Queen Street, 1962 (click image for larger view)

Random photos pulled from the photo sharing site Flickr.

When I was growing up in the area it was a popular pastime to shimmy around the edge of the lighthouse foundation at high tide, leaning against the exterior, trying not to fall in. I still remember when the Brighton shore around the lighthouse was lined with small summer cottages.

The lighthouse suffered extensive damage to the exterior walls from a storm in 2000. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which owns the lighthouse, was prepared to remove the lighthouse and replace it with a steel tower. After a massive public outcry DFO agreed to repair the existing structure instead.  Since that time, as a member of Heritage Board (now the chair) I have been witness to further DFO threats that the lighthouse may yet be replaced with a simple pole. The concrete foundation is badly deteriorating and the walls suffered more structural damage from ice in recent years.

Last year, DFO declared the lighthouse “surplus” yet still active, meaning it is still a required navigational aid; a polite way of saying “that’s it, the building is too much trouble but we still need the light.” As we’ve seen from a couple of related media stories this week the deadline for declaring an interest in surplus lighthouses is approaching and groups from community’s across PEI are beginning to come forward.

Last summer I sent a letter to the DFO and Coast Guard. Late in the fall, senior city staff held discussions with federal counterparts which resulted in a draft Memorandum of Agreement for the transfer of ownership of the lighthouse, and a Contribution Agreement by which the feds will pay up to $120,000 to repair and reinforce the walls, construct a new concrete base and surround the foundation with a wide radius of protective armour stone.

Last night council agreed in principle to enter into these agreements pending final negotiations. If all goes well the work should be complete by early next summer.

Photo Courtesy of John Morris - jmweb.500px.com

I was fortunate to have a great deal of assistance from two residents near the lighthouse in navigating the DFO and Coast Guard bureaucracy. Kim Griffin and Dan Jenkins made many phone calls, engaged consulting engineers, and cajoled the Heritage Committee to pursue a transfer of ownership of the lighthouse. I’ve also heard from other nearby residents who are very concerned for the future of the lighthouse. We all agree the neighbourhood wouldn’t be the same without it.

Part of the challenge in protecting the lighthouse from increasingly frequent tidal surges is that it will remain a functional navigational aid so the elevation of the light must remain the same in relation to the rear range light. At some point in the future, if the light is no longer required, it may be possible to increase the height of the foundation to raise the entire structure out of harms way, but we believe the measures being taken will largely protect the lighthouse from any significant damage in the near future.

As the chair of Heritage Board it’s my job to ensure the integrity of our designated heritage resources is maintained. This one — having as much sentimental value to me and many other residents, and considering it’s aesthetic value to our waterfront and Victoria Park — is particular satisfying to be protecting.

A brighter, cleaner Pownal Parkade

Secondly, I was sad to see that Burke’s Gas Bar, operating from the old Irving station at Queen and Euston, has apparently closed shop. This has been for years my usual place to fill up. The pumps are gone and a sign directs customers to other Irving stations around town. I’ve heard this old building variously described around City Hall as a “disgrace”, and as an important heritage building. In fact, I believe it is a designated heritage resource.

Gas pumps gone.

Last night’s resolution on the tennis courts was a recommendation from Heritage Board (of which I’m a member). This recommendation was required because Victoria Park is now a designated Heritage resource. Heritage Board recommended approval of the tennis courts, but only by a bare majority — the board was almost evenly split. Also, while campaigning throughout my ward last year, and at recent public meetings on this issue, I heard from many residents who were opposed to any further development or construction in Victoria Park. I knew the resolution would pass easily, so I voted against the resolution because a 10-0 vote would not have been representative of public opinion on the matter. There are many divergent views on what Victoria Park should, and should not be and there was certainly opposition to the construction of these new courts.

I always use Point Pleasant Park in Halifax as a good example of what I’d like to see happen at Victoria Park. In 2005, Halifax held an International Design Competition for Point Pleasant Park. It was very comprehensive, with a jury, technical review team, public consultations, etc. The winning design took into consideration the three main components of the park; cultural history, natural history, and recreation. And it stressed the importance of design and long-term planning. The winning submissions from that competition are now being rolled into a larger Master Plan for Point Pleasant Park.

I think there is an appetite for this kind of process for Victoria Park. The recent Parks Master Plan was a high-level plan for all of our parks resources, but I think Victoria Park needs to be treated individually, since it’s our “crown jewel”. It could really be an incredible landmark for the city, but it falls just a bit short currently, in my opinion, mostly because of poor design and planning. Gary Schneider’s forest management plan was a great step forward ecologically, but that needs to be a part of a greater plan.

I have nothing against tennis. I used to be very good at it.