VanRamblings: Aquatic Centre demolition/Endowment Fund

spm2013 · #1 Posted **Jul 30, 2014, 5:58 PM**

...

spm2013 · #2 Posted **Jul 30, 2014, 6:03 PM**

...

theKB · #3 Posted **Jul 31, 2014, 4:54 AM**

So which one of visions financiers is going to get a prime piece of waterfront property?!

Interestingly enough, if vision wanted to upgrade the aquatic centre why not just kill the viaduct project? Instead of tearing down infrastructure so that concord and the aquilini's can have more land to build condos and the city can have a big empty grass fiend, why not assign the money to a community centre that is widely used by the community? I guess it doesn't fit the "green" agenda?

I am sure there are a few things in the four year capital plan that could be killed/cancelled/postponed to facilitate the refurbishment of the aquatic centre.

ssiguy · #4 Posted **Jul 31, 2014, 5:29 AM**

This is offensive but coming from our development-at-any-price City Hall, it's hardly surprising.

I don't understand how they can sell Aquatic Centre lands, isn't that parkland?

whatnext · #5 Posted **Jul 31, 2014, 5:50 AM**

I'm all for demolishing the current, hideous, aquatic centre, but its replacement should be on the same incredible site.

How does something like this close in 17 days without ratepayers being made aware of it before now? Smacks of Vision backroom dealings.

spm2013 · #6 Posted **Jul 31, 2014, 6:21 AM**

...

dreambrother808 · #7 Posted **Jul 31, 2014, 4:05 PM**

It would be a far more central downtown site for the Aquatic Centre. But of course, Vision is evil so the usual haters must cast aspersions...

whatnext · #8 Posted **Jul 31, 2014, 4:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

It would be a far more central downtown site for the Aquatic Centre. But of course, Vision is evil so the usual haters must cast aspersions...

Take a break from the Vision Koolaid and ask yourself why a Parks Board Commisioner wouldn't even have been aware of this deal?

spm2013 · #9 Posted **Jul 31, 2014, 5:48 PM**

...

WarrenC12 · #10 Posted **Jul 31, 2014, 6:44 PM**

A giant building on the waterfront without any windows to the water is silly.

LeftCoaster · #11 Posted **Jul 31, 2014, 7:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

A giant building on the waterfront without any windows to the water is silly.

I'm going to stay out of the politics of it and just say from an urban planning standpoint having a big windowless monolith that does nothing to recognize the adjacent waterfront is not an asset to the area.

Personally I think it makes much more sense to move the pool to a more central location to more easily serve more people and re-imagine the space where it is currently into something more pedestrian friendly that doesn't completely ignore its surroundings.

Genauso · #12 Posted **Jul 31, 2014, 7:26 PM**

Windows are a big problem with big pools in balancing temperature/humidity. One response is to have high ceilings to make the problem manageable, so I'm guessing the existing design was to be cheap as possible.

I'm curious about which plans are further along, the new pool site or the redevelopment of the existing one.

The community centers downtown lag the rest of the city, especially those rebuilt for the Olympics... If you ever want to recall a tragic case of NIMBYism reactionaries, look up some of those public meetings. On par with that infamous creme de la creme quote, except manifold

officedweller · #13 Posted **Jul 31, 2014, 7:50 PM**

Not sure if the loop is a large enough site to accommodate the pool given that there will be a street/lane bisecting the site from Drake to Pacific.

The pool could be on one side of the lane and the condo tower on the other side.

I think it'll be tough for a developer to build a large, high ceiling'd column-free space (there are diving, towers, right?) below a mid-height condo tower.