Will the ongoing repairs and maintenance of the Square be taken over by the above named people?
Probably not.
Posted 06 December 2016 - 03:21 PM
Will the ongoing repairs and maintenance of the Square be taken over by the above named people?
Probably not.
Posted 06 December 2016 - 03:45 PM
One could argue that the whole south island was of significance to the First Nations prior to European settlers.
One could argue that - it wouldn't be true - but it could be argued. Most pre-European settlers on the southern part of the Vancouver Island had an ocean-based lifestyle, so there are undoubtedly some areas of higher elevation that would have held less significance at least in terms of habitation.
Posted 06 December 2016 - 04:10 PM
Woodwards still exists?
The signage has changed but many people still know it as Woodward's. Same thing for K-Mart.
I just want to understand, they aren't claiming that the Centennial Square site itself has any particular significance?
Posted 06 December 2016 - 04:18 PM
I just want to understand, they aren't claiming that the Centennial Square site itself has any particular significance?
Well, the fountain part at least was a gift from Oak Bay and Saanich, maybe others, in 1967. Not so sure that gifting other municipalities would be a popular thing now. A few munis un-gifted us promised arena money.
Posted 06 December 2016 - 04:24 PM
I mean from a First Nations' perspective.
Posted 06 December 2016 - 05:36 PM
One could argue that - it wouldn't be true - but it could be argued. Most pre-European settlers on the southern part of the Vancouver Island had an ocean-based lifestyle, so there are undoubtedly some areas of higher elevation that would have held less significance at least in terms of habitation.
true
Posted 06 December 2016 - 10:07 PM
I just want to understand, they aren't claiming that the Centennial Square site itself has any particular significance?
It's not even square. It's more like an oblong circle with a touch of rectangle.
Posted 07 December 2016 - 06:35 AM
One could argue that - it wouldn't be true - but it could be argued. Most pre-European settlers on the southern part of the Vancouver Island had an ocean-based lifestyle, so there are undoubtedly some areas of higher elevation that would have held less significance at least in terms of habitation.
There is arguing for the purposes of protecting heritage and cultural sites and arguing for the purposes of extracting monies from Government.
Posted 08 December 2016 - 09:30 AM
I'm not sure this is the best use the city could make of $100,000 (I'm sure the budget will increase). Why do I get the feeling that every civic initiative begins with people in a cloud of smoke saying "Hey, y'know what would be, like, really cool?"
Having said that, I'm certain that the presence of ping-pong tables would alleviate many of the concerns we currently have about the state of downtown. I mean, why didn't somebody think of that before?
Posted 09 December 2016 - 11:16 AM
A playground? Are you freaking kidding me?!
What are these idiots thinking?
How about an outdoor amphitheatre? Duh!
Posted 09 December 2016 - 11:20 AM
A playground? Are you freaking kidding me?!
What are these idiots thinking?
How about an outdoor amphitheatre? Duh!
My favorite suggestion was from Helps who stated that we should rename the park to a FN name because we still need to reconcile more with FN.
Posted 09 December 2016 - 12:02 PM
Having said that, I'm certain that the presence of ping-pong tables would alleviate many of the concerns we currently have about the state of downtown. I mean, why didn't somebody think of that before?
Now if it was beer pong, that might have a serious impact.....
Posted 09 December 2016 - 03:15 PM
That renaming thing is a real possibility spanky. Don't forget Isitt is hot to trot on the reconciliation file. Pukols anyone? Camasak? Victoria Council have already declared 2017, the year of reconciliation.
Posted 09 December 2016 - 05:18 PM
Good grief,
"Didn't like the changes that were being made" ... "We have lost our charm and history to so called progress" ... etc etc
"And this is "part" on the reason" this person moved to Edmonton !!!
1. I don't know what condo's being buit has to do with business leaving ...
2. I thought it was recognized years ago that downtown was dead as no people lived there and the idea was to get people living downtown.
3. Everything changes, nothing stays the same ...
4. "We have lost our "charm"" ... definition, "the power or quality of giving delight or arousing admiration" ... yup, condo construction has clearly done that !!!
5. "We have lost our history" ... how the heck do you lose history !!!
This type of post from Rebecca typifies to me the bizarre attitude toward modern buildings ... but obviously the 40 -60 story glass office building in Edmonton are OK.
But what do I know ...
Posted 23 December 2016 - 09:14 AM
An interesting Comment article from today's T-C regarding ideas to revitalize Centennial Square.
...Consider multiple uses — any combination of library, art gallery, public lecture hall or children’s features — and add supporting municipal or commercial offices above, with parking placed underground, or alternatively, create specialized affordable housing. With imagination, such a new building could reuse elements of John Di Castri’s stylish mid-century architectural design...
- See more at: http://www.timescolo...h.1D3E9jIX.dpuf
I agree with many of the suggestions, but I am not sure how adding an affordable housing component is viable from a public financing perspective. Having a private developer incorporate market rentals or sales (in a library-art gallery-office-residential building) from which revenue could be generated for the city, makes more sense to me. But what do I know, I'm only a taxpayer.
Edited by Nparker, 23 December 2016 - 09:19 AM.
Posted 23 December 2016 - 10:17 AM
The problem is Centennial Square lacks a commercial element, like cafes, shops... things that attract people to a square. The 60s extension at the back of City Hall, especially the wasted space below does nothing to attract people. People complain about the unruly crowds (homeless and drug addicts), but in order to change that you need things that will make it vibrant and attract the positive crowds.
Edited by UrbanRail, 23 December 2016 - 10:26 AM.
Posted 23 December 2016 - 10:20 AM
"
An interesting Comment article from today's T-C regarding ideas to revitalize Centennial Square.
I agree with many of the suggestions, but I am not sure how adding an affordable housing component is viable from a public financing perspective. Having a private developer incorporate market rentals or sales (in a library-art gallery-office-residential building) from which revenue could be generated for the city, makes more sense to me. But what do I know, I'm only a taxpayer.
Well its viable from a social perspective
Edited by UrbanRail, 23 December 2016 - 10:20 AM.
Posted 23 December 2016 - 10:49 AM
...Well its viable from a social perspective
But at what point does my wallet reach its breaking point supporting "viable social perspectives"?
Posted 23 December 2016 - 01:39 PM
Education, Healthcare, programs that help those in need like women and children, social housing, EI, etc are all viable socially. Are we suggesting that unless it makes money, it should be scrapped?
Having a variety of housing needs in a city is healthy and prevents ghettos, and gated communities.
For instance, look at the Songhees, its become more like gated community than a vibrant neighbourhood.
Anyway as the article states, a variety of ideas is needed for Centennial Square and I dont think sanitizing it to prevent certain people from enjoying it or being a part of it is necessarily a good idea. I am not sure why when the words "social housing" is brought up it brings up people's backs and categories people who need it as low life poor people. I am pretty sure that anyone here who was in a position of not being able to afford a home of any kind would jump at the chance.
Posted 23 December 2016 - 02:39 PM
Education, Healthcare, programs that help those in need like women and children, social housing, EI, etc are all viable socially. Are we suggesting that unless it makes money, it should be scrapped?
I'm simply suggesting there comes a time when the taxpayer becomes tapped out. I see nothing wrong with a for-profit component to a revitalized Centennial Square especially if it helps cover the cost of said rejuvenation.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users