Email to Mayor & Council & Senior Managers: Vancouver’s Oakridge Mall — Nanaimo’s Port Place Mall Redevelopments
Frank Murphy — September 14, 2010
Mayor Ruttan, Nanaimo City Councillors, Mr’s Swabey, Tucker and Kenning —
I’m hoping you’ll spare a few minutes to familiarize yourselves with the approach taken by the City of Vancouver Planning Department when approached by the owners of Vancouver’s Oakridge Mall to discuss its redevelopment.
_________________
Is this not the model and approach that should have been employed when plans were put in place to redevelop our inner city Port Place Mall site? Were stakeholders other than the proponent represented adequately at the table?
_________________
Here’s the policy statement: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/currentplanning/oakridge/pdf/mar07policystatement/policystatement.pdf
Note especially the policy objectives which itemized the legitimate concerns of each of 3 stakeholders: the neighbourhoods, the property owner and the City and Region.
2.2 BROAD POLICY OBJECTIVES
Successful redevelopment of Oakridge Centre will meet the aspirations and objectives of the community, the Oakridge Centre owners and the city and region.
Community Objectives:
• Improve, expand and cluster community facilities.
• Ensure ease of access to groceries and shops for daily/weekly shopping.
• Limit traffic impact.
• Retain and improve neighbourhood amenity.
• Develop a rich, varied and urban public realm.
• Improve neighbourhood fit.
Oakridge Centre Objectives:
• Pursue regional retail expansion.
• Ensure continuous operation.
• Ensure economic viability.
• Achieve a balance of commercial expansion, related underground parking, and sufficient residential to make an economically viable development.
• Promotion of development patterns which can evolve over time.
City and Regional Objectives:
• Promote transit-oriented mixed-uses, including increased retail, residential and office uses within a walkable community.
• Provide local serving retail and services.
• Encourage office use and ridership on transit.
• Limit impact on other neighbourhood centres.
• Promote sustainability.
• Support a finer grain of development organized around an urban structure of streets.
Is this not the model and approach that should have been employed when plans were put in place to redevelop our inner city Port Place Mall site? Were stakeholders other than the proponent represented adequately at the table?
Frank Murphy
Posts and Comments on Nanaimo Governance 
Thanks for posting the Port of Nanaimo Video.
Not quite sure where to post comments about the video………………
So now the public is informed that someone is spending $22.5 million tax payer dollars on a dock because the cruise ship industry does not like the operational costs associated with tendering ports where they have to use their own crew and life boats to ferry people back and forth to shore even though the industry admits that tendering ports offer a unique aesthetic experience for the tourist. Isn’t this a little like killing the goose that laid the golden egg? Would it not be better to capitalize on this travel experience? Why not build a floating Welcome Centre? Why not employ local folks to operate tendering services to the inner harbour? What is the special tourist experience about when getting on a bus in a dusty parking lot in the middle of an industrial wasteland?
And also, who invented the development plan for the assembly wharf lands that is illustrated in the video? Was a policy statement developed that informs the urban design decisions that must invariably be taken for this area? Was a master plan, transportation, land use, and sustainability plan created for this area? Was there a public consultation process? Was it advertised? Was the City of Nanaimo Planning Department consulted?
Is there any reality here other than money going up the stack of a pile driver while the local community tears its hair out over environmental impacts?