The Reid Plan (1971 Inner Harbour towers)

University of Victoria

The Martlet

September 16, 1971

Battle rages over Reid plan

Public referendum may be the outcome of current controversy surrounding proposed development of a $25 million highrise project in Victoria’s Inner Harbor.

First introduced into the news in 1968 under Victoria’s aspirations for urban renewal projects un the area, recent headlines show many city residents are opposed to the development.

Opposition, speared by alderman Peter Pollen, flared conspicuously in an opening meeting in city hall chambers giving official sanction to Vancouverite J. A. Reid’s proposition for a 2.87 acre parcel of land located at the foot of Bastion Square.

Under continuous attack by Ald. Pollen since the original design of a 25-storey, three-tower development, was announced, fate of the hotel-
apartment-shopping mall complex has been been bitterly batted back and forth between members of council and the developer.

Pollen, whose views are lauded by former Victoria planner Rod Clack, designer of both Centennial and Bastion Squares, calls for overall public vote coordination and planning for the future of the inner harbor area so that public interest will merit at least as much consideration as the importance of luring private business capital into the city.

If Pollen’s representation were acted upon the provincial government, largest landowner in the area, would necessarily by included in any overall plans for the area.

When inner harbor development was first considered under urban renewal projects, the city expected both senior governments to foot one-third of development costs.

Federal priorities in Vancouver and New Westminster kiiled hopes for inclusion in the current Ottawa budget, but federal ministers have said this does not mean future representations for inner harbor by the city will be ruled out. (It is the policy of the incumbent civic administration that development of such areas as inner harbor be borne by private investment and not by local taxes.)

In December 1970 a public referendum on the issue was defeated, but Pollen and Ald. Tom Christie, also opposed to the now reduced 25-storey twin tower structure, charged that nebulous wording of the referendum caused its refusal by voters. It asked taxpayers whether of not they approved spending $2 million of public monies on acquisition of waterfront property in the Wharf Street urban renewal area.

While a majority of council sees the project only as a future source of tax income for Victoria, others herald it as the edge of the wedge which will in time completely alter the countenance and physchology of the city.
Pollen, who has stated on numerous occasions that he is not anti highrises per se, considers construction as monumental as the dubbed “Reid Centre”, in the harbor area, will change the cityscape to the detriment of future developments in the downtown area.

Reid himself has agreed that high density development of waterfront property is not in the public interest and yet a phalanx of council still insist on construction without serious consideration, according to Pollen, being given to alternatives which would leave [the] inner harbor free for more suitable development, and yet facilitate the Reid project in a less controversial and more agreeable area.

Control the future

by
LYNN
WHITEHOUSE

We cannot avoid progress but the Reid “debate” should show Victorians whether or not they will be allowed the option of controlling progress. High density development is a necessity in a community with a rapidly increasing population, but unless Victorians, particularly those who profess a stake in in the future of the city, are prepared to examine the situation and decide on what they are willing to pay on the long term, lack of thoughtful planning will turn this city into a collage of filth-grimed concrete monsters. As the first such waterfront project the Reid development should
be scrutinized closely and judiciously for once the dam is cracked the water behind it floods through with less and
less control. Drive into the city over the Johnson Street bridge and look at the once impressive parliament buildings now architectual dwarfs against a sky-line of highrise structures in the James Bay area for an idea of what future development may mean ascetically to the city.

A public meeting is scheduled for Sept. 23, time and place as yet undecided, in which council intends to present plans already finalized. If you are concerned about the future development of the city make it your business to find out the facts of the inner harbor proposal and be at the public presentation by mayor and council. A referendum can be sought to decide the area’s fate but time is running out. Perhaps when Chicken Little warned her neighbors “The sky is falling; in” she was hinting at developments here.

Wow. While I am glad that the city did not allow the Reid proposal to go ahead I wonder if the council knew that when they turned it down the area would remain a parking lot for the next 36 years they would have considered it differently. I am also a little shocked by the letter by Lynn Whitehouse who is against the proposal but still for high density development. Too bad her modern day counterparts can't see both sides of the proposal. So we have any renderings of this.

Also does this explain Mr Pollen's recent articles regarding the inner harbour? Perhaps he wakes up in a cold sweat still thinking it is September 1971:)

I agree that highrises there would have been a mistake. But I don't agree with this:

Drive into the city over the Johnson Street bridge and look at the once impressive parliament buildings now architectual dwarfs against a sky-line of highrise structures in the James Bay area...

The "parliament buildings" are still impressive. Nothing has changed about that. The "architectural dwarfs" thing is just silly. That's one of my biggest pet peeves about Victoria's supposed defenders. They seem convinced that Victoria's majestic and glorious heritage buildings will cease to exist if new construction is allowed anywhere in the vicinity, even hundreds of meters away. It's simply not true.

I have no problem whatsoever with the way Orchard House & Robert House fit into this scene (a view that hasn't changed one drop since that letter was written, interestingly enough). I just wish they were better looking buildings. We've got to drop this post-war obsession with height and get back to obsessing about quality architecture.

...I wonder if the council knew that when they turned it down the area would remain a parking lot for the next 36 years...

It's funny, Wharf Street isn't exactly a showcase of preserved history. The old post office was butchered, the Harbour Square mall building is ugly and sticks out like a sore thumb, heritage buildings were knocked down to make way for parking lots...so why all the passion against highrises?

It's as if you can desecrate the city in any way you like, as long as you do it in eight stories or less.

Aastra:

Good image for evaluating....

What happens in that view of "The Ledge" if one adds a contemporary architectural "icon" by Ship Point?

From that specific view it would most likely just blot out Orchard House and Roberts House and the East Wing of the ledge but the rest of the building would be still visible. I personally think that the semi circle lot closest to milestones would be best as an amphitheatre and have the other two lots for redevelopment along the lines of what Aatra proposed in that other thread.

Would think that something there would be bad?

^ After having spent a # of weekends in the paddler's village at the Vic. Dragon Boat Festival, attended Folkfest, Blues Bash, seen boat shows, new and classic, tall ships and as a taxpayer see the parking revenues being collected when Ship Point site is not used for outdoor special events, I cringe everytime I hear or read or see a plan to make what I consider one of the most flexible outdoor spaces I have ever seen converted to a single purpose use.. especially ones that figure on building a theatre... Think of the effect on the site of the basic volumes that are theatre related... a big darkened box.... a fly tower.. a formal entrance with port cochere....

We should be very careful what we wish for on that site...

Have you read this Op-Ed from the Frontpage of the site?

http://www.vibrantvictoria.ca/development/articles/inhar_gemdisg.htm

As is suggested there an outside amphitheatre would be just as useful if not more so then what is there now. Think of a Camerson Band shell type building set into the hill under Wharf Street with a plaza spreading out from the current end of the Causeway to the rounded point before the second parking lot. The plaza would have diverse uses with the exception of parking.

The two remaining lots between here and the Regent Hotel with buildings on them would bring revenue in the form of property tax or if the city retained ownership in the form of leases.

I for one don't think we need a performing arts centre and don't anyone has suggested it.

I hear what you're saying, Icebergalley.

Let's just hope the anti-development types don't start referring to every parking lot downtown as a "flexible outdoor space."

...so why all the passion against highrises? It's as if you can desecrate the city in any way you like, as long as you do it in eight stories or less.

Eight stories? Try eight feet. Perhaps you missed Betty Gibbens impassioned speech to council on December 14th [[url=http://www.victoria.ca/contentmanager/minutes/min061204_cnc.pdf:522e0]Minutes[/url:522e0] in PDF format] when she railed against the [url=http://www.vibrantvictoria.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?t=677:522e0]Red Fish, Blue Fish proposal[/url:522e0] near the Harbour Air terminal.

The proposed container is unattractive and would block out harbour views to pedestrians on the upper walkway [I assume she means the sidewalk along Wharf Street]. Development must be put on hold and more plants and flowers need to be planted.

Ah Betty is a city treasure. It wouldn't be a council meeting without her.

Well said G-Man.

I think that is the problem with this city, "If I can't have what I want or don't want no else should either" This nimby thing is annoying. The Wharf st parking lot area is such an eyesore. Wasnt there a proposal a few years ago to put in a harbour theater? I think I have it in my file cabinet somewhere. Didnt the Jawls (Selkirk Development), propose another harbour market a couple of years ago?

This city and its citizens has to get a reality check. No one wants a wall of skyscrapers along the harbour, I don't either. But we have to do something about these parking lots along Wharf St, they are a complete waste of urban space.

The potential for a multi-use urban area (theatre, market, residential) is great.