Park Board Eyes Concession Overhaul

[barolo]

Both the CBC and Sun reported today that the Vancouver Park Board is considering privatizing its concessions to improve the menu, and presumably its income.

Here's a short quote from the Sun story, link below:

The report maps out a "concession strategy" or plan to replace the cottage-sized building and several other park board-owned concessions with larger buildings or "facelifts" to enhance their visual appeal.

...

A park board staff report endorses a more "entrepreneurial model" that allows food experts to decide on menu and pricing. Concession operators would have to move elsewhere, and the small living spaces they now occupy in city parks would be converted to covered seating and storage for more modern restaurants.

Park Board Eyes Concession Overhaul

What do you think about this idea?

What would you put on the menu if you owned the concession?

[shelora]

I'd like to know what sells to begin with and why the Parks Board thinks the menu has to change. I suspect the biggest sellers are ice cream, chips and hot dogs, as they are on any hot summer day at any concession stand across B.C.

I'd also like to know why they feel they must change the menu. Short of offering perhaps a veggie burger and some healthier drink choices, the grand triad of fast food - ice cream, hot dogs and chips - can't be beat. Money maker? Totally.

[*Deborah*]

They have some OK panini at Second Beach and Third Beach (or they did two years ago when I was having the odd snack in the middle of a big seawalk walk), and they have those tasty energy lemonade and peach Vrooom drinks (I think that's what it says on the big fountain container!). I think crudités with dip could be a good seller. It would be good to have something small and snacky that wasn't chips.

I wish they'd fix up the washrooms more than fix the food, the food's not all that bad for what it is, but some of those washrooms feel like they're 50 years old.

[Chef Fowke]

I LOVE THE HOT DOGS AT THIRD BEACH...

Why are they messing with a good thing?

Walk the dog, get hungry. Eat a generic, but tasty hot dog and a lemonaide ~ all is good. And the price: under $5.00.

[mamacat]

I agree with Deborah; the money would be better spent on the washrooms. The concession stands are what they are...places to grab that hot dog or fish & chips that you probably don't eat anywhere else...it's part of the park experience.

[eatrustic]

It's not so much the content of the concession stand menus as the quality. I'm fine with fast food but I would prefer a better hot dog (Chicago Style would be just fine). Burgers with a bit more oomph and garnishes like actual ripe tomatoes along with better fries.

...... and then in a perfect world I wouldn't mind a burrito say in the mode of Red Burritto which althought it has been pooh poohed here is a decent take on a Cali Mex, relatively fast, fresh and made to order burrito. A nice substantial sandwhich made with above average prepared meats (instead of plastic turkey roll or ham) and in mid summer to early Fall a kickass veggie sandwich on multi grain would be nice (I did say in a perfect world!).

Having said all that I fully appreciate that many of the more interesting options are based on fresh products that turn over quickly. The logistics of a sunny weekend with the potential for 2000 or more customers compared to a rainy day with barely a 100 make it pretty well essential that everything comes out of a freezer ready for the deep fryer or flat top. If this was Santa Monica or San Diego with a more stable weather pattern the possibilities would be endless.

Allowing a few well inspected mobile concession vans (in addition to a central, classic concession) would allow for more specialized ethnic foods (Portland comes to mind). Competition is never a bad thing.

[privatejet]

Thank goodness they are looking at change. Watermark may have had poor reviews on the food [justified IMO] however the strcture is gorgeous. All of the concessions stands should be as sleekly done.

Personaly I find all of the concessions, but particularly Sunset, English Bay and Second Beach miserable. They are dowdy and the food is worse. Nostalgia is great for some but the concesssion food does not speak to the Vancouver food scene -and unfortunately many of our visitors will take that away as a Vancouver experience.

How about Gord Martin movinn Go Fish to English Bay? That's killer!

Edited April 30, 2006 by privatejet (log)

[Daddy-A]

Thank goodness they are looking at change. Watermark may have had poor reviews on the food [justified IMO]  however the strcture is gorgeous.  All of the concessions stands should be as sleekly done.

Well, that's definitely a matter of opinion. What does this city have against histroical structures? Glass & concrete seems to be a constant mantra.

*sigh*

Leave Go Fish where it is.

Replace everything with vending machines. If the public sector can't do it right (prepared foods) then leave it to the private sector.

A.

[maxmillan]

I'd like see a change. The prices are high, the food is mostly junk and I usually go off site to get food.

[sanrensho]

I'd love to see some change. We can do much better than concessions stands where "vegetable" is a foreign word. I mean, this is Vancouver. Bring on the bahn mi, Vietnamese spring rolls, satay chicken, crepes, Belgian waffles, siu mai, BBQ pork buns, onigiri, kim bap, etc.

[rant]I'm sick of (poor quality) burgers, hot dogs and fries, and I shudder at the thought of feeding that shite to my kids. Until they offer better options, I'm packing/buying a picnic lunch.[/rant]

[Vancitygirl]

Privatization would force the operators to provide food that the we the consumer want. If they don't they will not make money. Right now the concessions are not forced to be profitable because they are subsidized, so there is little motivation for them to provide the goods we want.

Brian - you'd probably still have hot dogs!

Long live capitalism.

[barolo]

They are going ahead with the change according to the CBC:

The Vancouver Park Board has decided to privatize its 15 concession stands on city beaches and at parks, saying they haven't been making money.

In a report for the board, staff say it's time the concession stands caught up with the times, noting that people want healthier food and more choices.

And they are going ahead with another Watermark-type restaurant at Coal Harbour:

The board also voted to allow the development a new two-level upscale restaurant – on the seawall in Harbour Green Park near Stanley Park after 2008

Link to story here

[Daddy-A]

Thanks for the link Anne. Just skimmed the report (linked in the CBC article) ... had a nap ... then skimmed some more. Didn't see anything in it about Harbour Green Park ... perhaps that's for another report.

Wonder how the folks at The Mill will feel about the new competition?

A.

[annanstee]

Thank goodness they are looking at change. Watermark may have had poor reviews on the food [justified IMO]  however the strcture is gorgeous.  All of the concessions stands should be as sleekly done.

Personaly I find all of the concessions, but particularly Sunset, English Bay and Second Beach miserable.  They are dowdy and the food is worse. Nostalgia is great for some but the concesssion food does not speak to the Vancouver food scene -and unfortunately many of our visitors will take that away as a Vancouver experience.

How about Gord Martin movinn Go Fish to English Bay?  That's killer!

←

Um excuse me, leave Go Fish right where it is- 15 minutes from my house.

I have to agree with Arne- what is wrong with having a few homely concession stands? Does everywhere have to look brand spanking new?

ETA- why is it assumed that having every inch of public space in private hands will be an improvement?

Edited May 2, 2006 by annanstee (log)

[Albondigas]

Thank goodness they are looking at change. Watermark may have had poor reviews on the food [justified IMO]  however the strcture is gorgeous.  All of the concessions stands should be as sleekly done.

Personaly I find all of the concessions, but particularly Sunset, English Bay and Second Beach miserable.  They are dowdy and the food is worse. Nostalgia is great for some but the concesssion food does not speak to the Vancouver food scene -and unfortunately many of our visitors will take that away as a Vancouver experience.

How about Gord Martin movinn Go Fish to English Bay?  That's killer!

←

The Watermark building may be flash from certain angles (but mostly just from the inside lookin out and that view predated the building) to some but it is still a building, a 17,000 + sq. ft concrete and steel intrusion on a park that was previously very pretty and well liked. The surrounding park is now just landscaping for the benefit of a private businessman and not a park for me and you. I'm all for architecturally interesting buildings in our city but not at the expense of waterfront parks for Pete’s sake. And if you are in any doubt as to the unfair impact on the immediate neighbourhood just stand behind the building for a few minutes. A grey concrete wall, noisy mechanics, and failed promises from the Parks Board are all they got. Waterfront dining, if it had to be brought to a park at all could have been achieved with a lot less ugliness in both the building and the Parks Board’s aggressiveness.

The process by which the Parks Board advanced Watermark was not pretty. No consultation with neighbours, a failure to understand basic zoning issues, threats of legal action from the developer, legal action from citizens, and an out of control process that put the developer in charge.

Oh, and the choice of restaurateur? What a failure! Tim Pawsey's recent review in the Courier deemed the food so bad in puts in doubt the Parks Board process and even questions if this should be done.

Odd isn't it, a group too incompetent to run a concession but unable to even properly outsource the function.

If this is any indication of the wherewithal of the Parks Board in doing this type of thing we don't have much to look forward to with this proposal but ruined beaches.

As for the silly argument that visitors to our city worry about the concession food…..get a grip. Such insecurity about what others think of Vancouver as a motivation to destroy beautiful public spaces is ridiculous.

[BCinBC]

I saw this article on ?? news yesterday, they mentioned a figure of $86,000 of revenue that the Parks Board as gained since the opening of Watermark (figures and timeline unchecked and my memory sucks it*) - not to mention the dough Watermark is pulling in despite opinions of the majority of professional reviewers as well as agenda-pushers on this forum. The point is, it all boils down to $$ for the City, and that is $$ that would otherwise be coming from our taxes.

So, we all had a collective shit over property tax hikes this year, right? Should we have a bigger shit over parks concession privatization or tax hikes? Is it possible to assign a value to the property currently occupied by parks concession stands, or do we just say "no" and dig a little deeper? Is it possible that CoV learned from Watermark and the next one will be more to the public's liking? Is the risk vs return better this time around?

-----

*Upon further Googling, the figure was $86k in rent over the first 5 months, annualized to $206k. Net profit from previous concession was $34k. CoV report here.

[Sam Salmon]

The Watermark building may be flash from certain angles (but mostly just from the inside lookin out and that view predated the building) to some but it is still a building, a 17,000 + sq. ft  concrete and steel intrusion on a park that was previously very pretty and well liked. The surrounding park is now just landscaping for the benefit of a private businessman and not a park for me and you. I'm all for architecturally interesting buildings in our city but not at the expense of waterfront parks for Pete’s sake. And if you are in any doubt as to the unfair impact on the immediate neighbourhood just stand behind the building for a few minutes. A grey concrete wall, noisy mechanics, and failed promises from the Parks Board are all they got.  Waterfront dining, if it had to be brought to a park at all could have been achieved with a lot less ugliness in both the building and the Parks Board’s aggressiveness.

The process by which the Parks Board advanced Watermark was not pretty. No consultation with neighbours, a failure to understand basic zoning issues, threats of legal action from the developer, legal action from citizens, and an out of control process that put the developer in charge.

Oh, and the choice of restaurateur? What a failure! Tim Pawsey's recent review in the Courier deemed the food so bad in puts in doubt the Parks Board process and even questions if this should be done.

Odd isn't it, a group too incompetent to run a concession but unable to even properly outsource the function. 

If this is any indication of the wherewithal of the Parks Board in doing this type of thing we don't have much to look forward to with this proposal but ruined beaches.

As for the silly argument that visitors to our city worry about the concession food…..get a grip. Such insecurity about what others think of Vancouver as a motivation to destroy beautiful public spaces is ridiculous.

←

quite!

[Daddy-A]

The Watermark building may be flash from certain angles (but mostly just from the inside lookin out and that view predated the building) to some but it is still a building, a 17,000 + sq. ft  concrete and steel intrusion on a park that was previously very pretty and well liked. The surrounding park is now just landscaping for the benefit of a private businessman and not a park for me and you. I'm all for architecturally interesting buildings in our city but not at the expense of waterfront parks for Pete’s sake. And if you are in any doubt as to the unfair impact on the immediate neighbourhood just stand behind the building for a few minutes. A grey concrete wall, noisy mechanics, and failed promises from the Parks Board are all they got.  Waterfront dining, if it had to be brought to a park at all could have been achieved with a lot less ugliness in both the building and the Parks Board’s aggressiveness.

<SNIP>

As for the silly argument that visitors to our city worry about the concession food…..get a grip. Such insecurity about what others think of Vancouver as a motivation to destroy beautiful public spaces is ridiculous.

←

quite!

←

I KNEW you two would connect over this!

I'm not sure where the city does its research. But I've never chosen a park by the quality of its concessions. In fact, I'm pretty sure I avoid Kits now because of Watermark.

A.

[Albondigas]

*Upon further Googling, the figure was $86k in rent over the first 5 months, annualized to $206k.  Net profit from previous concession was $34k.  CoV report here.

←

In a perfect world improved revenues from concessions could offset taxpayer’s contributions to the PB operating budget. But improving revenues at the expense of public access to parks or a degradation of the parks is hardly a good tradeoff. But really, all of the popsicles in the world would not make a dent in our property taxes but will simply go to support the ever inflating Park Board expenditures. Or do you think the Park Board will ask for $206K less from the city this year?

Examples of how the Parks Board could have done this better abound. Good things can come in small packages and I think we would all agree that if the Park Board is going to undertake this type of thing that they not do pave our waterfront in the process.

But before any reasonable debate can take place the Park Board must be more truthful with the info they provide. For instance they quoted a five month revenue figure of $2 million yet that only covers the period ending December. The first three months of this year likely saw lower revenue (business in the winter was slooow) that would have made the numbers look worse. And they quoted the revenue from the old concession at $34K when in fact it was closer to $80K except for its last year when it was run by the restaurant developer who only had to pay the city 6.5% of gross. $80K is a more truthful figure and in light of that Watermarks looks a lot worse. It will likely provide only $100K of incremental revenue which is a pittance and likely could have come from a much more modest upgrade of the old concession. Is it an accident that the Park Board presented the numbers in this fashion? Such manipulation of information should be a red flag.

Is this about food? Well even if it isn’t, judging from the reviews neither is Watermark.

[barolo]

The venture at English Bay got the go ahead:

The success of the Watermark Restaurant on Kitsilano Beach is a key reason the Vancouver park board is proceeding with a new bistro on English Bay.

Park board special projects director Jim Lowden said developing the Kits restaurant was "like birthing a brick" because of initial neighborhood opposition.

But the Watermark has done a brisk business and been accepted by the community, said Lowden. "So with that in mind, we are saying: Okay, we will proceed with our food plan."

From the Vancouver Sun: Bistro on English Bay gets green light

You can view the concept plan for the new English Bay bistro tonight at the park board office, 2099 Beach Ave.