to picnic, play baseball or soccer etc when it is not being used.

Royal Athletic? Sorry to gainsay you, but its always being used in the evenings most of the year.

I've *never* seen *either* downtown bowling green being used, and I pass by the one in Beacon Hill Park very often, in daylight hours. So I'm pretty dubious either is being used to anywhere near capacity. I don't have a huge problem with bowling greens, and sure they'll be empty sometimes. But this one is on prime public land, and to make matters worse it is a semi-private club. I, a member of the public, can't use the land unless I join the club.

I'm all for the city deciding if any piece of land they own could be better utilized to serve the public better.

#86 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 12 June 2008 - 11:45 AM

I support keeping the bowling green because I see it as a charming part of the anachronistic side of our city. I "use" it every time I pass by, as a valuable part of my urban landscape. Not so Cridge Park, and while I would gladly lend my support to the lawn bowlers, if defending Cridge Park is part of that package, I'd have to step out.

#87 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 12 June 2008 - 01:01 PM

^ I'm with Caramia on this. I "use" it, too.

I've *never* seen *either* downtown bowling green being used, and I pass by the one in Beacon Hill Park very often, in daylight hours.


That's really weird, because I see the Beacon Hill Park one used often, and it's quite packed when it is in use. I don't pass by the CP one very often, and have seen it in use less frequently, and when it is used it seems to have fewer players. But that could change. I'm for keeping it.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#88 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 12 June 2008 - 02:38 PM

Where was the outcry when the last ten pin bowling lane was on its way to demo?

#89 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 29,456 posts

Posted 12 June 2008 - 03:02 PM

Where was the outcry when the last ten pin bowling lane was on its way to demo?


I am pretty sure the city of Victoria didn't own the land on which Mayfair Lanes stood (Town & Country Lanes was 5-pin), so I am not sure the two situations are comparable.

#90 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,596 posts

Posted 12 June 2008 - 04:04 PM

I am pretty sure the city of Victoria didn't own the land on which Mayfair Lanes stood (Town & Country Lanes was 5-pin), so I am not sure the two situations are comparable.


True. Sadly both are missed by many. My kids are losing so much it's painful for them to try and understand.
My daughter is still upset about losing Crystal Gardens to this day.

I'm heading down to CP Bowling Club tomorrow and take advantage of the $30 social membership.

And I agree with the other posters. What is everyone going to wind up doing?!
This is also a retirement city apparently.

Lowe's legacy. ugh!

#91 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 12 June 2008 - 05:01 PM

5 pin, 10 pin, whatever. The city may not own the land. (Which is worse if you think about it, in the sense that it's costing tax payers' money to keep something very few people use.) I bet more people enjoyed the the 5 pin lanes than this stretch of grass. And it was torn down to be replaced by a frikin Walmart. The last lanes of its kind in the city. This bowling green could be replaced with something a lot more people will enjoy.
There are more than one of these green to keep members happy, I'm sure. As far a children's museum goes, so far there are none. Not to mention our need for more gallery space.
Yeah it blows the green's going. But if it gives us a couple great, useful things, them i all for it.

#92 Lorne Carnes

Lorne Carnes
  • Member
  • 61 posts

Posted 12 June 2008 - 10:39 PM

The bowling green within Cridge Park is open to the public. There are no locks on the gate. People wander in to watch all day. Anyone keen to try it out can receive free lessons anytime. They want you to join.... and it's cheap.

The City does not contribute a dime to the maintenance of the Club's grounds. Membership fees are assessed purely to keep the greens playable.

If the City eventually replaced the bowling club in Cridge Park with another specialized facility, such as a satellite art gallery, they would not give up ownership of the parkland. Should that new lease holder also be expected to maintain facilities and programs yet provide free admission? Is AGGV prepared to wave their existing membership fees in return for this space?

Also, when identifying green space it's important to differentiate between active and passive. You can not play soccer or baseball in Thunderbird Park, the Empress gardens or on the Legislative grounds. This area of town is already severely deficient in programable active park space... and yet more density is being added all the time. Would those advocating moving the Club be open to expanding the greens in Beacon Hill Park to accommodate the extra demand?

If you want active seniors you need to give them something to do. If you don't want them to hop in their cars to find it you need to provide the facilities and programs locally. In my mind the bowling Club is doing just that.... providing a very valuable recreational service to the local residents free of charge and they should be encouraged to stay.

#93 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,596 posts

Posted 12 June 2008 - 11:48 PM

If you want active seniors you need to give them something to do. If you don't want them to hop in their cars to find it you need to provide the facilities and programs locally. In my mind the bowling Club is doing just that.... providing a very valuable recreational service to the local residents free of charge and they should be encouraged to stay.


And many can't/don't drive.
What about live/work/play concept?
I found this:
http://www.canada.co...ea4dac7&k=80430

I also was wondering if there is a connection between the value of the property (7-8 million)
And the fact that the same amount is expected to cost finishing the convention centre.

Let's not forget the Crystal Court Motel land with be condos as well.

#94 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,596 posts

Posted 13 June 2008 - 12:07 AM

5 pin, 10 pin, whatever. The city may not own the land. (Which is worse if you think about it, in the sense that it's costing tax payers' money to keep something very few people use.) I bet more people enjoyed the the 5 pin lanes than this stretch of grass. And it was torn down to be replaced by a frikin Walmart. The last lanes of its kind in the city. This bowling green could be replaced with something a lot more people will enjoy.
There are more than one of these green to keep members happy, I'm sure. As far a children's museum goes, so far there are none. Not to mention our need for more gallery space.
Yeah it blows the green's going. But if it gives us a couple great, useful things, them i all for it.


We're in a time of obesity amongst youth and a lack of recreation period. So I agree losing both bowling allies were a catastrophic loss.
But in listening to my own children, they want the lawn bowling to stay. A children's museum should not remove an outdoor pastime.

#95 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 13 June 2008 - 06:30 AM

Almost anyone who currently walking to this bowling green can walk the 1.1 km to the one in BHP. If recreation is the goal, getting people out and walking will do more than the lawn bowling itself. If they aren't walking now due to various infirmities, then they can drive (or scooter or whatever) just as they must do now. 1.1 km is not very far.

The point is that there is plenty of local opportunity to live, work, and play within a few blocks of that location. Nobody has any excuse to be inactive, or give up lawn bowling for that matter, if this green is put to other uses. Any land use decisions should be for the greater good. If the "greater good" means keeping the lawn bowling (i.e. Victoria is full of folks who feel the quaint anachronism of it is a good use of land) then of course it should be kept. But personally, I'd rather see an art gallery or museum at this location, or even a sculpture park, than a fenced off bowling green.

#96 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,287 posts

Posted 13 June 2008 - 07:46 AM

The bowling green within Cridge Park is open to the public. There are no locks on the gate. People wander in to watch all day. Anyone keen to try it out can receive free lessons anytime. They want you to join.... and it's cheap.

The City does not contribute a dime to the maintenance of the Club's grounds. Membership fees are assessed purely to keep the greens playable.

If the City eventually replaced the bowling club in Cridge Park with another specialized facility, such as a satellite art gallery, they would not give up ownership of the parkland. Should that new lease holder also be expected to maintain facilities and programs yet provide free admission? Is AGGV prepared to wave their existing membership fees in return for this space?

Also, when identifying green space it's important to differentiate between active and passive. You can not play soccer or baseball in Thunderbird Park, the Empress gardens or on the Legislative grounds. This area of town is already severely deficient in programable active park space... and yet more density is being added all the time. Would those advocating moving the Club be open to expanding the greens in Beacon Hill Park to accommodate the extra demand?

If you want active seniors you need to give them something to do. If you don't want them to hop in their cars to find it you need to provide the facilities and programs locally. In my mind the bowling Club is doing just that.... providing a very valuable recreational service to the local residents free of charge and they should be encouraged to stay.


Lorne,

I 100% agree with you that the Bowling green is an important, vibrant and necessary part of downtown. But whty would the Bowling green not want to work towards a compromise.

I notice now that it is the Bowling Green in Cridge Park.

Drop Cridge Park it is an albatross around your neck

You will have so much more support if everyone tries to save the bowling green and lets the Park be redeveloped. Think how much better the bowling green would be with a Children's museum or Art Gallery next door. More audience, more passerbys and I would bet more members.

Cridge Park not including the bowling green is a waste of space with so much other regular public space within a block of here. It is PASSIVE SPACE as you state and is the same as Thunderbird Park, Empress Grounds, St.Anns, Beacon Hill Park, Night is for Sleeping, Causeway and Ledge Grounds except not used like those other spaces.

I would go to the rally on the 26th if it was to save the Bowling Green but allowed the redevelopment of Cridge Park.

Ask for the impossible and you will be told no. Ask for a compromise and I would bet most would see it as a win win.

#97 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 29,456 posts

Posted 13 June 2008 - 08:26 AM

Drop Cridge Park it is an albatross around your neck. You will have so much more support if everyone tries to save the bowling green and lets the Park be redeveloped.


I agree 100%.

#98 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 13 June 2008 - 10:57 AM

G-mam
Do you actually think there would be enough room for a Children's museum AND a gallery space in the Cridge park space?

All this to accomadate 80 core members. And sorry, I can't count those of you who have joined just because you want to save it. How many of you would continue your membership a year from now, if it's saved?
If this space were converted to the a gallery/ museum 80 people A DAY utilizing it would be a dissappointment.
I say all this having full respect for those who actually use it. I can't argue with your perspective, but I just feel it could be put to better uses. It's numbers game for me.


BTW, Martini, I asked my daughter if she wanted to see the green saved or see a children's museum, and she said "hago blut duto". Which clearly translates to "Yes father, interesting question. While I simpathize with the cause of the green members, it is an underutilized space. While I feel it's an attractive and quirky gem, I think some people's sentimentalities are misplaced. And there aren't enough thing for us kids to do in this city - espescially when the weather is bad. I cannot see this incredible opportunity pass us by to save a bowling green - espescially since there is another one a short distance away... Now I want a banana."

#99 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,287 posts

Posted 13 June 2008 - 11:06 AM

One or the other.

#100 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 17,224 posts

Posted 13 June 2008 - 11:18 AM

And there aren't enough thing for us kids to do in this city - espescially when the weather is bad.


Unless this hypothetical children's museum is free, I don't understand why anyone would think locals would take their kids down to see it in any great number. This hypothetical children's museum would have to be an absolute home run to best the Crystal Garden in terms of appeal for kids (and adults, too). If the Crystal Garden couldn't pull in decent attendance (back when there were acres of parking in the immediate vicinity), then why will this place be able to do it?

Let's not underestimate the size of the remaining potential development sites on that block. The RBCM (sans Imax) would almost fit on the bowling green/park site. That's huge. Two wax museums would fit on the park alone. I don't see any good reason why the city's brilliant ideas couldn't be split between the flatiron site and the park site, with the bowling green remaining essentially intact in something resembling its current size and form.

That's another thing: would it be a big deal to preserve the bowling green but also make it slightly smaller? I agree with G-Man that it's silly to be drawing lines in the sand.

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users