Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Parks general manager to leave even earlier than originally planned

October 19th, 2009 · 4 Comments

This internal email from parks general manager Susan Mundick just flew in my window. Now, instead of “helping with the transition for as long as needed,” she is now leaving immediately. Hmm, sounds like there’s unpleasantness going on. I’m sure the scuffling in the past month, when Mundick was on vacation part of the time, over who would do what when it comes to the hiring of her replacement didn’t help. (See past coverage here there and everywhere.)

Sent:   Monday, October 19, 2009 12:14 PM
To:     Ho, Anita; Manning, Bill; Chin, Daisy; Wilson, Chris; Dempsey, Alison; Murphy, Diane; Gannon, Vicki; Grant, John; Jongerden, G. Harry; Davis – Johnson, Kate; Kuran, Peter; McKenna, Liane; Vulliamy, Mark; Elliott, Meg; Josephs, Philip; Rutgers, Piet; Caswell, Ron; Soulliere, Thomas; Walton, Terry
Subject:        Announcement
Importance:     High

This message is sent on behalf of Susan Mundick, General Manager, Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation
——————————

———————————————————————————————————————————–

Dear Directors and Managers,

After reflection on my recent retirement announcement, I have decided to leave my position effective immediately.  I want to express my appreciation and thanks for all your support and kindness during this transition and the 11 memorable years here at the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation.  I wish you all every success and I look forward to an opportunity in the near future to celebrate my retirement from the Park Board/City of Vancouver.

Susan Mundick

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Sean Bickerton

    I sincerely hope the timing has nothing to do with efforts currently underway to try to ram through a row of condos along Pacific Blvd instead of the long-promised Creekside Park.

    The city is facing unprecedented new development and we need a strong, independent Park Board more than ever.

    For those of you concerned about Creekside Park – http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=67342254524 – please come out for the Planning & Environment hearing in City Hall this Thursday at 2pm. Many residents will be speaking to council about the need to ensure this promise to future generations is kept. Please join us!

  • Joe Just Joe

    Sean, I agree completely with the need for an independant park board. Although I feel the revised proposal for Creekside park is acutally far superior to the original proposal.
    1) It will allow the park to be constructed right away instead of upon completion of the Concord Parcel.
    2) It will provide twice as much access to the waterfront (although the water might not be currently inviting it will one day soon be)
    3) more access to sunlight

  • Sean Bickerton

    Hi Joe, I agree completely about the need to speed up a park that has been delayed now for 20 years, there are other ways to accomplish that – the city could just appropriate the land and have the Park Board build the park as approved.

    Unfortunately the proposal as submitted would divide Creekside Park – intended as a welcoming gateway destination park – into three thin lozenze-shaped dogwalk strips in front of a row of new towers. The three cantonized lozenge shaped parks would be created by the extension of both the Carrall St Greenway and Abbott St to the water’s edge. Those dissecting roads are not shown in the architect’s plans, nor does it show the road that would run parallel to Pacific in between the row of luxury towers and the park.

    It would look like a patchwork quilt of small green lawns, intersected and bordered by three roads, instead of a large, contiguous gateway destination for all Vancouver to enjoy.

  • Joe Just Joe

    The only road persay would be the Carrall St Greenway extended to the seawall, it wouldn’t really be a road though as it’s only pedestrian and bike accessible. I agree that it does break up the park though.
    The road along the back of the condos would be more of a mews, it would only provide connection to their parkades and should see pretty minimal traffic, especially considering how little parking is being proposed for those towers.

    The issue with the city just building the park now is that it could not even if it had the funds and desire to, the site is earmarked to receive the contaimanted soil from the Concord parcel, for the city to build the park they would also have to excavate the concord parcel first which isn’t going to happen.
    I get the feeling that more of the issue of the revised park is the impact on views then it is about the park.