Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Canucks to propose building $20-40-million practice rink at False Creek


nitronuts

Recommended Posts

They've been talking about redeveloping this area for decades... They promise this and that, it has yet to come to anything. I should scan the back of my 93 (94?) Canucks guidebook, it's got the rendering for the brand new GM Place on the back complete with big park in the foreground. Yeah, still waiting on that...

But it's hard to say no to a developer funded and run ice rink that will have public access after noon most days.

However, the City does have long range strategic goals for their CAC's and this amounts to a developer basically dictating how his contribution gets spent even if it is contrary to the long range plan for the area. That sets a bad precedent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my understanding is concord pacific owns that land.

some years ago i was at their openhouse and they had a model of the whole false creek with future plans.

nothing but condos.

i remember seeing one giant triangular condo sitting where the picture shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will most likely get rejected cause the people of Vancouver seem to have a problem with other people paying for there own arenas like this one.

Plus whatever happened to the grizzlies training facility?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Grizzlies training facility used to be in one of the buildings at the Plaza of Nations but it was torn down in 2007. I used to play basketball there a decade ago, the Grizzlies logos and showers were still there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its a good idea but t woud take away a lot of good land that could a home for a ton of ppl. and there no real point bcuz the majority of the canucks practices are at gm place anyways. ubc is also really nice and probably arent that far from the players home since the west side is next to ubc anyways

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its a good idea but t woud take away a lot of good land that could a home for a ton of ppl. and there no real point bcuz the majority of the canucks practices are at gm place anyways. ubc is also really nice and probably arent that far from the players home since the west side is next to ubc anyways

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remain skeptical for now. It sounds good on the surface, until you remember that as a private entity they'd only do this to make a profit. Benefits to the community are listed while opportunity costs are ignored. Reminds me of the waterfront soccer stadium, where the city gets a free outdoor venue (as long as you ignore the other lands the company wants included to develop for their own profit as part of the deal). It may end up being a decent deal for taxpayers, but it's definitley not benevolent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've been talking about redeveloping this area for decades... They promise this and that, it has yet to come to anything. I should scan the back of my 93 (94?) Canucks guidebook, it's got the rendering for the brand new GM Place on the back complete with big park in the foreground. Yeah, still waiting on that...

But it's hard to say no to a developer funded and run ice rink that will have public access after noon most days.

However, the City does have long range strategic goals for their CAC's and this amounts to a developer basically dictating how his contribution gets spent even if it is contrary to the long range plan for the area. That sets a bad precedent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The city should look forward to getting what it can for the next little while. It should be noticed that their old "our way or the highway" has resulted in prime areas left around to stagnate for decades.

Some cities should take some lessons from Vancouver but then again Vancouver could learn some of their flexibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I just don't like the precedent it sets. You know how these things are, they're all procedure and politics. You let this developer dictate where his CAC's go and you've opened the flood gates.

The terms of the new rink would be very important, I mean they say they only need it for weekday mornings but... I can see that changing without very clear language in the contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if it's a dictate so much as an offer. And given that what they are offering is very much needed in the community where it's being proposed I would hope it sets a precedent. It's not like community facilities don't enhance the value of surrounding developements so they have a vested interest in doing so, and if it happens to match community goals then why say no?

And though if they are wanting something for the city then some simple expatations as to when it's available (daily after noon six days a week for example) be set out then I think that's fair for the city to ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not an offer. They normally have to pay money that the City then allocates to whatever the priority for the public is. In this case they are saying we will give you this rink part time but that counts for our contribution. That's dictating where there contribution goes. I don't know what the current list of priorities for the NEFC area are in terms of public amenities, but I seriously doubt a hockey rink is number 1. Maybe I'm wrong though....

Like I said, I'm not opposed to the idea, but if it doesn't match the communities needs/priorities AND is in lieu of something else the community needs then it needs to be questioned.

And I don't think the city can 'ask' for the times the rink would be made open to the public, they have to negotiate and then have in plain english written down in contracts what those hours will be. Why on earth would you trust the developers when we have the classic example of the long promised but not written down contractually park on the water?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant that it would be reasonable that the city ask what the public hours would be and that it be formalised. While they are at it fees for using the rink and what not should be formalised. Why I mean ask I mean ASK, as in show me a contract. Obviously I didn't mean "it would be nice of you to let the public in and were sure you will" ask.....

Much like I don't think it's unreasonable for a developer to ask that public ammenties they want to put in should count towards their city contribution. A public ammenity is a public ammenity, how it's scored can be up to negotation and formalisation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh but this is the thing. A public amenity isn't always just a public amenity.

What if the next developer is a big lawn bowling fan and wants to put in a new lawn bowling facility? Even though the public may not want it, the city may not want it, the precedent has now been set...

The roof on BC Place is counting towards some developers public amenity. Hardly a public amenity now is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BC place isn't a public ammenity? Why do many cities put in huge portions of the cost to get these kinds of facilities in their town then? I know Vancouver hates stadiums but to say their aren't a public facility is certainly a local phenom only.

It's only a precident if you allow it to be one. Maybe the city of Van says that since your facility only helps the public 50% of the time, you only get a ten million dollar credit. If it turns out the lawn bowling facility gets a 10% use, then you give them a ten percent credit. Or zero, since you don't want one. That's the thing, you negotiate what's it's worth to you. If it turns out the city genuinely has zero interest in a new rink, then by all means, turn it down. That would be foolish of them though, since at the end of the day if they do it right it means they should end up with more public facilities than they would otherwise. The mutually beneficial part is the developers get to build things that benefit them (by say improving land value or having a marketing theme) but are also community facities and the city ends up with more money spent overall on public facilities.

Right now the status quo is to hardline them, and they hardline right back, and we end up with parking lots instead of new communities with any amount of green space. I think they can do better than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not like a park, swimming pool, rec centre, playground, etc... It's nothing like that.

Yeah, like I said, if the rink is the priority for the City then great, you can make it work. But if the City knows in the NEFC area it needs playgrounds and/or swimming pools and/or water parks and/or whatever ahead of a rink, but it takes this rink, then that's an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...