652 replies to this topic

[aastra]

 

...and maybe in a civic building too. Wouldn't that be something.

 

I don't know... the idea that an arbitrary civic project in a prominent location would be a surefire boon is one of the most dated ideas in urban planning. That's straight out of the 1960s "urban renewal" playbook. For every one success there have probably been a hundred disasters.

 

What possible relevance could a large civic project have in the touristy old town? I'd take a cozy waterfront promenade lined with small buildings full of pubs and cafes any day of the week.

[G-Man]

I agree. There is little connection between the city owned lot and the rest of the city which would make it a bad choice for anywhere you would like locals to go en masse.

The city can't even properly run the civic institution a block and a half from here properly and that is right in the middle of downtown.

[intheknow]

So negative. Too bad.

[tiger11]

man i hate seeing that original proposal... makes me so sad of what couldve been... 

[intheknow]

what is aAstra on about? Every city of any note utilizes their most prominent sites for civic buildings. Yes this is the most dated idea and it’s worked for thousands of years. Civic as in art gallery, museum, library, even a conference centre. What would make more sense on City lands?

Edited by intheknow, 09 October 2019 - 10:51 PM.

[G-Man]

He is talking about context and actual use. You want your civic buildings to be where they will be used not where they are only looked at from afar. Kind of the difference between Radio City Music Hall and Lincoln Center.

This is not a prominent site in any event. Ship Point is about 100 times more prominent than here anyway and there are only a few civic centres you can build.

[aastra]

 

what is aAstra on about? Every city of any note utilizes their most prominent sites for civic buildings.

 

Like I say, the idea that a city's redemption surely lies in the plunking of a conference centre or a civic theatre front-and-centre has long been exposed. What would you want there? We know for certain that any type of theatre or conferencing facility would be a turkey. People who imagine something like a science centre or whatever else might want to remind themselves that the site is small and 5 frickin' residential stories was deemed to be too tall. (And for the love of all that is holy, please don't suggest a public market as per that longstanding and grating Victorian fetish re: trying to replicate Granville Island...)

 

I await the long list of energizing civic projects that could be built there on a small footprint and no taller than an ordinary house (with no on-site parking, also). Maybe a satellite facility of city hall, like the city archives? That would be awesome. People would flock to that, for sure.

 

 

What would make more sense on City lands?

 

Selling the frickin' land would have made sense! Cities acquire and dispose of property all the time. This plot would have been a perfect one to sell off, since an actual (not imaginary or speculative) development proposal had a specific vision for it.

 

To you it makes perfect sense and just warms your heart that the CoV might blunder in one day and build some arbitrary project there. To me it's bizarre and ridiculous and the stuff of nightmares.

[aastra]

Be careful what you wish for, etc.

[Nparker]

Sometimes aastra you are my hero.

[aastra]

I'll throw intheknow a bone and say this much: If another small building does ever get built there (by the city or by somebody else, if and when the city eventually sells off the property*) then it could make a positive contribution to that granularity that we're always talking about.

 

Heck, maybe a small event facility that gets rented to several different functions over the course of the year could work (the key point here: the facility itself would serve as its own draw, owing to its prominent location, big windows, rooftop spaces, and so forth).

 

But is that something that we want? Do we want the city to be getting into competition with the hotels and other operators?

 

*thus blowing the minds of everyone who suffered through the Northern Junk saga

[Mike K.]

The last thing this city needs is more taxpayer funded event spaces. McPherson is costing an arm and a leg to maintain, and another such facility would put further drain on the taxpayer.

 

The Reliant proposal would have purchased land from the City ($$$) and paid annual taxes for the use of that land in the form of residential and commercial spaces (more $$$).

[aastra]

For sure. The city has other properties that it still doesn't know what to do with. The development proposal for this site was like a gift. One less problem, and you would have been getting paid to unload it.

[Nparker]

...The Reliant proposal would have purchased land from the City ($$$) and paid annual taxes for the use of that land in the form of residential and commercial spaces (more $$$).

And the CoV could have asked for some sort of public accessible event space be included in the project as part of the land sale. The compromise project isn't exactly a big win for Victoria citizens.

[Mike K.]

The bungling of this project is a tragedy of errors, but I do feel that Reliant has done an exemplary job with the hand its been dealt. We'll be better off as a community to see the NJ buildings restored and more housing built on such a prime piece of downtown waterfront real-estate.

 

Onwards and upwards, let's get this built. But the public, I hope, never forgets just how shortsighted our municipal officials were over the span of a decade and across multiple administrations, and how questionable the approach of the ADP was over that period of time and its many faces.

[Nparker]

...We'll be better off as a community to see the NJ buildings restored...

If one accepts that the current proposal is truly a restoration of the historic NJ buildings. 

[G-Man]

I would argue it is more a restoration than the pile of rocks it will become.

[Nparker]

I would argue it is more a restoration than the pile of rocks it will become.

While that is certainly true, it is not a restoration to the more historic forms of the buildings from the earlier proposals. While I have said this before, it bears repeating; this proposal is OK, but it pales in comparison to what could have (should have?) taken place at this site.

[aastra]

 

...than the pile of rocks it will become.

 

Yeah, but if the old buildings become a pile of rocks then we can leave the pile as is, re-designate the property as a park, and install a plaque:

 

"In the 1860s this site was bustling with waterfront warehouses and commercial concerns blah blah blah...."

 

A truckload of awards for sensitivity re: history and heritage would shortly follow.

[aastra]

Now that I dig deeper into the event pavilion concept I think this is yet another one of those things that we've talked about before? Anyway, Cincinnati has a decent example in its Anderson Pavilion. You could pretty much cut-and-paste this place as is, staircases, water features, and all. However, rentals at such a facility wouldn't come cheaply, and you better believe that a half-arsed operational model wouldn't work. Do it right and do it well or don't bother to do it at all.

 

pic from http://www.pottinger...-in-smale-park/

Edited by aastra, 10 October 2019 - 11:55 AM.

[aastra]

That Anderson Pavilion would fit like a glove. All you need to do is flip the building and rotate the water feature to run alongside. The walkway lines up perfectly with Victoria's situation, no adjustment or re-scaling required:

 

Edited by aastra, 10 October 2019 - 12:32 PM.