Quote:
Originally Posted by CCF
I agree with this. Generally, politicians need to stop looking for the "quick win" for downtown revitalization. It doesn't exist. An arena doesn't do it, a convention centre wouldn't do it, better parking doesn't do it, and so on. Revitalizing a downtown happens by bringing as many uses and functions downtown as possible. One layered on top of another. Our downtown struggles because it does one function really great (office) and a range of other functions pretty poorly (retail, entertainment, housing).
If my end goal was downtown revitalization, I could find a better way to allocate $100 - $200M than on an arena. However, if an arena is coming, it should be downtown as that makes the most sense for potential/possible impacts it may have.
All that being said - the proposed location is awful. Tearing down the types of activities and buildings we want downtown in hopes that a new arena might lead to construction of the types of buildings and uses that were just torn down. Makes one's head spin. The Catalyst Committee should open up and dust off the underutilized land study to find a more suitable location that could use something like this...
|
I agree with all of this, and have been telling councillors, city admin, and the arena/catalyst committee as such for years.
Same with advocating for Broad/Rose & 11th Ave as the ideal location for a new arena, if it is a must have.