"City Hall would like to see that new development happen in the C-1 zone of downtown."

So, just for argument sake, what incentives would they give to cause that development to happen downtown?

Would Pete Sherba accept that and develop downtown?

Would that kind of development mean that the rest of downtown would look like Parkwood ..... :-)

Is that what this community wants, a big Parkwood?

Did anyone learn anything from SGOG?

I think suburban commercial and CBD commercial are two completely different solitudes and never the twain shall meet.

They should limit the whole neighborhood to ten story apartment, condo, hotel developments. Call it city center and make all the buses serve all corners of the city from that location.

PG needs an urban environment... PG need more elderly accommodations close to shopping and amenities... PG needs some more quality student housing somewhat near the two institutions in this city... PG needs a entertainment district in a safe area close to the main road arteries and shopping amenities.

I would do what Kelowna does and find a developer willing to build fifteen ten story complexes over a ten year period and make it happen. If the building isn't ten stories or more it doesn't belong on that parcel of land. Really its the only land in the city where we can have underground parking for a sky-rise high density neighborhood, so it should be preserved as such.

Gus, you need to leave town more often - maybe visit places in the lower mainland who have developed commercial with residential upstairs with some hi-rises in the mix - Morgan Crossing out in Surrey might be a perfect place for you to check out. It has been well done and would be a perfect addition to the downtown. What has been done in the past isn't necessarily what will be done in the future. As for this plan, it shouldn't be what Pete Sherba wants but what the citizens want and what works best for this great piece of land. The city needs to put an "out of the box" plan together and then throw it out there for developers other than those who are club members. AND, ask the members of that golf club what they want and most people will tell you that they don't want to move. If the "old boys club" couldn't make a go of it where they are, what makes them think they'll make a go of it at a new course?

Prince George and surrounding area has been in a decline for some time. There is nothing on the horizen that would indicate that this is going to change in the near future. In fact the projections of the BC Government is a continued decline in school enrolments for the next 10 years, and I would expect that the local population will remain much the same.

So why do we need more development. Who will live in these buildings??? It seems that people in Prince George just cannot grasp the fact that this City has stalled as far as growth is concerned.

Go to Pine Centre Mall on any day of the week and you can get a parking place pretty well anywhere you want. 10 years ago you couldnt get one. People are now shopping at Westgate etc; and therefore the Mall loses business.

With no growth in population in the North Central interior, the more we build the less money available for all business. Some one has to go broke, and they will.

I suspect that a number of business's will be gone by this time next year.

The Prince George Golf and Curling Club is between a rock and a hard place. They are losing money in the present location, and their memebership has declined by 50% in the last 5 years. If they build a new golf course there is no gaurantee that they would get any new members, and they would end up being broke in a different area. If they stay where they are, they have to come up with ways to increase revenue, reduce costs, and borrow some money. Thats no easy task.

They need about a $5 Million dollar low interest loan from the Northern Trust Initiative to get that course back in shape, and allow them time to return it to a first class course that attracts tournaments, and tourists.

They would of course have to include a big change in attitude along with changes to the course.

Have a nice day.

"Gus, you need to leave town more often - maybe visit places in the lower mainland who have developed commercial with residential upstairs with some hi-rises in the mix"

LOL ....... Greta, maybe you should come over sometime to look at the pictures I have taken over the years of developments both old and new. Most provinces in Canada, several states in the USA and several European countries.

Greta, you should look at the context. Based on the images presented at the meeting last night, Morgan Crossing is what the planners had on their minds. All it is is an artificial new town based on some north american ideal image of what bigger buildings might have looked like in a gingerbread Victorian or Queen Anne era mixed with a bit of Bauhaus modern. Basically it is watered down post modernism introduced into mid density urban residential developments where those who cannot afford to live in the real downtown Vancouver get to hang out.

As Palopu wrote, there is absolutely no indicator at this time that this community can support a Morgan Crossing "new townsite" like development anywhere, let alone in what has become a traditional green space and can continue to be used as such if there were just people put in charge of the club who had the "balls" to do it. (pun intended)

They remind me of the old DBIA group, 10 years of trying and no takers.

We have a perfectly good downtown that can be converted through infill in a similar fashion to Robson Street, Denman, West Broadway towards UBC, Commercial Drive, etc. Those are urban streets that change with the times.

Walk down the lanes of those streets and the back of many of the buildings still give away their roots of 70+ year old buildings that have been given new life over the decades with new facades and interiors.

As the streets have grow in popularity they began to take on different retail uses moving from local to national and international chain stores.

It is what I call the natural progression of urban tranportation routes that connect the various residential precincts they feed.

We have no such order of magnitude in this city. In fact, we have no history of public transit. So, our city actually has very little that gives it a traditional urban centre city fabric.

I have yet to find someone in this community to identify its defining characteristics - the thing(s) which say to us and to outsiders "you are in Prince George". The elements which should be respected and enhanced with any new development.

To me they are Connaught Hill, the Nechako cutbanks as views, for views from higher buildings, the foothills of the Rockies. Then comes the key street grids of the wide 7th avenue, City Hall and its square and George Street. Those, along with the green of Duchess Park, now so thoughtlessly blocked by the new school, give the City its key characteristics given to us by the original City Plan of the early 1900's.

The Millar Subdivision, the Gateway and the Winnipeg/Vancouver corridor along with the Crescents provide the traditional residential areas around the oversized CBD which require higher density infills to give everyone those "downtown" residents who will provide some of the local population base required to activate the CBD to a level that will bring people from the rest of the city into the downtown.

What conditions are necessary for that to happen?

1. an actual significant growth in the population of the city.

2. a Council dedicated to smart growth principles which, for the purpose of the golf course lands, means no rezoning of the lands until the downtown has achieved a significant turn around. They continue to make the same mistake they have made for the past 30 years by even agreeing to put a plan proposal out there. A MAJOR mistake from my point of view!!!! Might as well stop all planning functions in this city.

3. Incentives to have projects constructed downtown. Those incentives to be developed with the Pete Sharbas of this world since they are the ones who will develop if the conditions are right. We must remember, if they do not do it, then it will only get done with 100% public investment.

If we want developers to go where we want them to go, then we have to be prepared to participate in the financial cost. Just consider incentives to be that. They are nothing new. It is a common tool used throughout urban areas.

Palopu, you bring up some really good points. The member ship is declining every year and if they think moving up the hill where the season is going to be a few weeks shorter is the answer, they are sadly mistaken.

The original plan was was to move as the pine beetle has killed the trees. Now most of the dead trees are gone (still a few dead ones along Westwood to stop errant balls).With all the trees gone, it is still a very playable course. I believe the reason we are moving now is the sprinkler system needs to be replaced at a cost of close to 1 million dollars and the out dated club house that is very expensive to heat. I like the idea to borrow 5 million to replace the sprinklers and up date the clubhouse.

Of all the members I have talked to this year, all but a couple said they would rather stay than move. I suspect the members that want to move are the ones that have a vested interest in developing this new neighborhood plan. Hmmmm... I say take a re-vote.

Do we really need more residential and commercial property? If so, why not build some high rises down town with commercial on the bottom floors and residential above.

Cheers!

When you talk about City planning, or long range planning, think about this.

The City of New York,has a population of 8,363.710 people, and a land mass of 304.8 square miles.

The City of Prince George has a population of 75,000, and a land mass of 122 square miles, over 1/3 of the land mass of NY.

Obviously New York built up while we built out.

We will never get any real changes to original downtown unless we stop the spread of development all over hells half acre. The land mass of this City in relation to its population is insane, and of course the costs for water, sewage, garbage, roads, etc are astranomical, because we are so spread out.

Greta .... here is a bit of a review of what happens in the City of Vancouver, not the outskirts that are just beginning to become cities and have yet to be judged on theor 50 years and 100 years after success. There are many lessons to be learned of how a city actually grows.

Haro Street – West End http://i30.tinypic.com/vqguv7.jpg
Typical West end residential – combination of 3 storey “walk-ups” and scattered high rise apartments, relatively dense residential serviced by commercialized transportation collectors such as Denman, Davie and Robson.

Denman at Comox http://i29.tinypic.com/2jd4axy.jpg
Older original set back housing/commercial stock buildings with more streamlined street level facades added on. This was typical mix of original buildings along with some 3+ storey apartment buildings

Robson at Thurlow http://i29.tinypic.com/oq99fr.jpg
Original single and two storey retail stock on the left that used to define much of Robson in the 1970s and earlier

Robson at Jervis http://i28.tinypic.com/beedfl.jpg
8 storey high building of mixed street level retail plus some offices on upper floors and apartments. Upper levels set back to keep street level sunny. This is at least a 20+ year old development, A similar one was proposed here in the early 1980s between 3rd and 4th to the east of Quebec. The then recession stopped it and it was never resurrected. I think if it had gone ahead the whole history of downtown PG would have changed over the past 30 years. It would have been a seminal development.

West 4th – Kitsilano http://i30.tinypic.com/2qd9blu.jpg
Recently new 3 storeys of apartments above street front retail commercial. Original two storey residential plus retail to the right.

West 4th – Kitsilano http://i31.tinypic.com/amw2vt.jpg
Commercial retail at street level with 2 story lofts above nearest building and 3 storey apartment above far building

Commercial at Charles – East End http://i31.tinypic.com/2djwkg8.jpg
New 4 storey residential development with retail on street level, older stock apartment with retail on street level can be seen in background

Commercial at Charles http://i31.tinypic.com/6rqcgh.jpg
Northern end of Commercial towards Venables. Distant viewscape of North Shore mountains with Grouse Mountain ski terrain. One block size community park on the left. Lower buildings further down the street, all retail, restaurant commercial. This is the neighbourhood “downtown” that is very active in the evenings and on weekends. Toronto as well as Montreal have many corridor neighbourhood “downtowns” like this.

Aerial http://i27.tinypic.com/a3101k.jpg
This shows the relationship of Commercial Drive (yellow) to its adjacent residential areas (blue) that make the retail commercial work and continue to be sustained. It is so successful that people visit this area from further away in the city because it is now seen as a character street. It has happened “naturally”, not by artificial design. I would think that the success of this street will come and go over the generations depending on the type and intensity of renewal it will occasionally experience.

The orange coloured are to the left is the industrial sector for local employment.

The red is the skytrain rapid transit system which provides access to the rest of the city by local residents as well as access to the “entertainment” of Commercial Drive for others in the City.

In Prince George, this kind of development should have happened and can still happen along 5th avenue between Victoria and Central, but has not. I see nothing in the OCP which encourages this type of development. Far from it. Any such efforts should be coupled with the raising of residential densities along the street inboard at least one if not two blocks from the arterial.

The same could happen to Victoria and 20th as it swings through the Gateway. Again, increasing the density of residential allowed on both sides of the collector/arterial street.

But, instead of encouraging what has come naturally in other cities we are trying to “force” residential into the Regional Central Business District which is typically a late arrival in the life of cities or putting it into totally new developments such as the Golf Course lands, and even at that separating the various land uses to perpetuate the same problem we have in the downtown rather than creating integrated developments.
The main problem this community has suffered on is the fixation with downtown.

It will eventually fix itself unless the city keeps on shrinking. BUT!!!!

1. Do not start other centres from raw land and

2. DO NOT remove valuable green space which can never be recovered and

3. INFILL select existing public transit arterials with linear commercial development and INFILL the exiting adjacent blocks of residential with spot higher density developments.

Some world city populations, areas in Sq Km and number of people per square km

New York is actually primarily built up in Manhattan. The rest is relatively low. Paris is twice the density of New York City and is dominated by buildings that are not more than 5 and six storeys high in the traditional city centre with some high rises in the outer precincts.

Philadelphia is actually more dense than New York City.

Many cities have far in excess of the land they need. Prince George is one of them. Take in the land and you will get the tax from industries that tend to be outside more tight land bases.

If one were to look at the "urban" density lands lands in the Hart. CH, and the Bowl, one would actually be looking at about 30 to 35 sq km with a population density of about 2,000/sq km.

That is still a far cry from Geneva which is has 16 sq km with a population density of over 11,000/sq km. Its downtown buildings are modelled after Paris and many other European cities.

If we look at transportation efficiencies, we have a long way to go to get into a more efficient mode from the point of view of the capital cost of infrastructure, the maintenance cost of that infrastructure and the energy cost of travelling along those transportation corridors.

And then there are the other services - water, sewers, gas, hydro, communications, etc.

Ever wodner why it costs so much to operate just the BASICS of a city such as Prince George?

Wonder no longer.

Mumbai 13,839,884 603 22,936
Paris 2,193,031 105 20,807
Buenos Aires 3,050,728 203 15,028
Philadelphia 1,547,901 127 12,150
Geneva 187,697 16 11,835
New York 8,363,710 789 10,595
Moscow 10,126,424 1,081 9,368
São Paulo 11,037,593 1,523 7,247
Mexico City 8,841,916 1,485 5,954
Tokyo 13,010,279 2,187 5,949
Boston 645,169 125 5,161
Vancouver 578,041 115 5,041
London 8,278,251 1,707 4,850
Montreal 1,620,693 365 4,439
Munich 1,330,440 310 4,292
Toronto 2,503,281 630 3,973
Berlin 3,439,100 891 3,860
Los Angeles 3,833,995 1,215 3,156
Shanghai 19,210,000 6,340 3,030
Zurich 265,098 92 2,885
Calgary 988,193 727 1,360
Nanaimo 78,692 89 881
Kelowna 120,812 212 571
Moncton 64,128 141 454
Fredericton 50,535 131 387
Ottawa 812,129 2,778 292
Kamloops 86,376 297 291
Prince George 81,981 316 259