Friday, May 21, 2010

Email Thread With Architect Franc D'Ambrosio re Port Place Redevelopment

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Memo Murphy Port Place Redevelopment.docx
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 16:30:17 -0700
From: Franc D'Ambrosio <fdambrosio@fdarc.ca>
To: Frank Murphy <frankmurphy@shaw.ca>


 OK, but be careful not to antagonize mayor and council and staff. Even if public agencies deserve criticism (they try but often the alternative to the status quo and the City's economic system is extremely difficult), changing the prevailing ideas and economic drivers of city-building has to be achieved by a collaborative and diplomatic approach if a more desirable outcome is the goal.

Architect Franc D'Ambrosio
fdambrosio@fdarc.ca

On 21-May-10, at 1:32 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:

Thanks for this Franc. -- I'm exploring how to engage the developer in conversation with the surrounding neighbourhood groups -- not to set them up in a shooting gallery but try to open up an actually conversation. Can I quote from this email on the blog?

Frank

On 19/05/2010 11:58 AM, Franc D'Ambrosio wrote:

Thanks for keeping me in the loop Frank.

While I understand the pressures on the owner, and his on the Mayor and Council, and I am familiar with the resulting compromises that the Mayor (through his staff) is making, I do not believe that these are anything other than accommodating a private sector economic priority over the public interest in the future of the city as a whole. I am disappointed but not discouraged as I spend much time dealing with this conundrum in many of our projects.

The public process and direct appeal to the owner are still two potential avenues for possibly redeeming the proposal.

Orchestrating a grass-roots move to exert pressure; and perhaps make Council aware that there desire to increase commercial tax base results simply in a private commercial business being allowed to derive a higher profit margin from the public at the expense of the quality of the life of that same public.

Sometimes an owner needs the knowledge that there may not be public(customer?) support for what they are proposing. They must somehow be convinced that they must take a longer term and broader view of the impact their businesses have on the 'host city' that they choose to consider as a market for their wares and a place to park their customers cars.

Architect Franc D'Ambrosio
MAIBC MRAIC LEED ap

 Principal
D ' A M B R O S I O
a r c h i t e c t u r e + u r b a n i s m
 ___________ http://www.fdarc.ca


2960 Jutland Road Victoria BC Canada V8T5K2
t 250.384.2400 f 250.384.7893 e info@fdarc.ca

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Email From Architect Franc D'Ambrosio re Port Place Redevelopment

_________________________
I do not believe that these are anything other than accommodating a private sector economic priority over the public interest in the future of the city as a whole. I am disappointed but not discouraged as I spend much time dealing with this conundrum in many of our projects.
_________________________  

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Memo Murphy Port Place Redevelopment.docx
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 11:58:11 -0700
From: Franc D'Ambrosio <fdambrosio@fdarc.ca>
To: Frank Murphy <frankmurphy@shaw.ca>


 Thanks for keeping me in the loop Frank.

While I understand the pressures on the owner, and his on the Mayor and Council, and I am familiar with the resulting compromises that the Mayor (through his staff) is making, I do not believe that these are anything other than accommodating a private sector economic priority over the public interest in the future of the city as a whole. I am disappointed but not discouraged as I spend much time dealing with this conundrum in many of our projects.

The public process and direct appeal to the owner are still two potential avenues for possibly redeeming the proposal.

Orchestrating a grass-roots move to exert pressure; and perhaps make Council aware that there desire to increase commercial tax base results simply in a private commercial business being allowed to derive a higher profit margin from the public at the expense of the quality of the life of that same public.

Sometimes an owner needs the knowledge that there may not be public(customer?) support for what they are proposing. They must somehow be convinced that they must take a longer term and broader view of the impact their businesses have on the 'host city' that they choose to consider as a market for their wares and a place to park their customers cars.

Architect Franc D'Ambrosio
MAIBC MRAIC LEED ap
Principal
D ' A M B R O S I O
a r c h i t e c t u r e + u r b a n i s m
___________ http://www.fdarc.ca

2960 Jutland Road Victoria BC Canada V8T5K2
t 250.384.2400 f 250.384.7893 e info@fdarc.ca

_________________________ 
Sometimes an owner needs the knowledge that there may not be public(customer?) support for what they are proposing. They must somehow be convinced that they must take a longer term and broader view of the impact their businesses have on the 'host city' that they choose to consider as a market for their wares and a place to park their customers cars.
_________________________ 

Monday, May 10, 2010

Memo From Mayor Ruttan re Port Place Redevelopment

EMAIL TO: Frank Murphy [frankmurphy@shaw.ca]

FROM: Mayor John Ruttan, CITY OF NANAIMO

DATE: 2010-May-18 FILE: DP613/614

RE: Port Place Mall Redevelopment


I want to acknowledge receipt of your email and request to retain Frank D’Ambrosio for a third-party review of the Port Place Mall redevelopment plan.

As you may or may not know, the redevelopment plan includes the following applications:

  1. Rezoning to permit a high-rise residential tower (application received: 2009-Jun-02).
  2. Development Permit to authorize the construction of a freestanding Commercial Rental Unit on 9 Nicol Street (application received: 2009-Jun-02).
  3. Development Permit for the overall mall redevelopment plan (application received: 2009-Jun-02).

This is an extremely complex redevelopment plan, especially given the owner’s attempt to accommodate existing anchor tenants (i.e. Thrifty Foods, London Drugs) and the practicality of retaining significant on-site infrastructure, such as the above-ground parkade. The owner has made a concerted effort to balance the needs of the tenants and existing infrastructure against the City and provincial policies and regulations in the creation of the redevelopment plans.

Many trade-offs have been made by the owner to address elements of the City’s downtown Urban Design Plan and View Corridors policies, and to deal with provincial access requirements. In particular, the interconnection of Terminal Avenue and Front Street with a new access road has formed a fundamental starting point for the redevelopment plan and goes a long way to addressing the “de-malling” of the site.

The review of these applications has been underway for a considerable amount of time, with one application currently approved and all been considered by the City’s Design Panel on several occasions. I have been advised that both Staff and the Design Panel are recommending that Council approve the developments as proposed. It is my understanding that the overall development permit application and rezoning application will be ready for Council’s consideration in the near future. The rezoning application, in particular, will allow for input from the public, as part of the Public Hearing process. The construction of the Commercial Rental Unit on 9 Nicol Street can proceed to construction as soon as the owner would like to start.

We are extremely appreciative of the owner’s vision for the mall and their commitment to the City’s downtown redevelopment. I am confident that both Staff and Council’s Committee system have provided the necessary evaluation and adequate review process for this project.

I am not supportive of a third-party review at this time. The application has been through a full and proper technical review and it is time for Council to consider the merits of approving the application as presented. Thank you for your interest in this project and I would encourage you to keep involved as Council considers the owner’s request for rezoning and development permit approvals.




John Ruttan
M A Y O R


ECS/hp
Prospero: DP613/DP614

ec: Council Members
Al Kenning, City Manager
Douglas Holmes, Assistant City Manager and General Manager, Corporate Services
Andy Laidlaw, General Manager, Community Services


Thursday, April 29, 2010

Email Thread With Architect Franc D'Ambrosio, Andrew Tucker re Port Place Redevelopment

I would gladly contribute my time to meet with the ADP and/or with Council and/or with Planning staff for the purpose of, in the context of the redevelopment of the Port Place site, discussing, clarifying and interpreting the downtown guidelines we authored. I think that the compartmentalization of the different areas of the site into separate applications is antithetical to the integrated-use and comprehensive development planning approach that was envisioned as the guiding process for the revitalization of downtown and the repair of the city's street geometry.
________________________________________
Is it possible that short-term financial concerns and a lack of initiative is allowing both developer and Council to take the easy way out? I am the first to acknowledge that comprehensive planning and urban design is a more complex and careful approach to city-building. However the results have a far better chance of rising above the status- quo mediocrity, ugliness, and poor performance that is more likely to result if bottom-line driven dated suburban strategies continue to be accepted by citizens and their elected representatives. 
________________________________________
I think Council must become aware of the potential to either take a great step forward in the planning of downtown, or a step backward that would see the disruptive and auto-oriented suburban mall typology continue to dominate the south end of downtown and continue to segregate the downtown from this area and importantly, from the future redeveloped waterfront. On that note, I am surprised that an overall plan that would integrate the downtown plan with the waterfront is not being undertaken while deliberations for a cruise ship pier are occurring...
________________________________________ 
...the principles, ideas, approach and goals [contained in the Downtown Design Guidelines] for a redevelopment plan certainly can be taken as important determinants in the design of a more effective, heterogeneous, and positive urban design for the proposed project. I would also respectfully submit that the resulting plan could also be more economically successful.

As I read it now, the proposed plan, while marginally improving on some minor cosmetic aspects of the strip- mall typology, is still a suburban mall, surrounded by parking and 'pad' commercial buildings complete with fast food outlets and drive-thrus. I see only tokens of 'urbanism' in a small portion (stage-set) of storefronts and diagonal parking, privatized and disconnected from adjacent public streets.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Port Place Mall
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 16:56:34 -0700
From: Franc D'Ambrosio <fdambrosio@fdarc.ca>
To: Frank Murphy <frankmurphy@shaw.ca>


Thank you Frank. I am interested and have made some calls.
I am told by City staff that the application is on hold as of last week. Can you confirm that?
I too find it curious that (if?) the ADP has endorsed the application.

Perhaps this is an opportunity for a sober second thought?

I would gladly contribute my time to meet with the ADP and/or with Council and/or with Planning staff for the purpose of, in the context of the redevelopment of the Port Place site, discussing, clarifying and interpreting the downtown guidelines we authored. I think that the compartmentalization of the different areas of the site into separate applications is antithetical to the integrated-use and comprehensive development planning approach that was envisioned as the guiding process for the revitalization of downtown and the repair of the city's street geometry.

I know Trevor Boddy and am familiar with his initiative in Surrey. I think that the interest being shown by you and your group, and by people like him and I for the City of Nanaimo, indicates that the direction we see being taken as being ultimately detrimental to the City and to the costly effort and direction that has been espoused by Council for the last number of years.

The Planning Institute's highest award given for the Nanaimo Urban Design Plan and Guidelines last year is an indication that we got it right and that, on paper at least, Council and staff were moving in the right direction.

Is it possible that short-term financial concerns and a lack of initiative is allowing both developer and Council to take the easy way out? I am the first to acknowledge that comprehensive planning and urban design is a more complex and careful approach to city-building. However the results have a far better chance of rising above the status- quo mediocrity, ugliness, and poor performance that is more likely to result if bottom-line driven dated suburban strategies continue to be accepted by citizens and their elected representatives.

I think Council must become aware of the potential to either take a great step forward in the planning of downtown, or a step backward that would see the disruptive and auto-oriented suburban mall typology continue to dominate the south end of downtown and continue to segregate the downtown from this area and importantly, from the future redeveloped waterfront. On that note, I am surprised that an overall plan that would integrate the downtown plan with the waterfront is not being undertaken while deliberations for a cruise ship pier are occurring...

I think that while the redevelopment plan for the mall, as shown in our urban design plan and guidelines, may not be able to be literally executed, the principles, ideas, approach and goals for a redevelopment plan certainly can be taken as important determinants in the design of a more effective, heterogeneous, and positive urban design for the proposed project. I would also respectfully submit that the resulting plan could also be more economically successful.

As I read it now, the proposed plan, while marginally improving on some minor cosmetic aspects of the strip- mall typology, is still a suburban mall, surrounded by parking and 'pad' commercial buildings complete with fast food outlets and drive-thrus. I see only tokens of 'urbanism' in a small portion (stage-set) of storefronts and diagonal parking, privatized and disconnected from adjacent public streets.

I will stop my polemical rant now as I have to get back to work.

Please keep me advised and let me know if there is anything I can do.

Regards,

Architect Franc D'Ambrosio
MAIBC MRAIC LEED ap

Principal
D ' A M B R O S I O
a r c h i t e c t u r e + u r b a n i s m
___________ http://www.fdarc.ca
2960 Jutland Road Victoria BC Canada V8T5K2
t 250.384.2400 f 250.384.7893 e info@fdarc.ca

On 29-Apr-10, at 1:38 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:

Hi Franc - I thought this might be of interest as your name comes up... I'll be pursuing this through the Design Advisory Panel which has inexplicably recommended approval. I'm mystified but my understanding is it has not gone to council yet though merchants are leaving the mall and work looks to be ready to proceed.. Happy to keep you up to date on this if you like...

If you haven't seen this -- here's Trevor Boddy's invite to council and staff.

Frank


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Port Place Mall
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:45:33 -0700
From: Frank Murphy <frankmurphy@shaw.ca>
To: Andrew Tucker <Andrew.Tucker@nanaimo.ca>


Thanks Andrew - This is helpful and appreciated. I have a number of questions -- a number of them no doubt of the dumb variety -- and I don't want to scattergun them at you. Is there, in the interest of not taking up a lot of your valuable time, someone I can ask for instance -

Who sits on the Design Advisory Panel?
Who Chairs it?
How can I access agendas and minutes? I see on the City website its schedule of meetings for 2010.
Are its meetings as I assume all City Panels and Committees and Commissions are, open to the public?

Frank


On 29/04/2010 9:47 AM, Andrew Tucker wrote:

Frank,
There are currently three applications in stream for the Port Place Mall and the adjacent property located at 9 Nicol Street. The details of all three applications are available on the City’s website using NanaimoMap under the Development theme.
The Development Permit (DP) application for 9 Nicol Street is for a two storey stand alone commercial building with access from Esplanade and Nicol Streets. This application became delayed as the applicant sought to resolve access issues with the Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure. The City supports a right-in/right-out off Esplanade and a right-out only onto Nicol/Terminal.
The DP application for Port Place Mall is for the first phase of redevelopment which includes demolition of the western portion of the mall to create a private road connection through the mall property to the Gabriola Ferry and the creation of a “High Street” with a two storey commercial building along the northern edge of the street.
Both DP applications have been considered by the City’s Design Advisory Panel (DAP) and recommended for approval. The applicant has advised that they are wishing to make modifications to both sets of plans already submitted so we are awaiting revised plans before determining if the application will require reconsideration by the DAP. If the modifications are substantial then the applications will go back in front of the DAP before consideration by City Council.
The Rezoning application is to facilitate the longer term redevelopment of the site. The longer term vision put forward by the property owner is for increased residential components along Cameron Road and on the SE corner of the site. The Cameron Road is proposed as an 8 storey building whereas the SE corner of the site is proposed as a high rise tower in accordance with the Downtown Plan. Given the applicant’s desire to make modifications to the plans submitted to date, this too will await revised plans.
With regards to Franc D’Ambrosio, he was the consultant for the City’s Downtown Design Guidelines. He does not have any ongoing contract with the City to provide design advice and has therefore not commented to the City on the development proposals.
Andrew Tucker
Director of Planning
City of Nanaimo

From: Frank Murphy [mailto:frankmurphy@shaw.ca]
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 4:57 PM
To: Andrew Tucker; Ted Swabey
Subject: Port Place Mall


Andrew and Ted - Can you tell me -- or tell me how I can find -- the status and the timelines of the Port Place Mall redevelopment? It's sparking a lot of interest on the new blog NanaimoCityHall. Also, can you tell me if there's been feedback on the development proposal from Franc D'Ambrosio's firm in regards to how it does or doesn't reflect the approach recommended by the Downtown Design Guidelines?

Have a look -- It would be great to hear from you on the blog.

Thanks -

- Frank Murphy




From: Franc D'Ambrosio <fdambrosio@fdarc.ca>
Date: Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: Nanaimo's Downtown Design Guidelines
To: Frank Murphy <frankmurphy@shaw.ca>


Thank you for your email. I am pleased that this blog is a forum for public discussion and that there is some public interest in acting on the Urban Design Plan recommendations. I would be interested in seeing the proposed Port Place redevelopment plans as I have read that the planning department is supportive of the proposal. Where can I see the drawings? The website for the project is not up yet.

I was disappointed that neither the City Planners or the mall owner/ developer have contacted me in the interest of  discussing the intentions and the principles illustrated in the document we produced. I know that I expected that we would be asked to assist in interpreting some of the work and help integrate its' intentions with any development strategies contemplated for the subject areas.

I will wait to see what they have proposed before I comment. Same goes for the contemplated downtown waterfront pier that could be located in the area that was intentionally excluded from our scope of work and, as far as I know, has yet to be the subject of a comprehensive urban design plan to integrate that important land area with the downtown.

I look forward to following your debates and discussions.

Best Regards,

Architect Franc D'Ambrosio
              fdambrosio@fdarc.ca