Nothing is forever, including the view

As the parkade-at-the-park issue fades for the moment, and we move on to other important civic matters, something is scratching at my memory about last week’s City council meeting.

I’m sure it’s here in my notes somewhere. Ah, yes, here it is.

Mayor Peter Milobar says, because of people’s concerns about interference with views from Lorne Street, he can’t support the parkade as proposed by staff.

He could, however, vote for a two-level version because it would preserve the view as well as maintain open-air parking for Heritage House.

Most members of council agreed with the mayor. His idea was “more palatable,” said John DeCicco.

“My trouble was the loss of view,” said Pat Wallace.

And, of course, council approved the compromise by a vote of 6-2. That, as I said, was last Tuesday.

It took about 48 hours for the two-level view-saving Plan B to become temporary, more or less. David Trawin, the director of engineering services and other stuff, raised the idea of building a two-level parkade that could be made into three levels at a future date.

It’s unclear whether members of council had that notion in their minds when they were talking about saving the view from Lorne Street, but there certainly seems to be significant support for Trawin’s scenario now.

Just what might be built on top of the parkade at some future day is being left open. Could be more parking, could be a building.

I’m pretty sure, though, that either one would interfere with the view of the park from Lorne Street. Of course, we are reassured, that would be for a future council to decide.

I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around a decision that is made for the express purpose of saving a view, but only for awhile.

This idea that one council can take credit for a decision based on view, but part and parcel of that decision is to provide a future council the ability to erase that view, is a puzzler.

Seems to me that if you base a decision on a view, you would want to make that decision irrevocable.

Views, after all, are important. Whenever somebody puts up a new building or piece of infrastructure — be it an apartment block, condo development, hotel or commercial building — concerns about views come into play.

Psychologists tell us that scenery helps our mental health. People who live in cities get depressed if they can’t find some trees and grass and maybe a mountain to look at once in awhile.

So if being able to see Riverside Park as you drive by on Lorne Street is important now, won’t it be just as important in five, 10 or 20 years?

On the face of it, wouldn’t it be more in keeping with the rationale for council’s decision if the two-level parkade were to be built so it can’t be expanded upward, rather than built so that it can?

Just asking.

In the meantime, City staff will be busy over the next while re-crafting plans for the parkade and coming up with new drawings showing how nice it will look with one fewer storey.

The new plans will go to council for the okay, and then a decision will have to be made about how to proceed with financing.

At which time, the debate should fire up again quite nicely, either in time for the November election, or not.

And maybe we’ll get a better explanation of the logic involved in protecting a view only until it is no longer protected.