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

#61 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,505 posts

Posted 06 June 2008 - 08:26 AM

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.


Sorry for the confusion. Yes Selkirk, Sumas and Ellice are all in the Burnside/Gorge area. The ones that weren't I was referring to were from aastra's previous post.
Funny I can't picture 200 metres. Not doubting it, but my mind still works in Imperial.:D

No we absolutely are not guising saving the park as not wanting a shelter. Absolutely not.
Saving the park is also an effort to stop the precedent setting of removing parks from city inventory.
We aren't NIMBYs and it's not about not wanting the shelter. We'd welcome it, but don't think it's been thought out well in many ways.
The bigger picture is planning. There are other factors to consider in planning for that area. If you had more affordable family units built, build up the density and usage. It simply feels too much like a knee-jerk reaction.
I wonder what the general reaction would have been if there at least was a whisper of alternative green space possibilities.
Don McTavish from Cool-Aid said himself that the ideal model for clients are smaller facilities scattered through the city.
Why then can the city and Province not work with that?!

Anyway, I very much value what you've said. I will put it forth to consider.:)

#62 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,145 posts

Posted 06 June 2008 - 08:38 AM

Thanks Martini,

I just looked at google earth again and Sumas Street Park is more like 400 m away.

Hypothetically if the city was selling the space to a private developer for a building and in exchange an equal or larger space in a more desirable location was being provided the Community would support this in principle then?

Then I ask my question from before what alternate locations can we think of for the city to purchase?

#63 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 16,108 posts

Posted 06 June 2008 - 01:57 PM

You're absolutely right. The distance between the parks is closer to 400 metres. Sorry, I don't understand how I made that mistake.

#64 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,505 posts

Posted 07 June 2008 - 01:24 AM

You're absolutely right. The distance between the parks is closer to 400 metres. Sorry, I don't understand how I made that mistake.


Well I have trouble with metric so we're even. ;)

#65 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,145 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 08:05 AM

Walked by this park this morning and guess what it seems that it already IS a shelter. At least six people camped out inside.

#66 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,505 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 08:26 AM

Walked by this park this morning and guess what it seems that it already IS a shelter. At least six people camped out inside.


Yes, and it's happening elsewhere too. Remember VIHA cutting down all the Arbutus trees because of the homeless? Now we want to sacrifice Cridge Park for the same reason?
How many sleep in Beacon Hill Park? Not to mention the 'other' nightlife there.

Do we remove any green space not being 'utilized' properly?

To me this seems like a backwards approach to a massive problem.

I feel very strongly we need homes for the homeless. Until we provide proper housing, this trend is going to continue.
Instead of $11 million being spent on one institution, we should have smaller facilities dispersed around Victoria. jmho

#67 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,145 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 08:28 AM

I think Cridge Park is a seperate issue. It is not used and it is in a location with too much public space, so there is no need to use it.

#68 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,505 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 08:47 AM

Then I ask my question from before what alternate locations can we think of for the city to purchase?


Sorry, I missed this post somehow.
I know the BC Hydro property was discussed. The property belonging to Chew's Excavating as well. Plus we're waiting to hear the Freedom of Information request from the city about it's other potential locations.

And I would think there are other properties available that have not been looked at.
I am very eager to see more of this strategy used:
http://www.canada.co...b5-965d790f448a
Please read the article. I think what Pacifica is doing makes a lot of sense!

#69 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,505 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 08:55 AM

I think Cridge Park is a seperate issue. It is not used and it is in a location with too much public space, so there is no need to use it.


But it is a park. It seems to be suffering the usage problem as Ellice. No?
Too much public space? I'm not understanding that. There potentially is the CP Lawn Bowling Club being removed. The Crystal Court Motel being developed.
So if we removed Cridge Park, what's the nearest green space?

I mentioned Cridge because I'm seeing more and more green space disappearing.
Blanshard School property will be developed. Fairburn School property will be developed.

The fact that removing a park from the city's inventory is setting a precedent.
The fact that our city is making decisions without any public consultation or input.
Where's the democracy in that?!
That's one of the main reasons for the Ellice Park Bylaw petition. To give people back the right to vote!

#70 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 26,345 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 09:02 AM

So if we removed Cridge Park, what's the nearest green space?


About 10 metres due east, at St. Ann's Academy. By the way, when St. Ann's was restored a decade ago, the removal of the old Victoria Conservatory of Music structures between St. Ann's and Beacon Hill Park actually increased the green space in the region. So there can be gains as well as losses.

#71 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 09:45 AM

I worry far more about the actual green space outside the city being gobbled up by langford than some unused lot downtown...

#72 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,145 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 09:54 AM

People vote for these green spaces everyday with their feet, and they are being voted out. I mean it is like saying that we should keep building SUV's even though no one is buying them anymore. It is better to reevaluate what we have and see if it is serving the best interest. If it is not then perhaps a change of use is warranted.

As I have stated extensively and gum gum has pointed out visually in the Bowling Green thread, there is too much public space near Cridge Park thus no one uses it. There is the new square on Humboldt, St Ann's, Beacon Hill Park, Thunderbird Park, The Empress Grounds, the legde grounds, the causeway, the night is for sleeping square.

Also not sure what the crystal court has to so with the transformation of public spaces though, I have never hung out at the motel site.

#73 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 26,345 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 09:55 AM

I worry far more about the actual green space outside the city being gobbled up by langford than some unused lot downtown...


Touché , Baro.

#74 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 10:10 AM

Also, it's not as if places like Cridge and Ellis are to be removed because there are homeless people there. The homeless in the park are only indicative of a greater problem with the park and its surround.

#75 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 11:00 AM

If anything the removal of Ellis park is a step on the way to a solution for those suffering from homelessness. To use any reference to discrimination against the homeless in an argument that supports blocking the shelter seems disingenuous at best.

I think parks have become so much of a sacred cow to some Victorians that they are no longer looked at as individual cases in a rational openminded way. Say "park" and you immediately have a legion of supporters, regardless of the bigger picture, or any other variables.

We all support parks, we all support cultural institutions for children, we all support community consultation and we all support solutions for homelessness - or at least we think we do. But when it comes down to actually getting something done what we find is that invariably, reality means sacrificing some of one thing to realize another. This is the moment of truth for the community - because we have discovered that by playing all these good things off against each other, we can, and have, created a status quo that guarantees that none of these things can ever move forward. Caught in a deadlock, City Council takes a beating for a lack of leadership. But if they move forward one step, they are met by the voices of citizens who think themselves progressive, yet act against any progress whatsoever.

The only argument that resonates with any degree of sense to me in the case of Ellis park is the argument against creating a ghettoized area along Burnside-Gorge. I think that is a valid concern, and needs to be considered carefully. I also see the point that if the city is willing to act decisively in creating a shelter, they should also act decisively in order to create a replacement park - and I wish the community would put the effort into finding an ideal location for that replacement park rather than trying so hard to block the shelter. But then, that would be forward motion. And we don't want that.

#76 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 12,969 posts

Posted 19 June 2008 - 02:05 PM

Council voted this morning to accept the de-acquisition of the park in order to construct the shelter. Only Councillor Young voted against.

Councillor Madoff supported the shelter but was dissatisfied at the method used to get to this point.

Councillor Young voted no, saying the land use is not supported. The report claimed the shelter was within walking distance of Downtown but he noted that if you drew a circle the diameter of the distance you would include 60% of Victoria so the Ellice St. site can't really be called closer than most other locations. He said there is nothing specific to the site that lends itself to being an ideal location, apart from the fact that the City already owns the land. He wasn't troubled by the loss of this park, saying demographic, traffic and land use changes often make parks unsatisfactory and that they can be created elsewhere in a better area.

Councillor Holland also expressed dissatisfaction with the controversy and lack of consultation but said they had to work with the system already in place.

Councillor Coleman said having years of consultation may be good, but the Ellice St. proposal presented itself in a short period of time along with a funding commitment from the Province and these opportunities can disappear if not acted upon swiftly.

Councillor Chandler wanted the consultation process revamped.

Mayor Lowe expressed his desire to start the new park acquisition process now.

"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#77 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,145 posts

Posted 20 June 2008 - 07:47 AM

They should have aquired the new park first IMO. WOuld have lead to a lot more support at the community level.

#78 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 5,036 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 20 June 2008 - 09:13 AM

What needs to happen is that Saanich and Victoria need to sit down together and jointly plan the neighbourhood.

I live in Burnside Tillicum neighbourhood and we suffer from being split by the municipal boundary. We have two community associations serving one neighbourhood.

Elice Park is no loss. Any discussion of the park is a complete red herring. We have much better playgrounds in the neighbourhood. One is at the Selkirk Waterfront, another at the south end of Washington Street, another at Cecelia st, there is a good one at the old Burnside School and one more at Sumas Park a block east of the school.

We also have the Galloping Goose and over the trestle Banbury park.

There is also a nice small playground on Qu'Appele St and then there is Rudd park.

The loss of the park is not an issue that is relevant. The city should also use any resources to upgrade the existing park areas and not add new land.

In my opinion the only issue is not wanting more undesirable people in this neighbourhood, but with most of the motels in the area now seemingly having become SROs, the people are here.

#79 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 26,345 posts

Posted 20 June 2008 - 09:27 AM

What needs to happen is that Saanich and Victoria need to sit down together and jointly plan the neighbourhood.


What REALLY needs to happen, is for these ridiculous, and out-dated municpal boundaries to disappear in an amalgamated core.

#80 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,505 posts

Posted 20 June 2008 - 09:35 AM

They should have aquired the new park first IMO. WOuld have lead to a lot more support at the community level.


Most definitely.

I also feel there's a dysfunctional level of communication between the city and our communities.

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