Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Ridge Theatre, Varsity Bowl appear headed for demolition as Cressey gets the OK for lower building at dev permit board

October 23rd, 2012 · 64 Comments

So glad there are all these energetic young reporters covering night meetings, so we can learn this.

 

Categories: Uncategorized

←  Older Comments
 →
  • brilliant

    @Tessa-are you being deliberately obtuse? As you know the city us enabling this project by adding land to the pot. The viaduct study isn’t planning, its a waste of taxpayer money to study an even bigger waste, removing infrastructure to further the Hollyhock agenda and deliver a nice payoff to Vision’s funders to boot.

    As to the Ridge, where’s Heather Deal? Isn’t that supposed to be her file. But then of course you Visionistas know this project just strikes at the NPA base, as does Dunbar upzoning. The basement suite dwelling bikers aren’t effected so Vision doesn’t care.

  • gmgw

    I have no idea why people in this thread (Tessa @ #48 for instance) keep obtusely assuming that the only option for saving the Ridge would have been for the city to buy and operate it, unchanged, preserved in amber. Much as I would have liked to have seen the Ridge saved, I would not have wanted to see it run by the City, which, as I have already pointed out several times in the previous Ridge thread, has no structures in place to take on such an enterprise. There are other models for theatre operation in this city, notably the Pacific Cinematheque and the VIFF’s VanCity operation, both of which are nonprofits that survive on a combination of incomes: Ticket revenue, theatre rentals, and a system of grants and incentives from various sources at various levels of government. The Ridge could have been transformed into a similar facility. The City could have bought it and leased it to a non-profit society, or helped to subsidize a private operator. For government subsidization, it would be less controversial to operate it as a non-profit, though as I have already argued, it is long past time that single-screen movie theatres were seen as cultural institutions worthy of government support, whether in terms of Canada Council-style grants, leasing help, or whatever. This is a shift in the paradigm that has already taken place in other, more enlightened cities. And as far as the actual operation of the theatre goes, there’s nothing that says it would have had to be exclusively a movie theatre. Look at what the folks at the Rio are trying to do (aided by their hard-fought-for liquor license), with some success: A combination of film screenings, musical events, theatrical presentations, private events (I’ve attended special screenings held there by NGOs, for instance), what-have-you; limited only by the imagination of the operators. In other words, a diverse community cultural resource in a space easily adapted for multiple purposes. The Ridge could have become a “Rio West” in a city governed by an administration that genuinely cared for the arts as much as it does the eager servicing of developers like brood mares. Instead, we are to have yet another condo development that only the wealthy will be able to afford to buy into (this in a city whose Mayor constantly trumpets empty platitudes about “affordable housing””). Gosh, we just don’t have enough of those.

    I willingly acknowledge that this is to some extent a Utopian fantasy, and that other factors were at work in the Ridge disaster which might have prevented any of this from coming into being. Cressey bought the property some time ago and the time for the City to act would have been back when it first became clear that the Ridge was vulnerable to redevelopment. And I’m not saying any of these suggestions would have guaranteed success in saving the Ridge (and perhaps the bowling alley as a tailgate benefit) or turing into the kind of operation I’ve suggested. But I haven’t heard anyone else in this thread or in this city (least of all at City Hall) proposing possible solutions of salvation. There wasn’t even the ghost of a struggle, except for those feisty bowlers. As with too many regressive actions in this city, it’s as if everyone hopelessly accepts the inevitable, standing around dejectedly with hands in pockets, shrugging and murmuring “…there’s nothing we can do…”. Bull****!! Even if you’re going down, always go down fighting, dammit! Ideas like these could have at least been raised, discussed and considered, along with other creative, “visionary” (ahem) proposals. As they could be to save the Granville 7, and could have been for the Hollywood. But no. Not in dear old brain-dead Parvenuver, where, as ever, the maximization of profit takes precedence above all other things. One can never say it often enough to completely savour the irony: When it comes to arts and culture and the urgent need to protect and sustain them, this is a city almost completely lacking in Vision.
    gmgw

  • Mira

    gmgw…52, well said!
    Unfortunately, this pathetic Mayor only plays his trombone inside the Vision Theatre, a little For Profit private enterprise disguised as a progressive political party (window dressing for suckers). If they are so eager for change in… the other direction, I propose to start with their redistribution of wealth plans… from him and his Hollyhock friends! Today!

  • Chris Keam

    “this pathetic Mayor”

    Gosh, I can’t imagine where our kids get the idea that bullying is OK.

  • brilliant

    @Chris Keam-a job evaluation isn’t bullying. If Gregor is such a hothouse flower he should get out of the kitchen. Please.

  • Chris Keam

    No worries Brilliant, Its a hard row to hoe to behave as we would hope others might treat us. Everybody fails at it, as often as not. The first step is to forgive, and then to call out the ignorance that cultivates. But it’s also important to ask what reward one might derive from name-calling? Usually a by-product of ignorance and fear. Not much can be done except to bear witness again and again until those who traffic in the anonymous slag find the ethical playground an unwelcome place. I suspect that’s the thing that frightens you?

  • spartikus

    I say this as a film lover:

    The Rio model sounds good on paper but it hasn’t stood the test of time yet. And it came about solely because of the dogged determination of the owners to make it work. That seems lacking here.

    To my knowledge no non-profit stepped up with a proposal. Pretend one did. A “Rio West” would compete with “Rio East” potentially putting both in jeopardy.

    As a physical space to watch movies in The Ridge is terrible. The seats are uncomfortable. The floor is flat, not angled. The screen is small. The sound is tinny. It’s cold and damp. It desperately needs refurbishment. Who foots the bill? As the Denman Theatre demonstrates, refurbishment does not guarantee survival.

    Movie attendance is on a long-term decline across North America. Theaters like they have in Portland that are small & intimate, serve alcohol and food and you sit in sofas are one way to entice people back. But I think such innovations are stop-gaps.

    Film as we know it – a 2-dimensional image projected on a screen – on the scale that we know it, is nearing the end. Cinema the art form will be transmitted to us in new ways and new formats. There will be holdouts for decades but their numbers will dwindle.

    Saving, or replacing elsewhere, the bowling alley seems a higher priority.

  • Chris Keam

    “If Gregor is such a hothouse flower he should get out of the kitchen.”

    BTW, that’s a crap mixed metaphor. 🙂

  • Tessa

    GMGW #52:

    I agree. A Rio-style theatre would have been wonderful, a great addition. But you enumerated the many differences in your own post that I think, at this point, made this not a worthwhile exercise. You can go down fighting all you want, but to do so now would be only a political smokescreen.

    The Ridge is owned by a development company and has been for years. It doesn’t have the same rather unusual situation that has helped save the Rio. It’s a shame. I’m not arguing otherwise.

    What I’m disagreeing with is a sad attempt by others on this thread to turn the Ridge into a hammer to beat the current council with when what they’re asking the council to do is not only unreasonable but absurd, and if the tables were turned and this were their favoured council they would jump at the chance to defend them and admit that this isn’t council’s fault.

    Okay, council could have withheld selling a sliver of land. So what? That’s not going to stop a development company from developing on land within the zoning that they already own. Could that have been used as more of a bargaining chip? Probably. But the city wasn’t going to convince the developers to preserve the theatre building except by purchasing the site themselves, and I don’t think that’s a worthy use of city funds. Unfortunate as the result may be.

    And buying the site is going to cost more than $5,000.

    As for Brilliant’s belief that a viaduct study isn’t urban planning, it may be urban planning that he disagrees with, but it’s urban planning. Thus it is unquestionably part of the city’s mandate.

    And it’s urban planning that furthers a goal that is backed up by empirical research around the world and as part of a larger plan to achieve a specific set of adjectives that Vision and others believe will enhance the liveability of the city. And I agree too, though I’m often at odds with this council on other topics. For the larger goal, see the city’s 2040 Transportation Plan.

    As for Dunbar intensification, welcome to Vancouver. The entire city is intensifying. The fact that Dunbar hasn’t been given special status to ignore the demographic facts is hardly evidence of West-Side bashing (in fact, Dunbar has continued to receive a lower share of intensification than other parts of the city, hurting the chances Dunbar’s aging residents have of ageing in place).

  • rowbat

    R.I.P. Varsity Ridge

  • waltyss

    People who are interested in this debate might want to read Allen Garr’s well researched article in the Vancouver Courier: http://www.vancourier.com/news/Trying+save+Dunbar+Varsity+lanes+like+trying+stop+time/7447789/story.html.
    The article points out that the property sold for some $20 million. Those suggesting the city should have bought it in order to preserve a movie theatre and a bowling alley might want to ponder just what the criteria should be for the city investing this type of money into something that rightly belongs with the private sector.
    I love nostagia as much as the next guy but when someone wants to use scarce dollars to support something that makes little economic sense amid the West Sides astronomic land values, then we part company.

  • MB

    @ gmgw, I share your dismay about the defeatism surrounding culture.

    I would like to clarify that the VIFF VanCity Theatre resulted from a density bonus in the Brava development that houses it, plus a $1 million grant by VanCity.

    Perhaps this is a model that can save existing — or create new — cultural amenities, depending on the circumstances. Perhaps they don’t need to be entirely devoted to one type of venue (e.g. film), but can be acessible to several (e.g. meeting hall, live theatre, misic studios, etc.) that happens to have high-quality sound / video equipmet tucked away behind the curtains.

    @ Tessa 59:

    What I’m disagreeing with is a sad attempt by others on this thread to turn the Ridge into a hammer to beat the current council with when what they’re asking the council to do is not only unreasonable but absurd, and if the tables were turned and this were their favoured council they would jump at the chance to defend them and admit that this isn’t council’s fault.

    Bravo!

    Cultural amenities are multi-generational and outlast many 3-year political terms. This topics need a long view.

  • Ned

    Waltyss @61
    thanks for the perfect definition of how Vision Vancouver operates:
    “…but when someone wants to use scarce dollars to support something that makes little economic sense amid the West Sides astronomic land values, then we part company.”
    I could not have said it better myself.

  • Adam Fitch

    @jolson, you state: “Neighbourhood Plans should not be directed by Development Planners but rather by Social Planners.”

    To some degree, they are. But the issue here is not neighbourhood planning, it is development approvals. The zoning is in place on that site, and the role of the development permit board is simply to ensure that a proposed development meets the City’s guidelines for form and character of development.

    The land use and density issues have already been decided a long time ago via the conference of zoning.

    If you want to remove zoning rights from a property, that is a major city policy question, and a much bigger question than one site. It would be very risky for the City of Vancouver, or any city, to remove development rights via downzoning.

    That would be social engineering, combined with fiscal and legal recklessness.

←  Older Comments
 →