Jump to content

      













Photo

[Burnside/Gorge] Streetlink Ellice Street shelter | 5-storeys | Built - completed in 2010


  • Please log in to reply
157 replies to this topic

#41 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,487 posts

Posted 28 May 2008 - 11:31 AM

From LEEDS website:
http://www.usgbc.org...x?CMSPageID=220
On page 9 of the PDF

SS Credit 1: Site Selection
1 Point
Intent
Avoid development of inappropriate sites and reduce the environmental impact from the location of a building
on a site.
Requirements
Do not develop buildings, hardscape, roads or parking areas on portions of sites that meet any one of the following
criteria:
❑ Prime farmland as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture in the United States Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 7, Volume 6, Parts 400 to 699, Section 657.5 (citation 7CFR657.5)
❑ Previously undeveloped land whose elevation is lower than 5 feet above the elevation of the 100-year flood
as defined by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency)
❑ Land that is specifically identified as habitat for any species on Federal or State threatened or endangered
lists
❑ Within 100 feet of any wetlands as defined by United States Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR, Parts
230-233 and Part 22, and isolated wetlands or areas of special concern identified by state or local rule, OR
within setback distances from wetlands prescribed in state or local regulations, as defined by local or state
rule or law, whichever is more stringent
❑ Previously undeveloped land that is within 50 feet of a water body, defined as seas, lakes, rivers, streams and
tributaries which support or could support fish, recreation or industrial use, consistent with the terminology
of the Clean Water Act
❑ Land which prior to acquisition for the project was public parkland, unless land of equal or greater value as
parkland is accepted in trade by the public landowner
(Park Authority projects are exempt)
Potential Technologies & Strategies
During the site selection process, give preference to those sites that do not include sensitive site elements and
restrictive land types. Select a suitable building location and design the building with the minimal footprint to
minimize site disruption of those environmentally sensitive areas identified above.


#42 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,487 posts

Posted 28 May 2008 - 11:45 AM

For Burnside/Gorge, I can only find three parks. The biggest appears to be Ellice Park.
The others are Sumas and Selkirk Green.

This is already a park deficit according to Parks Master Plan's own findings.

In fact, recommendations were to expand Ellice Park. Why is the city going against it's own committees recommendations?

#43 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,877 posts

Posted 28 May 2008 - 12:52 PM

We have a thread on the shelter already however I will respond here to a portion of what you are saying.

Can a building be LEED building if it is built on greenspace?

Well I can be of two minds on this. I agree that projects that claim to be green and then cut down a forest cannot be green. This is what is happening to some extent IMO with the Westhills project in Langford.

Then you have projects on underused open space, I would argue that in this case it does not matter for LEED. You have projects like Dockside and this shelter that are being put on top of empty grass lots so I would consider LEED would not be affected.

#44 Ms. B. Havin

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

Posted 28 May 2008 - 02:29 PM

^ I think martini has a point. Taking an existing park out of the city's open space inventory to build a LEED building is perhaps an instance of social "greenwashing."
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#45 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,877 posts

Posted 28 May 2008 - 02:34 PM

Only if a particular park is actually used.

No one is freaking about the park next to the bowling green because it is a problem area, instead people are rightly upset about the loss of the bowling green.

In my my mind a park is only a park if people use it.

#46 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 28 May 2008 - 08:58 PM

Or if it is providing habitat for wildlife and native plants.

Other than that, I do get what you are saying that there is some irony there. But at the same time, better to build a LEEDS building than to build a building without it. I imagine they will just have to work harder on other fronts to make it up to standard. Which is a good thing.

#47 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 28 May 2008 - 09:17 PM

Or if it is providing habitat for wildlife and native plants.




thx gumgum
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#48 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,487 posts

Posted 04 June 2008 - 05:02 PM

Only if a particular park is actually used.

No one is freaking about the park next to the bowling green because it is a problem area, instead people are rightly upset about the loss of the bowling green.

In my my mind a park is only a park if people use it.


I have two arguments here though.
#1 is simply the idea to declassify this park. I think it's a dangerous precident to set. Which one is next?
#2 We're being promised another park in return? Where? Where can they honestly give us a replacement green space?

You want to know why no one uses it?
The city stopped maintaining it when they moved the 'stroll'
Business owners and residents did everything they could, but lost the battle due to the city's abandonment.

I did not post in the other threads, because my issue is specifically the park.
I am not trying to debate the shelter. That's a whole other issue.

#49 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 04 June 2008 - 09:23 PM

Last week's Monday Mag article really did a good job of showing the Burnside Community's point of view.

#50 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,487 posts

Posted 04 June 2008 - 09:50 PM

Last week's Monday Mag article really did a good job of showing the Burnside Community's point of view.


Today's TC as well. Lots of information and well balanced.

#51 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 04 June 2008 - 11:12 PM

Ellice Park protests should be no surprise

A new park would help in stopping endless squabbles


Carolyn Heiman, Times Colonist

Published: Wednesday, June 04, 2008

#52 Marilyn

Marilyn
  • Member
  • 365 posts

Posted 05 June 2008 - 12:11 PM



thx gumgum


That is very funny!

I've been reading that Jane Jacobs did not like parks and now James Howard Kunstler is against parks.

Why! it is like going against motherhood! But maybe they have a point.

Simply put, they say bad things happen in city parks.

#53 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,877 posts

Posted 05 June 2008 - 01:09 PM

Jane Jacobs did like parks but thought that you had to have them strategically located so that they would have positive uses for the largest proportion of the day. In fact her concern of their use was really more a critique of single use districts rather than the parks within the districts.

A successful public space needs to be near housing / commercial office and retail. This ensures that the space is used throughout the day and not just for certain times of the day effectively creating a dead space at all other times of day which attracts negative uses.

A square that is in a business district will be busy at lunch but empty the rest of the day. A square in a residential area may be busy in the afternoons or weekend but empty in the evening and during business hours.

The Ellice Street site is such a great example of poorly located park by the Jane Jacobs standard that for that reason alone they should have traded a developer for another location.

That all said I find Coun. Young's argument very interesting but keeping this park is not going to make well used. If it stayed in the inventory it will never be the choice destination for families and children and for the most part people would rather walk to Selkirk to enjoy their business lunch so it serves no one now and it will always be that way.

While I agree that other munis should shoulder some of this burden Burnside will be better served by the city purchasing a new space for them in another location. The city may not be better served financially but anyways.

Has there been any options for a park put forward?

A nice square with some grass and hard surface where the enterprise car rental at Bay and Government would interesting. Very visible and still in the same underserved area.

Anyone have some other suggestions?

#54 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,934 posts

Posted 05 June 2008 - 02:28 PM

I might just give up on Victoria forever if they ever try to put a park on the corner of Bay & Government. Perfect place for a 3 or 4-story mixed-use building. Absolutely terrible place for a park.

...the city is obligated to pay for a new greenspace, which, given the few open lots left in the city, will likely mean purchasing private land, and possibly knocking down whatever structures are on it.


So is the point just to have more parks whether or not anybody actually wants them or intends to use them? Just stick a park somewhere and we'll all be better off for it? If so, then I disagree strongly. Call me a jerk but I see plenty of new green/public space being created all the time. Between the Selkirk and the Railyards we've recently gained a bunch of new real estate on which to walk, jog, play, cycle, sunbathe, and otherwise enjoy ourselves. Does none of that count? What about the trail? What about the new waterfall park in Vic West? What about the park in the works for the Songhees below the Bayview buildings?

Burnside School may be closed but the playing fields still remain, do they not? What about the park on Sumas Street? It's 400 metres from the park on Ellice Street.

If the neighbourhood absolutely needs a park to replace this one then I'd say the other playing field at Burnside School is the best spot. Perhaps the only spot.

To summarize, I don't get the hullabaloo about the park. However, concerns about the potential for creating a "downtown north side" in the Bridge Street area are justified, in my opinion.

#55 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,877 posts

Posted 05 June 2008 - 02:41 PM

^ Don't give up yet. I was just throwing it out there. I think I have made myself clear that I don't think we should be building public space for the sake of building public space. We need well thought out and well used spaces not just space everywhere.

So what about the top part of Rock bay along Bay Street. you could put a cool park in there. Also good call on the Sumas Park I mean that space is so far superior to the one on Ellice that it makes you wonder why anyone would even think about using this one.

#56 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 05 June 2008 - 06:37 PM

Until people start living there, I see no advantage to putting, or keeping a park in Rock Bay.
Idle parks are like idle hands - they always end up getting up to no good.

#57 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,487 posts

Posted 05 June 2008 - 09:14 PM

Has there been any options for a park put forward?

A nice square with some grass and hard surface where the enterprise car rental at Bay and Government would interesting. Very visible and still in the same underserved area.

Anyone have some other suggestions?


No, and that's what we're afraid of. :(
We have a Mayor leaving a trail behind him, and I feel new green space is just a shady shell game. They should be ponying something up before pulling Ellice. jmho

Thank you for that suggestion. Put it forward!
We need letters going to Mayor and City Council, plus the press.
Get the word out there!
:)

#58 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,487 posts

Posted 05 June 2008 - 09:26 PM

Between the Selkirk and the Railyards we've recently gained a bunch of new real estate on which to walk, jog, play, cycle, sunbathe, and otherwise enjoy ourselves. Does none of that count? What about the trail? What about the new waterfall park in Vic West? What about the park in the works for the Songhees below the Bayview buildings?

Burnside School may be closed but the playing fields still remain, do they not? What about the park on Sumas Street? It's 200 metres from the park on Ellice Street.

If the neighbourhood absolutely needs a park to replace this one then I'd say the other playing field at Burnside School is the best spot. Perhaps the only spot.

To summarize, I don't get the hullabaloo about the park. However, concerns about the potential for creating a "downtown north side" in the Bridge Street area are justified, in my opinion.


I appreciate what you're saying. The areas you mention are not in the Burnside/Gorge area except Selkirk Green. This is why it's become such a hot issue. We're already in a park deficit situation.

I don't believe Sumas and Ellice are 200 metres apart. Sumas Park is just off Jutland by Burnside School. Mind you, I'm trying to picture 200 metres.:D

The school field is certainly a worthy suggestion!
Put it out there! The more suggestions and opinions out there the better.

Putting the argument aside concerning the park, the shelter itself....
Is it the best place? What kind of neighbourhood planning has been looked at?
What will we do if it turns into another 'East End'?
Is it worth an estimated $11 million?
Seems like we're putting all our eggs in one basket.

#59 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,487 posts

Posted 05 June 2008 - 09:28 PM

^ Good article, thanks for posting, Caramia. I very much agree with Geoff Young's points.

Monday's article is the first I've seen to bring his argument forward -- I don't recall similar analyses/ discussion over Provincial responsibility and how Victoria is setting a bad precedent in the T-C or other articles.


Yes thank you for posting the article.
It was well done, I agree.

#60 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,877 posts

Posted 06 June 2008 - 07:47 AM

I appreciate what you're saying. The areas you mention are not in the Burnside/Gorge area except Selkirk Green. This is why it's become such a hot issue. We're already in a park deficit situation.

I don't believe Sumas and Ellice are 200 metres apart. Sumas Park is just off Jutland by Burnside School. Mind you, I'm trying to picture 200 metres.:D

The school field is certainly a worthy suggestion!
Put it out there! The more suggestions and opinions out there the better.

Putting the argument aside concerning the park, the shelter itself....
Is it the best place? What kind of neighbourhood planning has been looked at?
What will we do if it turns into another 'East End'?
Is it worth an estimated $11 million?
Seems like we're putting all our eggs in one basket.


Check out google maps Sumas is 200 metres away. I understand the emotional strings that taking away green space can cause but Selkirk, Sumas and Burside are all in Burnside Gorge. The community association should be working with the city to find a logical alternate park site now when they have the power to derail the shelter. A space larger than what is currently owned and one that is in a better spot could be pushed for while you hold the strings. If you win to keep Ellice Park you end up with a green space surrounded by car repair shots that is full of needles and condoms. If you lose you might end up with something better.

The Community association should be clear as to what their goals are. Stop the shelter or have green space? I think that the save Ellice Street park is a dishonest way of saying we don't want the shelter.

Advocate for a new and better located park. Advocate for a better location for the shelter.

Don't try to save a space that will continue to be neglected. You could put a free merry go round and petting zoo in there and families will not use it. The neighbourhood knows this.

Saying you don't want the shelter is not something to be ashamed of.

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