Frances Bula header image 2
← →

No pool yet for Mount Pleasant park

June 22nd, 2010 · 31 Comments

According to this item from CKNW, it sounds like there is planning going on for the park where the Mount Pleasant pool used to sit but there doesn’t seem to be any real effort to figure out how to create a pool.

From what I’ve heard from various people, the community is being told that if they want that hugely popular neighbourhood pool back, they have to go out and raise money. I didn’t think that’s how facilities were planned in Vancouver. Apparently I’m wrong.

I have to say that the whole pool thing baffles me. If there was one thing you used to be able to count on old left-wing governments doing, it was siding with neighbourhoods, especially working-class neighbourhoods, trying to save their modest amenities.

But there seems to have been barely a discussion about this, except for embarrassed “well, sorry, there’s just no money” statements. (Or weirder still, statements that the park board was losing money by operating the pool. On that basis, every facility in the city should be shut down. They all cost money and it would save everyone a huge amount if they were all closed or sold off to the Waterslides ‘R’ Us Corp.)

Okay, I admit I’m biased because I live in the neighbourhood and loved that pool, not just because I could walk to it, unlike the Kits and New Brighton pools that require definite long-distance trip-planning, but because it was a reminder of the neighbourhood pools of my childhood, where people would hang out all day — instead of going to the mall.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • We Are Amused

    Frances, the long and the short of it is this:

    Vision Park Board candidates (especially the ’emotional’ Constance Barne) lied to the Mt. Pleasant neighbours during the election.

    They swore up and down that they would save the pool, even though they knew there was no money in the kitty for it. At least the NPA candidates were up front as to what wa happening with funding. Or rather, lack thereof.

    Constance wove a fiery tale of how she was part of the neighborhood, her memories around taking her kids to the pool, etc. etc, etc. I am one of YOU, the “small” people, too! Then of course, she brought her poor, late father’s name into her argument, each and every time. Not a dry-eyed socially aware person in the place, I tell ya! LOL!

    The neighbours bought the Vision crap, hook line and sinker. It is just a formality that the Park Board commissioners point to City Hall calling the shots on the budget for this.

    The budget on this item was decided long, long ago. I have friends who live in the area and supported the Vision Park Board candidates. I can assure you, there is nothing more dangerous than raging yummy mummy’s who have been lied to.

  • David Samis

    Bang on, We Are Amused!

    I went to the open house last night and was really dismayed, as was just about everyone there. First of all, the display consisted of 3 small easels set up in the school gym, one of which contained a rendering of what the park “might” look like, while the other two just had collages of pictures of random parks, playgrounds and pools from other neighbourhoods. Huh? There was no written information or handouts.

    The one park rendering was the exact same as the online consultation rendering from 6 months ago – zero changes, zero planning done in the interval.

    The community spoke loud and clear about this over the last few years, telling the Parks Board exactly what they wanted, organizing petitions, facebook, and preparing to fundraise to offset the costs of a new pool, but now it all seems to have been forgotten. We are now back to the question: do you want a pool maybe sometime in the future if there is money? It’s like all the public consultations and the meetings over the last few years never even happened.

    As a result, there was a lot of confused people milling about, with packs of angry parents surrounding the guy who has been contracted to build the park and grilling him. Of course, he had nothing to do with the decisions that had been made by Parks Board, and there were no officials there other than a couple of “kids” to collect the feedback forms.

    The performance and “consultation” by Parks Board on this neighbourhood issue has been dismal, and their mantra seems to have been: respond to every creative solution offered by the community with reasons why it can’t be done. The disdain for Raj Hundal was pretty much universal last night. But a lot of people I talked to also questioned where the heck the Mayor was on this, since when he was an MLA for the NDP he spoke on a number of occasions in favour of keeping the pool and met with residents several times. Since he’s been Mayor, with some power to actually do something, not a peep.

    All in all, chalk this up to another example of the community not being heard, with the City just doing whatever the heck they want, neighbourhood values be damned. Yet another example of the sham that passes for public consultation in Vancouver.

  • Joe Just Joe

    Not that it helps, but you guys are not alone in sharing the disconnect between the parks board and the residents.

  • Living in the West End

    Francis, Parks and Pools – that’s the kind of thing those Community Area Contributions that supposedly are paid by developers in return for rezoning land for more density were designed for. Small problem, the total CAC’s paid in 2009 by developers was $3.6 million, bet you thought it would be more but the hard numbers are on page 11 of the 2009 city financial statements.
    http://vancouver.ca/fs/budgetServices/pdf/09AnuualReport.pdf
    So that’s why no cash for pools because developers are finding all sorts of ways around paying for the land lift on rezoning. Never have anything to do with political campaign donations, would it.

  • Living in the West End

    CAC means Community Amenity Contribution.
    A pool is certainly an amenity and reserve funds exist.

  • West Ender

    There seems to be money for developers to build expensive market rental housing that communities don’t want and need, and for bike lanes and for removing viaducts so developers have more land to make their fortunes. But for residents and their over filled libraries, community centres and pools. I guess we just don’t count. We just pay the bills!

  • Tessa

    Right, West Ender, because people don’t need a home to live in, certainly not when they have a swimming pool.

    I agree absolutely that the pool should be rebuilt. It’s a great community amenity, great for families, great for summer, great in general, and it’s too bad that the parks board isn’t helping come up with a solution on this one. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have rental apartment.

  • http://www.nofuncity.org ThinkOutsideABox

    Let me get this straight. The choice is a pool or pricey rental apartments? Since the latest CMHC shows vacancy’s up, wondering how’s occupancy at City owned 1 Kingsway doing?

    With all the straw men, I’m surprised we still see crows in this city.

  • scm

    don’t most organizations have a replacement fund for repair/replacement of something that has apparently outlasted its lifespan. Usually you don’t repair a roof or in this case remove it, without the funds for replacement. The community centre was, I am certain, built better than the portables put up for the child care on the “adjacent” property.

    The greenest building is the one already standing.

  • Tessa

    I agree with scm, it should be basic accounting practice to plan ahead for replacement of a facility that’s aging, really.

  • West Ender

    Tessa,

    The emphasis was on “expensive market rental housing”.

  • Stephanie

    “Raging yummy mummy’s”? God, Mount Pleasant has really gone to hell.

  • Marcus

    Residents of Sunset and Mount Pleasant were promised a new outdoor pool as part of the new Hillcrest Aquatic Centre on Ontario and 30th as a replacement for their neighbourhood pools. Instead Park Board built an outdoor wading pool.

    Given the decontstruction at Sunset and Mount Pleasant the cost of building outdoor pools has grown as the rubble which is buried under the grass at Sunset and soon to be covered at Mount Pleasant will have to be removed.

    The loss of the outdoor pool at Sunset is especially troubling as there are no outdoor swimming facilities easily accessible for children and youth in the southern half of the city.

    If Park Board will use the losing money argument – then they need to close all their pools, rinks and sell of the parks and beaches and privatize the seawall as each of these are a net operating loss.

    Where is the neighbourhood focus of this council and Park Board? It’s business as usual and south Vancouver is still on the short end.

  • Lizzie

    That was indeed a pretty poor excuse for a consultation – a group of high school kids would have done a (much) better job. I think it’s time PB defined what they meant by “at such time as funds for (a replacement pool) become available.” How will we know when “funds become available?” Are we on a list of projects somewhere? A timeline? What other projects are on the (so far secret) list? We’re already fundraising, but how can we start any serious fundraising (grants, foundations, etc.) without some evidence of good faith by PB, and a definite project to fundraise for?

  • AnnetteF

    I have begun trying to advocate for a new indoor pool somewhere in the east False Creek region.
    Through my research I was horrified to see that the city has not built an additional indoor swimming pool (they have renovated a few) since 1979. According to the city website the population in the downtown area has grown from approximately 6,000 to over 48,000 since the Aquatic Centre was built. The population in the city has grown by more than 150,000 since the city last built a new swimming location. Instead they close Mount Pleasant pool.
    There is a huge amount of density coming to both North and South East False Creek, yet the closing of the Mount Pleasant pool leaves a very obvious visual gap in pool facilities in the South East False Creek area.
    From the people that I have spoken to at the Parks Board it appears that there is no current plan to add a pool to this rapidly growing region.
    Vision is advocating for a “greener” city, yet they are not adding recreational facilities in step with the high-density developments coming to the East False Creek region. How green is it if we all have to load our children into cars to drive through heavy traffic to the Aquatic Centre or Hillcrest?
    We are a city surrounded by water. People need to know how to swim. A 50 foot ‘lap pool’ in a condo building is a poor excuse for a pool and does not provide lifeguards or swimming lessons. East False Creek needs a pool!

  • Margery

    The Pool was not represented as an actual feature at this time because it is not in the current Capital Plan which is in effect through 2011. There was a dotted outline for a future pool. Pool advocates such as the Mount Pleasant Pool Committee, “Friends of Mount Pleasant Pool’ on Facebook, and the Vancouver Society for Promotion of Outdoor Pools are advocating for funds to be allocated in the 2012-2014 Capital Plan for the replacement swimming pool that has been promised by Park Board. We intend to hold the Park Board accountable and to retain these essential public facilities.
    What was so disturbing about the “Open House’ on June 21st is that one of the major design elements presented for discussion was a ‘water play pad’. The community has already rejected this option several times in previous consultations. I spoke with two 7-year old girls yesterday who were upset about this saying ‘ But that won’t be any fun for us. And what about our moms and dads?’ A water play pad in Mount Pleasant Park would be the worst strategy in terms of replacing the outdoor swimming pool. It would waste scare dollars on a feature that all previous consultations have proven is not desired by taxpayers, and would use up space that the full-size swimming pool should occupy. The Open House was an example of a poor use of the consultation budget in that it failed to adequately incorporate the decisions that have already been made through past consultations. It reinforces the public’s opinion that Park Board Staff are using these public processes to fulfill their own agendas. The result is a very angry and confused community of people who have loyally supported the outdoor pool through multiple public processes over the past seven years, and who expect Park Board’s motions of October 31, 2005 and December 14, 2009 to be genuinely represented in this process. Pool advocates strongly urge citizens to stay alert and be present for further opportunities to reinforce the Park Board directive to replace the pool at Park Board meetings (Park Board agendas on their website), on the Facebook Group ‘Friends of Mount Pleasant Pool”, and Capital Plan meetings that will be scheduled next year when the 2012-2014 Capital Plan is decided by Park Board.
    We expect more of our Park Board. We expect open discussion about plans for the new outdoor swimming pool, not more misleading public presentations at our expense.

  • Bill Smolick

    Where can I meet these raging yummy mummys? I tend to date angry German women , so that sentence is a pretty big turn on. (Yes, I realize the “angry” is redundant when paired with “german” but it’s a good effect.)

    There’s a new destination aquatic centre that’s been built which will offer swim facilities substantially improved over the old Mt. Pleasant outdoor pool. The only problem? Not outdoors.

    OK. I understand the appeal of the outdoor pool. When Summer gets here, you’ll find me at Kits.

    But Mt. Pleasant hasn’t been left out in the lurch here. We won’t be lacking in facilities. It’s not a crisis situation.

    If the budget allows for it, by all means. Are there other communities that lacking in services that are a higher priority? Deal with them first.

    Just a thought.

  • westygrrl

    There is an outdoor leisure pool at the new Hillcrest complex, to be opened hopefully in the next few weeks.

    As per Bill S., there are indeed other communities lacking in park services, like many of those in south Vancouver – Marpole, Sunset & Fraser. Marpole lost its outdoor pool in the 1990s, and a new indoor, 365/24/7, fully competitive & leisure pool facility would go a long way to servicing not just south Vancouver but the entire city as well. It would be accessible by CanadaLine, buses, bike routes and cars.

    Pools are extremely expensive to build and to maintain. Community fundraising to fund this is pipe-dreaming. CAC’s and Park Board capital planning commitments are the only way to ensure proper facilities are planned, located and built for our growing population.

  • Lizzie

    As I understand it, the outdoor section at Hillcrest is essentially a wading pool – not more than 4 ft deep at its “deep” end.

  • Margery

    That is correct, Lizzie, it is jsut a wading pool. I think the point that wetygrrl makes that so many of Vancouver’s outdoor pools have been closed – Hatings, Oak, Sunset, and now Mount Pleasant, is more of an argument for replacing them than for not replacing them. And the fact that Park Board has passed a motion to rebuild Mount Pleasant Pool.

  • Bill Smolick

    In fairness, an outdoor pool is pretty much 100% of the investment for 50% of the return in Vancouver’s climate.

    I love them, but indoor pools make more financial sense.

  • http://www.chriskeam.com Chris Keam

    I’d like to know if that’s the case Bill. Certainly an indoor pool requires much more capital outlay in the beginning and heating it in the winter months when not many people seem to be swimming must really increase the cost-per-user for operational expenses.

    Mt. Pleasant Pool was packed on any sunny day in the summer, pretty much all day. It was definitely the most affordable outdoor recreation experience in the neighbourhood for the families using it. On the other hand, indoor pools are never that full when I go to them. I’ve never seen Britannia or Riley Park pool with anywhere near the amount of people using it as Mt. Pleasant, winter or summer.

    Based on my anecdotal observations, this closure disproportionately impacts kids and stay-at-home moms. Personally, I’d rather see one of the City’s pitch and putt courses closed (or sold for housing development) to finance that particular pool (and others in areas without an outdoor facility). There’s no shortage of golf courses IMO.

  • Margery

    Yes, an outdoor pool only requires maintenance for the period that it is open, and not year-round. Ice rinks are the most costly parks operation from my understanding – correct me if I’m wrong. Some of the kids that grew up spending their summers in Mount Pleasant Pool are now competitive swimmers.
    For most folks, and pools are accessible to 100% of the population, a dip in the pool on a hot summer day is just part of what makes cities liveable.

  • Bill Smolick

    I suppose I should have said “capital investment” to be more specific. Construction costs aren’t going to be that much less, but yes operating costs will be reduced.

    Mt. Pleasant pool is the same cost as Kits or New Brighton, so really we’re talking about favoring a Neighbourhood here, though geographically Mt. pleasant is somewhat central so might be a reasonable location.

    There’s a public outdoor pool that’s wading depth in the privleged enclave of Angus Flats…an over served Neighbourhood if ever ther was one.

    I would agree with losing a pitch and putt course instead though. A lot of acreage is dedicated to this that could otherwise generate value. Most courses are in parks though, so we might risk losing some park space at the same time.

  • Tessa

    West Ender: adding to the rental stock will affect the rent paid in older buildings. Even if that building may be out of reach, other people who can afford it will move into it, moving out of older buildings, which then become available. It means people won’t be lining up and fighting over rentals anymore, and instead it becomes a market where people renting actually have some power.

    If no new rental housing gets built, owners of those older buildings are more inclined to evict all the tenants, paint the units and rent them at twice the price, which is exactly what’s happened in many West End buildings, and something I would expect many West End residents would want to avoid.

  • Maureen

    Bill S states”There’s a public outdoor pool that’s wading depth in the privleged enclave of Angus Flats…an over served Neighbourhood if ever ther was one.”
    That would be Maple Grove pool and park – a renovation some years ago of an already long term existing outdoor pool at which Parks Board taught many children to swim over the years (including me) The users of Maple Grove pool come from all over the city -it is ironically the most accesible outdoor pool by public transportation and can be enjoyed by children and adults alike.

    For the record, the outdoor component of the HIllcrest pool is still not open, will not likely open this summer at all as it looks like the indoor one won’t open either. My sources tell me the outdoor wading pool has a leak already (that was their argument for replacing Percy Norman). Leisure destination pools are difficult to guard, need twice as many staff, are not conducive to swim clubs or swim meets, (forcing swim clubs to rent from UBC to hold meets), can be dangerous -see the stupid “current” at Killarney- and are a colossal waste of money. I have four children, all of whom learned to swim at Mount Pleasant pool. They have always been very happy and satisfied with a rectangle full of water, a diving board or two and some rings to toss in and dive after -no one NEEDS these fancy pools with all the bells and whistles. Who is consulted when these decisions are made? not the lifeguarding staff, not the swimmers -these decisions are made in a vacuum and no one benefits except the guy who I met at Simon Fraser school on Monday night who wants a clear space to throw his Frisbee around. Nice use of public money.

  • http://www.vancouveroutdoorpools.org Margery

    The first Annual General Meeting of the Vancouver Society for Promotion of Outdoor Pools is scheduled for Saturday, May 7th , from 2PM – 4PM.
    Meeting location: Mount Pleasant Community Centre, #1 Kingsway, Multipurpose Room 3 on the second Floor.
    Everyone is welcome, membership not required. People can become members at the door. Annual membership is $5 individual, $10 family, and $25 organization.
    Agenda:
    1. Introduction to Society
    2. Election of directors
    3. Financial Statements
    4. Status of Mount Pleasant Park and Pool
    5. Outdoor Aquatic Study – Park Board staff report to Planning and Environment Committee of Park Board May 12th at the Park Board Office
    6. Capital Plan Process
    7. Strategies for acquisition of new outdoor pool in upcoming Capital Plan
    8. Strategies for building our society membership
    9. Next Meeting: TBA
    Please bring others to this meeting who are interested in the preservation and promotion of outdoor pools and aquatics in Vancouver.
    Society website: vancouveroutdoorpools.org
    To become a member, please contact Anita Romaniuk, Treasurer, at or 604-720-7647
    Facebook: Vancouver Society for Promotion of Outdoor Pools
    Volunteers needed for registration, setup, counting election ballots, and distribution of information. Please contact the pool society through our website for information.
    POST THIS TO YOUR BLOGS> FACEBOOK> SUPERMARKET> LIBRARY> APARTMENT> SCHOOL> CHILDCARE> NEWSLETTERS> ETC

  • http://www.vancouveroutdoorpools.org Margery

    The first Annual General Meeting of the Vancouver Society for Promotion of Outdoor Pools is scheduled for Saturday, May 7th , from 2PM – 4PM.
    Meeting location: Mount Pleasant Community Centre, #1 Kingsway, Multipurpose Room 3 on the second Floor.
    Everyone is welcome, membership not required. People can become members at the door. Annual membership is $5 individual, $10 family, and $25 organization.
    Agenda:
    1. Introduction to Society
    2. Election of directors
    3. Financial Statements
    4. Status of Mount Pleasant Park and Pool
    5. Outdoor Aquatic Study – Park Board staff report to Planning and Environment Committee of Park Board May 12th at the Park Board Office
    6. Capital Plan Process
    7. Strategies for acquisition of new outdoor pool in upcoming Capital Plan
    8. Strategies for building our society membership
    9. Next Meeting: TBA
    Please bring others to this meeting who are interested in the preservation and promotion of outdoor pools and aquatics in Vancouver.
    Society website: http://vancouveroutdoorpools.org
    To become a member, please contact Anita Romaniuk, Treasurer, at or 604-720-7647
    Facebook: Vancouver Society for Promotion of Outdoor Pools
    Volunteers needed for registration, setup, counting election ballots, and distribution of information. Please contact the pool society through our website for information.
    POST THIS TO YOUR BLOGS> FACEBOOK> SUPERMARKET> LIBRARY> APARTMENT> SCHOOL> WORKPLACE>CHILDCARE> NEWSLETTERS> ETC

  • http://www.vancouveroutdoorpools.org/index.html Margery

    Vancouver Society for Promotion of Outdoor Pools holds its second AGM on Sunday, May 27 from 2-4pm in the meeting room next to the library at Mount Pleasant Community Centre (#1 Kingsway). Open to the public, members and non-members welcome. For further information please see our website.

  • Margery

    MOUNT PLEASANT COMMUNITY RAISES OVER $100,000.00 FOR REPLACEMENT SWIMMING POOL

    In December, 2012, Mount Pleasant Community Centre Association allocated $100K towards a replacement outdoor swimming pool for the neighbourhood. The original Mount Pleasant pool, built in 1967, was demolished in 2009 after reaching the end of its lifespan. Subsequently, and after years of lobbying by thousands of community members, a public consultation delivered undisputable evidence of the community’s support to replace the outdoor pool. In response to the consultation, space has been officially set aside in the new park for an outdoor pool, with a promise that a replacement pool will be built ‘when funds become available’. So far, however, Park Board has not initiated any efforts to consult and work with the community to raise funds, despite community calls for this to begin.
    The December 2012 contribution of $100K brings the total available so far to $101,179.84. Residents hope this will inspire Park Board to begin to look at other funding possibilities such as Capital Plan dollars, Community Amenity Contributions, funding from other levels of government, green technology grants, and private donations.
    —————————————————————–
    Full Story:
    On December 11, 2012, the Pool Committee of the Mount Pleasant Community Centre Association (MPCCA) put a motion forward to allocate 100K toward the outdoor pool replacement project in Mount Pleasant. The motion passed.
    This motion followed years of discussions at MPCCA Board meetings, and Park Board initiated public consultations that indicate clear community support for the replacement pool project. The campaign to ‘save’ Mount Pleasant Pool began when senior Park Board planners decided in 2001 that the neighbourhood outdoor pools should be closed, contrary to a city-wide survey that cited the majority support replacement of these facilities, and a desire for an increase in the number of outdoor community pools.
    Following election promises by Vision candidates in 2008 to work with the community on the pool replacement project, a large-scale community consultation process was launched. Commissioners stated that the pool would be built if public consultation indicated a clear desire. The results were overwhelming in favour of a replacement pool, and Mustel Group consultants could hardly contain themselves at the December 10, 2009 Park Board meeting where they announced that 88% favoured a replacement pool over any other optional park feature. Highlights of their presentation available on the Park Board website include:

    -The majority of respondents favoured a park design option that included the pool.
    -Timing and funding were not deterrents for respondents preferring the pool option.
    -Hillcrest outdoor pool is considered insufficient for older children and teens.
    -Ratings used to test the appeal of each option confirm that the new pool option is the most positively received by respondents.
    -Comments made by survey responders further emphasize demand for a pool at Mount Pleasant Park.

    A recommendation then passed unanimously to allocate a space in Mount Pleasant Park for a replacement pool to be built ‘when funds become available’. The three-year Capital Plan that was drafted shortly afterward did not include funds for a replacement pool.
    Park Board is now taking the position that outdoor pools are not a part of their recreation strategy, and that they are focussing on “year-round” aquatic facilities such as Riley Hillcrest. This ignores the very essence of the consultation results from surveys going back as far as 2000 that show a clear desire for retaining and replacing outdoor pools as valuable summer recreation facilities. It also implies that year round facilities are being planned around the city, when in fact there is neither the space nor the budget to do so. Some of Vancouver’s indoor pools need repairs and upgrades, but in the meantime the inventory of city wide pools has decreased with the closure of four outdoor swimming pools. Riley-Hillcrest was a replacement for the old Percy Norman Pool, and no new pools have been created to reflect the increased popularity of swimming pools or the population growth.
    Riley Hillcrest indoor pool cost over $30 million to build, but its outdoor wading pool component is merely a modernized version of the many basic wading pools that have been closed in city parks in recent years. The Mount Pleasant Pool replacement project will cost approximately $5 million and will provide thousands of people with the opportunity to engage in one of the most natural of recreational activities: swimming outdoors in the summer time.
    The disappearance of Vancouver’s outdoor pools is something that most Vancouverites can relate to. Four outdoor pools have been closed since 1994, all of them in the inner-city. New Westminster decided to rebuild Moody Pool after a small group of people held one rally. The Parks and Recreation department of New Westminster stated that it comes down to finding creative ways to provide citizens with what they tell us they value. Mount Pleasant Residents have held parades, pool parties, delivered thousands of petition signatures and letters, and participated in several public consultation processes. It is time that Park Board stops standing on the outdated position of senior planners from decades past that outdoor pools must be closed forever as they wear out, and respectfully act upon the outcome of public consultation as though it were a genuine process.
    Over the years, Park Board has stated that they would not put money into the Capital Plan for this project because the community had not raised any funds. The community has now raised $101,179.8400 toward this project. Mount Pleasant residents are hopeful that this will inspire Park Board to deliver on the promises made to look at creative ways to make this project a reality through Capital Plan dollars, Community Amenity Contributions, funding from other levels of government, green technology grants, and private donations.
    The Pool Committee will lobby Park Board to include outdoor swimming pools in their upcoming Recreation Services Review.

  • Margery

    INdisputable!