Years of neglect the reason for conservatory closure

A magnificent structure on the Vancouver landscape that has been badly neglected for many successive incarnations of the Park Board.

In observing the opposition to the Park Board’s decision to cut subsidies to the Stanley Park petting zoo and the Bloedel Conservatory in Queen Elizabeth Park, it seems as though the loss of the latter is a lot more painful for those interested parties.

And why not.  The historic Bloedel Conservatory was constructed in 1969 as a result of Seattle-based lumber magnate and avid art collector Prentice Bloedel, who made a substantial contribution that transformed an abandoned basalt quarry into a magnificently sculpted public-use plaza with an intriguing, futuristic (at the time) centrepiece.  The conservatory came together through a 1967 City of Vancouver Canadian Centennial project that evolved and took on a life of its own.

The plexiglass paneled geodesic dome is home to hundreds of varieties of tropical trees, shrubs and flowers as well as pathways, water features and animals, including over 100 species of birds who call the dome home.

But with a crack in the famed dome, this structure is not only in need of a new marketing plan as some have suggested.

On top of this dramatic structural damage, 80 plexiglass bubbles on the roof are also in desperate need of replacement.

A new roof for the heritage-protected building is expected to cost an astounding $1.5 to $2-million.

But if we look into the past, it is easy to understand how we have ended up with the conservatory’s current sorry state.

Park Board Commissioner Constance Barnes asked an important question at last week’s meeting where the vote to end funding took place:

“Why wasn’t bubble one replaced? Why wait to 80? Did they all go at once?”

The answer to that question is obvious.

I have been reading over past Park Board Capital Plan budget allotments, and much like this breakdown from the 2006-2008 plan, the allotment for the Bloedel Conservatory roof panel replacements is most often $0.

Take a look at the allotment for the 2003-2005 Park Board Capital plan budget allotments, where a goal of replacing 10 per cent of the roof inventory over as part of a 30 year re-roofing plan doesn’t mention the conservatory roof at all.

In fact, if you look at the major projects funded by Capital Plans since 1997, the conservatory roof is absent from a very long and extensive list.

Now over this time period, with the exception of 2002 COPE landslide which produced a 5-2 majority on the Park Board, all other Park Board compositions up until last year’s election have been NPA dominated (1996, 1999, 2005).

So, while all must take responsibility, the NPA sure had plenty of opportunity to turn their attention to the conservatory upgrades that could have prevented the current state of disrepair.

Couple this with the fact that attendance and revenues have been going down for some time now (as an example, attendance at the conservatory declined from 119,000 visitors of which 28,000 were tour bus admissions in 2001, to 65,000 visitors of which 940 were tour bus admissions in 2006), and you end up where we are today.

So, the next time you hear lone NPA Councillor Suzanne Anton or lone NPA Park Board Commissioner Ian Robertson or even Park Board Commissioner Loretta Woodcock (all of whom have sat on the Park Board in previous terms) use the conservatory to stir up public furor against the Vision majorities on Council and the Park Board, view their words through the filter that this post is trying to create.

That is, years of neglect is what has got us to the current situation with the Bloedel Conservatory, not the necessary cuts that the Vision Council is making to a bloated budget.