Tag Archives: vision vancouver

Where the City Breathes: The Enduring Story of Vancouver’s Park Board

#CdnPoli | Canadian Politics, #VanElxn 2026, BC Politics, Environment, Park Board, Vancouver, , , , , , , , ,

The history of the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, more commonly known as the Vancouver Park Board, is in many ways the history of Vancouver.

Few public institutions have done more to shape the daily lives of residents than the elected body charged with protecting the city’s forests, beaches, community centres,  gardens and public gathering places.

Long before Vancouver became celebrated for its livability, the Park Board was quietly laying the foundations for the city that would emerge — a city where parks were not an afterthought, but the framework around which neighbourhoods would grow.

For well over a century, Vancouver’s Park Board has remained one of the most cherished civic institutions anywhere in North America.

Current  2022 elected Commissioners mandated to oversee decision-making at Vancouver’s Park Board

It is one of a handful of fully elected, independent park boards across the continent, exercising powers granted under the Vancouver Charter.

While virtually every other major North American city places parks and recreation under the direct authority of city council or a municipal department, Vancouver entrusted those responsibilities to Commissioners elected directly by the public.

That institutional independence has often produced spirited political debates, occasional conflict with City Hall, and differing visions for Vancouver’s future.

Yet it has also allowed generations of Commissioners to devote themselves exclusively to parks, recreation and public space — an extraordinary civic experiment that has helped define Vancouver’s identity.

The origins of the Park Board date to 1888, only two years after Vancouver’s incorporation as a city.

The fledgling municipality recognized early on that preserving public land would be essential if the young city were to avoid the mistakes made elsewhere, where development consumed valuable waterfronts and forests before governments acted to protect them.

The Board’s original mandate was straightforward but ambitious: acquire, preserve and improve public park land for present and future generations.

Over time that mandate expanded dramatically to include playgrounds, sports fields, beaches, golf courses, marinas, swimming pools, arenas, horticulture, urban forestry, environmental stewardship, arts programming, recreation services, cultural events and, eventually, the management of one of Canada’s largest systems of community recreation centres.

Among the Board’s earliest achievements was the preservation and stewardship of Stanley Park, which remains one of the world’s great urban parks. Commissioners oversaw improvements to trails, beaches, seawalls, gardens and recreation facilities while preserving the park’s extraordinary natural landscape.

Throughout the twentieth century the Board continued acquiring neighbourhood parks as Vancouver expanded westward and southward. Small local parks became the green hearts of emerging communities, ensuring that nearly every resident would live within walking distance of public open space.

An equally transformative chapter began after the Second World War with the emergence of Vancouver’s community centres.

Across neighbourhoods, citizens had organized independently to build and operate recreation facilities. These community centre associations were grassroots organizations, led almost entirely by volunteers. Local residents raised money, organized activities, hired instructors, operated concessions, planned events and determined programming reflecting each neighbourhood’s unique character.

In the early through mid-1950s, these independent volunteer-run community organizations commenced discussions on realizing a formal partnership with the Vancouver Park Board that rather than replace local control embraced the volunteer model. The resulting partnership became one of the most successful examples of community governance in Canada.

To this day, community centre associations continue to elect volunteer boards composed of neighbourhood residents. The Park Board supplies professional staff, access to maintenance support — although, since 2009, the City has largely failed on that front — recreation expertise and long-term capital investment.

Together, the Vancouver Park Board, and the volunteer community centre Boards of Directors have worked together — sometimes fitfully — to create community recreation facilities that are responsive to the interests of neighbourhoods throughout the city.

Today Vancouver’s network of community centres remains one of the city’s defining civic institutions. They are places where children learn to swim, seniors meet friends over coffee, newcomers improve their English, teenagers play basketball, families attend festivals, artists teach pottery and musicians rehearse.

Unlike private fitness clubs or exclusive recreational facilities, Vancouver’s community centres have been designed around accessibility and inclusion.

No matter one’s income, ethnicity, language, sexual identity or age, the doors remain open.

Recognizing that financial barriers should never prevent participation, the Park Board long ago developed a comprehensive concession programme offering substantially reduced fees for low-income residents.

Through what is now the Leisure Access Programme, eligible residents receive significant discounts on admission to pools, skating rinks, fitness centres and recreational programmes, ensuring that recreation remains a public good rather than a luxury.

From much of the 1970s through the late 1990s, Park Board Commissioners affiliated with the Non-Partisan Association (NPA) civic party frequently held governing majorities on the Board.

Although civic politics remained partisan, Vancouver’s Park Board  focused less on ideology than on practical questions of expanding recreation services, acquiring park land and maintaining infrastructure.

Numerous Commissioners developed reputations as diligent stewards rather than ideological combatants.

Civic figures and Park Board Commssioners who made a difference, taking the job of stewards of Vancouver’s system of parks and recreation seriously and as a public trust, include such figures as Bill McCreery — who VanRamblings will write about next Monday — Allan De Genova, Ian Robertson, Don Bellamy, Christopher Richardson, Trevor Loke, George Wainborn, Libbi Davies, Art Cowie, Tim Louis, Michael Wiebe, George Puil,  Donna Morgan, John Coupar, Erin Shum, Melissa De Genova, Alan Featherstonhaugh, Niki Sharma, Philip Owen, Laura McDiarmid, Aaron Jasper, Andy Livingstone, Constance Barnes, Sarah Kirby-Yung, Grace McCarthy, Stuart Mackinnon, and Sarah Blyth — among many, many other elected Park Board Commissioners — each left their own imprint, though representing different political movements and philosophies in Vancouver politics.

One of the most ambitious administrative reforms ever undertaken by the Park Board emerged decades later with development of the OneCard.

For years Vancouver residents were effectively members of individual community centres rather than the city-wide recreation system. Memberships, registrations and financial systems differed from one association to another.

Creating a universal Park Board access card allowing residents to use any community centre, pool, rink or fitness facility across Vancouver required years of sometimes fraught negotiation, involving the Presidents of the various community centre associations, and a too often uncompromising and intractable City of Vancouver, in the form of Vancouver’s imperious City Manager, Dr. Penny Ballem.

Presidents of the various community centre associations played an indispensable role. Many understood that while local identity should remain protected, residents increasingly expected seamless access throughout the city.

The discussions were often lengthy, often contentious and politically delicate. Associations wished to preserve their independence and financial stability. Park Board leadership / Dr. Ballem sought greater “consistency” across the system.

Ultimately co-operation prevailed.

The OneCard became a symbol of a unified recreation system while preserving the volunteer governance that had served Vancouver so well for decades.

Like every democratic institution, the Park Board has experienced controversy.

Perhaps no episode better illustrates the intensity of civic engagement than the debate surrounding the Bloedel Conservatory.

Facing financial pressures during the tenure of a Vision Vancouver majority on Park Board, in 2010 proposals emerged that contemplated closing the beloved conservatory atop Queen Elizabeth Park.

To many Vancouver residents, the Bloedel Conservatory represented far more than a greenhouse. It was a tropical sanctuary. A refuge during rainy winters. A place where generations of families introduced children to exotic birds and lush plant life.

Public opposition was immediate and passionate.


John Coupar loves Vancouver parks. In 1937, John’s father was hired as an apprentice gardener at Park Board, taking a leave to join the Canadian army in 1939. During the war, John’s father worked with the Allies on the liberation of Europe, returning to Park Board at the end of the war in 1945, where he was employed all of his working life, often taking John to the gardens and parks throughout Vancouver where he was working. When the Vision Vancouver Park Board, in 2010, threatened the closure of the Bloedel Conservatory, John — in concert with others — worked to save the Bloedel Conservatory, which he and his activist colleagues did, preserving the conservatory to this day.

Among those helping lead efforts to preserve the conservatory was future Park Board Commissioner John Coupar, working alongside community advocates, volunteers, horticultural supporters and civic organizations.

Following the 2011 civic election when he was elected to Park Board, and later as Chair of the Board following the 2014 civic election, John Coupar became one of the institution’s strongest champions. Rather than allowing closure, the Board pursued restoration, fundraising partnerships and renewed public programming.

Today the conservatory remains one of Vancouver’s treasured civic attractions.

Sarah Kirby-Yung, current Vancouver City Councillor / former Park Board Commissioner / Chairperson

Another landmark achievement came through collaboration between Commissioners and senior Park Board management regarding cetaceans (whales, dolphins) in captivity at the Vancouver Aquarium.

After years of public debate, scientific evidence and changing public attitudes toward whales and dolphins in captivity, thanks to very fine work by then Chairperson of the Vancouver Park Board, Sarah Kirby-Yung, working with Park Board General Manager, the incredibly competent — and dare we say, well-loved — Malcolm Bromley, the two discovered an obscure 1923 by-law that allowed the Vancouver Park Board to adopt a policy that would ultimately end the keeping of cetaceans at the Vancouver Aquarium in Stanley Park.

Pissed off future Vancouver City Councillor Colleen Hardwick complained loud and long that “the despicable Sarah Kirby-Yung” had ignored / rejected / gone against Non-Partisan Association policy that supported whales in captivity.

F-ck Non-Partisan Association policy VanRamblings says, and do the moral thing — which an ethical, principled Sarah Kirby-Yung did, allowing The Aquarium to continue their policy of providing service and succour to whales in the open ocean, rather than in the “cages” of the Aquarium, Vancouver’s Aquarium thriving to this day without keeping cetaceans in small pool, caged captivity.

The ever-so autocratic and, dare we say, kind of nuts — but still competent — Dr. Penny Ballem.

Perhaps the most significant institutional conflict emerged during the tenure of former City Manager Dr. Penny Ballem. Historically, the Park Board General Manager functioned primarily as the senior executive accountable to the elected Commissioners. Dr. Ballem restructured Park Board such that the Park Board General Manager became an employee of the City, reporting directly to her.

Not only that, Dr. Ballem also transferred responsibility for maintenance operations — including many park maintenance functions — to centralized City departments, which have done a piss poor job of maintaining Vancouver’s community centres, facilities and parks (lack of funding, don’tcha know, as do nothing Council after do nothing Council ignored these cherished community spaces), recently resulting in a scathing report by Vancouver Auditor General Mike Macdonnell, who found that 11 of Vancouver’s community centres are in “an advanced state of disrepair,” neglected for the past 18 years by the City and Mayors and City Councillors, as Vancouver’s public social infrastructure — community-owned recreation centres, pools, hockey rinks, golf courses, not to mention, libraries and community hubs — have eroded, many beyond repair (think: the Aquatic Centre, currently in the throes of being torn down, or Vancouver’s well-loved Kitsilano pool).

Which is why Vancouver Liberals’ candidate for Mayor, Kareem Allam, has emerged as the only candidate seeking office in 2026 committed to repairing, rebuilding, rejuvenating and building more neighbourhood community centres and pools across the city — including a new 50-metre pool —  increasing public library hours, committed to restoring social cohesion, says Vancouver’s only ‘can-do’ candidate.

The future of the elected Park Board itself became a defining issue following the election of Mayor Ken Sim and his ABC Vancouver administration in 2022.

Mayor Sim has argued that Vancouver’s governance structure unnecessarily duplicates administrative functions and that parks should become another department reporting directly to City Council, as he envisions replacing the elected Park Board with a standing committee of an already overworked Council.

An overflow crowd attended the rally at the Hillcrest Community Centre this past February

Mayor Sim’s arguments are specious, wrong-headed, devoid of facts, an unseemly power grab based on Trump-like disinformation — not to mention which, VanRamblings is given to understand that Mayor Sim has intention of selling off park lands in Vancouver to his well-heeled billionaire friends, a topic which we will address in greater detail another day.

Fortunately, British Columbia Premier David Eby and his government have declined — and will continue to decline — to introduce legislation that would abolish the elected Park Board arising from a motion passed unanimously by ABC Vancouver Councillors, vehemently opposed by the non-affiliated Councillors.

For nearly 140 years the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation has acted as the steward of those shared places.

Governments will change. Political parties will rise and fall. Commissioners will come and go. Administrative structures may evolve. Yet the parks themselves endure, growing greener with each passing season, shaped by generations who believed that beauty, recreation and nature should belong to everyone.

In the end, that may be the Park Board’s greatest achievement. It has never simply managed parks. It has cultivated a way of life. In every towering cedar, every neighbourhood playground, every crowded skating rink on a winter evening, every child learning to swim, every senior lingering in the warmth of a community centre, Vancouver’s Park Board has quietly sustained the rhythm of the city itself.

For Vancouver breathes through its parks.

Vancouver’s parks are our lungs, its common ground — offering the enduring promise that amidst the pressures of urban life there will always remain places where the city pauses, and remembers who it is.

#VanPoli | City Politics, Development and Scandal on the Near Horizon

#CdnPoli | Canadian Politics, #VanElxn 2026, #VanPoli Civic Politics, BC Politics, canadian politics, Politics, Vancouver, Vancouver Votes 2026, , , , , , , , , , , , ,


The Politics of Development, Corruption and Vancouver House. Thank you Robert Renger.

The story of Vancouver House is, depending on one’s perspective, either a triumph of architectural ambition or a cautionary tale about the dangers of a city becoming too closely aligned with the interests of powerful developers.

Today, the twisting glass tower at the foot of the Granville Bridge stands as one of Vancouver’s most recognizable landmarks. Designed by the internationally acclaimed Danish architect Bjarke Ingels and developed by Ian Gillespie’s Westbank Corp., Vancouver House has appeared in architectural journals around the world. Its dramatic form rises from a narrow triangular base before expanding into a rectangular tower as it climbs 58 storeys and 155 metres into the skyline.

Yet behind the celebrated architecture lies a political and financial controversy that has lingered for more than a decade and has now been reignited by findings from Vancouver Auditor General Mike Macdonell. What began as an ambitious redevelopment of awkward land beneath the Granville Bridge has evolved into one of the most contentious examples of Vancouver’s developer-driven era under former mayor Gregor Robertson and his governing party, Vision Vancouver.

Westbank Corp.’s Vancouver House, on Howe Street leading to the Granville Street bridge

For supporters, Vancouver House transformed a neglected urban void into a world-class architectural destination.

For critics, it exposed how City Hall bent rules, discounted public assets and abandoned promised public benefits in order to accommodate a politically connected developer.

The controversy stretches back to the late 2000s.

The triangular parcel beneath the Granville Bridge had long been considered difficult to develop. Previous proposals had failed.

The City of Vancouver eventually entered into negotiations with Westbank, which proposed an ambitious mixed-use development featuring luxury residential units, retail space and extensive public realm improvements.

What followed became one of the most controversial land transactions in modern Vancouver history.

Critics argued that Vision Vancouver effectively removed the site from the open market for approximately six years while Westbank assembled financing and refined its proposal. Opponents contended that the city was no longer acting as a neutral steward of public land, but had become a partner in realizing a specific developer’s vision.

One of the most persistent criticisms was that the city failed to test the market adequately and did not seek competing bids that might have generated significantly greater value for taxpayers.

In 2014, Glen Chernen, Cedar Party candidate for Mayor, who following days of day and night research of Vancouver City Hall was the first to expose the “corruption” associated with Vancouver House

These concerns were amplified by the work of Glen Chernen, who ran for Vancouver City Council in 2014 with the Cedar Party. During that election campaign, Chernen examined city documents and negotiations surrounding Vancouver House and raised questions about what he characterized as preferential treatment afforded to Westbank. His research helped bring public attention to agreements that had largely escaped broader scrutiny and contributed to growing concerns about the relationship between Vision Vancouver and major developers.

At the heart of the controversy was the price Westbank paid for the city-owned land.

Critics argued that Westbank acquired the property for approximately $32 million despite assessments and valuations suggesting a substantially higher market value. Over the years, opponents have repeatedly cited figures indicating the land’s value was closer to $119 million, arguing that taxpayers effectively subsidized the project through an undervalued transaction.

Whether those valuations can be directly compared remains disputed. Nevertheless, questions about whether the city maximized value from the sale have never fully disappeared.

Vancouver Auditor General, Mike Macdonell who in his 2026 scathing report to Vancouver City Council found concerning irregularities in the Vancouver House development process, in 2014 through 2026

Those concerns gained renewed legitimacy in February 2026 when Vancouver Auditor General Mike Macdonell released a major audit examining city land sales and exchanges. The report found that city staff did not consistently provide Council with all relevant information needed to determine whether land sales reflected market value. In some cases, land was sold for less than assessed value, and documentation supporting valuation decisions was incomplete.

While the audit was broader than Vancouver House alone, critics immediately connected its findings to long-standing concerns about the Westbank transaction.

Even more damaging was a separate whistleblower investigation that examined community amenity contributions associated with Vancouver House.

Community amenity contributions, known as CACs, are intended to ensure that when rezonings dramatically increase land values, the public receives a share of that value through amenities, infrastructure or cash contributions. According to city policy, rezonings are expected to capture a significant portion of the resulting “land lift” for public benefit.

The Vancouver House rezoning ultimately secured approximately $4 million in cash contributions and roughly $6 million in promised in-kind public improvements.

The problem, according to Macdonell’s investigation, is that many of those promised benefits either were never properly defined, were reduced, or were not adequately tracked and enforced by the city. The auditor found that the city’s management of these commitments fell below a reasonable standard and constituted “waste” under the city’s whistleblower framework.

Among the promised public improvements were enhanced pedestrian connections between Granville Street and the bridge structure above, upgraded public spaces, landscaping, seating areas, special lighting, event infrastructure and other public realm features. Over time, several elements were altered, reduced or abandoned. The auditor found evidence that city staff excused some obligations without ensuring equivalent public benefits were delivered in return.

The findings were particularly significant because they reinforced a criticism that had existed since the project’s approval: Vision Vancouver’s enthusiasm for landmark architecture overshadowed its responsibility to protect the public interest.

Critics argue that Vancouver House became emblematic of a broader governing philosophy that dominated City Hall during the Robertson years. Vision Vancouver promoted density, urban design excellence and partnerships with the private sector. Many of the city’s most ambitious projects emerged during this period.

Yet opponents increasingly argued that City Hall had become too close to the development industry.

The Vancouver House negotiations appeared, to many observers, to confirm those fears.

Retired planner Robert Renger brings the Vancouver House controversy to the fore

Retired Burnaby planner Robert Renger became one of the most persistent voices raising concerns about the project. Renger, who had extensive experience negotiating major development agreements, filed complaints and provided information that ultimately contributed to the Auditor General’s investigations. He argued that Vancouver House represented a failure to maximize public value and a failure to enforce negotiated public benefits.

Renger’s concerns were not focused primarily on architecture. Rather, they centred on governance.

His argument was straightforward: if developers receive enormous increases in land value through rezonings, the public should receive commensurate benefits. When those benefits are reduced, deferred or abandoned without compensation, taxpayers effectively absorb the loss.

The Auditor General’s findings did not conclude that bribery, fraud or criminal corruption occurred. In fact, the report explicitly noted that the circumstances did not meet the threshold for serious wrongdoing in the legal sense and found no evidence of fraud.

Nevertheless, the report painted a troubling picture of weak oversight, poor documentation and inadequate protection of public interests.

That distinction is important.

Political scandal does not necessarily require criminal conduct.

A city can follow legal procedures and still make decisions that produce poor outcomes for taxpayers.

In the eyes of many critics, that is precisely what happened with Vancouver House.

The irony is that the project itself is, in many respects, a success.

Vancouver House has become an internationally recognized architectural icon. It transformed an awkward and neglected site. It helped redefine the southern entrance to downtown Vancouver. The building’s engineering and design innovations have been celebrated globally.

But success in architecture does not automatically translate into success in public policy.

The project was also controversial because of how it was marketed. During Vancouver’s housing affordability crisis, luxury condominiums in Vancouver House were aggressively promoted overseas, particularly in Hong Kong and mainland China. Many Vancouver residents viewed the marketing strategy as symbolic of a city increasingly designed for global wealth rather than local residents.

The optics were especially damaging during a period when housing prices were accelerating beyond the reach of many middle-class families.

To critics, Vancouver House represented not merely a building but a broader economic model: public land converted into luxury housing marketed internationally while affordability worsened at home.

The lingering question is why subsequent city councils have done so little.

A photo of the newly elected, or re-elected, members of the 2022 Vancouver City Council

Since Vision Vancouver’s defeat in 2018, two entirely different governing administrations have controlled Vancouver City Hall. First came the minority Council elected in 2018. Then came the ABC Vancouver administration under Ken Sim.

Neither administration has aggressively pursued remedies related to Vancouver House.

There are several possible explanations.

First, many of the agreements were legally finalized years ago, limiting available remedies.

Second, governments are often reluctant to reopen complex development contracts because doing so can trigger litigation and financial risk.

Third, Vancouver remains heavily dependent on private-sector development to finance infrastructure, amenities and housing construction. Political leaders may fear that aggressively challenging major developers could undermine future investment.

And finally, there is the uncomfortable reality that municipal governments of every political stripe often inherit decisions they would prefer not to revisit.

Yet the Auditor General’s findings have ensured that the controversy will not disappear.

The central question remains remarkably simple.

An elevator connecting the Granville Street Bridge and Granville Island was proposed as a way to improve access to the often gridlocked island that could have, in part, met Westbank’s obligations

Did Vancouver receive fair value for public land, public density and public approvals?

The architectural success of Vancouver House cannot answer that question.

The beauty of the building cannot answer it.

The prestige associated with Bjarke Ingels cannot answer it.

The Auditor General’s reports suggest that documentation was inadequate, public benefits were poorly managed and opportunities to maximize value may have been missed.

For critics such as Robert Renger and Glen Chernen, those findings validate concerns they have been raising for years.

For defenders of the project, Vancouver House remains a remarkable example of what ambitious city-building can achieve.

Perhaps both interpretations contain elements of truth.

Vancouver House is simultaneously one of Vancouver’s greatest architectural achievements and one of its most enduring political controversies. It stands as a glittering monument at the gateway to downtown —a building that transformed the skyline while raising difficult questions about governance, accountability and the relationship between public institutions and private power.

Long after debates about its twisting form have faded, those questions may prove to be the building’s most lasting legacy.

#SaveOurParkBoard | Tender Moments of Change at Park Board, Pt 2

BC Politics, Environment, News, Park Board, Politics, Stories of a Life, Vancouver, , , , , , ,

In 2012, Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson opined about the idea of scaling back Langara Golf Course and turning part of it into residential housing as part of the city’s broad new approach toward creating denser neighbourhoods.

“At this point it is debatable as to whether that is valuable green space,” the mayor said. “The public can’t access it, it is not biodiverse ,” as he went on to suggest that Langara is “underused”, that there may be “opportunities to transform that space, to maintain golf on that site, to increase public access, to increase public housing.”


Pictured: Park Board Commissioners Melissa De Genova, John Coupar, Aaron Jasper, Constance Barnes, Niki Sharma & Trevor Loke. Commissioner Sarah Blyth had stepped out for a moment, during a break.

On July 9, 2012, the Vancouver Park Board met to consider the instruction of Mayor Gregor Robertson to “hive off half of Langara Golf Course for the development of low cost condominiums.”

City Manager Penny Ballem and Mayor Robertson’s Chief of Staff Mike Magee had, previous to the meeting, called in Vision Vancouver Park Board Commissioner Aaron Jasper to City Hall to demand he move a motion to redevelop the Langara Golf Course, in order that the Mayor’s wishes might be realized, that half of the golf course would be developed for housing.


Vision Vancouver Park Board Commissioner, Aaron Jasper, set to carry out the wishes of the Mayor

Subsequent to Aaron Jasper’s meeting with Ballem and Magee, in an interview with the media, Jasper suggested that the course could be downsized from 18 holes to nine holes, which would free the land for public park space.

Alternatively, Jasper pointed out that the course could be eliminated altogether to develop a full park in its place. Golfers would be redirected to the city’s two other golf courses, McCleery and Fraserview.

One hundred and fifty irate, activist members of the community turned up at the contentious July 9th meeting of Park Board — spanning every age group, from young pre-adolescent children to seniors, with members of the cultural and ethnic mosaic of the Vancouver well-represented among those who had gathered to oppose Mayor Robertson’s “vision” for a redeveloped Langara Golf Course.

More than two dozen speakers slammed the Vancouver Park Board that cool, mid-summer Monday evening, fearing they said that the city-owned Langara golf course might be changed into a park or affordable housing.

Many speakers, as well as Commissioner John Coupar, said they feared the motion to ask staff to compile usage and revenue figures for the city’s golf courses might be the first step toward turning Langara into a park or residential development.

“The way this has been rolled out, I think is a little scary,” Coupar said of the motion, which came after Mayor Gregor Robertson publicly questioned whether Vancouverites are best served by a golf course in the area.

The first speakers to present to the Park Board Commissioners that evening were two 23-year-old women of Chinese descent, who said the following after introducing themselves …

“The two of us grew up in the area surrounding the Langara Golf Course. We grew up in some degree of poverty, living a kind of hand-to-mouth existence. Our parents each ran business, one a small corner store, the other a dry cleaning business. We were often left to our own devices, alone, without much to do. This was in an age prior to social media, when cell phones — which we couldn’t have afforded anyway — were not a feature of life.

With the Langara Golf course nearby, and given that it was the only green space in the neighbourhood, we took to walking around the trails that surround the golf course. Soon, we were running around the golf course, and over the years, from age six through our teens, we continued to run around the trails surrounding Langara. Over time, our running skills were strengthened, we joined the track team at our high school, and not long soon after we were recommended by our PhysEd teachers to the Canada Olympic Committee.

Long story short, the both of us became Olympic gold medal winning runners at the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. Later this month, we will both be competing again at the London Summer Olympics.

Were it not for the opportunity we were afforded to, over many, many years, to run around the track surrounding the Langara Golf Course, we most certainly would not have become Olympic gold medal winners. Langara is a critical resource to families like ours, a welcoming green space like no other. We do not want to see the Langara Golf Course developed into condominiums.

With all due respect to the Mayor, we are present here tonight to speak against the initiative moved by Commissioner Jasper, on behalf of Mayor Gregor Robertson.”

At the conclusion of the address of the two accomplished young women, applause broke out. Observers, and Park Board staff and Commissioners, could well see that the 150 members of the community who had arrived at the Park Board offices to oppose the initiative of the Mayor to develop the Langara Golf Course were heartened and moved by what they’d heard. A new feeling of hope permeated the room.

The next speakers up were two UBC climate scientists who spoke about climate change, making the case for the preservation of the Langara Golf Course …

“In its present form, as the ‘lungs of our city’, as a health resource for citizens not simply because of the recreational resource it provides, but for the vital role Langara plays in addressing the role of climate change in our city, preservation of the Langara Golf Course must be seen as a paramount consideration.”

The scientists were followed by a groups of baby boomer, Gen X and millennial age women who spoke about the safety that they were afforded in their daily walks on the trails surrounding Langara. “There are always eyes on us. We feel safe. Langara in its present form is an invaluable resource for us. Please do not develop the site.”

Next up: groups of young boys and girls, and seniors, who spoke about their love for golf, about how they could never afford the hundreds and thousands of dollars that would be required to join a private golf course, but that for as little as seven dollars they could afford several hours of play on the Langara Golf Course.

“Better that we should be outside and in the environment,” they averred, “than at home watching TV, or playing video games.”

And with that, the speakers / intervenors / community input portion of the Park Board Committee meeting drew to a close.


Aaron Jasper, Chairperson, Vancouver Park Board, 2012

During the course of the evening, several speakers who had presented to the Commissioners made mention of the fact that the Langara Golf Course was usable only six months of the year. Given the poor / virtually non-existent drainage on the course, users could not play the course when the autumn rainy season began, through the end of March, and sometimes April.

Without asking for remedy to such, Aaron Jasper had the following to say …

“I would like to make a motion asking staff to report back to the Board this upcoming early autumn, with recommendations and costing of installing a proper drainage system within the Langara golf course, such that the course might be used year-round. I would ask for the unanimous support from the Board for the motion I will put on the table.”

Aaron Jasper’s motion passed unanimously.


Sarah Blyth, multi-term Commissioner on the Vancouver Park Board

In a conversation VanRamblings had with former, multi-term Vision Vancouver Park Board Commissioner Sarah Blyth earlier this week, she told us the following …

“From time to time, my Vision Park Board colleagues and I found ourselves in conflict with the Mayor, with city staff and our Vision colleagues on Council. Never once, though, were we bullied by the City Manager or the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, and most certainly not by our elected Vision colleagues on City Council.

The Mayor and the Vision Councillors realized that we had been elected by voters to fulfill a mandate to preserve, protect and enhance Vancouver’s parks and recreation system, and to work on behalf of all the citizens of our city to maintain the best parks and recreation system on the continent.”

Did Aaron Jasper, and his Vision Vancouver colleagues on the Park Board, follow the “instruction” of Penny Ballem and Mike Magee to pass a motion that would lead to the halving, at best, of green space on the Langara golf course? No, no, they did not. Instead, as it turned out, in the autumn of that year, the Board unanimously approved a motion from Mr. Jasper to have installed a new drainage system — at a cost of $4 million — on the Langara golf course property, allowing golfers to use the course year-round, more than doubling the revenue derived from Langara, easily “repaying” the initial $4 million restoration expenditure.

And what was the political fallout for Vision Vancouver Park Board Commissioners Aaron Jasper, Trevor Loke, Sarah Blyth, Niki Sharma and Sarah Blyth?

Nada, zero, zilch.

The Vision Vancouver Commissioners on Park Board continued on representing the best interests of the citizens of Vancouver, unscathed and much admired.

At the conclusion of the 2014 Vancouver civic election, as the incumbent Vision Vancouver Commissioners chose not to seek another term, Vision Park Board candidate Catherine Evans topped the polls, on a newly reconstituted Vancouver Park Board that saw Michael Wiebe and Stuart Mackinnon elected as Greens on the Board,  with Non-Partisan Association candidate John Coupar re-elected to a further term in office, joined by NPA colleagues Sarah Kirby-Yung, Casey Crawford and Erin Shum, the four emerging as the new majority on the Vancouver Park Board.

What is being left unsaid in this column? Yes, you’re right.


Vancouver Mayor / autocrat “play ball with me, and my office, or consequences will be severe” Ken Sim

Unlike the autocratic “if you step out of line, we’ll end you” ABC Vancouver administration of Mayor Ken Sim, the Vision Vancouver and the Non-Partisan Association Park Boards were left alone by the Boards of Directors of each long serving Vancouver political party, as well as their respective party’s colleagues / elected representatives on Vancouver City Council — free to do their jobs as they best saw fit, the jobs they had been elected to perform, unbidden and unscathed.

For part 1 of this series, click on the following link …

#SaveOurParkBoard | Tender Moments of Change at Park Board, Pt 1

Click / tap on the graphic above to sign  the Save Our Park Board Petition started by Sarah Blyth

Aquatic Centre: Vision Vancouver Pulls a Fast One

#VanPoli Civic Politics, BC Politics, Decision 2014, Politics, Vancouver, , , , , , , , ,

Vancouver Aquatic Centre is Due for Demolition in Sale of City Land
The entire Downtown South Development Site booklet may be accessed by clicking here

On Wednesday, VanRamblings published a story on the proposed sale by Vision Vancouver of 12 parcels of land adjacent to the Granville Street bridge, for the development of 120 units of social housing, a new Aquatic Centre, and a new Qmunity Centre — all without any hint of an open, public consultation by Vancouver’s secretive, developer-friendly municipal Council.

In today’s VanRamblings column, we’ll provide a timeline of events about which we wrote on Wednesday, in which we sought clarification of the issues raised in yesterday’s harrowing Aquatic Centre To Be Demolished post.

Update: VanRamblings learned on Thursday of the City’s Request for Proposal to demolish the Continental Hotel, the RFP closing next Wednesday, August 6th.

Why the undue haste by the City in respect of the development of the 12 parcels of city-owned land being offered up?

Once the hotel has been demolished, the road is clear for the City to move quickly on their ‘non-market’ housing (always amorphous as to what that means, when it comes to Vision Vancouver) / Aquatic Centre development.

In addition, the pedestrian-and-cyclist-friendly Vision Vancouver dominated Council has designs on “renovating” the Granville Street bridge to make it more “active transportation” friendly.

All in due time.

The Vancouver Cedar Party issued a press release Thursday afternoon which asks questions on the issue of the replacement of the Vancouver Aquatic Centre, none of which have been answered to date by the majority party at City Hall, questions which MUST be answered by Vision Vancouver, if the public is to maintain any faith in their elected officials at Vancouver City Council and Park Board.

Also on Thursday, Vancouver Metro News weighed in with information on the proposed development, as did Frances Bula, at the Globe and Mail.

star.jpg star.jpg star.jpg

Vancouver Park Board's John Coupar, Constance Barnes, Sarah Blyth, Malcolm Bromley
Park Board’s John Coupar, Constance Barnes, Sarah Blyth, and GM, Malcolm Bromley

First thing Wednesday morning, VanRamblings made contact with Vision Vancouver Park Board Commissioners Constance Barnes and Sarah Blyth to enquire as to whether each was aware of an “offering for sale” of city-owned land, that included a proposal for the demolition of the current Vancouver Aquatic Centre, and the construction of a new Aquatic Centre facility, on the north-end, and due east of the Granville Street bridge.

The short answer: no.

Commissioners Barnes and Blyth stated that a new or renewed Aquatic Centre was not on the immediate Park Board agenda for consideration.

Both were clear in stating that any proposal for a new / renewed Aquatic Centre would include a public consultation process. Both Commissioners Barnes and Blyth went on to state that consideration of a new / renewed Aquatic Centre was, in all likelihood, some years away.

VanRamblings also made contact with Non-Partisan Association Park Board Commissioner John Coupar, who told us that he’d look into the matter, and would report out to us following the NPA’s campaign announcement of their 2014 sterling slate of Park Board and Board of Education candidates.

Commissioner Coupar told us that he’d spoken with Vancouver Park Board General Manager Malcolm Bromley first thing on Wednesday morning, to seek clarification on issues related to VanRamblings’ Wednesday story respecting a new / renewed Aquatic Centre.

Here’s what Mr. Bromley told Commissioner Coupar: yes, the City Planning Department had approached him respecting a “wish list” for renewed Park Board facilities; Mr. Bromley suggested that a new Aquatic Centre might be high on the Park Board’s agenda for future consideration. Other than that, Commissioner Coupar concurred with the sentiment expressed by Commissioners Barnes and Blyth: there’d likely be no consideration given by Park Board, any time soon, to a remediated Vancouver Aquatic Centre, or a new aquatic facility.

Recent Park Board historical background respecting the Aquatic Centre: in fact, in 2012, Park Board Commissioners did confront an Aquatic Centre remediation proposal wherein Park Board was asked to approve a sum of monies to repair the centre’s heating facility, which structure had become eroded due to the salt content in the Aquatic Centre’s pools, in the early years of its operation.The Aquatic Centre now uses chlorinated water.

Remediation repair monies were approved by Park Board — and note was made by Park Board GM Malcolm Bromley that, perhaps at some future point, consideration might have to be given by Park Board to replacing the Aquatic Centre, should future remediation costs prove prohibitive.

Vancouver Cedar Party, Nicholas Chernen

In the late morning, and again in the mid-afternoon on Wednesday, VanRamblings met with Vancouver Cedar Party campaign chair Nicholas Chernen to discuss the Downtown South Development Site booklet — which was provided to us for our perusal — the cover of which is pictured at the top of today’s VanRamblings’ blog post, the booklet linked to above.

Mr. Chernen told VanRamblings he and his campaign staff ran across the document by accident, when perusing other files at City Hall.

Apparently, there was reference made to the document, but actual discovery of the Downtown South Development Site booklet took some while. When Mr. Chernen and his staff finally located the development booklet, a copy was provided to him — for which he had to sign out, recording all of his particulars.

Curious.

The first few pages of the booklet lay out the details of the obviously-developed-by Vision Vancouver ‘offer for sale’ of 12 parcels of city-owned land adjacent to the Granville Street bridge, which is to say …

  • The City of Vancouver is proceeding with the demolition of the old Continental Hotel building at 190 Granville Street, in 2014. Upon completion of the demolition, the property will be available for redevelopment in concert with the decommissioning and removal of the eastern Granville Bridge off ramp and ‘loop’, the removal of the Blacktop cabs yard, and the opening up for sale of an entire square block of city-owned land (part of the City’s Property Endowment Fund land legacy), for a sale price of $32.9 million;
  • The City, in offering the property for sale, is asking for “some innovative proposals for the delivery of key public benefits” for this area of the City, although offering cash or a combination of cash and amenities will also be considered.Among the amenities listed are “provision of 120 ‘turnkey’ non-market housing units”: 24 studio apartments (20%), 42 1-bedroom units (35%), 42 2-bedroom units (35%), and 12 3-bedroom units (10%);
  • The construction of a renewed Vancouver Aquatic Centre, with a 52-metre pool (no indication as to the number of lanes), a sauna, steam room and jacuzzi, plus gym, the new Aquatic centre situated in a landlocked location away from park land, green space and Burrard Inlet, offering little in the way of parking or ready transit access;
  • The delivery of a “community amenity in the form of built premises of approximately 10,000 square feet for … Qmunity, either on the property or on other land located in the West End;
  • A United We Can bottle depot.

More detail available on the CityHallWatch website, or by clicking on this link.

star.jpg star.jpg star.jpg

Is There Moral, Financial and Ethical Corruption at Vancouver City Hall?

All of the above leaves a few questions unanswered, including …

“Why would a developer purchase one square block of city-owned land upon which a 120-unit social housing unit is to be built, along with the construction of a new Aquatic Centre which upon completion the developer must turn over to the City of Vancouver for $10, a community centre to be built that would also be turned over to the City, and the construction of a bottle depot — none of which properties would turn a profit for a developer, or even offer a return (other than a social justice return) on the developer’s investment of $32.9 million.

Why would a developer, then, make such a sure-to-fail economically purchase of city-owned land, unless …

The City — which is to say, Vision Vancouver — had struck an under-the-table deal with the purchasing developer to acquire the stretch of beach front property along Beach Avenue where the current Aquatic Centre is located, stretching from Burrard Street along the waterfront, almost all the way to English Bay, prime development property where the ‘Granville Loop’ purchasing developer could turn a potential profit that could very well be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Who in the media, other than VanRamblings, is asking these questions?

Will the August 15th sale of the 12-parcel Downtown South Development Site one square, city-owned block factor into the conversation in the 2014 Vancouver municipal election race? Who out there, apart from the Vancouver Cedar Party, CityHallWatch, and VanRamblings are expressing concern about the secretive nature of the proposed sale of Property Endowment Fund land, and the possible implications of the sale vis-à-vis the future sale of the current Aquatic Centre, and the surrounding, lands?