The writer was a Victoria councillor for 25 years, with portfolios such as Public Art, Planning and Heritage.
One might wonder how Centennial Square, the celebrated urban renewal project of the 1960s, conceived and carried out by a dream team of architects, landscape architects, planners and artists, has gotten to the point where the current council supports the removal of the Centennial Fountain, in an attempt to breathe more life into the square, and replacing it with a splash park.
The city has awarded a contract in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin this project.
Why remove the fountain? The answer is surprisingly simple, not to mention disheartening.
Centennial Square has suffered from a series of misguided, and council supported, interventions over the decades.
The first intervention took place early in the life of the square. The tiara that surrounds the water feature was designed to human proportions, encouraging folks to sit by the fountain, even put their feet up and enjoy their lunch, or read a book.
The smooth finish of the tiara absorbed the heat of the sun and provided an inviting spot for a peaceful interlude in the heart of the city. Apparently, to the council of the day, too inviting to some.
Dismayed by the appearance of long-haired youth, strumming guitars and singing folk songs, staff were instructed to coat the tiara in rough-cast stucco, rendering it uninviting for seating, unless one arrived equipped with an inflatable rubber doughnut!
Over the years, the program for lighting and the spray jets was reduced, rendering the fountain less vibrant than initially intended.
Shopfronts on the north side of the square, which once housed retailers, were replaced with city operations, with their windows obscured.
A more recent intervention was the Spirit Square and Stage, a hastily approved project related to the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver.
The stage, beneath an overhang of the McPherson Theatre, has been unsuccessful since the outset. New structural columns, in addition to the existing columns associated with the McPherson, rendered the stage too small and unwieldy for most performances.
The solution was to add a temporary stage, in front of the permanent stage, to make it more viable. This resulted in the removal of individual, interactive water features that were intended to animate the space in front of the stage.
Not quite death by a thousand cuts, but the square has definitely suffered due to a series of hasty, council-led, decisions.
The proposal to remove the fountain would be the most egregious act. The city’s first piece of public art, the fountain has functioned as the beating heart of the square for decades.
The theme of the art pieces: youth and growth, creation and protection, morality and man’s struggle against evil, seem even more timely than when they were created. The only shortcoming of the fountain is that it has suffered from a lack of maintenance.
A report from Stantec Engineering in 2016 provided a cost estimate of $85,000 to repair and restore the fountain. Even adjusted to today’s dollars this is a small fraction of the hundreds of thousands of dollars that are being directed to this phase of the project, not to mention the millions of dollars identified in subsequent phases.
Some councillors have taken the position that the art pieces have come to the end of their life. This is categorically untrue as they simply require restoration, as identified in the Stantec report.
This raises the question of what is the responsibility of mayor and council as stewards of public art. Surely their responsibility is to be well-informed, to understand the importance of a piece and to follow best practices in ensuring it restoration and retention in situ.
When I was on council, and held the portfolio for Art in Public Places, we received a report on repair work that needed to be undertaken on The Gate of Harmonious Interest, a landmark in Chinatown.
I felt it was my responsibility to ensure the future of this iconic structure and took on the task of fundraising and supporting the restoration process, along with city planner Mickey Lam.
Some years later, we were presented with a report on the condition of the Beacon Hill Park totem pole. Staff recommended that the pole be taken down, put into storage and then a plan developed specific to its future.
With support from council, I formed a committee to fundraise and develop a restoration plan. The outcome was a public event, celebrating the rededication of the restored pole.
It is disheartening not to see this type of interest and commitment from our current council. The majority seem to demonstrate a lack of interest or, even in the absence of supporting facts, express a position that supports their view that a splash park in the square is key to revitalization of the downtown, while ignoring all other principles and recommendations.
Surely there are more pressing needs in the downtown that would benefit from an infusion of the millions of dollars proposed for Centennial Square.
The mayor has pledged to look under every rock in an attempt to reduce the proposed property tax increase. Perhaps one of the biggest rocks to look under is the budget allocated towards Centennial Square.
By restoring, at a very modest cost, this iconic piece of public art and directing the millions of dollars projected to be spent on the square over the next few years, council can demonstrate that they are responsible stewards of public art, fiscally responsible decision makers and at the same time, retain the beautiful, beating heart of Centennial Square.
>>> To comment on this article, write a letter to the editor: [email protected]
