252 replies to this topic

[rjag]

Why do people keep saying Victoria doesn't need another hotel? The more modern new hotels, the better. There's absolutely no reason the Coho and a new hotel couldn't co-exist as the prime tenants in a new-and-improved Belleville Terminal.

It seems like so many issues in Victoria are reduced to extreme polarities, when they don't need to be. You can renovate the site AND keep the Coho.

Interesting question, and I hear what you're saying, aastra, but you have to keep in mind that many who oppose this awful "vision" are reacting to the "winner take all" stance that the task force brought forward. They -- and the business interests behind the plan -- are the ones who aren't thinking in differentiated terms, they're the ones who can't conceive of mixed uses, they're the ones who are creating the conditions for "extreme polarities," as you put it. After all, they're the idiots who suggest that we should excise the Coho from the harbour -- a NIMBY reaction, "nix the hotel," is primarily provoked as a response to the proposal to nix the Coho.

(FWIW, where I would fault the anti-hotel-development sector is in what I suspect will be lack of vigorous criticism of this idiotic plaza. They'll find that just peachy keen, even though it's probably the nastiest piece in the whole "vision." Baro comments on that with great acidity -- and lucidity.)

If a knee-jerk NIMBY reaction to getting rid of the Coho is, "run the (hotel) developers out of town," what else could one expect? It's not as if this "vision" proposed by the task force is in any way inclusive or democratic, is it? It proposes turning over a prime piece of public land -- land owned by the Province, and therefore by us -- to a very, very limited range of interests. Why wouldn't an editorial writer remark, "Victoria needs a new hotel and more tourist gimmicks on its waterfront about as much as Clark County needs another strip mall"? For one thing, if the shoe fits..., as they say. We really don't need more "tourist gimmicks" and other devices that separate tourists and locals, and I have yet to see how or why another hotel will contribute to integrating local & tourist interests. Show me how the new hotel will do that, and we'll talk turkey.

It's all fine & dandy to remark that it's possible to accomodate a diverse range of usages, but don't forget that there are powerful business interests who'll play hardball to try to ensure that that'll never happen. When developers are already in attendance at the "unveiling" of the task force's "vision" to jockey for position so that they can formulate/shape or possibly position their proposals -- before there has even been any public discussion of whether the "vision" makes any kind of long-term sense at all -- you really have to wonder about the topography (of the playing field, that is...).

Gotta jumo in here. I know a lot of these 'idiots' you are referring to. Please note, their report was based on 'terms of reference' which means they had to base their report on a set series of criteria. At no time did they advocate the removal of the Coho.

The Province said heres the land but no money, the City has no money so they were tasked to recommend something which costs money but the only way something can get built when theres no public cash is to seek private cash. Hence their focus on something that has the possibility of success.

If there was public money, this wouldnt even be an issue.

Another major factor was the U.S. Homeland secuirty threatening to pull the pre-screening out of the Harbour unless there are improvements over the shacks currently on site. If this doesnt happen, the Coho is doomed anyway.

They were tasked to look at the property and if the Coho wants to partner and contribute to the cost of constructing a proper terminal for a very rara side loading car ferry that has a life of maybe another 10 years, I'm sure they would be welcomed with open arms.

Some of these so called "Idiots" are some of Victorias best and brightest with very good reputations. If they didnt take risks who would....you????HAHAHAHA

[Rob Randall]

[Please note, their report was based on 'terms of reference' which means they had to base their report on a set series of criteria. At no time did they advocate the removal of the Coho.

That's true, they had to deal with (IMO) an unreasonably restrictive set of terms.

However, the panel did recommend elimination of vehicle ferry service. Yes, technically the Coho could stay on as a foot passenger-only ship. I attended a meeting with the panel just before the report was released to Council and Terry Farmer was very clear that there was no room for the Coho in the future plan.

The fact that Clipper Navigation had a member on the panel but Black Ball did not was a suspicious move. Is it because the Clipper rep is an expert on developing ports? His previous job was at Amtrak.

And why exclude the largest and oldest tenant--Black Ball Ferries from the Panel overseeing the visioning process?

[Ms. B. Havin]

Another major factor was the U.S. Homeland secuirty threatening to pull the pre-screening out of the Harbour unless there are improvements over the shacks currently on site. If this doesnt happen, the Coho is doomed anyway.

Apparently that's a total red herring -- how appropriate for such a fishy topic... The Department of Homeland (in)Security is not stirring the pot here (for a change).

[G-Man]

Again I think the homeland security thing is crap. Please show the same concerns regarding the Anacortes Sidney run? So what is the magic solution they are using?

Also even if no one gave a crap about the coho and looked at the plan they presented on its merits alone it is a crap plan. I mean a big square with a hotel wow amazing pff!

[Holden West]

The panel claimed their vision for the terminal was "world class". I have to agree it is anything but. A hotel and plaza is hardly worthy of the term.

[LJ]

[quote name='"G-Man"']Again I think the homeland security thing is crap. Please show the same concerns regarding the Anacortes Sidney run? So what is the magic solution they are using?

I don't believe that you pre-clear customs on the Sidney - Anacortes ferry as you do on the Coho.

This makes a big difference in the facility required, when you get to Annacortes you go through a secure border facility.

[G-Man]

^Friday Harbour, Orcas Island and Anacortes have more sophisticated borders than Port Angeles? That seems weird. I would bet that we could work something out with PA for a confirmation that we will keep the Coho where it is.

[ressen]

With some improvements to the Belleville St. side walk and a better tie inn with the existing causeway it is really not that bad as it sits now. The portable buildings could be removed for more vehicle room and a new over head terminal could serve walk on pasengers, all for little cost.

[Ms. B. Havin]

Great photos, ressen -- thanks!

[Nparker]

I'd like to think "great historical photos", but methinks the same shots will be available to be taken in 2017, 2027, 2037 etc.

[Galvanized]

Great photos Ressen!

The Coho is now accepting CDN $ at par!

[FunkyMunky]

In case you hadn't noticed, Yule Heibel slags-off (and quiet rightly) in this month's issue of Focus Magazine on the task force recommendations. It boils down to Big-T tourism versus small-t travel. And she's not a fan of the public plaza wasteland that they suggest should replace the car lanes for the Coho, either. It's a two part article with the second half next month discussing what they should have recommended. You can get a free copy of Focus Magazine at a number of drop-off boxes around town.

[Mike K.]

Right on. I'll be checking that out.

[amor de cosmos]

With the Vancouver 2010 Olympics nearing, Lowe said it will be an embarrassment if the first things tourists see on arriving in Victoria's Inner Harbour are chain-link fences, parking lots and trailers. "We want to see something we can be proud of, and I think the province wants that, too," Lowe said.

Recommendations for the Belleville Street terminal redevelopment, to cost about $100 million, were put before B.C. Tourism Minister Stan Hagen about two months ago.

The province owns the 2.8-hectare Inner Harbour site. The Coho passenger and car ferry, which travels to Port Angeles, has been docking there since 1959.

[...]

http://www.canada.co...ca54449&k=36718

[Mike K.]

The conclusions of that public panel are extremely frustrating.

And what's worse is now that the feds want to bring forward cash we don't even have a tangible proposal to officially request it! This is so typical of our city's panels and leaders who are perfectly happy squandering a good thing or bending over backwards for special interest groups but eventually coming around and settling for something mediocre as a rash response to the publics outbursts of criticism over screwing up the vision in the first place. To even suggest that a passenger-only terminal should be a serious response to a growing infrastructure hub is representative of this "city appointed" panel's completely out of touch views.

Remember the arena where the public was just about ready to support anything in order to secure a new stadium? We settled for less than stellar and it looks like the powers that be want us to do it again.

[amor de cosmos]

I seem to have underestimated the city's stupidity. I hope Lunn doesn't manage to get funding anytime soon. The federal government's response should be "what do you want us to fund?" because I don't think the city has a clue at this point. They should have a design & a plan, and they should price it out before they ask the feds for funding, & if that happens I'm sure they'd be happy to pitch in.

[Mike K.]

Typically what happens is anti-growth, anti-progress individuals completely derail the first round of planning and discussions (passenger-only facility, massive open plazas, etc). Then the community reacts, and the fringe thinkers are forced to move aside as the community fights for something sensible and viable. By the time the latter happens, however, so much time has passed that we reach a do or die deadline and force ourselves to accept whatever we can muster up in a short and hectic timespan.

Lowe wants a new termianal by 2010? Unless he's thinking of trailers and wire fencing he should know we've passed the point of planning, approving, preparing and building this terminal in time for the Olympics. We'll be lucky to have new digs by 2011 if we give our heads a shake today and get moving on this right away.

[Ms. B. Havin]

I was disappointed to read the T-C article, which makes it seem as if the proposals of that "city appointed task force" were in any way still on the table. As far as I can tell, they're dead in the water (as they should be), probably at the bottom of the Inner Harbour by now. Talk about penny-wise (saving $15 to $20m) and pound-foolish (ditching the Coho to do so).

Re. amor de cosmos:

I seem to have underestimated the city's stupidity. I hope Lunn doesn't manage to get funding anytime soon. The federal government's response should be "what do you want us to fund?" because I don't think the city has a clue at this point. They should have a design & a plan, and they should price it out before they ask the feds for funding, & if that happens I'm sure they'd be happy to pitch in.

That's exactly right (and what Mike said re. arena, too). No road map, no money. No good plan, no good product/outcome.

As for Lowe's comment re. it being an "embarrassment" to have a chain link fence greeting our visitors: talk about leaving things to the last minute (hello, no plan?)! It's the middle of 2007 and hastily we get this "task force," which has unacceptable terms of reference. It's as good as 2008 already -- there's no way you're going to chase down the money and have all the construction finished and everything done by the time the Olympics roll around. I'd almost think it's done on purpose -- this last minute scrambling -- because then you have an "excuse" for coming up with a mediocre product.

[Ms. B. Havin]

Oops, @Mike: simulposting! What you said, Mike, right on!

[amor de cosmos]

As for Lowe's comment re. it being an "embarrassment" to have a chain link fence greeting our visitors: talk about leaving things to the last minute (hello, no plan?)! It's the middle of 2007 and hastily we get this "task force," which has unacceptable terms of reference. It's as good as 2008 already -- there's no way you're going to chase down the money and have all the construction finished and everything done by the time the Olympics roll around. I'd almost think it's done on purpose -- this last minute scrambling -- because then you have an "excuse" for coming up with a mediocre product.

...& a few days ago I read that the construction of the new venues in Vancouver is completed, almost 2 years before they're needed. They're just waiting on the athletes' village & Canada Line now, which will both be finished next year (2009). But only now Victoria is thinking of what the effect of the Vancouver Olympics will be here. Victoria has some major housecleaning to do imho.