YULE HEIBEL: ‘I oppose replacing the JOHNSON STREET BRIDGE and am firmly in the camp of wanting to see it refurbished’

“Sometimes the mania to be oppositional

(often for the sake of being oppositional)

is just wrong.”

FORMER HARVARD ARCHITECTURAL – ART HISTORIAN + FOCUS MAGAZINE URBANIST COLUMNIST CHRONICLES POSITIONS  ON OTHER CONTENTIOUS VICTORIA DEVELOPMENTS

 

Hi Gregory, thanks for keeping pressure on this [Johnson Street Bridge] topic and publishing the responses your’re getting from Councillors and others, although I’m not thrilled at all by the prospect of a lawsuit.

Anyway, just wanted to add that Mary’s idea of engaging public discourse at the Moss Street Market (and/or the Moss Street Paint-In) as well as other public markets is a great idea.  So, thanks to Mary for that one.

And thanks for giving me credit for my article in FOCUS, but you know (I hope) that the issue first arose on Vibrant Victoria (which you recently called a banal site – and of course I disagree strongly with you on that matter).  (Incidentally, I no longer write for FOCUS – I decided to leave at the end of May.)

I’m not sure that Mary is glad to have me as any kind of ally – we have disagreed on previous matters.

For example, I was very much in favour of letting the Sisters [of Saint Anne] go forward with their plan to develop 2 condo buildings on their property at Mount Saint Angela, while Mary Doody Jones and Nick Russell and others were dead-set against it.

The original project made fiscal and preservationist sense.

As “Miss Vicky” (the advocate for the homeless, who at the last minute made an impassioned speech in favour of letting this project go forward) said, “you can’t eat the scenery.”

She was addressing the fanaticism of some preservationists who are ready to retard social and economic progress – the Mount Saint Angela project would have seen (1) 2 six-storey condos in concrete, which was then altered to (2) 2 four-storey condos in wood: hardly out of place in this neighbourhood but both proposals were vehemently attacked by Russell et al. 

In return for the added density (incidentally, crucial since the existing density is something untenable, like 1:1), the original heritage building would have been spiffed up and converted in perpetuity into an old-age home for needy women.

I supported this proposal (at the original 6-storey concrete construction in particular) with all my heart.

It was attacked as an abomination by people who care more about which direction porches face than indigent elderly women having secure housing.

We have other disagreements: I think the Chelsea building at the corners of Vancouver and Burdett is gorgeous, absolutely beautiful and a wonderful addition to the neighbourhood (it’s the condo behind the brick wall that was saved).

I also think the Humboldt Valley is hugely improved by the addition of the Astoria, Belvedere, and especially Aria.  

The Church of Our Lord is now like a jewel, set off by the foil of these developments.

People seem to forget that this area was a wasteland of surface parking lots, i. e. ugly, ugly, ugly – and is now a sparkling urban neighbourhood. 

I really despise the opponents of Westbank’s Crystal Court proposal, too: that was the proposal to build a very slim 18-storey tower on the east of the Crystal Court site (right next to your family’s hotel), with a dedicated free-standing 2-storey Art Gallery satellite (wholly owned by the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria) on the west end (which would have preserved views from the Queen Victoria).

That configuration would have allowed sunlight to fall unobstructed on the lawn-bowling green (whose preservation I also fully supported).  

We could have had a new downtown satelite art gallery in place next year, in a compound designed by one of Canada’s best architects (James Cheng), but oh no, it was not to be.

And why?  Because it was allegedly “too tall.”

Please, give your heads a shake and look at how terrific that neighbourhood looks down there and then tell me that one more taller building would have been “inappropriate” for Victoria.

Anyway, now we have a boarded-up Crystal Court Motel – a fine eye-sore for the tourist district indeed…

If I recall correctly, many of the “quaint olde Victoria” people wanted none of Westbank’s proposal, even though it’s not exactly the case that there was any heritage to preserve on that site – unless you count the 2-storey 50s style motel.

But, like the Di Castri-designed ex-Balantyne Florist building on Douglas at Courtney, sometimes heritage that’s not pulling its weight has to make way for something worthier – and neither the Crystal Court Motel nor that suburban-y looking piece by Di Castri has a place in a city’s downtown.

Both buildings are better suited to suburban strip-mall “architecture.”

Another area where I’ve butted heads with some people is over 1322 Rockland Avenue.

At every turn, some people in the neighbourhood and beyond opposed the owner’s plans for redevelopment, especially when she suggested constructing underground parking – even though this would actually have preserved some of the site’s parkland (vs. paving it over for surface parking).

After quite a few years of frustration, she now plans to lease the property to the Vancouver Island Health Authority for housing for people coming off substance abuse and others.  

I don’t have any objection to having a facility like that in my – our – neighbourhood, but honestly?, I do think it’s a low-end use for a very high-end property.

Sometimes the mania to be oppositional (often for the sake of being oppositional) is just wrong.

OK, that said: I oppose replacing the Johnson Street Bridge and am firmly in the camp of wanting to see it refurbished.

As for law-suits, I probably won’t support you in that endeavor.  

I’m not entirely interested in burning bridges to save them.

 

CCC