So glad there are all these energetic young reporters covering night meetings, so we can learn this.
Ridge Theatre, Varsity Bowl appear headed for demolition as Cressey gets the OK for lower building at dev permit board
October 23rd, 2012 · 64 Comments
Categories: Uncategorized
64 responses so far ↓
1 Rick // Oct 23, 2012 at 9:47 am
Odds on the developer raising the sale prices to recoup their loss of a floor?
2 rmac // Oct 23, 2012 at 10:20 am
The market will set the sales price.
3 jolson // Oct 23, 2012 at 10:29 am
The Ridge fiasco can not be blamed on the developer as the Development Permit Board would like to do. This is an example of a governance failure. Neighbourhood Plans should not be directed by Development Planners but rather by Social Planners. Perhaps the new Manager of Planning can correct this historical bias against neighbourhood autonomy.
4 Andrew Browne // Oct 23, 2012 at 11:23 am
The VanSun article mentioned that with the 5 storeys there were 52 units proposed, and that the land cost was $15.5M. That works out to just a hair under $300k land cost per unit (obviously smaller units will be less, larger units more) BEFORE the 5th storey was denied. Yikes. It will be amazing if a 1-bedroom is priced under $450k.
Interesting quotes in the article re: the bowling alley as well, pasted here for convenience:
> Lammam estimated a new 20,000-square-feet bowling alley would cost about $6 million to build and accommodating the existing 62-year-old structure is unfeasible.
> “This bowling centre does not have a sponsor, so nobody wants to foot the bill for it,” Lammam said. “The citizens aren’t the operators, and the operator does not wish to reinvest.”
And from a neighbour, describing the DPB’s limited options:
> “They got a slap on the wrist today from the development permit board and they were told this wasn’t neighbourly — they hadn’t earned the right to have a fifth story,” he said. “(The protesters) basically showed that bowling in the 21st Century is actually an important social, recreational and physical need of a community.”
5 rf // Oct 23, 2012 at 2:02 pm
So if they build one less story, and therefore less units, does that not mean that the site will produce less property tax in the future?
Bowling alley gone.
A site that actually makes sense to go higher on (it’s not like any views get blocked) stays at 4 stories.
Site produces less property tax from future property owners (because there will likely be 1 storey less of them).
Sounds like a lose-lose-lose.
And for what? So council/development permit board can appear to have done something about it by cutting the density?
What a joke.
6 brilliant // Oct 23, 2012 at 5:08 pm
No surprise here. Unless they find an Indian graveyard underneath a site Gregor’s not the man for standing up to developers, regardless of what the residents want.
7 gmgw // Oct 23, 2012 at 5:38 pm
No mention in the Sun article of the Ridge; indeed, the moronic headline reads “Condos to strike down bowling alley”. What a brilliantly witty play on words. No sorrow expressed at City Hall as the Ridge’s execution order is signed. No sign that anyone in a position of influence in this matter gave a good goddamn about an historic movie theatre that was the most popular in the city for more than two decades and was one of the last single-screen theatres in the city. But wait! What a forthright response to community concerns it was to lower the height by one storey! Who says this city’s government doesn’t boldly stand up to developers?
Truthfully? When it comes to preserving culture, and cultural landmarks, this council— hell, this entire city– has its collective head firmly implanted up its rectum.
It’s times like this I long to flee the two-bit, brain-dead village of Parvenuver-by-the-sea and never return. And could I but afford to, I would have done so long since.
gmgw
8 Mira // Oct 23, 2012 at 5:42 pm
brilliant #6
“Gregor’s not the man for standing up to developers, regardless of what the residents want.”
He never was, never intended, so he’ll never be. Vancouver Voters will be really stupid to not kick him out of politics of any level, when the time comes… for ever.
Arbutus Varsity Bowling Alley & Ridge Theatre another Vision Vancouver production… RIP!
9 Westender1 // Oct 23, 2012 at 6:22 pm
I think it’s important to recognize that the Mayor and Council’s involvement in this project is limited to:
1.) agreeing to sell a portion of the road allowance to the developer; and
2.) appointing the members of the Development Permit Board advisory panel.
Cressey purchased a development site, and they are eligible to apply to develop the site in accordance with the zoning. In this case, it appears that the DPB determined that the developer had not “earned” the maximum permitted height under the existing zoning. Whether that decision would have been different had the community not risen up and expressed concerns is open for discussion, but I don’t think it is reasonable to tie this development approval to the Mayor and Vision Vancouver councillors and any past indications of developer-friendliness.
10 Mike Klassen // Oct 23, 2012 at 9:46 pm
The Ridge Theatre is a place that conjures far too many memories for me to recount here. I’ll always associate the venue with its kindhearted former proprietor Ray Mainland (RIP). Here is a video me and JB Shayne did with Ray in front of the theatre for CKVU TV about 18 years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL-ESmOJqMo
I may just go and watch the demolition to raise a glass and shed a tear.
11 gmgw // Oct 23, 2012 at 9:55 pm
@Mike Klassen #10:
Whenever I drive across the Burrard Bridge, I think of Ray Mainland. He was a genuinely decent man in a town full of sharks. He is missed.
gmgw
12 ThinkOutsideABox // Oct 23, 2012 at 10:22 pm
I’ll always associate the venue with its kindhearted former proprietor Ray Mainland (RIP).
For me it’s projectionist Matt Kunau. The Ridge is the first theatre in Vancouver I had tested one of my first features at, while learning about Dolby sound mastering from Matt.
13 MB // Oct 23, 2012 at 11:25 pm
@ 7, 10, 11, & 12
I too will miss the Ridge and Ray. Also protectionist Ingrid Lay. And the carrot cake wolved down between two feature films. And surprisingly the last remaining tiled Art Deco urinal trough in the city.
I am at a loss to suggest how the Ridge could have been saved given the hard economics of competing entertainment organizations and new technology.
14 brilliant // Oct 23, 2012 at 11:52 pm
@MB 13-if the citycan find money for front yard wheatfields they could have found money for a program to support neigjbourhood entertainment options.
15 Glissando Remmy // Oct 24, 2012 at 12:20 am
Thought of The Night
“What Vision Vancouver wants… Your money for Nothing and your ‘Chicks’ for free.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ITnUpVhvTM
When you have $11 Million dollars for a Food Scrap Program, enough petty cash for a plethora of “Mayor’s Personality Cult” Task Forces, and enough travel allowances for senior City Hall staff to check out major European cultural & entertainment precincts, don’t play misty and cheapo to me!
ROTFLMAO, John Mellencamp tricking Roger Ebert to sit in the… Composer, for a Nanaimo bar and a cup of tea, ha!
Mike, that was a memorable clip. Thanks.
You should have stayed in the funny business!
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
16 waltyss // Oct 24, 2012 at 12:42 am
Slap my forehead; I keep forgetting that one of the services this site provides is letting the anonymous jackasses vent their angry old white guy spleens.
Silly as it was, it was a $5000 grant to explore raising wheat. And this would have saved the Ridge or the bowling alley how/ ?
Sorry, sorry, slap my head again, remember it’s nothing to do with reality or proposing realistic options. Just an opportunity for the old coots to sound off.
17 brilliant // Oct 24, 2012 at 7:43 am
@waltsyss 16-all those self-inflicted smacks to the head helps explain the quality of your posts. If you could see Gregor clearly, not through the haze of your mancrush, you would realize he is nothing more than a developers toady. This whole episode shows how laughable Vision’s recent claim of wanting to improve dialogue with residents is. As Bob Ransford just found out to his chagrin the only thing that gets Gregor to slap on the spandex tights and peddle down to confront developers is some Indian bones. Maybe we’ll get lucky and find some at 16th & Arbutus.
18 waltyss // Oct 24, 2012 at 9:03 am
@brilliant not, all spittle and venom all of the time. Unfortunately, with all of your hate and not one constructive thing to say, the one covered in spittle is you.
19 Andrew Browne // Oct 24, 2012 at 9:14 am
Not sure why someone is attacking food scraps program. Vancouver is behind the region and needs to catch up. Waste diversion saves money – the less going to landfill, the longer it lasts, and the more you can delay the shutdown costs of the current landfill and startup costs of a new one. It’s a total no brainer and those complaining about food scrap recycling (for COST, of all things, when it will save money long term) have lost the plot. I’ll accept that it is slightly less convenient than just throwing everything into one bin, fine, but that its somehow not cost effective is ridiculous.
20 brilliant // Oct 24, 2012 at 9:39 am
Waltsyss. Yawn.
Still peddling the same stale schtick of complaining about evil posters and then letting loose with a stream of bitterness only a lonely NDP supporter on the Westside could summon forth.
Your breathtaking inability to see Vision’s hypocrisy is bizarre. They claim they want to have better dialogue with residents and then continue on with their standard tactic of ignoring them. Next time when Gregor makes a
21 brilliant // Oct 24, 2012 at 9:42 am
Waltsyss. Yawn.
Still peddling the same stale schtick of complaining about evil posters and then letting loose with a stream of bitterness only a lonely NDP supporter on the Westside could summon forth.
Your breathtaking inability to see Vision’s hypocrisy is bizarre. They claim to want better dialogue with residents but then continue on with their standard tactic of ignoring them. Next time Gregor makes a pronouncement try analyzing it instead of metely wetti.g yourself in rapture.
22 boohoo // Oct 24, 2012 at 10:02 am
“Next time Gregor makes a pronouncement try analyzing it instead of metely wetti.g yourself in rapture.”
Oh sweet sweet irony, how you tempt….
23 Raingurl // Oct 24, 2012 at 11:07 am
oh, boo hoo………..go to Commercial Drive bowling alley and tell everyone to get over it. We choose to live here, this is the price we pay.
24 Raingurl // Oct 24, 2012 at 11:08 am
PS, I’m not talking to Boo Hoo the poster above me. I’m just saying……..boo hoo, get over it!
25 waltyss // Oct 24, 2012 at 11:32 am
@Raingurl, what should boohoo get over? The inane comments?
26 brilliant // Oct 24, 2012 at 11:45 am
@waltsyss why do you want boohoo to get over your comments?
It’s funny that the only time you were remotely critical of Gregor was when the harebrained thin streets proposal threatened your own self-interest. The perils of being a champagne socialist.
27 Silly Season // Oct 24, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Who’s on first?!
28 rf // Oct 24, 2012 at 1:12 pm
@Andrew Browne
When you spend real capital to receive/save “eco-capital”, it’s not real savings.
29 waltyss // Oct 24, 2012 at 1:40 pm
@rf. It is real savings when you postpone the need for a new land fill.
30 Glissando Remmy // Oct 24, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Thought of The Day
“Power Recycling for Dummies 101… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9CWwHCI8nM ”
Andrew,
“someone attacking” says, watch that video in its entirety. The easiest way for me to “explain” to you, my skepticism.
Ignorance is bliss. And please, don’t lecture me with lines like “Penn & Teller is your source?” ’cause it’s not. It’s only the funniest!
Waltyss,
Again? Ok, then.
Let’s play Hangman, A_ _ _ _ _E!
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
31 Frank Ducote // Oct 24, 2012 at 3:24 pm
Back to the thread – since the DPB didn’t reduce the density of this application, the floor space will remain the same, if not the number of units. Just accommodated in four floors rather than five. Since that space has to go somewhere, the remaining floors will likely become chunkier.
32 Everyman // Oct 24, 2012 at 10:56 pm
This was sad but predictable. Sometimes it feels as though anything unique and quirky is being smothered out of Vancouver. So Dan Cooper thinks the Ridge is a “crappy” theatre? I thought it was neat that if you listened closely at a quiet part of a movie, you’d hear pins falling below you. Streets like West Broadway and parts of the Fourth are becoming the new Kingsway – monotonous stretches of cookie cutter 4 story architectural roadkill.
33 Jay // Oct 25, 2012 at 3:31 am
Glissando, you’re so vague, it’s genius. There must be an optimum density for this city. I want to know what it is. Can this city sustain itself financially right now, or do we need to continue growing?
34 Everyman // Oct 25, 2012 at 7:47 am
@Jay 33
IMHO a city built on a foundation that requires perpetual growth to sustain itself is one that will become unliveable very quickly. The Ridge situation is a perfect illustration of that – liveability requires amenities of all kinds, not just streets full of gimcrack wooden condoboxes.
35 Brian // Oct 25, 2012 at 9:19 am
@Everyman 34
Its true that a city that requires growth for financial stability is an unliveable Ponzi scheme. However, the fact of the matter is that this city IS growing, whether we want it to or not. The number of people and jobs in the city is growing, and its up to city hall to deal with it. This means, yes, you have to let housing grow. It is city hall’s job to ensure that it grows well and retains livability, but if we stopped it altogether then eventually you and I would just be priced out of the market.
What does that have to do with the Ridge and Varsity Bowl? I’m not sure. I know that this city needs density to grow and that there are no completely nondisruptive ways of doing so.
36 Tessa // Oct 25, 2012 at 11:46 am
@Brilliant: Please. Explain this to me:
How would cutting a $5,000 grant from the city’s budget help save the Ridge Theatre? Seriously? How? Because if the only thing preventing the city from saving the Ridge is $5,000, I’ll write the check myself.
And then, let’s say the city did cut the millions needed to buy the property and save the Ridge: Would you or anyone else seriously think that buying the Ridge theatre is a good use of taxpayer money? What else saves it, exactly?
Do they down-zone a site arbitrarily to prevent a development that is perfectly acceptable under current zoning? That is possible. North Vancouver District did it a year or two ago in the Deep Cove neighbourhood, but it’s rather suspect. But either way, downzoning a property won’t cost the city money, except in future tax revenue, so a $5,000 grant has absolutely nothing to do with it as far as I can see.
37 brilliant // Oct 25, 2012 at 3:20 pm
@Tessa 36-Vision’s reign of error is littered with pointless, harebrained expenditures. Mostly green lipstick to slap on their developer-worshipping pig.
38 Frank Ducote // Oct 25, 2012 at 3:46 pm
It’s not the size of the population that matters as much as the mix – what do we want?
75% renters?
75% elderly?
75% families with children?
75% poor?
75% rich?
75% workers?
Closing the door on housing choice aand supply will certainly lead to a couple of these outcomes, which are not particularly acceptable to most people.
This is an old discussion. No government, no matter how draconian their methods, has been able to stop people from coming, including Moscow and Beijing. In fact, we now hear that Moscow is planning for growth and change, with a certain former CoV co-director of planning as part of the consulting team.
39 Mira // Oct 25, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Frank #38…
“a certain former CoV co-director of planning as part of the consulting team.” It’s Larry Beasley, no secret. Moscow is one of the most corrupt municipalities in the world. They want to build a residential village on top of Kremlin there’s enough oligarchs to buy all the council, Mayor and …Putin. Vancouver and Moscow not comparable.
brilliant #37
Exactly. “Vision’s reign of error” is the right wording.
Glissando #30
Funny and intelligent funny!
A_ _ _ _ _ E ?
Give me an “S”
40 Ned // Oct 25, 2012 at 6:01 pm
Mira #39
LOL,
“H”?
41 waltyss // Oct 25, 2012 at 10:53 pm
@brilliant not. Tessa asked you a legitimate question and all she got back is your usual pointless name calling. You have nothing intelligent to add (not on even one post, not one) so go the f–k (to quote your buddy Glissy) away.
42 Tessa // Oct 26, 2012 at 1:36 am
@Brilliant #37
That’s your response? What a cop out that is. I can only assume you have no explanation for how you think $5,000 will save the Ridge Theatre, or how you would propose to save the Ridge Theatre at all, given any amount of money.e t
Again, I should ask: What would you havhe city do? Buy the theatre itself? Operate it? Compete against other theatres? Subsidize it? Or downzone, which they can do without any cost whatsoever, and so bringing up a $5,000 grant you happen to disagree with has nothing to do with it.
43 Andrew Browne // Oct 26, 2012 at 9:09 am
I’m not sure the case law says what above posters think it does re: downzoning. There is support, just barely, for a municipality to downzone a class of properties together for a shared policy goal, but I’m not at all clear on the case law supporting single property downzonings w/o compensation.
44 brilliant // Oct 26, 2012 at 10:18 am
@waltsyss 41-fortunately this isn’t your board so your opinion of who should post here is like all your posts-irrelevant. You and your alte.ate handles are welcome to start yoyr own forum. Might I suggest Bitter Champagne Socialists® That way you can have your very own pottymouth playground.
As to Tessa’s question, I gave a clear answer that the money wasted on front yard wheatfields joins the much larger pot flushed down on: viaduct studies, redecorating the mayor’s office etc. That’s the problem with you socialists, thete’s a constsnt drip of money pissed away on useless items.
45 Higgins // Oct 26, 2012 at 11:05 am
Tessa Re. the $5,000 “grant”.
What did they teach you in shopping school?
If you have no use for one, don’t buy it.
If it’s on SALE but don’t need it, don’t buy it.
Especially when you have no money for groceries, or for essentials, don’t buy lottery tickets. Chance of winning are very slim. If we could only apply all these teachings in Vision Vancouver’s symbolic spending!
Waltyss @41,
I put your entire rant in my Babylon Translator and I got nothing! Your language was not in the catalog. What is it?
As for ideas to save the Ridge… look at it this way, all I can do is point out Vision Vancouver’s bad decisions, check it out, people from Fairview and Mount Pleasant to Dunbar would approve of my message.
Solutions? LMAO,.. Ballem, Robertson, Sadhu, BJ, McLellan… let them come up with solutions to their self made problems… they are the ones going home with the big bucks, not me or you! If I give them ideas what do we need them for?
46 Ms. Jones // Oct 26, 2012 at 3:33 pm
brilliant 44
great comment.
But it was a waste of time. This crowd don’t need advice, or directions. They only … give it!
Most likely this “champagne socialist” crowd like to impose it on others. No one says anything about the jobs they have to do. That’s irrelevant. Controlling other people’s lives is what they do best. And they are bad at that too! Period.
47 Bill McCreery // Oct 26, 2012 at 11:31 pm
I have just read through this thread. I’ve been otherwise occupied for the last while, the need to create sustenance is a fairly strong call.
I am saddened that the level of discussion and debate here seems to have fallen even lower than it had reached in the final days of City Caucus. I, for one, am not interested in petty, inane one-upmanship quips. All of you can do better if you stick to the matter at hand and try to make an interesting, challenging and intelligent exchange. You’ve done it before.
48 Tessa // Oct 27, 2012 at 5:47 am
@Brilliant:
As far as I can tell, you think that city planning (viaduct studies) is a waste of city taxpayer’s money but you think it’s okay to spend city money on, what exactly? Buying the Ridge Theatre and operating the site as competition against other theatres? Last I checked, operating a theatre isn’t part of the city’s mandate, and last I checked city planning is.
I’m still wondering how any amount of money in the city’s hands would save the Ridge Theatre in your mind. You haven’t responded to that. I’m also wondering, if the problem was government waste in general, why you brought up a $5,000 grant.
And okay, you disagree with this $5,000 grant. Are you suggesting that any project you disagree with is a waste of money? Do you seriously believe any democratically elected government will ever give grants only to projects you agree with? Maybe if you were dictator, but democracy in action means that we spend money on things that the community finds worthwhile. People apply for grants and they do so in a standardized process, and sometimes people win those grants for projects you will disagree with. Hardly evidence of out-of-control spending. It’s evidence of democracy.
And those grants still have nothing to do with the Ridge Theatre.
49 Tessa // Oct 27, 2012 at 5:51 am
@Andrew 43.
You may be right. Though I know North Vancouver District recently downzoned a number of properties after a development company already expressed interest in developing one of those sights within the existing zoning. The company was quite upset, of course, but I don’t think they took it to court. DNV’s argument, if I remember correctly, was that the zoning was outdated, part of a plan that didn’t exactly come to fruition, and wasn’t appropriate for the neighbourhood anymore.
50 Tessa // Oct 27, 2012 at 6:04 am
@Higgins:
This has nothing to do with “shopping school.” I’m asking Brilliant, and i’ll ask you, what exactly does a $5,000 grant have to do with saving the Ridge Theatre? I’m not asking if you agree with this particular grant – not everyone will ever agree with any grant – I’m asking how the city saving any amount of money would save this theatre? How the city could ever hope to stop a development that is perfectly legal under existing zoning with any political party in power?
51 brilliant // Oct 27, 2012 at 10:16 am
@Tessa-are you being deliberately obtuse? As you know the city us enabling this project by adding land to the pot. The viaduct study isn’t planning, its a waste of taxpayer money to study an even bigger waste, removing infrastructure to further the Hollyhock agenda and deliver a nice payoff to Vision’s funders to boot.
As to the Ridge, where’s Heather Deal? Isn’t that supposed to be her file. But then of course you Visionistas know this project just strikes at the NPA base, as does Dunbar upzoning. The basement suite dwelling bikers aren’t effected so Vision doesn’t care.
52 gmgw // Oct 27, 2012 at 10:41 am
I have no idea why people in this thread (Tessa @ #48 for instance) keep obtusely assuming that the only option for saving the Ridge would have been for the city to buy and operate it, unchanged, preserved in amber. Much as I would have liked to have seen the Ridge saved, I would not have wanted to see it run by the City, which, as I have already pointed out several times in the previous Ridge thread, has no structures in place to take on such an enterprise. There are other models for theatre operation in this city, notably the Pacific Cinematheque and the VIFF’s VanCity operation, both of which are nonprofits that survive on a combination of incomes: Ticket revenue, theatre rentals, and a system of grants and incentives from various sources at various levels of government. The Ridge could have been transformed into a similar facility. The City could have bought it and leased it to a non-profit society, or helped to subsidize a private operator. For government subsidization, it would be less controversial to operate it as a non-profit, though as I have already argued, it is long past time that single-screen movie theatres were seen as cultural institutions worthy of government support, whether in terms of Canada Council-style grants, leasing help, or whatever. This is a shift in the paradigm that has already taken place in other, more enlightened cities. And as far as the actual operation of the theatre goes, there’s nothing that says it would have had to be exclusively a movie theatre. Look at what the folks at the Rio are trying to do (aided by their hard-fought-for liquor license), with some success: A combination of film screenings, musical events, theatrical presentations, private events (I’ve attended special screenings held there by NGOs, for instance), what-have-you; limited only by the imagination of the operators. In other words, a diverse community cultural resource in a space easily adapted for multiple purposes. The Ridge could have become a “Rio West” in a city governed by an administration that genuinely cared for the arts as much as it does the eager servicing of developers like brood mares. Instead, we are to have yet another condo development that only the wealthy will be able to afford to buy into (this in a city whose Mayor constantly trumpets empty platitudes about “affordable housing”"). Gosh, we just don’t have enough of those.
I willingly acknowledge that this is to some extent a Utopian fantasy, and that other factors were at work in the Ridge disaster which might have prevented any of this from coming into being. Cressey bought the property some time ago and the time for the City to act would have been back when it first became clear that the Ridge was vulnerable to redevelopment. And I’m not saying any of these suggestions would have guaranteed success in saving the Ridge (and perhaps the bowling alley as a tailgate benefit) or turing into the kind of operation I’ve suggested. But I haven’t heard anyone else in this thread or in this city (least of all at City Hall) proposing possible solutions of salvation. There wasn’t even the ghost of a struggle, except for those feisty bowlers. As with too many regressive actions in this city, it’s as if everyone hopelessly accepts the inevitable, standing around dejectedly with hands in pockets, shrugging and murmuring “…there’s nothing we can do…”. Bull****!! Even if you’re going down, always go down fighting, dammit! Ideas like these could have at least been raised, discussed and considered, along with other creative, “visionary” (ahem) proposals. As they could be to save the Granville 7, and could have been for the Hollywood. But no. Not in dear old brain-dead Parvenuver, where, as ever, the maximization of profit takes precedence above all other things. One can never say it often enough to completely savour the irony: When it comes to arts and culture and the urgent need to protect and sustain them, this is a city almost completely lacking in Vision.
gmgw
53 Mira // Oct 27, 2012 at 11:00 am
gmgw…52, well said!
Unfortunately, this pathetic Mayor only plays his trombone inside the Vision Theatre, a little For Profit private enterprise disguised as a progressive political party (window dressing for suckers). If they are so eager for change in… the other direction, I propose to start with their redistribution of wealth plans… from him and his Hollyhock friends! Today!
54 Chris Keam // Oct 27, 2012 at 11:05 am
“this pathetic Mayor”
Gosh, I can’t imagine where our kids get the idea that bullying is OK.
55 brilliant // Oct 27, 2012 at 11:42 am
@Chris Keam-a job evaluation isn’t bullying. If Gregor is such a hothouse flower he should get out of the kitchen. Please.
56 Chris Keam // Oct 27, 2012 at 12:59 pm
No worries Brilliant, Its a hard row to hoe to behave as we would hope others might treat us. Everybody fails at it, as often as not. The first step is to forgive, and then to call out the ignorance that cultivates. But it’s also important to ask what reward one might derive from name-calling? Usually a by-product of ignorance and fear. Not much can be done except to bear witness again and again until those who traffic in the anonymous slag find the ethical playground an unwelcome place. I suspect that’s the thing that frightens you?
57 spartikus // Oct 27, 2012 at 3:45 pm
I say this as a film lover:
The Rio model sounds good on paper but it hasn’t stood the test of time yet. And it came about solely because of the dogged determination of the owners to make it work. That seems lacking here.
To my knowledge no non-profit stepped up with a proposal. Pretend one did. A “Rio West” would compete with “Rio East” potentially putting both in jeopardy.
As a physical space to watch movies in The Ridge is terrible. The seats are uncomfortable. The floor is flat, not angled. The screen is small. The sound is tinny. It’s cold and damp. It desperately needs refurbishment. Who foots the bill? As the Denman Theatre demonstrates, refurbishment does not guarantee survival.
Movie attendance is on a long-term decline across North America. Theaters like they have in Portland that are small & intimate, serve alcohol and food and you sit in sofas are one way to entice people back. But I think such innovations are stop-gaps.
Film as we know it – a 2-dimensional image projected on a screen – on the scale that we know it, is nearing the end. Cinema the art form will be transmitted to us in new ways and new formats. There will be holdouts for decades but their numbers will dwindle.
Saving, or replacing elsewhere, the bowling alley seems a higher priority.
58 Chris Keam // Oct 27, 2012 at 4:12 pm
“If Gregor is such a hothouse flower he should get out of the kitchen.”
BTW, that’s a crap mixed metaphor.
59 Tessa // Oct 28, 2012 at 5:44 am
GMGW #52:
I agree. A Rio-style theatre would have been wonderful, a great addition. But you enumerated the many differences in your own post that I think, at this point, made this not a worthwhile exercise. You can go down fighting all you want, but to do so now would be only a political smokescreen.
The Ridge is owned by a development company and has been for years. It doesn’t have the same rather unusual situation that has helped save the Rio. It’s a shame. I’m not arguing otherwise.
What I’m disagreeing with is a sad attempt by others on this thread to turn the Ridge into a hammer to beat the current council with when what they’re asking the council to do is not only unreasonable but absurd, and if the tables were turned and this were their favoured council they would jump at the chance to defend them and admit that this isn’t council’s fault.
Okay, council could have withheld selling a sliver of land. So what? That’s not going to stop a development company from developing on land within the zoning that they already own. Could that have been used as more of a bargaining chip? Probably. But the city wasn’t going to convince the developers to preserve the theatre building except by purchasing the site themselves, and I don’t think that’s a worthy use of city funds. Unfortunate as the result may be.
And buying the site is going to cost more than $5,000.
As for Brilliant’s belief that a viaduct study isn’t urban planning, it may be urban planning that he disagrees with, but it’s urban planning. Thus it is unquestionably part of the city’s mandate.
And it’s urban planning that furthers a goal that is backed up by empirical research around the world and as part of a larger plan to achieve a specific set of adjectives that Vision and others believe will enhance the liveability of the city. And I agree too, though I’m often at odds with this council on other topics. For the larger goal, see the city’s 2040 Transportation Plan.
As for Dunbar intensification, welcome to Vancouver. The entire city is intensifying. The fact that Dunbar hasn’t been given special status to ignore the demographic facts is hardly evidence of West-Side bashing (in fact, Dunbar has continued to receive a lower share of intensification than other parts of the city, hurting the chances Dunbar’s aging residents have of ageing in place).
60 rowbat // Oct 28, 2012 at 11:48 pm
R.I.P. Varsity Ridge
61 waltyss // Oct 29, 2012 at 9:47 am
People who are interested in this debate might want to read Allen Garr’s well researched article in the Vancouver Courier: http://www.vancourier.com/news/Trying+save+Dunbar+Varsity+lanes+like+trying+stop+time/7447789/story.html.
The article points out that the property sold for some $20 million. Those suggesting the city should have bought it in order to preserve a movie theatre and a bowling alley might want to ponder just what the criteria should be for the city investing this type of money into something that rightly belongs with the private sector.
I love nostagia as much as the next guy but when someone wants to use scarce dollars to support something that makes little economic sense amid the West Sides astronomic land values, then we part company.
62 MB // Oct 29, 2012 at 11:34 am
@ gmgw, I share your dismay about the defeatism surrounding culture.
I would like to clarify that the VIFF VanCity Theatre resulted from a density bonus in the Brava development that houses it, plus a $1 million grant by VanCity.
Perhaps this is a model that can save existing — or create new — cultural amenities, depending on the circumstances. Perhaps they don’t need to be entirely devoted to one type of venue (e.g. film), but can be acessible to several (e.g. meeting hall, live theatre, misic studios, etc.) that happens to have high-quality sound / video equipmet tucked away behind the curtains.
@ Tessa 59:
What I’m disagreeing with is a sad attempt by others on this thread to turn the Ridge into a hammer to beat the current council with when what they’re asking the council to do is not only unreasonable but absurd, and if the tables were turned and this were their favoured council they would jump at the chance to defend them and admit that this isn’t council’s fault.
Bravo!
Cultural amenities are multi-generational and outlast many 3-year political terms. This topics need a long view.
63 Ned // Oct 29, 2012 at 6:54 pm
Waltyss @61
thanks for the perfect definition of how Vision Vancouver operates:
“…but when someone wants to use scarce dollars to support something that makes little economic sense amid the West Sides astronomic land values, then we part company.”
I could not have said it better myself.
64 Adam Fitch // Oct 30, 2012 at 10:08 am
@jolson, you state: “Neighbourhood Plans should not be directed by Development Planners but rather by Social Planners.”
To some degree, they are. But the issue here is not neighbourhood planning, it is development approvals. The zoning is in place on that site, and the role of the development permit board is simply to ensure that a proposed development meets the City’s guidelines for form and character of development.
The land use and density issues have already been decided a long time ago via the conference of zoning.
If you want to remove zoning rights from a property, that is a major city policy question, and a much bigger question than one site. It would be very risky for the City of Vancouver, or any city, to remove development rights via downzoning.
That would be social engineering, combined with fiscal and legal recklessness.
Leave a Comment