Tags
Port Place Mall redevelopment
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.
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.
– Frank Murphy
Posts and Comments on Nanaimo Governance 
I must admit to being one of those who was initially taken by the pretty pictures that showed an upgrade to what is now there, and left my smarts on the set. It is, upon sober second thought, ridiculous that we should treat our downtown along a major entry and exit arterial so casually that the best we can offer to our visitors -and ourselves- is a sea of parked cars. We already have more than enough auto dealers, gas stations, suppliers, etc. displaying along our Via Nanaimo, thank you very much. And do we suppose that visitors arriving on cruise ships (if they come) will be enticed by a view of a parking lot from the forward deck? Surely if we treat our downtown so cavalierly, we can hardly expect others to respect it.
The City of Nanaimo has a number of worthy planning reports on file concerning downtown re-development,these having been commissioned over the past decade or so,and of course paid for dearly by taxpayers.What City staff do with these reports is another matter,not unlike the Seinfeld episode about his reservation with the car rental company.The rental company TAKES the reservation but doesn’t KEEP it.The City TAKES the reports,but just IGNORE them.
Well for starters, demolition is already under way.
Oh is this also, “a zero sum game”? This council and its planning department are long past the need for formaldehyde!
Thanqxz, Frank, for the stuff.
I am no longer amazed at the lack of talent, or even job interest, in the corporate architectural/planning . . . errrr how can I refer to it . . . tailing pond.
DNP’s housing committee gave this thumbs down months ago, expecting a complete reassessment. Evidently we got it: for the worse!
This is Terry Hui again, and by long distance the ridiculous, yet very destructive, Sir Li ka-Shing: who gives not a hoot about our downtown, he just wants our money. Terry is doing his utmost to lay waste NEFC in Vancouver: having already done so on FCN!
What happened to Franc’s guidelines? We spent an enthusiastic day charretting that: and the city C$100 g’s +/-!
I suppose with my experience I should compose an elegant rebuttal but this is way beyond that. This show a really disgustingly complacent council, grossly, and disgustingly, incompetent planners and indeed a tired system long past its buy date.
Frank,
This blog is degenerating into, preaching to the converted: and at this early stage too!
No doubt many of us a have given up trying to penetrate the city’s “carapace of arrogant ignorance and complacency” but there may be another reason . . .
This blog is way too complicated to navigate!
Urbie – so many good points. I want to take them one at a time. First some things readers here may not know. Acronyms: correct me if I’m wrong- NEFC is North East False Creek and FCN is False Creek South. The Franc you refer to is Franc D’Ambrosio whose architectural firm authored the Downtown Design Guidelines a link to which can be found at the Links and Documents tab. Look carefully on page 54 and you see who I believe is architect and planner Roger Kemble at work at a design charrette. Nanaimo’s lucky to have you Urbanismo. Don’t give up on us.
Give me some specifics, will you, on navigational frustrations and I’ll see if I can remedy. I’ll be back later to discuss other points you raise. Thanks again for caring Urbie.
D’uh… FCN would of course be False Creek North
What I found most disconcerting about the proposed development is its lack of community friendly design. I tried clicking on the plan links but unfortunately didn’t work so I am going from memory. Port place mall has always been a central meeting point for those in the downtown area. People would wander down to do some shopping and inevitably run into someone or ones they know. You could always see groups of people chatting about this and that, a very friendly place to shop and enjoy some good conversation. When I went to the open house, months ago, I noticed nothing in the design that promotes citizen interaction. No central square where people could sit down and converse, only the odd bench facing nothing but parking. The new design will be nothing more than a strip mall, ultimately with some housing attached and highrise in the south east corner. All sense of community will be gone.
Gordon – that’s the core of it for sure. Those expanses of ashpalt have to be transformed into public space for community and neighbourhood use. How do we stop it?
Urbanismo – the group that called itself the Design Professionals of Nanaimo participated in the charrette. How do we get them to go public on their take on this. What does Franc D’Ambrosio have to say (I’ll be asking him). Where’s the City Design Panel on this? The nearby neighbourhood associations? The Downtown BIA group?
Consider this: the developer seems to saying that the best use from a business perspective for that land is “free” parking for cars. What does that say about the economic health of the city. That’s how valuable that land is? More money couldn’t be made developing it for residential, commercial, office mixed use that incorporates public plazas? What does the Economic Development Commission think about what acres of surface parking says about how valuable our downtown land is?
Hi Gordon – I checked the plan links and they seem to be working ok. One file is larger and takes longer to open. Have another go and let me know if works.
Frank,
” . . . some specifics. . . ”
1. Have a topic of the day . . . maybe two or three with immediate response links: sort of conversational like.
2. Archive all that stuff on home page with links on second page.
3. Include the list of city committees on (2) and link to their latest minutes and agendas: uh uh big job!
4. KISS
Cheers Uncle Urbie
These ideas shall be incorporated into the evolving look and feel of the thing. Ron suggested too a “how to” box to tell readers how to retrieve stuff of interest. It’s a design template so my options are a little limited but if this thing takes off we’d move into a full website with all the bells and whistles.
It needs 2 things to take off: readers and writers. There’s interest for sure: with the coverage in the Bulletin and on the Globe’s Frances Bula’s blog, the site has had over 2000 page views in the past week.
So how to break the ice and get people to make it their own? I happen to know that you have a large and powerful email contact list. Would you send the link to your list and ask them to take a look and consider contributing?
Charrette!
“. . . the group that called itself the Design Professionals of Nanaimo participated in the charrette.”
What charrette?
Are we talking a Port Place plaza redevelopment charrette?
If so that’s the first I’ve heard about it!
No. there’s been no Port Place Mall design charrette that I’ve heard of. I was referring to the charrette that was part of the Downtown Design Guidelines process. These local architects are listed: Jerry Ellins, David Poiron, James Taylor, Brenda Grice, Alfred Korpershoek, Robert Boyle.
Representatives from the City Design Advisory Panel, the Rezoning Advisory Committee, the DNP and the nearby neighbourhood associations are also listed as having pariticpated.
A downtown must have spaces for people to gather , to talk, to meet, to greet one another.There is no real public square, or common that is attractive to conversation in Nanaimo. Port Place has always been a gathering place.
We need more developments, with less need for cars, to make our downtown a place for people.
There are many public squares and common areas in Nanaimo. Dianna Krall Plaza, Maffeo-Sutton Park, Piper’s Park, Queen Elizabeth Promonade, Wharfinger by Crane, and many other small park areas such as the Italian Fountain or the small park across from New York Style Pizza. Port Place is a private venture, not a public gathering place, although over the years, many of us have met at the corner where Purdy’s used to be. All of the places listed above are meeting places today.
Really good points W.M. We have a fairly good public space framework to work with. It could be way worse but a lot of it is seriously dysfunctional — cold and barren and uninviting. It wouldn’t take a lot of creativity and innovation to turn some of these common areas into public spaces that look like they were designed by people who actually like other people. (The Capy Yates site across from New York Style is private property)
But to your central point. Port Place Mall is private property and the owner is under no obligation to supply our public space. Except it’s not quite that simple. The City Planning Department has a once-in-probably-fifteen-years opportunity to influence the redevelopment of this key site at the heart of our downtown core. They have a responsibility to represent the interest of the average citizen at the table where development applications are being reviewed. They are guided by city policy contained in for instance the Downtown Design Guidelines. That document makes the case that cities everywhere are learning: expanses of surface parking kills neighbourhoods.
There is also the question of best and highest use for land at our city centre. The developer is making the case implicitly that that land has no greater (more profitable) use than “free” parking. It amounts to a bold billboard that says “this place is in serious economic decline and you should live and invest elsewhere”.
In my previous discussion here, I referred to Lions Square Park between Wallace and Fraser Streets, not Cappy Yates Park. For the amount of square footage it is one of the busiest parks we may have in our city.
As long as the automobile rules the transportation of our city, which it will until we can provide a proper alternative such as improved bus service and/or better network of roads, the land owners of property such as Port Place will offer enticements such as free parking to keep their retail spaces full.
As many people in our community will attest, we have a parking problem in our downtown core and we need to address that issue before we start dismissing projects that require more parking. It should be noted that the roof top parking looks like it will be included in the reworking of the lands formerly known as Harbour Park Mall.
For those that believe it signifies a place in economic decline and you should live elsewhere, I do not agree.
Point taken W.M. but to clarify – yes, we need to continue for the foreseeable future to accommodate the car. Other cities are learning though that parking has to go above or underground. The issue is often settled simply by the economics of profitable commercial and residential projects built where there used to be surface parking. If that economic reality doesn’t exist in downtown Nanaimo, it’s a legitimate concern.
After talking to members of the Architectural Review Panel I’ve learned that this project was before the panel three times. At each subsequent visit minor cosmetic changes where made without fully addressing the general dissatisfaction with the project. It is the architectural equivalent of a hack job. The fact that this magnificent site has been so badly treated for so long, has always been a mystery. The reasons why it continues to be so maligned still elude me. We don’t have to create such hideous constructions by our waterfront, but we continue to do so. Nanaimo’s beautiful harbour seems to be a dumping zone for crap architecture. Why is that?
Let’s see where to start…
First a drive up mall concept (aka standard practice is AB, Coquitlam, Park Royal even Country Club is a BAD idea. Very poor planning and very much a snap shot of a design method that was employed from 1998 to 2008.
Second, it needs redevelopment but must be seen as a complete package, not a maybe on this or that.
Third, it’s unlikely that you’d be able to construct underground parking on that chunk of rock with consideration of the water table.
Forth, transit exchange anyone? I guess “they” missed the gripes about the Prideaux street thing?
I could go on…
Wyatt-Please go on. We would like to hear the details.
Will not shop at this mall unless parking costs are free or payed parking. 2 hour parking limit is absolutely ridiculous. I spent an hour at thriftys and a little over an hour getting food at subway and going to London drugs. The ticket I received for 35 dollars from robins parking for shopping at your mall will detoure from shopping there again and I will make sure others know as well