1947 replies to this topic

[rmpeers]

So where are the people who want to use Crystal Pool going to park? Presumably the 100 underground spaces will be taken up by residents of the affordable housing complex. The report suggests that the Pool users will instead bike, walk or take public transit to the facility.

I certainly hope you're not suggesting that there's some sort of anti-motor vehicle bias.

Edited by rmpeers, 02 June 2018 - 03:25 PM.

[Midnightly]

more parking is important.. i'm pretty sure out of all the pools from sidney all the way out to the new Y in langford crystal pool has by far the least amount of parking, they want to add on a rec center, childcare center, where do the parents park when they pick up their kids? (i know esq rec has this issue and they have atleast double the amount of parking and an overflow lot at the rink across the field)  they expect to have big sporting events at this pool,  after all they want to build a regulation sized 10 lane pool.. where will all the people park? huge sporting events bring in large amounts of traffic both foot and vehicle heck when commonwealth puts on a big swim meet they open up an area of overflow parking along with their extensive front and side parking lots

[Lorne Carnes]

I have a real concern with this new notion of creating housing in public parks. A quick look at the PB zoning does not seem to support it either. Is Council anticipating a public hearing to alter zoning before or after this agreement is reached?

[aastra]

 

...it is being recommended that the Crystal Pool/housing facility be upgraded to house a gymnasium, art centre and a new community centre...

 

Methinks those would be the "dry-floor spaces" that were part of this project from the beginning? Check out this comment by an astute forumer back in 2016:

 

 

...this bundling of extensive & expensive new dry-floor spaces into the deal is straight from the JSB-replacement playbook. If you're going to spend a huge chunk of money creating completely new facilities that don't already exist then you aren't really talking about "replacement" at all, are you? That aspect represents a completely new major project that they've pulled out of thin air. There's no necessary reason why a new (or refurbished) pool facility should include extensive dry-floor elements. And even if such elements are critically important to Victorians going forward, there's no necessary reason to bundle them with the Crystal Pool plan, or even to put them in Central Park at all.

[spanky123]

Helps was on CFAX this morning and stated that the request to remove surface parking and replace it with low cost housing came from the community and that she was just following through on the good idea. 

[sdwright.vic]

Of course it came from the community. Just like the smiley/ unhappy faces did for when you are going/ not going the speed limit.

[spanky123]

Methinks those would be the "dry-floor spaces" that were part of this project from the beginning? Check out this comment by an astute forumer back in 2016:

 

That was very astute!

 

I don't think that anyone could ever claim that the Mayor doesn't plan things through. It would be nice though if she bothered to share her "master plan" with the public who is underwriting all of this. She is following the developer playbook which I have referenced here many times. 'Dig the hole and then you can build anything you want'. In the City's case I would also add 'and spend any amount you want'. 

 

I am sure that in Helps' mind if she can spend $10M on the pool before we get to a referendum then she believes that she can use the sunk money argument to get it approved.

[Bingo]

That was very astute!

 

I don't think that anyone could ever claim that the Mayor doesn't plan things through. It would be nice though if she bothered to share her "master plan" with the public who is underwriting all of this. She is following the developer playbook which I have referenced here many times. 'Dig the hole and then you can build anything you want'. In the City's case I would also add 'and spend any amount you want'. 

 

I am sure that in Helps' mind if she can spend $10M on the pool before we get to a referendum then she believes that she can use the sunk money argument to get it approved.

 

That was astute to think the comment was astute, and we can use more insightful astuteness in furthering a way of pooling our resources.

[Cassidy]

Helps was on CFAX this morning and stated that the request to remove surface parking and replace it with low cost housing came from the community and that she was just following through on the good idea. 

Was the CFAX interviewer on his toes enough to ask her exactly where in the community this supposed "request" came from?

Exactly how it was presumably transferred from the "community" to her ears?

Did the CFAX interviewer perhaps ask her, why ... with downtown crime rampant, and assaults and drug issues occurring all over town every single day in the COV, ... why she thought this surface parking idea might be worthy of her pointless "Headline of the Day"?

 

This is classic deflection by a politician ... experience a little negative feedback on a stupid idea, and claim you were only repeating what ___________________ (fill in the blank) - was saying ... all the while completely ignoring the actual problems and issues of concern to residents and taxpayers.

Edited by Cassidy, 04 June 2018 - 08:16 AM.

[spanky123]

Was the CFAX interviewer on his toes enough to ask her exactly where in the community this supposed "request" came from?

Exactly how it was presumably transferred from the "community" to her ears?

Did the CFAX interviewer perhaps ask her, why ... with downtown crime rampant, and assaults and drug issues occurring all over town every single day in the COV, ... why she thought this surface parking idea might be worthy of her pointless "Headline of the Day"?

 

This is classic deflection by a politician ... experience a little negative feedback on a stupid idea, and claim you were only repeating what ___________________ (fill in the blank) - was saying ... all the while completely ignoring the actual problems and issues of concern to residents and taxpayers.

 

It was Al Ferraby!

[tedward]

So now, to garner public support for the over-priced Crystal Pool project, Lisa Helps is suggesting a "low-cost" housing component be built over underground parking.

Call me a cynic, but it seems like this was probably the idea all along...

 

 

Helps was on CFAX this morning and stated that the request to remove surface parking and replace it with low cost housing came from the community and that she was just following through on the good idea. 

 

Wasn't it the contributors to this very thread who said long ago that they should incorporate housing into the redevelopment plan? Although, to be fair, the plan proposed here was for housing ABOVE a new rec centre and pool IIRC.

Aren't we glad she is following our suggestion?

[Mike K.]

I thought the City had set a mandate for itself not to use green space for development? Wasn't that a thing not that long ago, that green spaces must be preserved?

[sdwright.vic]

Not if it fits her agenda.

[spanky123]

Wasn't it the contributors to this very thread who said long ago that they should incorporate housing into the redevelopment plan? Although, to be fair, the plan proposed here was for housing ABOVE a new rec centre and pool IIRC.

Aren't we glad she is following our suggestion?

 

I don't think that anyone here advocated for subsidized housing either. That doesn't help 99% of people who are looking for housing in Victoria.

[aastra]

I think housing could work on this block. I think Central Park itself could be a whole lot better than it is, too. More of a destination park. But as always it depends on what exactly they have in mind. I still think a parkade on the arena block would be a great way to go, not just for pool users but for some additional downtown parking, too. I really, really do not want to see extensive surface parking on the park block.

[Nparker]

...Victoria councillors endorsed a proposal on Thursday that staff, working with community stakeholders, develop a request for proposals to build underground parking for 100 cars topped with up to six floors of affordable housing and community space. This would be in place of planned surface parking...

http://www.timescolo...pool-1.23329207

Rather than build on valuable existing urban green space (all plans for CP involve the loss of outdoor recreational space at Central Park), why doesn't the city explore transforming the "RAP" parking lot on Caledonia into both underground parking and housing?

[aastra]

 

“I’m already getting questions from people about which park is going to be next for this kind of consideration,” she said, referring to pressures for community amenities and housing.

 

It's been ~50 years since Central Park was first considered for the Crystal Pool community amenity, so I'm not sure "already" is the right word here. Unless we're arbitrarily deeming any such considerations that were made at some point in the past to be good and right just 'cuz.

 

pic from http://vintageairpho...com/bo-47-1456/

 

Seriously, was putting the pool in Central Park a good call or an evil one? If it was a good call (and we seem to be saying that it WAS a good call, since we want to put the next pool there as well), then why would we be fretting about the implications of putting housing over the parking lot? The parking lot will be there regardless. Parking lots are NOT green space or recreational space, need I remind Victorians for the bajillionth frickin' time.

Edited by aastra, 08 June 2018 - 09:08 AM.

[aastra]

 

...why doesn't the city explore transforming the "RAP" parking lot on Caledonia into both underground parking and housing?

 

Yes, that lot and the arena lot are pretty glaring re: the opportunities that they represent. But I think we can assume that something will be happening on both of them eventually (emphasis on eventually). My main point is that some space at Central Park is going to be used for on-site parking regardless (because Victoria). So I'd sure rather put something over that space than leave it bare.

[Nparker]

...The parking lot will be there regardless. Parking lots are NOT green space or recreational space...

But recreational space (such as basketball and tennis courts) could easily be built over underground parking. Is there any plan to replace these if a new pool is built? If housing is not constructed, why does the parking have to be surface?

Edited by Nparker, 08 June 2018 - 09:08 AM.

[aastra]

You're right, you could put courts and lawns and playgrounds over a deck of parking as well. It doesn't have to be housing.