I’ve been wondering if anyone cared about the plans to raze the corner of 16th and Arbutus, home for decades to the Ridge Theatre and theVarsity Ridge Bowling Centre.
It got sold to Cressey Developments in June 2011 for $15,584,701, in a move that surprised some, since it seemed as though the theatre and bowling alley were safe when Meinhardt’s grocery store signed a 25-year lease a few years before. But Meinhardt’s shut down under strange circumstances, and owner Sondra Green (who had bought the property in 1971, as far as I can tell) sold it shortly after to Cressey, which promptly announced plans for condos.
It’s been hard to get anyone at council interested in this issue. I’ve asked about it a couple of times and always been told there’s “nothing we can do.” Given the lack of apparent community concern, it seemed as though there were only a few nostalgia cranks who took an interest in this.
I guess I and others were wrong on this, to judge from the letter below that I received yesterday.
Dear Mayor Robertson and Councillors:
On the evening of October 9 I attended the meeting of the Development Permit Board at City Hall from 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on behalf of the Kitsilano Arbutus Residents Association (KARA) where I sit on the Steering Committee for the Arbutus Ridge development. Along with many others I was registered to speak to the Arbutus Ridge Cressey Developments application on behalf of KARA, to raise my concerns about the impact of the project on our neighbourhood, both in terms of the flaws of the building and the process by which it arrived at the Development Permit Board for approval on October 9.
In doing so I received the extraordinary gift of an education I would like to share with you.
As the Vancouver Sun, CTV, Global Television and other media outlets reported, about 50 bowlers from age 10 to people in their 80s walked from the bowling alley at 15th and Arbutus several kilometres to City Hall. There they were joined by about 30 others who could not walk that distance, including several in wheelchairs, who had come by bus or were driven by others. The audience included the legally blind accompanied by guide dog, and others who were developmentally and physically challenged. A 93 year old bowler was sitting in front of me. Some were so physically challenged they had to almost crawl up City Hall steps, but were determined to be there.
Also present were at least 40 pre-registered speakers, signed up to address the serious flaws both in the process of how the City planning department excluded citizen input to arrive at a completed project, and in the proposal itself, asking for discretionary approval to build a fifth storey making it by far the highest building on the Arbutus corridor since it also sits on the high point of the ridge.
As the bowlers arrived they also signed up to speak and by 3:00 p.m. 100 speakers were on the list. By 4:00 p.m, after several additional stacks of chairs were brought in, there was still standing room only in the meeting room and in the overflow room behind it. The Chair of the meeting asked the younger people who could to give up their chairs for those who needed them more, as City Hall’s supply of chairs was exhausted. After 5:00 p.m. there was another infusion of people into the overflow room.
Why would all these elderly and physically challenged and mentally challenged people join the able bodied, the youth, the children, the residents of Kitsilano, many business people and professionals to spend hours in the hot and crowded meeting room at City Hall?
The answer was displayed at the meeting with such passion, with such raw emotion and distress as any I have seen in my professional life of more than 30 years as a psychologist.
The first speaker signalled the reason. He said the flawed process at City Hall failed to understand how deeply wounded the citizens of Kitsilano were by the actions of City Hall by both the planning staff and the politicians who had ignored the community, and by the actions of Cressey Developments.
For four hours the speakers poured their hearts out into the room. In an extraordinarily moving way that could not help but touch even hearts of stone, they told how the bowling alley community had literally saved their lives. It had provided a safe, welcoming healthy social environment to newcomers; to the elderly for whom it was their only social contact and outing; to the young girl who bonded with her grandfather who came to watch her bowl every week ( and how the people at the bowling alley supported her when her beloved grandpa had a stroke); to young children, including a 10 year old who got up to speak; to mums who knew their children were safe in the bowling alley; to university students who brought their dates to bowl; to the physically challenged, some of them middle aged, who got up and began their presentation with the words, “I am a Special Olympian, and the Varsity Ridge Bowling Alley is my home and my family.”
One of these Special Olympians had a big poster of stick figures of David and Goliath and explained in his own effective way how the bowlers were David and the City and Cressey were Goliath, who needed to be slain so the people could win. A director of a pre-school held up a poster on “Saving the Bowling Alley” made by her 3 and 4 year old charges and told how central the bowling alley was to her little ones.
We learned that 12,000 school children use the bowling alley as part of the curriculum and that millions of dollars for the CKNW Orphans Fund, for breast cancer and many other charities are raised through the bowling alley.
People who were afraid to speak in public got up shaking and made their pleas.
Interspersed with all that were the architects, engineers, lawyers and business people from the community who got up to rationally express their distress with the actions of Cressey and City Hall. They expressed how the City was giving away the farm of City taxpayer owned property to Cressey and were achieving nothing in return. These pleas were heartfelt and full of passion coming from long term residents who had paid up to five decades of taxes only to see their neighbourhood diminished for profit to the developer.
Most egregious of all were the actions in the room of the City planners who had worked with the developer for over a year without consultation with neighbours and then presented a fully blown project that allowed huge discretionary relaxation at the expense of the neighbourhood for zero returns. They then had the audacity to claim that other conditions they were imposing on the project for cosmetic changes to the building were meeting the needs of “neighbourliness.” These City planners have zero concept of what neighbourliness means.
But, if these City planners had the eyes to see, and the ears to hear it, and the heart to feel it, neighbourliness was in the room at City Hall from 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. What was in the room was community, alive, deep, profound—the kind of social cohesion and intergenerational compassion all leaders in Canada are looking for in a 21st century big city that is tending towards alienation.
The response of the City Hall planners (and some of their advisors around the table) to this human and priceless example of what all of us want our communities to be, was instructive. When asked by an advisor to the Board whether the idea of including a bowling alley in the plans of the current building was considered, the clear and unequivocal answer was that it was “uneconomic” and so it was dismissed as irrelevant to the task at hand, namely, to give the developer maximum economic benefit from the site.
The question hanging in the room was: “Uneconomic to whom and by how much?”
The planners who had spent their presentation time in addressing how hard they had worked at “neighbourliness” by increasing setbacks and other minimal tinkering such as a dispute about whether privacy barriers should be 24 inches or 36 inches high, repeatedly praised themselves for their hard work. They had no concept of how their insensitive posturing was being heard by the audience. Every time the word “neighbourliness” was repeated, laughter and tears broke out among the people who had come out in such great numbers on their own time to see how their City staff represented them.
The planners were speaking of cement, of plants, of setbacks into a room full of people who were a community filled with deeply felt emotion about losing the one thing that made their lives meaningful. It was truly a failure of human compassion in the face of an extraordinary slice of Canadian excellence in exactly that—human compassion. They were breaking the hearts of Canadians who again and again referred to Ken and Judy Hagen, the owners of the Varsity Ridge Bowling Centre, as surrogate parents, and their angels, deserving of the Order of Canada for what they did.
When the advisors spoke they all acknowledged that they were moved by what they had heard, but then most of them pushed that aside to say they were here to represent their particular constituency and as such they supported approval of the application. They could not see beyond their own narrow specialization to recognize that approval that night meant demolition of the bowling alley and the destruction of the dreams and hopes of so many who had spoken. They were doing their job, but it was their humanity that was on the table, and they walked away from it. Fortunately there were a few advisors who said they could not approve the proposal and suggested deferral. Hopefully, this meant giving time for thoughtful consideration of what they had heard, but some of us wondered whether it was just a way of making a decision outside that room, where people had made it so clear the project should not go ahead until wiser, fairer, consideration had been brought to bear.
When it came time for Board members to speak, hope for reasoned consideration was rekindled. One member called himself “cranky,” by which he seemed to mean he saw through what was going on between the City planning staff and the developer, and said he felt the developer “had not earned” the right for discretionary approval of a fifth storey. He was not, however, ready to reject the application and suggested deferral. Another agreed that the case for approval had not been made, and he, too, suggested deferral. The third Board member said he needed more information from staff about the height of other C-2 developments along the Arbutus corridor. So they voted unanimously to defer the decision to the next regular meeting of the Board on October 22.
People walked away hopeful but confused. Does this mean they’ll just approve it when we are not allowed to speak again? When the developer has had time to use his influence to get the votes he needs? When people who have invested so much energy in a flawed process work behind closed doors from the public to get the outcome they want?
So the issue comes back to the leaders of our City. Regardless that the way the structure of the development approval process is set up so that people like the bowlers and their interests are shunted aside, the question of your humanity remains.
Can you ignore the people who put you in office and allow their priceless institution at the heart of your community to be destroyed, now that you know it is for ECONOMIC reasons. Or are you prepared to speak up with courage for these people, for the 10 year olds to the 93 year olds? Are you going to pay attention to a petition with 10,000 names on it, or dismiss it as the planning department has done by saying that they can’t tell a developer whose project they have finessed whom he should have as a tenant? Are you prepared to intervene to find a creative solution to solve this problem by engaging with the citizens where the real wealth of creative ideas resides as shown by what they said at the meeting, and in the hundreds of letters they sent in?
Mr. Robertson, as our Mayor and our representative, we need you to speak with courage, with decency, and for right action. We are not willing to hear you quote the rules in the face of your people’s deep human and profound distress. We need you to defend and promote the excellence of a vibrant, cohesive, compassionate neighbourhood that will be the envy of all Canadians, full of vigorous and successful citizens, as well as the most vulnerable among us, as was displayed at this meeting, just as readily as you support the homeless and others who need your help.
City Councillors, are you, too, prepared to stand up for what is right rather than what is bureaucratically expedient?
Are you willing? We are waiting for your answer.
Respectfully,
Geraldine Schwartz
Member of the Steering Committee
Kitsilano Arbutus Residents Association
117 responses so far ↓
1 Everyman // Oct 13, 2012 at 6:16 pm
If the letter writer thinks the Vision dominated council is going to cross a developer they’re in for a rude awakening.
So we’ll lose some cultural and sporting amenities and gain yet another ticky-tacky woodframe condo. What a “win” for us all!
2 Dan // Oct 13, 2012 at 6:52 pm
I’m no fan of Cressey, but seriously, it’s a crappy movie theatre, a McDonalds, and a freaking bowling alley!
You know you’re in a privileged lala land when this is the biggest thing to protest.
3 Glissando Remmy // Oct 13, 2012 at 8:22 pm
Thought of The Bowling Alley
“I’ll volunteer to become the first human bowling ball to roll on any of the Arbutus bowling alleys if this letter passes Robertson’s waste basket test…”
First of all, my dear Geraldine, you started your letter on the wrong foot… the right one, as they are more on the… left.
Instead of starting with “Dear Mayor Robertson and Councillors…” you should have started with this:
Dear Mayor Robertson and Councillors,
“Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate.
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer’s lease hath all too short a date.
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimm’d;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature’s changing course untrimm’d;
But thy eternal summer shall not fade
Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow’st;
Nor shall Death brag thou wander’st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou grow’st:
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.”
…end forcefully in:
“We love bike lanes, yes we do,
We love chicken coops, yes we do,
We love wheat boulevards, yes we do,
Lane houses, thin streets, Vision bits…
Yes-We-Do!
And so you love us too!”
Then you write:
“Subliminally yours,
Geraldine Schawrtz”
There!
… good luck!
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
4 Terry Martin // Oct 13, 2012 at 8:39 pm
I am very happy to see that this letter crossed your path and equally happy to see you include it on your blog,thankyou. This letter accurately describes the problems that neighbourhoods face, “hard to get anyone on council interested in this” Actually councillor Carr has spent time on this issue , and in fact attended neighbourhood meetings held in regard to this development,too bad that this type of involvement is ignored by and large by the vision council,my guess is that they really don’t care.The only interest they seem to have is their own agenda, and if the public doesn’t agree, too bad,perhaps in the next civic election the public will have woken up enough to turf these people out of city hall
5 Terry Martin // Oct 13, 2012 at 8:41 pm
@glisandoremmy so very well and entertainingly put
6 Julia // Oct 13, 2012 at 10:32 pm
Council thinks an election is a mandate to do what ever they want – to whoever they want.
7 Guest // Oct 13, 2012 at 11:03 pm
Residents should push for a new theatre and bowling alley at the Arbutus Village redevelopment down the road. There’ll be a lot of commercial space down there and likely more space for parking, too.
As as side note, the relocated Liquor Store at the Pinnacle condo project at Broadway & Arbutus has recently opened and the old location will likely be demolished soon for the completion of the condo project.
8 Everyman // Oct 14, 2012 at 7:31 am
@Dan 2-Did you read the letter? Have you read any of the media coverage? The bowling alley is an important sporting and social outlet for many. That “crappy” theatre you disparage gives many in the surrounding area a chance to see first run movies without having to leave their neighbourhood. Surely Vision with their “greenness” should be all over that? And there are other small businesses in the complex, and would be more if there had been more certainty over leases.
Quite frankly, your sneering condescension strikes me as typical of Vision Vancouver. They don’t care what residents want for their neighbourhoods, apparently they are the only ones who know best, and that knowing usually involves a nice deal for developers.
9 Strike Three // Oct 14, 2012 at 10:35 am
Doesn’t it seem a bit ironic that many of these people blame Vision for rezonings that don’t “fit” with community plans, and now demand that they intervene to stop something….that is allowed within the community plan?
The Cressey proposal fits with what is allowed in the community plan. It is not a rezoning. This is not a city-owned piece of property. The bowling alley is not a city-owned facility.
I’m curious what people who are so critical of council want them to do. Buy out Cressey (who doesn’t want to sell)? And then what….subsidize the tenancy of the bowling alley?
There are arts groups, non-profits, and many other worthy causes who don’t get breaks on their rent. But the bowling alley is now top of the list? What about an aboriginal education centre? or a private seniors care home?
This quote from the letter speaks to the lack of understanding:
“They expressed how the City was giving away the farm of City taxpayer owned property to Cressey and were achieving nothing in return. “
10 Bill // Oct 14, 2012 at 2:07 pm
@Everyman #8
How would you compensate Cressy if they agreed to accomodate a bowling alley in their development? Who should pay for it?
11 Everyman // Oct 14, 2012 at 3:49 pm
@Bill 10
Plenty of sporting/cultural spaces are subsidized. Think community centres. In addition the Opera essentially gets free rent, as did the Playhouse. We give religious groups tax breaks for their property, even though some promote bigotry. So there’s no reason the City can’t get creative and figure something out. We don’t need more condos at the expense of everything else. My only hope is the market collapses further and puts this project on ice. I’ve been to a couple sales centres lately you can shoot a cannon through, so who knows. Cressey should take note the Sidney at 12th and Arbutus is still trying to sell units months after completion.
12 waltyss // Oct 14, 2012 at 5:04 pm
@ Everyman, you didn’t answer the quextions posed by Bill and Strike 3. A subsidy is little different from writing a cheque. So should the cCity write a cheque to subsidize a private bowling alley or a private movie theatre.
Unofrtunately, Vancouver has not been good at preserving its history. Part of the problem is that on the westside at least the land value is too high. It is a shame. However, aside from lashing out at city hall, I have not seen a realistic proposal on how we save most or even many of these sites. I notice the Hollywood is functioning as a church. Kind of cool, however that still does not preserve it as a neighbourhood 2nd run movie theatre.
13 Frank Ducote // Oct 14, 2012 at 10:11 pm
@Everyman – citywide priorities aside (good question, Bill). compensation would likely take the form of additional density, which usually triggers additional height, both of which could trigger rezoning, hence additional time, expense, risk, public hearing, yadda yadda. In turn, whatever segment of the market they may be targetting could be priced out or missed by the delay.
I’m not sure what’s in it for the developer in this hypothetical scenario, which in the end runs the risk of being no more well- received in the ‘hood than the present proposal.
Maybe the discretionary 5th floor could be a trade off for a bowling alley, which could be excluded from floor area calculations, and thereby not trigger an unpopular rezoning process. Just a thought, not knowing the details of the application. However, such scenarios were probably discussed between the applicant and staff, and found wanting.
14 Silly Season // Oct 14, 2012 at 10:36 pm
Wasn’t the City toying with the idea of trying to do some deals with developers as per cost of commercial space on their premises? I understand that there might be strata issues but surely most condo developemnts should be hosting some commercial.
4th Ave is hollowing out. Main Street retailers are moving to Fraser and Victoria. And will undoubtably have to move again. And again.
If the cost of land is a “too bad, so sad” scenario for condo buyers, what the heck is going to happen to commercial space for retailers—or people who run theatres and bowling alleys?
Surely the City doesn’t expect all to leave their neighbourhoods by car/transit/bike/walk and hump it to the dowtown area for their entertainment needs?
May I quote Richard Florida on Twitter, here?
Richard FloridaVerified @Richard_Florida
@mulderc @CanUrbanism I think that’s the point: To make all communities, suburbs as well as cities better, more fulfilling places.
Neighbourhoods and communitites as “better, more fulfilling places”. Hmmm.
Pray tell, how are we going to achieve that if we strip away the ability to host anything on our lands other than condo developments, thin streets, stacked housing, row housing, etc. on our “unaffordable” land?
Is “housing affordability” just the newest catch phrase for squeezing as much housing density into neighbourhoods for tax revenue?
Are there no other considerations other than housing?
15 Julia // Oct 14, 2012 at 10:50 pm
a little tax secret – that replacement residential tax revenue will be less than the existing stand alone commercial rate once you factor in the cost of servicing that property on an annual basis.
16 David // Oct 15, 2012 at 12:21 am
Crappy? Can’t really argue with that… every seat in the theatre moved when somone bumped a seat. Reservoir Dogs, Animation Festivals, Dana Carvey live, bomb threat at Taxi Zum Klo… http://tinyurl.com/cpfdu7f
17 Terry Martin // Oct 15, 2012 at 1:33 am
@strikethree i suppose you never really looked at the proposal , it includes the city having to sell land to cressey in order for them to do the project as proposed ,also the city will take the rest of its land on arbutus st and call it a park , only a thin strip of grass , so if the city wants to it could negotiate ,because cressey needs this land to build this big a project
18 Terry Martin // Oct 15, 2012 at 2:36 am
@waltyss FYI regarding the hollywood , I have had discussions with most of the church leaders,they are planning to show some free movies to the neighbourhood if possible , also are interested in allowing community events to take place there , and, I understand that they are planning on firing up the popcorn machine for goodies for halloween, possibly even allow it to be used for some live music events. So even though it is no longer a full time theater , it looks like it will be a real resource for the neighbourhood
19 Ms Jones // Oct 15, 2012 at 11:02 am
What a interesting concept.
Transforming every amenity/ community centre/ theatre/ bowling alley into a … church. The only way a neighborhood may afford anything in the future. No tax, sanctuary from developers… and Vision and Green Gregor. Just saying!
Glissando #3… that was a very nice post, but knowing some Vision members up close and personal, I can assure you, that Shakespeare sonnet will do naught to them. They are working for the dark side!
They are not deserving
20 jolson // Oct 15, 2012 at 11:13 am
The Ridge Theatre and Bowling Alley are de-facto community facilities which the City should purchase at the last sale price and operate as such. Perhaps Mr. Cressey will be happy to preserve an otherwise respectable reputation except for the current miscalculation with this project. As for the Planning Department aiding and abetting through the trivialization of responsibilities………enough already! Do your jobs for the public good.
21 Guest // Oct 15, 2012 at 1:21 pm
If the City is going to subsidize sports/cultural facilities – one facility that’s missing from the Vancouver landscape is a paintball facility!
Right now, you have to DRIVE to North Vancouver, Richmond, Delta or farther for paintball.
22 Andrew Browne // Oct 15, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Government cannot compel a business to operate nor a landowner to accommodate a particular kind of business tenant. Period. And it’s private land, not public, so I don’t know what that was about (perhaps there was some small strip of land exchange on some frontage or another, who knows–they may just be confused).
I empathize with the very real loss of the community’s “third place,” a place apart from home and school/work, where they can gather and socialize. If I was in their place I would also be melancholy, but I wouldn’t be rude to City staff whose job it is to deal with applications. A Development Permit that proposes a development within existing zoning essentially must be approved (given the provincial legislation), subject to agreement on design issues, but the question of redevelopment being permitted is simply not on the table–it is within zoning. Staff here don’t really have the latitude to say “We’re not going to approve this because the bowling alley would be lost.” That’s lawsuit country. The Development Permit Board could deny the application on the basis of design, essentially, but not on the basis of its mere existence as an application.
But we live in a country of laws. The very same fundamental principle that would allow a homeowner to make renovations within their zoning without need for permission from neighbours essentially applies here: the landowner is proposing changes to their property within the limits of existing zoning.
The comment above me included this, but I think the sentiment was echoed a few times:
“The Ridge Theatre and Bowling Alley are de-facto community facilities which the City should purchase at the last sale price and operate as such. ”
Right. So that’s $15 million plus ongoing subsidies to operate the thing. I assume you’ll be the first to step forward come budget season to wholeheartedly support a raise in your residential property taxes? This is really, really not the role of government.
I wish we could have better process outcomes as communities. They way we all discuss redevelopment and change is really harmful. Everyone comes to the table somehow assuming the worst intentions of the other and its just a terrible way to start a conversation about our neighbourhoods.
I mean, I’m upset that Denman Cinema closed, and same with the Empire Granville 7. And undoubtedly both sites will generate redevelopment applications in the near- to mid-future. But I sure won’t be angry at the City when that happens… it’s not their fault. Things change. They always have.
23 Higgins // Oct 15, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Andre Browne #21,
“I empathize with the very real loss of the community’s “third place,” a place apart from home and school/work, where they can gather and socialize. If I was in their place I would also be melancholy, but I wouldn’t be rude to City staff whose job it is to deal with applications. ”
I’ve seen sarcastic hypocrisy and known some jerks before, but you Sir, take the cake… by a mile!
“I mean, I’m upset that Denman Cinema closed, and same with the Empire Granville 7. And undoubtedly both sites will generate redevelopment applications in the near- to mid-future. But I sure won’t be angry at the City when that happens… it’s not their fault. Things change. They always have.”
No you are not sorry, and the City is at the middle of all of it!
So, how are things with Vision Vancouver otherwise?
24 waltyss // Oct 15, 2012 at 2:37 pm
@Higgins: do you even understand the concept of having a civil conversation or even debate? Spewing venom is not an argument worth listening to in favour or against anything. Unfortunately, a review of your posts tends to demonstrate that to be the extent of your contributions.
25 Frank Ducote // Oct 15, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Slagging and branding, hopefully, does not outweigh facts. As Andrew is pointing out, zoning is a property right, enjoyed by all property owners in municipalities. It is not taken away by fiat, or without fair market compensation in those infrequent occasions when “eminent domain” in the greater public interest is involved.
It is certainly not within staff’s, nor the Development Permit Board’s, prerogative to do so. Further, in an outright zoning application, like this one, Council has no role in approvals for the development permit.
These are facts, regardless of one’s interest in retaining a valued community amenity.
26 Andrew Browne // Oct 15, 2012 at 3:17 pm
@ Higgins #22
I wasn’t being sarcastic. And I don’t see how I’m a hypocrite, or even what it would take to be one on this matter (would I have to be redeveloping a block myself? or something?). And I don’t think expressing shared dismay at the loss of an important community gathering space is being a jerk. But thanks. Maybe I should aspire to be more like you? You seem very friendly.
So is that what we do now? We just throw crazy words out at people? Are you like this lady?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E87gciwebw
I mean we can all just toss around words. It’s like scrabble played by angry drunks. I have it on good authority that you’re a cow-tipping nincompoop and that you smell of elderberries. See, wasn’t that fun? Down the toilet bowl we go.
I wasn’t eligible to vote in Vancouver in the last civic election, and I’m not involved with any municipal parties or organizing. Sorry to burst your conspiracy theory there.
27 Rick // Oct 15, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Now not coming to a theatre near them!
The Rize Alliance 2
starring the Dude.
28 brilliant // Oct 15, 2012 at 4:48 pm
@Frank Ducote 24-funny, just across Arbutus the city was able to run roughshod over private property owner CP Rail’s wish to develop their property as they saw fit. I guess it just depends on how motivated they are. And if the city exchanged some land to help this go forward, they have some say.
29 gasp // Oct 15, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Frank Ducote @24:
I don’t agree with your statement that rezoning of property is a property “right”.
According to the Vancouver Charter, fees (set by by-law) are payable when submitting a rezoning application or applying for a development permit; and section 272 states:
272. (1) The Council may from time to time make by-laws . . .
Fixing fees
(b) for fixing the fee for the granting of any permit or of any licence, which may be in the nature of a tax for the privilege conferred by it.
So, since the fee for the rezoning application or development permit is “in the nature of a tax for the privilege conferred by it”, rezoning would be a “privilege” not a right.
30 Andrew Browne // Oct 15, 2012 at 6:17 pm
@gasp #28
Frank’s wording perhaps could have been more clear, but he meant that the DP application was made under the existing outright zoning, not that a rezoning is a right (rather that the zoning you have is a right).
31 Frank Ducote // Oct 15, 2012 at 6:24 pm
It’s not called the Zoning and Development BYLAW for nothing – it is a law. The privilege all property owners have is to voluntarily seek REzoning – i.e., a new zoning, often but not always site specific CD-1 – which would entail a public hearing, approval and enactment by Council.
In contrast, development within the parameters of the unique discretionary zoning BYLAW that Vancouver has does not require those actions.
All of this is just to clarify the powers that staff and the Development Permit Board have, not to argue one way or the other about the merits of this particularly development permit application. (I too like to bowl and watch movies occasionally at the Ridge, and sorely miss our neighbourhood theatres.)
I suppose the DPB could punt it up to Council if they feel the issue is particularly problematic. For its part, Council at the least would have to decide to sell the city land to the applicant or not, which, if the latter, could have some consequence for the ultimate form of development (setbacks, height, etc.).
Hope this info is useful, not trying to be argumentative.
32 Frank Ducote // Oct 15, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Gasp and Andrew – you’re both right about rezoning, and I wasn’t sufficiently clear @24, it seems.
33 Silly Season // Oct 15, 2012 at 8:01 pm
I understand private property rights, zoning bylaws, etc.
But no one has answered my Q about the loss of more entertainment amenities in our neighbourhoods, as housing development continues to be numero uno here.
Besides coffe joints and the occasional restaurant, I mean. to me, losing these kind of ammenities does not align with the purported goals of the “alone Together’ report.
Unless we’re just supposed to go to potlucks with each other and spirited games of rumole in our own small spaces count as civic engagement?
34 Joe Just Joe // Oct 15, 2012 at 8:28 pm
We will soon see STIBA and STINT brought out. That’s Short Term Incentives for Bowling Alleys and Neighbourhood Theatres. But no need to worry they will only be trials limited to ~20 or so. At which point guest will be happy we will see STRIP Short term real incentives for paintball and the city will give out free paintballs for the residents and have them go to town all over the city and call the outcome public art.
In all seriousness this is going to become an even bigger issue as time goes on. How does the city deal with it is anyone’s guess. Perhaps we might see the city take planned usage into account when calculating CACs with items of public benefit paying less then items that aren’t but I hate solving issues with additional bureaucracy.
35 Glissando Remmy // Oct 15, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Thought of The Night
“Does the words ‘reverse psychology’ mean anything to you… Andrew B.?”
I read your #21… very compelling!
“Just like a fox caught red-handed in the middle of a chicken coop rumble . So, some chicken have died during the coup, boo-hoo, they were the weak ones, they would have been goners anyway, look at it this way… the fright I brought upon them made the older hen double their overnight egg production, ahem, guilty! And now, between me and you, wouldn’t you want to see my glittering furry colorful coat, from time to time, common!?”
I wasn’t about to pick on your comment, until I came across this paragraph:
“I wasn’t eligible to vote in Vancouver in the last civic election, and I’m not involved with any municipal parties or organizing.”
Which tells me, one or two things…
You were not of “age” to vote last year, making you a pretty young cyclist, my guess, with a lot to learn about the lives of seniors, people with kids, or people with transportation & mobility challenges (the most affected by the removal of their meeting social).
OR
You just moved to Vancouver, and you have not a clue of what you are talking about, and how all this ‘great’ move will affect the lives of those that you apparently “feel” for.
Your ignorance is bliss. But hey, it’s beautiful, as it is yours, and you are entitled to your opinion, so don’t blame me if you feel that people on this thread disagree with your views, I’m only the messenger, though… even if it’s not me and it could be you, it’s all in a good, constructive way…
And to this end, just like Cllor. Jang would say “How does that make you feel?”
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
36 mel lehan // Oct 15, 2012 at 8:43 pm
Thanks for posting this letter, Frances. I’m happy that you are furthering the dialogue on this important community issue.
I have lots to say on this issue. However, I’m just off to the Varsity Ridge for my weekly bowling league at 9pm.
So I will just add two things to the discussion.
First, it was one of the most moving meetings I have ever been to the other day when all the Special Olympians and seniors came to the Development Permit Board and poured their heart out about how crucial the bowling alley is to their lives.
Second, a very important point about this development proposal is that it is asking for benfits that can’t be granted under the existing zoning bylaw. For some strange reason the bureaucrats at City Hall offered to give them city land that when added to the Cressey owned land would then allow for the larger development being proposed.
So the point is that the
City of Vancouver has a lot of clout in this development proposal. We should not be facilitating megaprofits for a developer . We do have the right to say that the bowling alley and the theatre can and should be part of the development. I wish I had more time to elelaborat on this, but bowling calls.
37 Julia // Oct 15, 2012 at 9:47 pm
Glissy… you missed an option for Andrew. He may live in one of those god forsaken suburbs after living in Vancouver all his life but continues to work in Vancouver, and still cares but is ineligible to vote – like me.
38 Frances Bula // Oct 15, 2012 at 9:59 pm
@Higgins. Why is it that someone can’t make an observation not in agreement with your view of the world without being called a Vision apologist? Could we maybe just debate arguments on their own merits? I’m sure you appreciate the opportunity to make your case without people calling you an NPA apologist.
39 waltyss // Oct 15, 2012 at 10:10 pm
@brilliant not: The CPR issue was whether the city within the Charter as part of its Overall Development plan could keep the Arbutus corridor as restricted to transportation, the use it had always been and why the land was given to the CPR. The SCC said the city could. The city was not requiring CPR to change use but to keep the same use rather than using it to cash in on condos because that did not fit with the city’s plan. In 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada said they could.
Here it is being suggested that the city require the developer to run a particular business. A slippery slope indeed!
@Glissy It’s not Andrew B displaying ingorance on this thread. The sarcasm is unbecoming, even for you.
40 Voony // Oct 15, 2012 at 10:12 pm
Once upon a time,
it was happy day, and we were going to the cafe playing pinball… The elders were there playing cards, and well were also complaining about the pinball- it was making noise, and was attracting young in the cafe.
but the cafe owner was making good money of all that…not discounting that the elders was making sure to take a last drink before driving…oh happy days!
for some reason the elders passed away, the young became older, but didn’t play card anymore in the coffee, and their kids don’t enjoy pinball like we use to do…and the coffee owner was wanting to retire
So then Etoile Franche came and bought the coffee, with Grand plan for it…gone the pinball
It was the time when Glissando Remy, horrified at the idea of the pinball removal, came in, to suggest to use taxpayer money to save the pinball…you understand, the community and all of that…
41 Andrew Browne // Oct 15, 2012 at 10:15 pm
@ Glissy #34
If you must know, because god knows apparently the baying crowd demands blood, it is because I did not live within the boundaries of the City of Vancouver at the time of last civic election.
That being said, call me crazy, but Vancouverites don’t use bowling alleys and neighbourhood theatres any differently than anyone else. There isn’t a special Vancouver kind of bowling, though maybe you guys do eat something funny on the popcorn from the sounds of it.
42 waltyss // Oct 15, 2012 at 10:46 pm
@Andrew B and Voony. Don’t mind Glissy: he’s old, nasty, fancies himself a satirist and appears to imbibe a lot of hash. But then, unlike you Andrew, he lives in Vancouver and imbibing keeps him busy.
43 Silly Season // Oct 16, 2012 at 12:28 am
@JJJ #33
You wag!
So, what could the acronym STUNT stand for?
(Bada bing, bada boom!.)
44 Glissando Remmy // Oct 16, 2012 at 12:42 am
Thought of The Night
“LMAO! All for one. And one for all… En Garde!?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKORPCTsNCo
Andrew, I’ll see you outside the DT by the Concord/ SOLEfoods ‘community garden’ at noon. You seem reasonable.
Voony, I’ll see you at the Vancouver Art Gallery at 1.00 PM. Bring your own wine.
Waltyss, I’ll see you at Tap & Barrel in ‘the village’ at 2.00 PM… oh, if you get there first, have a vodka on me to calm down your nerves.
Ok, pumpkin?
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
45 Terry Martin // Oct 16, 2012 at 3:05 am
Interesting how many comments seem to be made without looking at the proposal , the city is adding land to the site so that the development can be as large as proposed , so the city should be able to have a large effect on what is proposed.This is not a development proposal that could in any way be considered to be outright use,hence so many people feeling that the city has a responsibility to look out for the communities best interests
46 Terry Martin // Oct 16, 2012 at 3:07 am
When the city grants relaxations in a development , it is expected that the city will receive something back in return, perhaps even a space to lease for a bowling alley
47 Terry Martin // Oct 16, 2012 at 3:09 am
frank 24 , do your homework before claiming that this project is an outright use
48 Tessa // Oct 16, 2012 at 5:28 am
Speaking of how to do new bowling alleys, could we maybe turn an underused underground car park in a residential building into a bowling alley? Depending of course on how long and flat it is, and how many pillars are in the way, it might work. Or maybe some of those other hard-to-finance, hard to build or quirky ideas could work in such spaces, i.e. go carts, music venues, billiard halls, mini-golf, etc.
49 Roger Kemble // Oct 16, 2012 at 7:41 am
Sleeze is endemic and the Vancouver Planning department’s complacency is much a part of it.
This Arbutus Ridge thing and the bowling alley takes me back to the time I decided, after multiple awards and recognition thirty years ago, I’d had enough and moved on to better things.
I wont mention names, suffice it to say what is going on with the bowling alley shows little has changed: back then it was the perennial view, today it is . . . errrr . . . ummmm . . . a bowling alley!
To wit, over on Kingsway the neighbours were sandbagging a developer demanding preservation of their views. Numerous architectural designs had been rejected: what the neighbours say goes: maybe.
Accordingly my firm was brought in: a last resort perhaps? First off we canvased the neighbourhood, knocking on doors, and, were no response, leaving an invitation to visit our office: we left no door un-knocked.
Out of hundreds we got one response.
Needless to say, at the subsequent public hearing, our designs were approved and the work proceeded.
But my firm was dealt out: Vancouver’s Planning office, then as now probably, did not respect architectural copyright (Surrey did).
Evidently the lead noise make was the president of the fishermen’s union and somehow he persuaded the developer to sell the successful approval to the Labourer’s Union thus, obviously resenting my firm’s success, dealt us out of the picture.
My design! There it stands to this day and it is beautiful. Oh and BTW everyone still gets the view!
As for the bowling alley: my guess is maybe a dozen neighbours, with ants in their pants, are making a lot of noise.
Hundreds of silent Arbutus Ridge residents probably don’t even know what’s going on!
50 Frank Ducote // Oct 16, 2012 at 9:07 am
Outright in the broadest possible sense that rezoning is not necessary in this instance, as I understand it. If you know differently, TM or others, please let us know.
51 Dan Cooper // Oct 16, 2012 at 11:32 am
If this bowling alley is preserved at City expense, which seems to be the proposal since people certainly cannot be proposing to force a private business to remain open against the will of its landlord but at that landlord’s sole expense(?), will the same subsidies/supports be given to the remaining bowling alleys in other areas of Vancouver? And, as others have asked, specifically what other City (presumably Parks Board) program should be defunded to cover the cost?
52 Frank Ducote // Oct 16, 2012 at 11:36 am
As noted above, the city land sale aspect does mean that Council does has a significant role to play (regardless of this not being a rezoning), the value of which could be used as negotiating leverage in return for a community amenity, such as the existing bowling alley. It should be pretty clear that they’ve gotten the message; we’ll have to wait and see how that goes at the proverbial end of the day and moving forward, to be doubly trite.
Over and out on this one.
53 waltyss // Oct 16, 2012 at 2:37 pm
In any thing like this, there is a quid pro quo between the developer and the city with regard to any development. Are the proponents suggesting that the city forego other amenities it might elicit from the developer in favour of a bowling lane…..which the city would run??? Which amenities?
I’m sad to see the Ridge go; I am sad to see the bowling alley go; my daughter has a disco bowling birthday party there. However, I am also reluctant (actually I am opposed0 to the city telling a developer what commerial establishments it should have in any development. Social amenities, yes but not commercial enterprises.
54 brilliant // Oct 16, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Earlier articles quoted Leonard Schein, operator of the Ridge as saying he had approached Cressey about incorporating new theatres at the site and they turned him diwn flat. The city rewards mediocrity.
55 teririch // Oct 16, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Seems the savng of the lanes hit the gutter: (Okay, anyone truly shocked???)
From the Provicne – today:
Vision Vancouver councillors guttered a pro-bowling motion meant to give west-side Vancouver residents an opportunity to strike out a densification proposal.
In the past week, hundreds of angry Kitsilano-Arbutus residents have demonstrated against a proposed five-storey condo and commercial building by Cressey Developments, that neighbours feel will overshadow their homes, and knock down a well-loved bowling alley.
Varsity Ridge Bowling Alley users have gained some traction in media reports with quirky demonstrations, and the argument that bowling is an endangered activity.
Tuesday at city hall, Green Coun. Adriane Carr asked for the city to include bowling in its new health initiative, with a view to building a new city-owned bowling facility in Vancouver.
Carr wanted to refer the motion to a planning meeting Wednesday, where about 20 pro-bowling, anti-development residents were expected to address council.
But Mayor Gregor Robertson and Vision Vancouver councillors voted the motion down, saying recreation issues and funding are strictly within the jurisdiction of the Vancouver parks board.
City Manager Penny Ballem advised council against hearing the bowling motion, citing legal concerns about interfering with the development-permit board process for the Cressey Developments application.
A number of Vision councillors piled onto Carr, saying she was wrong to suggest that council could influence recreation spending.
“I think there is a justifiable concern that bowling in Vancouver is fading away, but this is something the park board should be looking at,” Robertson said.
Vision Coun. Heather Deal said: “Why would we have people come to us in their heart-felt cries to have bowling and waste their time, when we can’t act on what they are asking for?”
NPA Coun. George Affleck hit back, saying that council often deals with issues out of its jurisdiction, such as seeking to regulate against oil tanker traffic. Affleck accused the Vision councillors of trying to dodge the Kitsilano-Arbutus residents
Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/news/City+council+gutters+bowling+move/7399533/story.html#ixzz29VN7Q49x
56 teririch // Oct 16, 2012 at 4:00 pm
You know what I find sad about this; it is an affordable activity for many people- for families, for seniors – a good form of exercise and interaction with others.
So far Vision has taken away community swimming pools, replacing them with skateboard parks – that serve a few and a very different group; they are looking at taking away an affordable public golf course, in favor of (condo) development and supposed ‘green’ small space. But according to one of the reports on ‘thin streets’, small green spaces could be at risk for development too.
And now the bowling alley.
Sad. Vancouver continues its reputation as a no fun city – unless you are a 20 something clubber heading to Granville Street on the weekend.
Families/seniors – well, they are getting pushed aside.
57 teririch // Oct 16, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Referencing waltyss #52 post –
What ‘ammenities’ did the city get from the green lighting of the RIZE building?
58 brilliant // Oct 16, 2012 at 4:31 pm
@teririch54-Affleck totally schooled Vision! Mayor Moonbeam is happy to wade into all kinds of pet issues when it suits him: oil pipelines, Coast Guard stations etc.
59 West End Gal // Oct 16, 2012 at 4:32 pm
teririch #51
Thanks for posting the PR.
I am mad like hell, knowing that Robertson/ Reimer/ Meggs gang is proposing a Mayor’s Engagement Task Force… just sick!
Frances #37
Funny for you to not see that the majority on this blog are in fact Vision Vancouver spinners.
Ok, now you can lecture me too!
60 Silly Season // Oct 16, 2012 at 4:42 pm
I don’t see anyone proposing that the City run a bowling alley—or anothe other neighbourhood amenity.
But it seems to me that since the City has some skin in this game (a la the land they are giving to CCressey, presumably to up the FSR), that there should be asks for consideration of commercial opportunities especially those that provide recreational or certain cultural opportunities, within neighbourhoods. I bet that City planners could even come up with a great definition for same! Including an FSR ratio to housing…
As for deflecting this to Park Board, ridiculous.
Liveable City, anyone?
61 Jay // Oct 16, 2012 at 4:56 pm
teririch – So far Vision has taken away community swimming pools, replacing them with skateboard parks – that serve a few and a very different group…
There is so much spin doctoring going on here, it is hard to take half of you seriously. I presume you are talking about the old Mt. Pleasant community centre pool at 15th and Ontario. Everybody knows that a new community centre was built – with a pool – at 1 Kingsway.
The park that replaced the old community centre is excellent. The skateboard park gets good use, the whole park gets good use. I see it every day.
Some people seem to not be able to decipher fact from spin.
62 ThinkOutsideABox // Oct 16, 2012 at 5:30 pm
A number of Vision councillors piled onto Carr, saying she was wrong to suggest that council could influence recreation spending.
“I think there is a justifiable concern that bowling in Vancouver is fading away, but this is something the park board should be looking at,” Robertson said.
Vision Coun. Heather Deal said: “Why would we have people come to us in their heart-felt cries to have bowling and waste their time, when we can’t act on what they are asking for?”
Gregor Robertson weighed in on parks board related concerns in the ’08 election – now it’s ‘not my department’.
http://vancouverpublicspace.ca/index.php?page=vancouvervotes-ps-survey-by-q
Robertson:
“The Park Board should create a “no net loss” policy for green space in the city…”
“The Park Board budget should support keeping bathrooms open in parks year-round…”
63 waltyss // Oct 16, 2012 at 5:41 pm
@teririch #56 Over $6 million as I understand for Mt. Pleasant.
@Thinkoutsideabox: Would you have been happier if the Mayor said: I think the Park Board should examine putting a bowling alley in one of the city’s parks (on the West Side). You would have then been braying about the city competing with private enterprise, or some such thing.
64 gasp // Oct 16, 2012 at 6:05 pm
What I’d like to know is how much it’s going to cost taxpayers to give this part of Arbutus to the developer, and how much the City expects to recover on the sale of the land to Cressey?
1.Taking away part of Arbutus at that location means having to move sewer lines, power lines, sidewalks, water lines, light poles, etc. etc. This will cost millions of dollars – so who’s paying for this, Cressey or the taxpayers?
2. The developer bought this property when prices were at their peak, reportedly paying over $15 million. How much is the City planning on charging Cressey for part of Arbutus Street?
3. There is no analysis as to why Arbutus is so wide at that point – and how changing the elevation and direction of Arbutus at that point will change the flow of surface and groundwater in that area. The entire area used to be a swamp. All those living to the west of this development should be on alert – as others in the area have found out in the past, house insurance won’t cover damage caused by ground or surface water, and the City won’t take responsibility for allowing developers to make changes to the land that cause this to happen.
65 ThinkOutsideABox // Oct 16, 2012 at 8:19 pm
Waltyss,
I provide some evidence of inconsistency in our elected officials’ statements, something you say you value with your point in the engaged mayor’s task force thread as a campaign promise followed through.
And your retort as usual is an attack on the commenter with some belittling conjecture based on nothing.
Very boring Waltyss.
66 A Dave // Oct 16, 2012 at 8:55 pm
Jay chides:
“Some people seem to not be able to decipher fact from spin.”
Right after saying:
“Everybody knows that a new community centre was built – WITH A POOL – at 1 Kingsway.” (emphasis added)
Wow.
And he claims the “new” MP park gets good use? Well, yes, it is the only significant green space within a km in any direction. But it was always a busy park, this is not new.
However, the last two days of rain, not a soul in sight. While in the past, on a rainy day, there would be 40 kids in the old CC gym playing sports, seniors taking classes, people working out, playing racquetball, taking music lessons… all on the same slice of land as the pet community garden is now laying fallow for winter.
The underlying issue of this thread is that there has been a rather startling erosion of community capacity under Vision Vancouver, which has taken place at a time when we are already probably 10 years behind catching up to population growth.
Community capacity and public activity space speaks to livability, quality of life, and making strong community connections. Just ask someone like me with kids in elementary school — the loss of the pool and CC has been a BIG deal.
The social aspect of “sustainability” (like many others) appears to be completely lost on the Greenest City crowd.
On a case-by-case basis, one can always justify tearing things down, I suppose.
Progress!
But add up all the losses and you find you are on a slippery slope to a cold and unwelcoming place to live.
Is that really progress? Sustainable?
Waltyss, do you have any idea where or how the Rize $6 million is to be spent, because none of the local residents have a clue. Is it not just going into General Revenue, like the provincial Carbon Tax does?
Or perhaps it will be used to pay for Jay’s imaginary pool?
BTW, TOTB @ 62, Vision promised to save the MP pool back in 2008, too.
67 Jay // Oct 16, 2012 at 10:00 pm
@66,
I was picturing Bonsor for some reason. An honest mistake. Just as I’m sure you didn’t realize Rogers Park, an even larger green space, is 700 meters away.
The new park that sits at the site of the old MPCC, is a substantial improvement over the smaller park space that was there before – it is far more inviting. I think it’s safe to say that the new community centre is an improvement over the old one it replaced. There is the loss of the seasonal swimming pool, but overall there is a net gain, at least for Mt. Pleasant (imo).
68 scm // Oct 16, 2012 at 10:28 pm
why not call the building heritage and have it restored. TOO BAD that a developer thought they might develop it.
HERITAGE is lost and they think the sign is sufficient memory.
69 Everyman // Oct 16, 2012 at 11:17 pm
@waltyss 12
This city has had a dismal record on heritage for years. It is sad that we never seem to learn. There needs to be an up to date inventory done not just of heritage but also cultural spaces. People focus on the bowlign alley, but the Ridge Theatre is the birthplace of the Film Festival. We have lost the Van East, the Denman Cinema, the Hollywood, the Varsity all in fairly short order.
70 Terry Martin // Oct 17, 2012 at 1:03 am
This letter to council by a kits resident really puts the issue into perspective,read it and you will understand much more fully the position of the people opposed to this development as proposed
LETTER FROM GERALDINE SCHWARTZ
Dear Mayor and Councillors and Members of the Development Permit Board:
Do not break the Social Contract between the elected officials of the City of Vancouver, including the City planners who represent you, and the citizens of Vancouver who elected you.
The substance of this letter refers to DE414745, “The Ridge Theatre Site.”
It is incumbent on politicians and those in the bureaucracy who make decisions on behalf of the citizens to follow your own rules in serving us, and to keep the social contract between elected officials, including those who represent you, and the citizens who elect you to office.
The Code of Conduct of the City of Vancouver states: “Council officials, staff, and advisory body members are expected to make decisions that benefit the community. . .”
The C-2 zoning schedule stipulates that if the the subject application involves a Conditional Use Approval, or relaxations associated with building height or setbacks, then the Director of Planning and the Development Permit Board shall take into account the submission of any advisory group, property owner or tenant, as well as all applicable policies and guidelines adopted by Council.
The standing room only, massively attended meeting of the October 9 Development Permit Board made clear that the community residents association and scores of owners and residents strongly object to the approval of DE414745 for the following overarching reasons.
The City planners working with Cressey Developments, entirely without community input, supported the creation of a completed proposal that is diametrically opposed to community interests.
It does not give consideration to the preservation of priceless community people-oriented amenities like the Varsity Ridge Bowling Centre for undetermined “economic reasons” with no details provided.
It creates the potential for serious and damaging traffic chaos, especially in winter conditions, by taking away all available street level parking currently provided on City land while providing for a massive three levels of underground parking with exclusive ingress and egress from the narrow lane at the back, forcing drivers to enter Arbutus Street from the steep slope on 15th Avenue or face the calming circles on 15th Avenue and Yew Street, thus creating potential traffic jams throughout the neighbourhood where children and elderly pedestrians can currently walk in safety. While this issue was raised on October 9 by several speakers, it was dismissed in the following discussion by the Board and not considered in any serious way at the October 9 meeting. Relying on after-the-fact traffic management techniques will merely cement into place a problem that could have been avoided in the first place.
In order to proceed with construction Cressey Developments is asking for the following discretionary relaxations and consideration from the City:
A fifth storey making it the highest building on Arbutus Street, amplified by its position on the high point of the ridge, well beyond the height of other buildings on Arbutus Street, in order to sell an extra 20,000 square feet of view space.
Relaxation of easements 60 years old on 15th and 16th Avenues to increase building space for further profit.
Excessive parking of almost 2 cars for each of 52 units requiring the acquisition of a 7 foot strip of City land in front of the proposed development.
These discretionary concessions and sale of City assets with no benefit to the community are strongly opposed by the community.
The cost of providing the excessive parking for the proposed 52 suites will place the price of the suites well outside what is affordable to many city residents, thus contradicting Council’s aim to create affordable housing in Vancouver. The excessive parking in well-served public transportation corridors on Arbutus Street and 16th Avenue is directly against City policy of reducing parking allotments where public transit is easily available.
Given all of the above, one cannot conceive how City officials, advisory board members, or politicians can legitimately claim that Cressey Developments has earned the right to these discretionary relaxations.
When City staff produce the actual dimensions of all existing C-2 developments on the Arbutus corridor, they will show what any member of the public with eyes to see already knows, that this proposed building will substantially exceed the height and mass of all others. The proposal should be rejected on the basis of that alone. When the adverse impacts of the development on the community, including the loss of existing social and cultural amenities, are also considered, the case against granting the developer discretionary approval is overwhelming. No amount of technical design conditions to improve “neighbourliness”, however that word is defined, can compensate for the excesses of the proposal and the lack of benefits to the community.
Mr. Mayor, Councillors, Members of the Development Permit Board, the issues raised in this letter are now a matter of public record all over the City. They have been well covered in the press, on television, on the cityhallwatch website, on Frances Bula’s blog, by distribution of electronic communications, and by personal witness of hundreds of citizens.
The issues are known, so are the rules for considering them, as stated above. No one, except the City planners and the developer, has stood up to defend the value of this proposal. Right action is clear. Reject DE414745 and send the proposal back to the drawing board for reconsideration in which the various assets of the City can be combined with the right of the developer for reasonable return. Substantial creative possibilities are waiting for a real hearing that can result in a landmark Arbutus-centred building that incorporates space for public amenities funded by the developer in exchange for City assets.
We ask for leadership, ethical leadership, to allow passage for an inspirational opportunity to embrace rather than fight the community of Kitsilano and the citizens of Vancouver. We ask the Development Permit Board to reject the proposal and for the City not to gift taxpayer-funded City property without a decent return for the neighbourhood in which the development sits.
Instead we ask City planners to work with the developer and the community residents in partnership to achieve a landmark outcome for the Arbutus ridge property as gateway to the Arbutus corridor and as a lighthouse development for a 21st century city.
Respectfully,
Geraldine Schwartz PhD
Member of the Steering Committee
Kitsilano Arbutus Residents Association
71 boohoo // Oct 17, 2012 at 7:37 am
While I don’t really have a dog in this fight–I don’t think I’ve ever bowled there and only remember going to Spike & Mike’s many moons ago at the theatre, these letters raise my eyebrows….I appreciate her honesty, I don’t doubt she’s sincere. But I do question words and phrases like
”proposal that is diametrically opposed to community interests”
“damaging traffic chaos”
These kind of statements do more harm that good.
72 rf // Oct 17, 2012 at 7:59 am
I believe what these appeals tell us is that there is an appetite for a city owned facility (community centre) to include a public bowling facility. Perhaps a better location is in order.
I’m extremely familiar with the Varsity lanes. You will even find my name up on the boards a few times from my younger years.
The sport has made an incredible committment over the years to those with special needs and disabilities. You have to see the smiles around the place and you will see the joy that it brings to those families.
The city is in the golf business. It out to be in the bowling business. There’s no reason a community centre can not have a bowling alley in the basement. I believe the city would be pleasantly surprised in the renaissance of the sport they could create.
It’s booming again in the US as a recreational activity. It caters well to an ageing population looking for social recreation. It’s something the whole family can do together.
So how about a few less community gardens and build a single bowling centre (Riley Park community centre?). It should be cash flow neutral at worst.
73 Ned // Oct 17, 2012 at 9:58 am
To all of you who say the City have no “say” in this matter, or jurisdiction, or “balls’ whatever, I really liked this answer by ‘Terry m’ addressed to another poster (I think they were talking about VAG & Canada Post building):
“Terry m // Oct 11, 2012 at 1:15 pm
“They have no say when it is about letting their election campaign main contributors getting away with their “returns” as expected…
When it comes to anything else they have a lot of “say” from Coast guard being terminated, to oil tankers, to shark fin soup etc. for which they have either no jurisdiction or no jolt!
They sure pick their “ethical charitable choices” accordingly, don’t you say?”
I think this says it all!
74 Ned // Oct 17, 2012 at 10:09 am
Terry Martin #70
Great letter. Inspired message. One glitch…
Down at the end Gerladine says:
“We ask for leadership, ethical leadership…”
IMO this letter was sent to the wrong people. No such qualities in the people currently in City Hall.”
boohoo #71
You pick on words? LMAO
No different than when the same council used words like “damaging OIL TANKER traffic chaos” “damaging SHARK FIN SOUP trafficking chaos” in their quest for … what exactly?
75 Dan Cooper // Oct 17, 2012 at 10:13 am
A Dave writes, “However, the last two days of rain, not a soul in sight. While in the past, on a rainy day, there would be 40 kids in the old CC gym playing sports, seniors taking classes, people working out, playing racquetball, taking music lessons… all on the same slice of land as the pet community garden is now laying fallow for winter.”
All those folks and far more are now doing things at the beautiful new community centre at 1 Kingsway, the beautiful new community centre by Nat Bailey Stadium. or the beautiful new community centre at the Olympic Village. Then, of course, there is the community centre at Douglas Park, not so new but also quite nice. All of these centres are fairly close.
Yes, we understand that (some) of the people who live right by the site of the former Mt. Pleasant community centre feel it was their eternal right to have a community centre building and a pool located just exactly where they always were, doing just exactly what they always did. Facts are, though: things change; there is only a limited amount of money; the government serves everyone and not just those living a few blocks from this park. In this case, overall things have changed for the better for the great majority of people, with three beautiful new community centres not far away, providing services to far more people than the old one. If it means that some people will have to walk or drive a few blocks further to one of those new centres, then they will have to live with that. Time to move on. (p.s. I also live nearby and frequently walk past the old community centre site on my way to or from work.)
76 Dan Cooper // Oct 17, 2012 at 10:15 am
rf writes, “I believe what these appeals tell us is that there is an appetite for a city owned facility (community centre) to include a public bowling facility.”
Excellent comment, all the way through!
77 brilliant // Oct 17, 2012 at 10:49 am
Geraldine Schwartz’s letter is well intentioned but she just opened the door for Vision to reduce the amount of parking required, clog the surrounding streets with parked cars, and brag they “listened”!
78 Ned // Oct 17, 2012 at 10:55 am
Dan Cooper #75
“Yes, we understand that (some) of the people who live right by the site of the former Mt. Pleasant community centre feel it was their eternal right to have a community centre building and a pool located just exactly where they always were, doing just exactly what they always did. Facts are, though: things change; there is only a limited amount of money; ”
You sound just like Andrew #23
“But I sure won’t be angry at the City when that happens… it’s not their fault. Things change. They always have.”
I don’t know what to say, I almost agree with Higgins #22
You and your pals are the epitome of what’s wrong with this city. To say that to any group of people is sadistic. You guys show a total lack of empathy and are really really mean.
But you know that saying ” what goes around comes around”
79 boohoo // Oct 17, 2012 at 12:15 pm
@74
“You pick on words? LMAO
No different than when the same council used words like “damaging OIL TANKER traffic chaos” “damaging SHARK FIN SOUP trafficking chaos” in their quest for … what exactly?”
Umm… what?
80 waltyss // Oct 17, 2012 at 12:33 pm
@boohoo. Why are you questioning the commen? It is simply Ned spewing venom. Wanting it to make sense is asking too much.
81 teririch // Oct 17, 2012 at 2:53 pm
And from Vancouver 24 hours:
Coun. Adriane Carr threw a gutter ball Tuesday in her efforts to have Vancouver council include bowling in the healthy city strategy as the Vision-dominated group voted to have her motion recommended to the park board.
“The real decision here is whether parks board should include bowling in its long list of sports and recreations,” Mayor Gregor Robertson said.
Carr said she was “frustrated and deeply disappointed’” by the vote because dozens of people had signed up to speak to the motion.
“We should, as an elected council, be hearing from these people,” she said.
Carr’s motion came at the same time a group was trying to save a west-side bowling alley scheduled to be torn down and replaced by a condominium development.
The city has decided to delay until Oct. 22 a decision on granting a development permit for the project.
Coun. George Affleck supported Carr’s motion.
“People in the west side of Vancouver are upset over potentially losing a bowling alley,” he said. “Coun. Carr’s motion was very carefully written to address the issue in a general way. It’s an opportunity for people to come and tell us why they are so passionate about bowling.”
But Coun. Heather Deal said it would be “entirely inappropriate” for council to interfere in the parks board decisions.
“It deeply interferes with their operations and their budget,” Deal said.
****
And my personal note:
This statement by Carr ““We should, as an elected council, be hearing from these people,” she said; basically sums up with what is wrong with this council.
They don’t want to hear from or listen to the people.
82 Dan Cooper // Oct 17, 2012 at 5:15 pm
@Ned: It is “sadistic” to say to “any group of people” (the specific group in question here being those who continue to spew angry rhetoric, personal abuse against individuals, and disparagement of other facilities and park users because of the replacement of a particular community centre and pool with other parks facilities at the same location and a larger pool and a larger community centre elsewhere) that I have tired of them repeating on and on for years how evil and cruel is anyone who does not see thing their way and do what they want them to do, regardless of the reason? Somehow, I think I will continue to sleep at night despite your accusation. (And yes, that last was indeed sarcasm.)
Actually, “really really mean” is exactly how I see some of the people I’m talking about.
83 waltyss // Oct 17, 2012 at 5:39 pm
@teririch: I appreciate that this is about bashing the Vision Council. Which of your posts isn’t. But just for fun: if they were to hear from and listen to the people, what do you suggest they should do about the Ridge and the Varsity Bowling Alley.? Refuse to give final approval to the redevelopment unless the developer (who I don’t particularly like) agrees to run the theatre and bowling alley? Unless he finds someone else to run them at cheap rent? What other amenities should the city give up in exchange? Or do you have some other solution.
If you don’t have a solution, then you are simply engaging in poltical grandstanding and proposing a waste of council’s time to listen to these people over and over.
84 Higgins // Oct 17, 2012 at 6:13 pm
Frances Bula #38
Tz,tz,tz…
How terrible, me not being a Hurray Vision! type of a guy…
better read teririch post #81 and maybe could explain to me after turning down a dialogue with the ‘community’ how can this Vision catastrophe of a Council have the nerve to push for a Task Force on Engagement with the city and other BS like “we’ll bring neighbors together’!!!” ? You tell me.
85 gmgw // Oct 17, 2012 at 6:46 pm
It’s unfortunate that all the attention in this debate is being given to Varsity Lanes. I think bowling alleys are worth preserving, certainly, and I support its neighbourhood advocates in their doomed struggle; but to me, as a long-time film buff, the Ridge will be a far greater loss, and I find it maddening that more attention is not being focused on what a loss its destruction will represent. I’ve seen some pig-ignorant comments about the Ridge in this discussion and I’d like to point out to you johnny-come-latelies that the Ridge was for many years a core piece of the cultural fabric of Vancouver. It was for many years the pre-eminent repertory cinema house in this city; it has been showing movies continuously since 1950 (I saw my very first movie there, around 1959); it was a core venue for the now-endangered Film Festival for many years; and it has been one of our last true art houses for the past decade. This in a city with damn few movie screens left. Yeah, the seats are less than adequate, but what’s on the screen is what’s important. The fact that Ridge has survived this long is especially due to the work and dedication of Leonard Schein, who not only started the Ridge’s career as a rep house in the early 80s, but ironically is a major figure in Vision circles. Has anything been heard from him on this issue? I’ve been out of touch (and town) the past few weeks.
In this digital age none of the Ridge’s virtues count for much any more, I guess. But it’s a pity that none of these points have been entered into the debate. To think that Varsity Lanes should take precedence over a priceless treasure like the Ridge– !! But then this is Vancouver, about which the old line about a city with no more culture than can be found in a bowl of yogurt is drastically overstating the case. I’ve spent the past three weeks in London (UK), a city oozing culture from every pore– every night there’s a dozen different events I’d like to attend–where the London Film Festival is currently being staged by the British Film Institute. This year for the first time the BFI has made a point of spreading Festival showings around London by using the many neighbourhood theatres (eg. the century-old Ritzy in Brixton, or the Screen on the Green in Islington) as venues. Of course, this is a city that not only has neighbourhood movie theatres to present Festival screenings, but also one that values its theatres and supports them– and cultural pursuits– on many levels. How lovely to have spent time, however short, a *real* world-class city. How shameful to be returning to a city where culture– and cultural venues– has to fight desperately to survive. Always. Vancouver, your priorities remain as hideously ****ed up as ever. I’m coming home. See you at the bloody shopping mall.
gmgw
86 gasp // Oct 17, 2012 at 6:52 pm
So Heather Deal is suddenly worried about the effect on Park Board Operations and Budget? What nonsense.
She and her Vision colleagues had no problem interfering with the Parks Board when they decided to build a brand new community centre at the Olympic Village! But I guess that was for “show” – and not intended for the people who actually lived here.
87 Everyman // Oct 17, 2012 at 7:13 pm
@gmgw 85
Yes, that’s exactly the point I was trying to make. And there’s also a case to made to save the structure for its historic nature:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JcWruWShpZU/UE1RAlbWnYI/AAAAAAAAbeM/MlxZ7M_BI2k/s1600/Ridge%2BTheatre-9850.jpg
What a nice change from the big box store sthat pass as movie theatres today!
88 gasp // Oct 17, 2012 at 9:13 pm
gmgw @85:
Thank you for explaining the importance of the Ridge Theatre from a cultural and heritage perspective.
But perhaps you should look at the website for this new Cressey development, located at:
http://www.arbutusridgeliving.com/
Personally, I think the incorporation of the Ridge Theatre sign into the facade of this new luxury condo development perfectly represents what has become of this City, as well as of it’s culture and heritage, after a decade of greed-driven real estate speculation and development aided and abetted by successive developer sponsored City Councils.
89 teririch // Oct 17, 2012 at 9:22 pm
@waltyss: #83
Reaction from council, in my opinion, is predictable. you kinda know what the end of the movie is going to be, without having to sit through it. This is just one more example of a very long list of ‘the people’ getting dismissed. Or did the 3,000+ petition to stop the RIZE protest and endless speakers on it, go unnoticed? From the outcome, it did go unnoticed, but they community is getting sattled with a really ugly building and the city a cheque for $6M of which, the community has yet to recieve any type of indication if they will see any of this cash, or maybe we can build another bike lane!
Vision has the reputation they have, due to their own practices. Rubber stamp all developments, all the time, and screw the people.
And I refer you back to Councillor Carr’s comment – of which, should be Council’s job description – in part, or parcel. With Vision, ‘We’ that protest or object to their various ‘mandates’ are just bugs to be sqaushed.
Sometimes I think Vision hopes we ‘little people; will all just give up and give in….ain’t going to happen.
90 waltyss // Oct 17, 2012 at 10:27 pm
@teririch: Okay, you bashed Vision, as always. I asked if you had a solution. After all, you claim to know better. I am still waiting…in vain, I expect.
91 Glissando Remmy // Oct 17, 2012 at 10:37 pm
Thought Of The Night
“You can put a tuxedo on a goat, but. Still a goat.”
gmgw #85,
Welcome back!
I know how you feel, that flight back must have been heartbreaking.
Hear me out now…
There appears to be a new trend. All these “green” gurus that are walking among us mortals, they travel to London, Paris, San Francisco, Rome, New York, Copenhagen … Hawaii, and then come back home to Vancouver, all pumped up, with lots of ideas, creative solutions for problems that don’t exist, start using fancy words, describing something mundane in a more sophisticated and mysterious way, like re-branding a simple goat… into this:
Biodiversity Lawn Mitigation Through Adaptation To New City Diet Quadruped.
Now back to London.
I know.
http://www.overthefootlights.co.uk/London_Theatres.html
You touch shoulders with art & culture greatness, and then come back to a place where a handful of schmucks in charge, are trying hard to body paint a tuxedo on a… goat!
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
92 David // Oct 17, 2012 at 10:48 pm
Why is Arbutus so wide?, gasp asked (possibly rhetorically) At one time there was a curve at 16th Ave, the street did not line up where it crossed the boundary between the City of Vancouver and the Municipality of Point Grey. Straightening Arbutus resulted in additional parking in front of the Ridge
Click to zoom http://vintageairphotos.com/bo-47-2660/
93 Bill // Oct 18, 2012 at 11:54 am
I was going to respond to gmgw that you cannot compare the wealth of activities of a city the size of London with a city the size of Vancouver but in checking the population figures came across a more interesting statistic. According to the Wikipedia entry for Vancouver and London they both have roughly the same population density at 5249/ sq km and 5206/ sq km respectively while the population density of Greater Vancouver is only 802/ sq km.
So why are we obsessing on increasing the population density of Vancouver which already exceeds that of London? Particularly as it relates to public transit it would seem that the real issue is density in the suburbs and not Vancouver proper.
94 jolson // Oct 18, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Ah the theatre of it all, the flying bowling pins, a place that once was, and the gall it takes to re-cycle the word itself, RIDGE. What ridge is that?
It’s time to start over with a neighbourhood planning model that starts with the neighbourhood and preserves community values, specific and local human values. Ten thousand signatures and counting….where is the social planner, the heritage planner, real estate services, parks and rec? Isn’t this neighbourhood worthy of a plan that includes a community center, architectural designations, cultural-recreational preservation of its core values, recreational facilities?
The recognition of reality is why we have Neighbourhood Plans. What would happen if a social planner directed the creation of a Neighbourhood Plan? Isn’t this the way to start? With a foundation plan upon which we build the heritage plan, the land use plan, the density transfer plan, etc?
What will the new Manager of Planning do to balance interests at the Ridge?
95 Roger Kemble // Oct 18, 2012 at 12:41 pm
“The old order changeth, yielding place to new and God (?) fulfils himself in many ways, lest one good custom should corrupt the world“.
Tennyson’s Arthur.
I hope the KARA lady with the PhD knows Newton’s Second Law of Thermodynamics, “Entropy: the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature: nothing lasts“. Not bowling alleys, not cinemas, nor the public’s attention span!
Arbutus at 16th is an ideal place for the Arbutus Urban village . . .
http://www.theyorkshirelad.ca/1yorkshirelad/vancouver.re-boot/Vancouver.re-boot.html
. . . get your KARA people to start working on it now: a movie house, yes. A bowling alley, yes. But you want much more than that!
96 spartikus // Oct 18, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Vancouver and London they both have roughly the same population density at 5249/ sq km and 5206/ sq km respectively.
That’s the density for Greater London. Individual boroughs have greater or lesser densities. For example, the City of Westminster is 10,000/km2, Kensington-Chelsea 13,000/km2, etc…
97 Higgins // Oct 18, 2012 at 1:18 pm
“It’s time to start over with a neighbourhood planning model that starts with the neighbourhood and preserves community values, specific and local human values. Ten thousand signatures and counting….where is the social planner, the heritage planner, real estate services, parks and rec?”
I like that jolson #94
Yes, where are they? Hmm, let’s see, some were let go, moved around, others were intimidated to the bone, and their big shot was fired and currently globetrotting the country in search for small contracts… you know who I’m talking about.
98 brilliant // Oct 18, 2012 at 1:52 pm
@jolson 94-amen to that! When is Vision going to get that you don’t stay Most Livable City by running roughshod over neighbourhoods? Even the NPA stood up to developers when they were knocking down affordable apts in the Nineties.
99 teririch // Oct 18, 2012 at 2:10 pm
@jolson #94:
You are right. When people move, they typically look at what services/amenities are in the neighborhood.
100 Bill // Oct 18, 2012 at 2:12 pm
@spartikus #96
But wouldn’t Vancouver’s density also vary by neighbourhood? Is not a mix of high/low density desireable?
In any event, the fact that the density of the City of Vancouver is more than 4 times that of all of Greater Vancouver (which also includes the high density values for Vancouver) suggests that the opportunities for density and benefits to services such as transit lie in the suburbs.
101 Jay // Oct 18, 2012 at 2:46 pm
There is a contingent here that would be happy with no population growth in the CoV. I’m wondering if that’s possible. Would the city be able to sustain itself financially if there were no new development and very little new sources of income for the city?
102 spartikus // Oct 18, 2012 at 3:39 pm
London boroughs aren’t neighbourhoods, but akin to municipalities here.
Point being central London, which has a much higher population than Greater Vancouver let alone the City of Vancouver, has higher density.
I agree that suburbs here would also benefit greatly by density.
103 gmgw // Oct 18, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Having said what I said earlier about the impending and likely inevitable tragedy that will be the loss of the Ridge Theatre, I must in all honesty acknowledge that what is killing the Ridge and the Granville 7, and killed the Hollywood, and is killing single-screen mom-and-pop theatres all across North America, is technological change. The big changeover to digital projection in movie theatres, forced by the studios and distribution companies, in turn forces theatre owners to adapt or die, in a sense. Conversion to digital represents a substantial outlay of cash, enough that only the chains can really afford it. For small operations like the Hollywood it represents a near-insurmountable obstacle. So one could argue that a Darwinian process is taking place in the film exhibition industry that will leave no theatre untouched.
It thus becomes necessary to have a discussion about the inherent worth of the single-screen theatre concept and whether it is still a valid cultural institution. Further to that discussion is another discussion re possible funding models. In other words, do movie theatres — small operations retain enough cultural/artistic worth that there might be a valid argument for government funding of certain theatres (or perhaps at least funding for technological upgrades, if the theatre can be proven to be important to the micrccosmic or macrocosmic community which it serves), be it local, provincial, or federal? Is there a public will to validate this concept? This sort of funding model is already in place for non-profits like the Cinemathque and the VanCity. Or should we just let another cultural institution fade away, or simply die off, along with the aging generation that still values going to the movies as a valid cultural activity (as opposed to mere mindless entertainment)?
Here in London (and the UK as a whole) (no, I’m not back yet) the digitization tsunami appears to have not yet struck with the same force it has in North America. In the same way e-books have not yet caught on to the same extent they have in N.A. and many small independent bookstores are still operating; some are even thriving (though by no means all). I have no knowledge of arts-funding models in the UK, although one of the big knocks on the UK’s current more-austerity-for-the-poor-but-don’t-tax-the-rich Tory government is its determination to reduce funding for everything that doesn’t jibe with core Tory values. But it’s only a question of time till the same scale of digital change begins to happen here in the UK as well. One thing is certain– in Vancouver and Canada we are light-years away from a consideration of some of the ideas I’ve outlined here. But as a lifelong lover of cinematic art I think it’s a discussion that needs to happen.
One last note– it’s a pity that it wasn’t Frances who wrote the Globe stories outlining the impending closure of the Granville 7 and the threat that poses to the VIFF, because I think that’s the biggest arts story of the year and that’s a discussion that urgently needs to be held. The loss of the VIFF would leave a huge rent in this city’s cultural fabric. What does that say about us, and about the future of the arts in this city? Hello? Frances?
gmgw
104 waltyss // Oct 18, 2012 at 4:44 pm
gmgw: I appreciate your thoughtful comments but at the same time there is a King Canute element to what you suggest.
I can just imagine the reaction if the CofV were suggest that it take over and subsidize a movie theatre, at least one that is showing commercial movies. As it is now, there is a certain contingent that is bashing them for being either the second coming of the Soviet Gulag or in the pocket of developers or both.
The King Canute aspect comes from the fact that technogical change drives many changes that some of us older folk do not appreciate. While I like going to movies, at $12.50 a pop, I am also content with my Apple TV and 40″ HD screen (and popcorn that costs about $1.50 for a packet of Orville Redenbacher).
While movies can be a great art form, so is the theatre. But in Vancouver in the last year we saw the demise of the Vancouver Playhouse Theatre company. Some of it had to do with what was on offer, some to do with theatre scheduling and some to do with really uncomfortable seats at the Playhouse (and the QE Theatre, for that matter).
We are also a city on the edge of the rainforest and at the foot of the mountains where people are more likely to take a hike than go to the movies or theatre.
Nevertheless, something has gotten a number of people riled up from the loss of the bowling alley and the theatre. In both cases, the problem is that what some people want to save does not fall within the range of amenities that most of us, I suspect, would agree the City should get involved in.
105 Everyman // Oct 18, 2012 at 7:34 pm
@gmgw 103
I believe the Park and the Dunbar are converted to digital and 3-D, so it is possible for independent operators.
@waltyss 104
The city could offer tax breaks for theatres. As I mentioned earlier, they do it for religious buildings (which is a slap in the face to atheists IMHO).
106 Terry M // Oct 18, 2012 at 7:50 pm
Everyman 105
Read Ms Jones 19 comment
“What a interesting concept.
Transforming every amenity/ community centre/ theatre/ bowling alley into a … church. The only way a neighborhood may afford anything in the future. No tax, sanctuary from developers… and Vision and Green Gregor. Just saying!”
Essentially what you’re saying!
107 Jay // Oct 19, 2012 at 1:43 am
Glissy, you are the last person here that I can understand, so that makes you the smartest person on this blog. Would the city be able to sustain itself financially if there were no new development and very little new sources of income for the city? And is there an optimum density for a city to sustain itself financially.
108 gmgw // Oct 19, 2012 at 2:55 am
@waltyss ~104:
I’m not talking about having the city take over and operate the Ridge or any other theatre. I think they’d make a botch of it if they did, and there’s no structure in pace to allow such a thing. What I’m saying is that some distinctive movie theatres– eg. the Ridge and the Hollywood, although it could also mean the last little theatre in a small Prairie town– should be recognized as valuable cultural amenities, important to the cultural fabric of a community, and as such eligible for some kind of funding help from one or more levels of government– be it operating/technological improvement grants, tax breaks or what-have-you– that enable it to continue as a viable operation.
There are obvious problems with this idea. Funding is in place for non-profits like the Cinematheque, but I’m talking here about providing aid of some kind to for-profit businesses, however small, and there is no precedent for that as far as I know. In Paris, independent bookstores are eligible for aid from the city government, which recognizes that they provide intangible yet invaluable benefits to the community as a whole. But in North America and especially Canada we’re nowhere near that enlightened. Movie theatres are not thought of by most people in this country as cultural assets. They’re seen only as places you go on Friday night to see the latest Hollywood blockbuster while munching your popcorn. And big operators like Cineplex would probably cry foul if the little guys were given a helping hand– unfair subsidizing of the competition, you see.
I don’t know. If I was Gregor Robertson I’d be on the phone right now with Alan Franey, saying “The VIFF is invaluable to this city and must be saved. How can we help?” Perhaps a deal could be worked out to keep the Granville 7 open, or even buy or lease it for use as a film exhibition centre for the VIFF and and the Cinematheque. Dream on. That kind of vision simply doesn’t exist in Vancouver, where the arts are subject to the same Darwinian analysis as gas stations and department stores. If a movie theatre is mean to survive it will. Period. Well, think what the Canadian publishing industry, for instance, would be like if the Canada Council played no role in its sustenance. And think what this city will be like without VIFF and Videomatica (another invaluable cultural asset that was allowed to quietly die) and independnt movie theatres. These discussions urgently need to happen. But I’m not holding my breath waiting for them to start. Welcome to Vancouver, the city that just keeps getting more and more ignorant.
gmgw
109 Roger Kemble // Oct 19, 2012 at 6:48 am
GMGW @ #103 y passim
There is much, much more to community than a movie house and a bowling alley and we had better find out how to do it before thu man takes us over.
There are dozens of ways to entertain the family out doors and in. But most important we must wrest our living habits from our preoccupation with gadgetry.
A movie house is a movie house is a movie house is a movie house! A bowling alley is a bowling alley is a bowling alley is a bowling alley.
If TCM has got us by the shorts at home then we had better do something about it pronto . . . usually it takes a dedicated few: i.e. KARA and back in the ’60′s I was a member of KARA when it was Kitsilano Area Resource Association and we stopped towers on the slopes despite D of P Bill Graham telling us how pretty they would look from a sail boat in the harbor.
So hi-tech gossip aside we can take over the destiny of our communities if we have the will!
“Here in London (and the UK as a whole) (no, I’m not back yet)” Ooooooh haaaaa, wowee gmgw, how’z ya belly off for spots matie?
110 Joe Just Joe // Oct 19, 2012 at 8:35 am
The city came close to leasing Storyeum for use as a bowling alley a couple of years ago. Instead it chose to go with an Eco fitness company that fell thru before it ever got off the ground. They’ve now leased the space to the VFS at a basement price of $7.50psf and provided out a built out allowance of $20psf.
Heck the Playhouse is pratically sitting empty these days, they could convert it to a movie theatre, at least it would lose less money then it does now.
111 ThinkOutsideABox // Oct 19, 2012 at 9:53 am
gmgw, there is precedent for that…
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/10/12/viff-granville-7.html
“If we think about the future of quality cinema and we define that as being more than just Hollywood films, we all need to take note of these closures of cinemas. It is a concern,” he said, adding that other large cities with high real estate values provide incentives to keep screens open, because it can contribute to quality of life.
On another note, I’m a little astonished by some of the small minded comments above such as the one suggesting people opt for outdoor physical activity instead of going to the movies. Since when are those mutually exclusive interests?
The VIFF remains, it was well attended this year, over 300 films were screened and theaters were full. The opening gala party at the Salt building was also packed with people from a variety of social circles in the city – filled not just by filmmakers, or film-goers but a variety of everyone in the city who came to experience and share in culture. This year it was themed after Toronto based indo-Canadian director Deepa Mehta’s styling. I even recognized some firmly entrenched Vision Vancouver members at the opening gala, and the mayor even paid lip service to the closing of the theater at the closing gala. Besides free flowing drinks and food, partygoers were treated to live performances of Bhangra dance and music – aka CULTURE, something some here have little exposure to.
What the closing of the Granville 7 means is that the festival won’t be hosting the films on downtown screens, having to go farther out.
Also, all levels of government incentivize all sorts of different types of private enterprise all the time that only benefit some – take the STIR program for example; why would anyone on this thread want to suggest otherwise?
112 waltyss // Oct 19, 2012 at 10:22 am
@Thinkoutsideabox #111. If you were referring to my comment about outdoor physical activity, reread what I said. I was not advocating what people should do, I was observing what they do do.The only point I was making was that people in this town are more likely to go hiking or skiing or go to a hockey game for that matter than go to the theatre, the symphony and for that matter, movies (although this last one still gets a lot of attraction but more of the movie blockbuster sort. So even the Fifth Avenue which is the (only) West Side movie multiplex has increasingly shown Hollywood blockbusters at the expense often of foreign or more arty films.
113 Roger Kemble // Oct 19, 2012 at 11:45 am
The problem with a general discussion here is that a narrow coterie of obsessed fanatics who ultimately take over, be it bike lanes, transport technology or, apparently here, movies, and if you don’t fit in you are austracised.
Currently the fear that a local neighborhood is about to loose its recreational facilities to a development has degenerated into the usual fanatics taking over: movie gedgetry.
In the end these fanatics have virtually no influence on the general polity, due to their narrow obsessions and few numbers, but it does make mature conversations difficult.
waltyss @ #112 “ The only point I was making was that people in this town are more likely to go hiking or skiing or go to a hockey game for that matter than go to the theatre, the symphony and for that matter, movies . . .”
Your point is well taken. I’m happy the VIFF was a resounding success, I’m happy Point Grey will get its reduced traffic speed and bike lanes but I’d rather be sailing any day of the week!
114 Silly Season // Oct 22, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Besides the Rio, are there any other movie houses (those that that remain) that are looking at operating as “multi-functional” venues?
Why not concerts, salons (whatever the hell those are!
, ArbutusRidgeX, book (what dat?!) readings, lectures, etc.
Is there amarket in neighborhoods for this type of things—especially if the offerings are structured properly. Maybe differnet nights for Youth, Seniors, Hipsters, Boomers, etc?
115 Silly Season // Oct 22, 2012 at 9:13 pm
Reprieve for the bowling alley?!
http://www.globaltvbc.com/vancouver+bowling+alley+spared+as+developers+bid+rejected+by+city/6442738753/story.html
116 Joe Just Joe // Oct 23, 2012 at 8:45 am
We’ll have to see what the developer choses to do, they are still able to proceed with 4 storeys.
http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Vancouver+City+Hall+approves+condo+development+that+will/7429890/story.html
117 Silly Season // Oct 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Thanks, JJJ. Looks like it’s “not”.
Leave a Comment