317 replies to this topic

[jklymak]

Would a sincere appeal from the local community, including the Church of our Lord, to retain this as active park space sway you at all? Would the comparative cost to the taxpayer of a refurbished park vs civic building be a factor in gaining your support?

The comparative cost of extremely valuable land in the heart of Victoria's tourist district is going to be pretty hard to overcome with a couple of park benches and flower beds.

The museum is right there, the Empress, the Legislature. The tourists are right there in the inner harbour. Its a great space for an art gallery or other civic building. Not so much for a completely empty park and a bowling green supporting 80 bowlers. I applaud the city for thinking of better uses for this land.

[homebrewer]

The Crystal garden block was originally a recreational facility, including all of Cridge park, of which half has been maintained by the CP Lawn Bowling Club (a non-profit) for a long time. They charge a nominal fee as they are the good stewards of the land, making it economically sustainable, it costs the community nothing.
This non-profit has been working with the community for over 6 months on a long-term plan, which includes the city park side of Cridge Park, which includes working in parallel with the Church of our Lord. Of course increasing utilization is one of the top priorities of Cridge park, not to mention an economical plan for increased parking. No one challenges that the city has encouraged the demise of the public park, having cut the grass there only twice this year for example, and both times due to complaints. I'm personally curious, as well as everyone I've spoken with in the community, who the city has been consulting with about this land. It isn't the good stewards, or those with historical status in the area.
Without giving out the plan before it is presented June 26th, I will suggest the CP Lawn Bowling club and the Church have a plan that will significantly increase utilization without paving over yet another park. As always, you're more than welcome to contribute in the planning process. I know several members of this forum have been involved. Anyone that has spent an hour in the planning process, or at the lawn bowling club understands the importance and vision we've all worked so hard on. Please don't let a few arm chair critics who've never spent an hour with us distract you. To those critics, why not come out tomorrow night at 5:30p.m. for a free lesson? Hear our side of the story, give this unique sport a try, and work with us for a vision we're all happy with.
Your support and participation is appreciated.

[jklymak]

They charge a nominal fee as they are the good stewards of the land, making it economically sustainable, it costs the community nothing.

That's inaccurate. It costs the community the lost income on the value of the land. If this land is truly worth 7million, which sounds about right to me, the income from that in a treasury bill would be $280k a year. Add to that the lost tax revenue if the property was developed: suppose it was developed to be worth 20 million, property taxes would be at least another $100k a year. So it in fact costs the community on the order of $400k a year to keep this plot of land empty.

The same logic could be applied to any parkland, and I'm certainly not saying parkland doesn't have intrinsic value and that communities shouldn't be willing to pay for it. But it does have a price. In the case of the bowling green I think the price is too high. For your club to claim it costs me nothing indicates that you don't appreciate the huge subsidy you are getting.

[Caramia]

I'll listen to your plan with an open mind, of course.

But asking me to dress in white and come out to support saving one thing that I don't see as particularly valuable at the expense of another thing that I think would be great, based on a plan I have never seen, is a lot to ask. Don't get me wrong, it's great you got involved. But saying that I don't see myself doing that for your cause and explaining why doesn't make me or anyone else here an armchair critic - especially those of us who were willing to do it had the cause been a better match with what we wanted.

I went down and had my say when the City was making their plan - and any one of those "good stewards" could have as well. It shouldn't be the City's job to come chasing after our opinions. We need to attend and make our opinions heard. It isn't fair to wait until after the fact and then accuse them of "not consulting" - especially when you are telling us in the very same post you have been given the chance to present a counter-proposal. In fact, it weakens your credibility.

If this plan is able to give our city back the cultural facility that the JBNA cost our city when it squashed the art gallery project in Crystalview while at the same time keeping the lawn bowling green, I will get behind it 100%. I consider it shameful that Victoria doesn't have a public Art Gallery downtown. We have an amazing history of artists, and a vibrant arts community, yet we have pushed that sector into the fringes to the cultural detriment of each and every one of us.

[homebrewer]

The lawn bowling green does not cost us as tax payers anything, the nominal membership pays for all maintenance fees. I understand the idea of potential value, which is a completely different topic. Bulldoze the green space and make it a Canadian office of Halliburton or Shell Imperial if you want to see a great financial ROI. This is not what the community is asking for.
If you want to go further, take a look at the utilization per square foot of say a local golf club, or any of the non-active green spaces. It simply just doesn't make sense to anyone why someone would even suggest replacing the only active green space in the downtown core with a building from a fiscal perspective, not even bringing into consideration the historical, tourist and recreational perspectives.
The CP Lawn bowling club is the only group to have listened to what neighbours and users of the area want, and we will be presenting that on the community's behalf.
City council, which is also the board of the Children's museum, and the art gallery, are the only members of the community which seem to support the cities plan. Well, other than "jklymak" of which I don't expect full disclosure.
There is no obligation to show support if you don't You've been welcome to be involved with the plan since the beginning, and many members of this forum are. You're still welcome to participate. It is your decision if you choose not too, and that is fine. I'm simply asking if you choose to support us, to come out, and was letting those interested know the when and where. Everyone I've spoken too other than those mentioned above say they support us, so I thought it would be useful to post here.
I was also there when the city was announcing it's 2nd plan (different than the one a month earlier). Anyone is available to present a plan for anything to city council, we are not being granted special privileges.
I understand the need for an art gallery downtown, I'm not opposed to one. I support the long-term vision the community has for downtown. This includes a space for the art gallery that we all look forward to using.

[jklymak]

If you want to go further, take a look at the utilization per square foot of say a local golf club, or any of the non-active green spaces.

I wasn't aware the local golf clubs, except Cedar Hill, were on public land. The members of those private clubs are free to dispense with the land as they see fit. If you were to buy a bowling green you could do the same.

Again, the City of Victoria already supports lawn bowling with a green in BHP and one in Vic West. I'm not saying do away with all three, but I think a valid argument exists for underutilization and doing away with one. As it is on the most valuable land, the one downtown makes the most sense.

The return on Cedar Hill golf course is probably not justified, but its not terrible either. It probably tees off 4 golfers every 10 minutes for lets say 8 hrs a day for 200 golfers a day, $40 bucks a pop, so they bring in say $7k a day, or on the order of $3 million a year.

I have nothing to do w/ a children's museum, and wouldn't even be particularly thrilled with one.

[Rob Randall]

Thanks Caramia... I think I can appreciate where G-Man is coming from.

My questions have not been answered however.

Why is including the treed section of this park a deal breaker for some?

Has anyone actually asked the community directly effected what they want?

If the prime justification for cutting down the trees and digging up the park is to build an underground parkade for the convention centre expansion it really doesn't matter what goes on top.... but I'd suggest that if the local community demand their parkspace back they should prevail.

As historical users who have demonstrated good stewardship of the land I believe the bowling Club would be welcomed back onto that parkspace.

I don't think any amount of extra lawn cutting or fancy landscaping can make this park more desirable. If we can leverage this opportunity to get a better space in a better area we should jump on it.

Of course I don't like being given a choice of a park or a civic centre. I'd rather keep the park (problematic as it is) and receive an addtional new park into the Downtown core as well.

[Rob Randall]

City council, which is also the board of the Children's museum

You are wrong.

Board of Directors

Marilyn Harris, President
Sharon Apsey, Vice President
Gaby Ostro, Past President
Rob Miller, Treasurer; CFO, PRT Group Inc.
Astrid Braunschmidt, A Channel
Laurene Clark, MBD Consulting
Angela Cote, M & M Meat Shops
Francs Gilley
Aaren Madden
Tracey Robertson, Contech Electronics
Lindsay Shojania, A Channel
Barbara Stewart
Ivan Watson
Dr. Julian Young

http://www.childrens....org/board.html

[aastra]

I still don't see any urgent reason for developing this particular site. Why don't we leave the bowling/park in place for now and let the new residential district mature and see how we feel about it in a couple of years? The Wharf Street lots, Centennial Square, and Ogden Point are about a million times more important in the grand scheme of things.

What the heck is wrong with the folks in charge? Why are they concentrating on sites like the bowling green and the Coho lot? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

[gumgum]

For the record, jklymak isn't the only one who supports the removal of the lawn bowling. I too would rather see a art gallery and a children's museum than the green and Cridge.

[G-Man]

Good point Aastra,

though I think that the answer is clear when one thinks of the new conference space and the need for parking for it. Or at least the perceived need for parking which I would argue in the first place.

I do want to ask would the CP Bowlers support the city if they promised to keep the bowling Green and remove the park for a better use?

[aastra]

I don't know if I ever heard anybody mention the urgent need to get rid of the bowling green until the city revealed this plan of theirs. I've been listening to people talk about the urgent need to revamp Centennial Square for thirty years at least.

It was never a priority. NOTHING in the Y-lot district was a priority, hence the sorry state of it all for so many decades. Now it's a priority. Why? Because of the Crystal Garden? The Crystal Garden has had many uses over the decades and yet none of them required additional underground parking. But turn it into conference space and additional underground parking becomes essential? A must-have?

I just feel like there's a lot of bungling going on.

Is whatever goes on the flatiron site going to have extensive underground parking? How much underground parking are we talking on both sites?

[jklymak]

I don't know if I ever heard anybody mention the urgent need to get rid of the bowling green until the city revealed this plan of theirs.

I've always thought it was a waste of space. Quite frankly, I had no idea that it was public land until this proposal - I assumed the lawn bowlers owned it and were crazy not to sell it and buy an empty lot somewhere else.

You are certainly correct that the city has other important things on their plate. However, if there is a desire to install civic buildings, I don't see why this site should not be a prime contender just because other sites need work as well. An art gallery, lets say, should go in the best spot possible for the art gallery. No one should vindictively remove the bowling green, but neither should it be inviolable.

[martini]

I don't know if I ever heard anybody mention the urgent need to get rid of the bowling green until the city revealed this plan of theirs. I've been listening to people talk about the urgent need to revamp Centennial Square for thirty years at least.

It was never a priority. NOTHING in the Y-lot district was a priority, hence the sorry state of it all for so many decades. Now it's a priority. Why? Because of the Crystal Garden? The Crystal Garden has had many uses over the decades and yet none of them required additional underground parking. But turn it into conference space and additional underground parking becomes essential? A must-have?

I just feel like there's a lot of bungling going on.

Is whatever goes on the flatiron site going to have extensive underground parking? How much underground parking are we talking on both sites?

Also I had just heard a quick news blip yesterday? That convention centre bookings were down approx. 60 % from last year alone?

And it still sticks in my mind that the value of the CP Lawn Bowling property equals what it will cost to complete the convention centre.

[aastra]

I don't see why this site should not be a prime contender just because other sites need work as well. An art gallery, lets say, should go in the best spot possible for the art gallery.

Yeah, but is south downtown really the best spot for a children's museum or even a new art gallery? Of course it is. It's right smack in the middle of the "cultural precinct."

The problem I have with this sort of thinking is that the "cultural precinct" doesn't exist yet and south downtown wouldn't even have any viability as such if the recent condominium developments hadn't come along and transformed the area. Folks, for the longest time everybody and their dogs were scoffing at the very idea of turning the Y-lot district into something attractive and appealing. So it's 2008 now, the battle's over, the naysayers were wrong, and it's finally a nice area...and just like that it's also the perfect spot for a children's museum? Let's rip out whatever we need to make room for it?

Am I the only one who thinks something like a children's museum or science centre would be a better fit below Wharf Street? Maybe I am. I liked the art gallery concept for the motel site but since it didn't happen I don't necessarily agree that the art gallery must therefore go in on the next nearest available property (if "available" is the correct term in this instance). What about the parking lots beside the legislature? Are we ever going to do anything with those?

At this point I'm moderately concerned that the city is going to step in and do something that really detracts from recent positive developments. I've said it before: I'm a big fan of this recent development phase because it's involved empty lots and parking lots almost exclusively. I'm not saying we should never knock things down or rip things out (of course not), but I think we should tread very carefully whenever knocking things down and ripping things out is part of the deal. Victoria hasn't had a great record in this regard.

(I don't mean to sound like a naysayer. I would be happy as a clam to see a fantastic new art gallery building on the flatiron lot. But I'd also be happy as a clam to leave the bowling green and some tall trees right where they are between Aria and the Crystal Garden.)

...convention centre bookings were down approx. 60 % from last year alone?

Believe it or not, I think that was what inspired my rant in the first place. And yet I completely forgot to mention it.

[martini]

Yeah, but is south downtown really the best spot for a children's museum or even a new art gallery? Of course it is. It's right smack in the middle of the "cultural precint."

The problem I have with this sort of thinking is that the "cultural precint" doesn't exist yet and south downtown wouldn't even have any viability as such if the recent condominium developments hadn't come along and transformed the area. Folks, for the longest time everybody and their dogs were scoffing at the very idea of turning the Y-lot district into something attractive and appealing. So it's 2008 now, the battle's over, the naysayers were wrong, and it's finally a nice area...and just like that it's also the perfect spot for a children's museum? Let's rip out whatever we need to make room for it?

Am I the only one who thinks something like a children's museum or science centre would be a better fit below Wharf Street? Maybe I am. I liked the art gallery concept for the motel site but since it didn't happen I don't necessarily agree that the art gallery must therefore go in on the next nearest available property (if "available" is the correct term in this instance). What about the parking lots beside the legislature? Are we ever going to do anything with those?

At this point I'm moderately concerned that the city is going to step in and do something that really detracts from recent positive developments. I've said it before: I'm a big fan of this recent development phase because it's involved empty lots and parking lots almost exclusively. I'm not saying we should never knock things down or rip things out (of course not), but I think we should tread very carefully whenever knocking things down and ripping things out is part of the deal. Victoria hasn't had a great record in this regard.

(I don't mean to sound like a naysayer. I would be happy as a clam to see a fantastic new art gallery building on the flatiron lot. But I'd also be happy as a clam to leave the bowling green and some tall trees right where they are between Aria and the Crystal Garden.)

I agree with what you're saying. Seems like there's a 'do or die' attitude of late. We shouldn't have to choose between one thing or the other. Some careful planning surely can leave the lawn bowling intact, as well as have the art gallery and children's museum.

[Ms. B. Havin]

^ I agree with aastra 100% here, especially wrt his Wharf Street location query. Look, if I were a parent w/ a little kid in tow, I'd prefer to go to Wharf St. b/c there'd be plenty of other (adult-friendly) stuff to do as soon as we exit the museum (children's museum). For my adult sanity, that would be really important. If you put a kids museum on the Cridge site, on the other hand, you're going to have to walk miles (with toddlers/ kids in tow, ugh!) to do anything for the adults.

Maybe I'm projecting too much, but given my druthers, I'd rather emerge from a kids venue into a throng on a street like Wharf, than into the tasteful, restrained, bucolic atmosphere of Belleville. Besides, I truly think that a children's museum would make a nice complement to something like the Maritime Museum (which should definitely be down on Wharf. It does not fit well with the Art Gallery, imo. Many would disagree, but that's my take.

[Caramia]

Those are pretty good points.

[homebrewer]

http://www.childrens...g/advisory.html
I meant the advisory board, not the board of directors. Interesting enough one of the councilors on this board is the same one voting out the lawn bowling club.
The CP Lawn bowling club is a non-profit, with a great reputation as being good stewards for a long time as well as being cost effective. If the lease is not renewed, the club will still exist regardless. The club has facilitated discussions with the community for 6 months, and will be presenting the results of this.
The club is not opposed to replacing the green space with something the community wants to see. We're simply acting on behalf of the community to preserve it because of demand, for the values it provides, that may not be obvious to those who have never used it. It has been determined no other green space in the area can provide what this one can, including the tourist attraction it is, and being in the downtown core (of which Beacon Hill park is not). Not just a lawn bowling green, it is the only active, green space in downtown. It is one of three green spaces the city is trying to remove currently, yet they have no budget to do so.
Also, during this discussion we've come up with a long-term plan for cost effective parking, a Children's museum, an art gallery, and several other items.
Like politicians, you can't please everyone. This has been a long process with professional facilitators. It includes a multi-step plan, including a long-term unified vision for the area, that all of the neighbours and users agree with. I don't believe there is much else I can say on the matter here. Thanks to those that have participated, and thanks in advance to those that come out in support next week.

[G-Man]

^ I ask again would you support keeping the bowling green if the park went or would you quit the bowling club in that eventuality.

I love the bowling green and want it to stay.

Saying that Beacon Hill is not in the Downtown core when the bowling green is, seems a bit strange. The bowling green is 150 metres from the park, hardly a completely different area of town.