On principle, I believe public access to the waterfront should be strengthened and celebrated. But the proximity to the waterfront of the $400K lot does bring into question its true value.

It’s not necessarily the size of the park that counts in urban areas, unless you’re protecting intact riparian, forest or marine habitat and contiguous ecosystems (e.g. streams / watersheds), and there are no other parks nearby. It’s what you put in it that will determine its success in this case.

The site is currently a massive chunk of asphalt from the viaducts up to the rip rapped water’s edge. A rather clean slate, wouldn’t you say?

As long as the buildings are a respectful distance away from the waterfront (say 60m minimum, preferably 90m), and the park is well-programmed and connected to the community, then I don’t have a problem with Concord’s proposal regarding the park-building relationship.

But the streetscapes and architecture may be another issue as design moves along.

The False Creek Residents Association – http://www.falsecreekresidents.org – has been investigating this issue for the past year and after months of asking politicians at the Provincial and City to investigate, something is finally being done now, thanks to Mike Howell’s excellent article in the Courier.

As far as Creekside Park, Concord is obligated by law and contract to build a park on Lot 9 as promised for the past twenty years. They don’t get to “choose” whether to build the park – it’s a long overdue contractual commitment. And they don’t get to decide to build condo towers on Lot 9 instead of a park. It’s not their land, it’s the public’s land owned by the citizens of Vancouver.

And with all respect to MB, he doesn’t get to decide just to give away a public park for condo development either.

The False Creek Residents Association will fully support Concord if they want to land increased density closer to the stadium, provided they don’t attempt to build one condo on Creekside Park’s Lot 9.

We have also asked the Province to remediate the soil on Concord’s Lot 6C at the same time they remediate soil for the new Casino, in lieu of community amenities for the casino development. Doing so would clear the way for Creekside Park to be built immediately, as promised to Vancouver residents for two decades now.

So there is an obvious solution to hand, as we’ve proposed, which is a win-win for everyone. But there will be no condos built on Creekside Park. Not a single one. And if anyone wants that fight, we’re more than prepared to wage and win it.

If the province and city and developer are willing to embrace our win-win solution, however, they will find willing and resourceful partners ready to help.

Hi MB, apologies – I didn’t mean to be mean, but this is a bit sensitive for those involved in fighting to protect that park. People like Patsy McMillan and Fern Jeffries in particular have put a lot of time and energy into putting a stop to that eventuality. Passions are high on this issue, to say the least.

Count me as a local resident that is in favour of the recofigured park. Twice the water frontage of the previous proposal plus a buffer from the traffic along Pacific are two big plus for me. I just fail to see the downside. I’m patiently waiting to see the official proposal from Concord.

Why has Howell not gone after the Province on this? he seems obsessed with trying to blame the city politicans on it when in fact it’s the Province that makes the decision? I would love to see what connections that Concord has with the Provincial bodies on it, but that’s not being covered or looked into apparently.

The city has been in bed with Concord for a long time. Maybe it is time to change those sheets and start being transparent and responsive to the public? Are Gregor and Penny up for this? Sam and Judy certainly weren’t.

No matter which plan ends up being actualized, there will be a continuous seawall along NE False Creek with water access and separate pedestrian and cycle paths partitioned just as there is elsewhere along the waterfront. However, the strip park would have a road along it as well since any condo highrise towers along Pacific would want vehicle access off of a less busy thoroughfare. So this would further reduce the park’s width essentially leaving only a thin green strip parallel to the seawall which would very well probably only be useful to the four-legged rather than two-legged denizens. People forget that there is talk of the viaducts coming down and highrises being put up all along there as well so if you like the feeling of the canyon that is now in situ in Yaletown, then that is what you’ll get with no views from Pacific toward the water with walls of towers on either side of.

I definitely agree with the kudos for Mr. Howell and the Courier. When I finished reading that issue, I just said, “Wow!” The whole thing was impressive, not just that particular article. (As I remember, they didn’t have a Hasiuk rant in it, which helped! Oops, sorry, I’m being mean again…)

I’ll also second AnnetteF’s response, perhaps to the earlier comment that, “It’s just that I’d rather see one that has some real value, not just a huge windswept lawn with clear views of those wonderful viaducts.” Value can mean many different things. There are already lots of waterfront parks in Vancouver that are great for walking/skating/cycling along the seawall or sitting and looking at the water; not so many that are great for playing games.

@ Annett F: “National news headlines a few weeks ago quoted a new study showing that Canadian children are not getting anywhere near enough physical activity. Childhood obesity rates have risen almost thirty percent in the last twenty-five years. We are raising what may be the first generation who will not live as long as their parents. This city needs to be advocating for functional, community-oriented park space and not just ornamental waterfronts for a lucky few.”
_____________

First I’d like to clarify that I do not work fro Concord or the City of Vancouver and have no interest in their bottom line. I’m responding only to inaccurate statements.

Its not the quantity (or lack) of park space that determines childhood obestity. It’s the car-dependency and design of the suburbs where cars are more often substituted for the transit, bikes and running shoes of yore.

Next, it’s peer pressure and corporate marketing to schools, supermarkets and parents that greatly influence a child’s diet. Public parks do not forcefeed kids two litre bottles of Coke and Cheezies, nor are there video arcades in parks that incourage inactivity … at least not that I know of.

Next, it’s what you put in the parks, their connectivity, and their proximity to amenities that attract people, including kids, not their size per se. Harbour Green Park has a very active water play feature that is filled with kids every warm day. I have never seen the 24,000 square metres of open lawn in HGP without kids (and grown ups and pets) running and playing, except on the wettest winter days. Likewise, the seawall that passes thriough HGP is always crowded with kids and their families walking or biking year round.

Moreover, an moderately-sized active urban park is safer than a large inactive urban park. Size is really not the over-riding issue.

Let’s not forget that Creekside Park already exists. We’re talking about the portion not built yet. The chunk of land in question is 144m from the Pacific Blvd lot line to the edge of the False Creek bank. The harbour headline is another 30m out, so we have 170+ (560 ft)metres to play with if marine recreation is incorporated. Harbour Green Park is only 70 m wide, not including the headline. Even with a generous space abutting Pacific Blvd for buildings and a frontage road, it is possible to have a park in the 85m-100m range in width, which is coincidently the same dimension as the widest portion of the exising park. Creekside Park cannot in all fairness be compared to the smaller Harbour Green Park.

Next, the roads. It is very doubtful Carrall will extend to the water’s edge. I suggest the best location for its terminus is at the aformentioned frontage road, which in all likelihood will not be heavily travelled. There may not even be a need for a frontage road, which means the park could be yet another 20m wider.

To say that the Dragon Boat festival will occur “at the doorsteps” of the new condos adjacent to Creekside Park is completely inaccurate. The shoreline will be at least 90m away.

The city has final say up to the edge of the provincial lands to the west, and citizen input will have its influence. But to make totally off base comments, to exaggerate distance and size, and to make socially inappropriate comments about public parks serving as ornaments to an elite is not helpful to your case.

@ Dan Cooper: “There are already lots of waterfront parks in Vancouver that are great for walking/skating/cycling along the seawall or sitting and looking at the water; not so many that are great for playing games.”
_______________________

Is this the Dan Cooper who parachuted out of a highjacked jet plane over Washington State with a pile ‘o dough 30 years ago? Glad you survived!

Sports fields are very land hungry objects. Nearby Andy Livingston Park already has a couple artificial turf, which is playable in November when natural grass fields are mush. I surely hope you aren’t proposing single-use park space on the waterfront.

@MB
I agree that it is what we put into parks rather than just their size that attracts people to them, but I have a hard time visualizing how a narrow, broken-up park is going to provide functional recreational space for our community. And it will be broken up. Carroll Street already extends to the seawall-it is the end of the new bikeway that was designed to link with False Creek. It is possible that Abbott Street will bisect it as well.
Andy Livingstone park is booked with league soccer activity and is rarely available for the general public to use.
While their are certainly other things that contribute to childhood obesity, building four million square feet of additional condos, without providing functional park space is certainly a step in the wrong direction.
The comparison of the depth of HGP to the reconfigured Creekside was done by city staff at last year’s council meetings and I believed them. Unlike you, I rarely see families using HGP-just plenty of sun worshippers and readers.
My reference to the dragon boat festival being “at the doorsteps” of new condos on Pacific was to the many on-land activities that are part of that and many other events that are currently heald on “tar park”. Currently these activities are separated from residential towers by Quebec Street.

No need to exaggerate, when you say no one in the community will accept the results you are wrong. I am one of those people in the community that prefers the elongated park, my spouse is another, as are a large number of people. We might not be the majority but I can assure you that there are plenty of people that would infact accept this result.
I do not get the argument that Concord can not get out of building the park, they are not trying to get out of building the park, they’ve never stated they wouldn’t build the park. They are simply looking at reconfiguring the park, and would only do so if the city approves. The condition for the park being build has not been met yet either so Concord is under no legal obligation to begin building the park until it’s developing the neighbouring parcel. There is no timelimit on when Concord must develop that parcel, I’m sure they will develop it soon enough, but it’s dishonest to state the park is 20yrs overdue. It’s not due and won’t be for quite a few years minimal.

I have attended a meeting and will not be attending another as I do not like being accused of being a mole and having my opinion disregarded as were others that had differing opinions. Heck even attending the citys own meeting regarding the proposals the FCRA made those in favour of the change feel uncomfortable. Sorry you feel my opinion means less because I’ve learned not to use my real name on a blog on the internet, perhaps if my name was Joe Smith I wouldn’t be so hesitant, but it’s not.

FYI the city councilors, the park board commissioners, the mayor, the city manager and the deputy city manager were all sent an email on Nov. 11, 2009 informing them of this scandalous situation. They chose not to respond nor to take any interest whatsoever in the information provided by the False Creek Residents Assoc. detailing the assessed value and civic taxes paid on Concord Pacific’s 9.06 acres of waterfront property. At the same time they were cutting programs and services across the city due to budget constraints. Why is Concord Pacific getting this sweet deal? Especially when they use this property for commercial ventures like Cirque du Soleil, Molson Indy, Molson Hockey House, car parking, truck and trailer storage for BC Place events and shows. They are, in fact, now calling the site “a community celebration zone” . I f that is what it is to be used for then it should be taxed accordingly. When you compare the value of the Trillium Park site, 7.5 acres, sitting fallow since 1993, a mile from the waterfront, not used for commercial ventures which is assessed as “a future park site ” for $18.6 million dollars there appears to be something wrong, or should I say smelly, about the situation. The mayor saying that it would be a costly endeavor to appeal the assessment is a smoke screen for the fact that they failed to do anything about this mess before the appeal deadline on April 30th so now all they can do is make excuses for their lack of interest.
Keep in mind that it is the city that designates land use; then the BCA assesses the property on the land use designation; then the city turns around and levies civic taxes according to the assessment. So, I’ll let you decide where the buck stops. Or lack of bucks, more importantly.