Port Place Mall Redevelopment

April 18, 2010

My take: the developer has been given clearance by the Planning Department to entrench a suburban shopping mall in the heart of our city core floating in a sea of parking stalls in return for pretty pictures of medium density urban housing for which there is no market and which the developer is under no obligation to ever build. The safe, walkable, diverse life at the sidewalk level is not the Planning Department’s to give away. It belongs to the people of the city whose interests are not represented when the developer and senior city staff and the majority of Council gather to dream and scheme. One of the fundamental principles of the Downtown Design Guidelines concerns surface parking. It states clearly:On-site surface parking is to be eliminated. It has to go above ground or underground. Expanses of surface parking kills healthy walkable neighbourhoods. It’s simple: no vehicles parked between a building and the street. And we begin to restore our human scale streetscape. Let’s tip the scale slightly in favour of the pedestrian instead of the car.

Port Place location plan2

Port Place location plan1

Here’s what the Downtown Design Guidelines has to say about this precinct which it refers to as Harbour Park – (emphasis mine)

This study area makes up most of the Harbour Park precinct and forms the south gateway to downtown. It is close to the waterfront and both the Protection and Gabriola Island ferries. Higher density development, including tall buildings, is appropriate in this area.

URBAN DESIGN STRATEGIES

Recommend 3 m front setback / build-to line. Allow 8 storeys for projects (or tall buildings as permitted) with underground parking at key landmark locations (see Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings). Roundabout feasibility and design will require Ministry of Transportation input.

1. Create transit exchange at the centre of the development. This is an opportunity to create an excellent shared roadway (see Urban Design section).

2. Create pedestrian plaza oriented toward waterfront. Improve linkages to waterfront walkway system, ferries, and the Commercial Street area.

3. Create dramatic gateway view from Nicol Street with single lane or double lane roundabout at Terminal Avenue with water feature or other sculpture incorporated into the design.

4. Create single lane or double lane roundabout at Front Street as landmark northeast of the development.

5. Mixed-use development with ground floor retail and residential or offices above. Six to eight storeys with service lanes between buildings. Buildings define street edge and create landmark for South Gate down Nicol Street.

6. On-site surface parking eliminated. Off-site parallel parking incorporated into streetscape. Potential underground parking, access mid-block towards Cameron Road.

7. New development along Lois Lane and Terminal Avenue to complete street edge definition and frame South Gate.

8. Port Way comprehensive development. Ground floor commercial with residential above. Define edge of Front Street and create axis into the new central plaza.

In general, here’s the Design Guidelines on parking:

Vehicle Parking

Underground parking is preferred. Surface parking, if necessary, should be located at the back of the site. On-site parking in front of a building, is not permitted.

• Shared driveways are encouraged to minimize interruption to the pedestrian realm. • Parking lots should be visually screened from bike pathways and sidewalks by way of walls, fences or landscaping. • Surface parking areas should be divided into sections with landscaped dividers between every 4 to 6 spaces. In addition to providing shade, a canopy of trees through the lot will help break down the scale of large surface parking areas and screen them from high level views.

• Above grade parking structures should provide habitable space along the perimeter. • Locate parking accesses away from pedestrian entries and intersections.

What do you think? If you think a suburban shopping mall floating in a sea of parking stalls doesn’t contribute to a human scale, pedestrian-friendly downtown, let the Planning Department and City Council know.

Nanaimo: the Cultural Capital of Canada (!)

From NanaimoCityHall blog May 26, 2010 at 2:06 pm

An area I’d like to see developed on the blog is in the general area of what can be broadly described as “culture”. It came to mind recently when I was reading the Daily News report about the consultants report to the new Economic Development Commission (Nanaimo needs an identity if it wants to grow, economic consultants say). It occurred to me that the question to ask is how can a modern little city have lost its identity? Do they think identities are something that can be thought up by committees?

What’s called culture in Nanaimo is a top-down affair funded mostly by City Hall. Remember the “Nanaimo: Cultural Capital of Canada” embarrassment?

Here’s what you have when you have a healthy organic cultural scene: ferment. A rich, interconnected scene cross-pollinating. I’d suggest it’s part of a broader problem here and in similar cities which are the result of planning decisions made over the last several decades that tend to separate us — where we live, from where we work, study and interact. You recognize it immediately when for instance you might find yourself in a “College Town” where the campus wasn’t built out in the suburbs, the downtown didn’t go into the kind of decline we’ve seen here; cafe’s and galleries and theatres are a part of the every day life of the locals, not contrivances designed to charm tourists. The irony being of course that tourists are more charmed by the authentic than the contrived (San Francisco, Halifax come to mind).

Comments here

Recommendations from PNAC Bizarre

Nanaimo News Bulletin, April 7, 2007 To the Editor, Re: Community plan review process questioned, March 29. This approaches the bizarre. The Plan Nanaimo Advisory Committee, while the Official Community Plan 10-year review is ongoing and while economic and environmental impact reports are not yet complete, has gone on record as opposing Plan Nanaimo tenets such as downtown densification – no condo towers on Stewart Avenue and no destination golf resort at Cable Bay. It has, however, embraced enthusiastically a Woodgrove, urban sprawl-style, automobile-dependent development outside the Urban Containment Boundary south of the current city limits. If this committee is a friend to Plan Nanaimo, imagine what its enemies must be cooking up. Frank Murphy , Nanaimo

South 'Gateway' More Like a Wall

Nanaimo News Bulletin, April 24, 2007 To the Editor, I attended the OCP 10-year review Infill and Densification Workshop with Ann McAfee, past co-director of the City of Vancouver planning department. McAfee, as she was recounting how important the leadership role played by elected city officials was in the successful revitalization of Vancouver neighbourhoods, asked if there were any civic politicians in attendance. There weren't. I understand this process is primarily to hear from the public on issues pertaining to Plan Nanaimo and I also understand that the atmosphere of rancor and vitriol where there should be robust discussion and debate must be tiresome. But there is a real need for leadership from our elected officials at this point in the process. When the dust settles in many small cities going through this period of change and renewal, I think these will be the standards by which success or failure will be judged: Did we learn from the past? Did we take the bold steps to reign in sprawl and densify our downtown cores? Did we innovate? Were our new projects stand-alone entities or were they integrated into their neighbourhoods? Were elements like public transit woven into each new project? Did we stop planning and designing for the automobile and start planning and designing for the pedestrian? Did we understand the new economy we will increasingly find ourselves in? An economy of creativity, education and training, innovation. It seems to me we're poised to score highly on these points. We have the opportunity to create a healthy, sustainable little city. It starts with the continued densification and critical mass of mixed uses in the downtown core. Massive, sprawling projects such as the Snuneymuxw First Nation and Northwest Properties South Nanaimo Lands proposal outside the Urban Containment Boundary will set back downtown revitalization ' and therefore the economic and cultural health of the entire city ' for five, 10 even 15 years. This welcome and exciting investment in our city should be redirected into the downtown core and existing south Nanaimo neighbourhoods. The regional shopping centre envisioned by this project is the revitalized core of the city. The 'gateway' to the region described in the South Nanaimo Lands proposal is more accurately a wall. Frank Murphy, Nanaimo

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

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.

_________________________ 

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