[BC省新聞] Pete McMartin: In False Creek expression, Vision, False

tiffiant

Pete McMartin: In False Creek, the ‘hardship’ of Concord Pacific

Reluctance to relinquish small piece of parkland could backfire for Vision at the voting booth



Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Pete+McMartin+False+Creek+hardship+Concord+Pacific/10192842/story.html#ixzz3D1C1X1zA
there any greater expression of “Vancouverism” than the north shore of False Creek? That forest of gleaming towers? That concentration of chic humanity? Does anything do more to quicken the pulse of our urban planners than that affluent density?
The engine, builder and beneficiary of that showplace has been Concord Pacific. In this, Concord, to its admirers, has been a transformative force for good in the city, rebuilding the industrial heart of the downtown core into a modern residential neighbourhood, one now being emulated around the world.
To the less-enchanted, Concord falls into that category of “developers” who — political opponents contend — have city hall and, more particularly, Vision Vancouver, in thrall. According to that script, it is developers who run things in Vancouver now, and Mayor Gregor Robertson is either a puppet of the developers or a willing accomplice.
This has become a theme in this year’s upcoming civic election, especially among those neighbourhoods disaffected with Vision’s drive toward densification. They have complained about what they consider to be Vision’s deafness to their complaints, and what they say is the lack of public consultation on zoning and design changes that they insist would destroy the character of their neighbourhoods.
More than once, Vision has had to retreat in the face of those complaints. And if anything is going to defeat Vision’s hold on city hall in November, it will be the aggregate weight of those various neighbourhoods’ disaffection.
Enter the False Creek Residents Association. Those residents have been waiting — with some patience, I’d say — for Concord to come through with the building of the Creekside Park Extension, an almost four-hectare site that under the original agreement between the city and Concord some 30 years ago was to be developed as parkland.
Instead, it’s been an ersatz commercial zone. The largely empty space has been used for Concord’s presentation centre for its residential sales, event parking, movie-trailer parking, the Molson Indy, the Molson House of Hockey during the Olympics, Cirque du Soleil performances, Red Bull energy drink promotions and, most recently and weirdly, the site of a reality TV series Game of Homes. The show is about home renovation, not dragons and dwarfs.
A park?
Concord claims it’s eager to build one, but pleads there are complications. There is the question of what the city wants to do with the adjacent Georgia Viaduct — tearing it down could increase substantially the size of the park, the city says — and there is the problem of moving contaminated soil on the remaining parcel of Concord land to be developed. That soil has to be moved to the park lands and buried under a protective membrane — a remediation process that is a provincial responsibility.
City hall has abided all this, and issued back-to-back three-year temporary permits allowing Concord to continue the marketing of its condo sales from its presentation centre. In addition, the residents association says, the city allowed all those other commercial enterprises to proceed without proper “change of use” permits.
So in May, the residents association filed a petition in B.C. Supreme Court challenging the City, claiming that these commercial activities were not consistent with the zoning or the Official Development Plan. It wants the commercial uses to stop and the presentation centre moved.

Concord responded in late July by filing an application seeking to be added as a respondent in the case. As a respondent, Concord could appeal any adverse ruling.
In that application, Concord cited the “hardship provision” of a city bylaw — which, given Concord’s size and financial clout, might invite hilarity among the public. But Concord argued that the presentation centre, situated as it was on the False Creek site, offered potential buyers “a premium sales experience.” It also said that moving the presentation centre would cost between $2 million and $3 million and would necessitate its closure for six to nine months, resulting in “a loss of business and revenue to Concord.” That may not constitute hardship in, say, Iraq or Sierra Leone, but in Concord’s world, it does.
At any rate, the court granted Concord respondent status on Sept. 3.
The effect of that?
Originally, the case was to be heard today (Sept. 11) but it has now been delayed so Concord can file a response.
The False Creek Residents Association doesn’t expect the case to be heard until the new year — or, in other words, after the November election.
In the meantime, chalk up another residents association disaffected with Vision Vancouver.
Then consider city hall’s accommodation of a prominent and wealthy development company over the wishes of residents who want a park, and have been waiting years to get one, and what you have are terrible optics.
The False Creek Residents Association may not get its day in court before the November elections. It can take some consolation, however, in the knowledge that, like all those other neighbourhoods that have been wondering who is pulling the strings at city hall these days, its members will have their day in the voting booth.

tiffiant

Gleaming towers have made the north shore of False Creek a modern residential neighbourhood, a 30-year-old agreement to provide a small park has gone unfulfilled.