Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Canucks’ owners offer to build ice rink that False Creek community can use but city unenthused

August 3rd, 2010 · 55 Comments

I’d heard that interesting things were going on in Northeast False Creek as developers, residents and the city meet regularly to talk about this future neighbourhood.

But I didn’t know what until I went to a community meeting Thursday night, where David Negrin of Aquilini talked to local residents about the company’s desire to build an ice rink/community centre for the area. The rink is needed for Canucks’ practice but, since they’d only use it on weekeday mornings, when ice-rink use tends to be at its lowest, it would be available for the community the rest of the time, along with other space that Negrin said would be part of the centre.

As I note in my story today, residents like the idea so far. And obviously developers would rather see the money they’re required to contribute to community benefits to go to the immediate area where they’re building — it helps them sell their products. But the city is saying it wants Aquilini’s community-benefits fees (along with any fees the other property owners in the area will have to chip in) to go to helping pay for the Aquatic Centre renewal and central library upgrades.

This is an interesting tussle and the first time I’ve seen a developer openly at odds with the city about where their community benefits should go. Usually they just hand over the money and the city decides. Not so this time, and Aquilini clearly has residents onside with this. I await further results.

Categories: Uncategorized

←  Older Comments
 →
  • David

    I think the major point of the article is not the type of amenities being built but how developers are dictating to the city what amenities are needed and where. This is a dangerous path as developers will only want to place amenities in or near their own developments. In an area of the city where development is less prevalent there would not be increased amenities. The city should have the right to decide where the community amenity contributions should be used not be told by the developers.

    In this case its obvious that the Aquilini group wants to write off the building of a practice facility for a very profitable sports team and pass it off as for the good of the community. I’m not buying it.

  • Stephanie

    As much as I would adore having a rink a few skips away from my home – I mean, really adore, I would be there several nights a week – I have to agree with David. I don’t like the idea of developers being able to strongarm the city about where the CACs go. The Aquilinis are making money ass over teakettle on that team – let’s see a proposal that involves some actual largesse from them for a change.

  • Fern Jeffries

    No one who supports the proposal is suggesting that the Aquilinis are benevolent. Obviously what the Aquilinis are proposing is good business. In this case, the FCRA believes that this proposal is also good for the community.

    As indicated in the City’s High Level Review report, the benefits that were to be associated with the NEFC development include the provision of rental housing through the STIR program (at an estimated cost of $30million to the amenity fund), refurbishing the Aquatic Centre ($40million), remodelling the library, childcare, and building steps down from Georgia Street to the water. Anyone interested in the details of the city’s plan can find these in the Future Directions document.
    Interesting to note that the Aquilini proposal includes a rental tower, outside of the city’s STIR program. If the tower were within the STIR program, the CACs would be forgiven. But as it is, there are CACs on the rental tower proposed. So there are considerably more dollars in the CAC fund than would be the case in the city’s plan.
    Residents believe that some of the CACs should be spent in the community – to provide for amenities required by the 7,500 new residents approved by the City. While some may not like the notion that developers ‘strongarm’ the city to have a say in amenities, many residents support the developers in wanting to create a community that has basic amenities. As discussed in the study conducted by Larry Beasley, False Creek North is woefully deficient in recreation opportunities for older children and youth. The Aquilini proposal would fill this gap nicely. Plus they would be on the hook for operating costs in perpetuity.
    During the 2 years that community members participated with the city planning staff in the High Level Review, there were numerous suggestions for desired and required amenities. The City’s report totally ignored this input.

    I think we have to get over the old dogma that planners are good and developers are evil. Citizens should be working with developers to make proposals that are good for the community. Unfortunately the city’s consultative processes don’t result in any real input from citizens into the city’s plans and priorities.
    Stephanie, I don’t know if you are aware of the many charitable activities of the Canucks — the Canuck Family Place, the children’s hospice, or the contribution to literacy at the Canucks Family Education Centre, to name a few. Perhaps once you do a bit of research, you might feel less guilty about enjoying a local rink. After all, it’s no more or less than the folks in Kerrisdale, or Kits enjoy.

    There has always been a negotiation between developers and the city about amenities. What is different here is that this negotiation is more transparent than is usually the case. If anyone is ‘dictating’ it is the city, not the developer, not the community. And if the developer doesn’t like the terms, he will go elsewhere. That’s business.

  • Norman

    Whenever you see a situation you can’t understand, look for the financial angle. If there weren’t a significant benefit to the developer, they wouldn’t be pushing this.

  • Stephanie

    Fern: of course I’m aware of the Canucks’ charitable activities. I’m a lifelong fan of the team. My parents were ticketholders from before the team entered the NHL until about 1992, and I’ve been a season ticket holder since 2002. Every time I purchase a 50/50 ticket my money goes into the kitty for those charitable activities.

    That Canucks’ community work is something that the Aquilinis acquired with the team, not the other way around. Linden’s King Clancy wasn’t an Aquilini enterprise.

    And I’m not sure where you got the idea that I would feel “guilty” about enjoying a local rink. Guilt doesn’t enter into it – I simply don’t like developers playing off Vancouver residents against one another because people want amenities in their own neighbourhoods. The Aquilins are smart cookies, and they clearly figured out who they should work here.

    As someone who is attempting to organize a community around a set of issues you might want to step away from the automatic assumption that ignorance is the source of people’s reluctance to adopt your issues as their own. Cheers.

←  Older Comments
 →