I wasn't saying they shouldn't put a restaurant there, I was saying they should have chose a better one. And I agree with you, White Spot would have been awesome to have on the beach.

Yeah, white spot is so much better than cactus club.

Considering they don't undercook their burgers and take forever with their drinks, ya they are.

man its not like rich needs the money, fucking one in delta pulls in 5.5+ million a year in sales.

FYI, this is a cactus-OWNED place, not a cactus restaurant. They said it was "highly unlikely" to carry the cactus club brand.

that's a great idea.

triple o's at the bottom for people walking on the beach

and a full white spot on top for sit down/patio.

Those bastards! They don't deserve to make money, they should be giving it to us normal folk! And they shouldn't be allowed to open a restaurant in a park, because I had an undercooked burger there before! GRRR I AM SO MAD!!!

God damn it, we should be allowed to fail your idiocy.

I like cactus clubs so it's all good
Posted via RS Mobile

no big deal, there's other places to eat across the street

When the Bentall 5 location opened in the summer of 08 they were doing around a quarter of a million in sales a week.

how many of you would go to this cactus club on December 11? or Jan 23 or Feb 5 or Nov 18?

location will only bring in seasonal sales. 8/10 will not want to sit near a beach on day that's snowing...

20k per month in rent , seems like ALOT, when you consider all the overhead, and food costs.

You think the current restaurants on beach ave, davie street get no business during the cold season? lol. Heck, there's even a gelato place right on beach ave that is open year round and there's no shortage of ppl inside.

If you want a direct comparison, there's the restaurant at Kits beach, 'Watermark', it's certainly not the best restaurant out there, but reservations for dinner are still required.

I would love for a Triple O's as well, however it's not likely there will be another proposal that offers more compensation that what cactus is offering. I'm all for the city trying to get money from them, rather than the tax payers.

I agree with all points posted by tapioca and skinny. For anything burgers/hot dogs that people still want, I can already forsee, stalls openning up around the beach to service those clients. No one is losing out there.

I would prefer Cannery, but from the value to city and just the revenue generated. You can't really go wrong with corporate.

That alone already sold me. 240K plus 4% revenue, not even profit, straight rev.

Win/Win stand point from the city.

All those complaining about the restaurant, how bout they charge your property tax, an extra 100bucks for the use and maintenance of parks/beachs while keeping status quo? Or another scenario, Another better tasting restaurant or burger joint like Triple O's revenue is 100K in rent, with 1.75% in revenue, or 5% profit.

The city loses out on 600K a year in revenue.

Cactus Club OR that?

I doubt you'll see burger/hot dog stands spring up on the beach because the city is pretty anal about granting licenses for outdoor food stands. I would love to see other types of food other than hot dogs, but health and safety concerns trump all (which I suppose is defensible.)

I think we've basically convinced ourselves on this forum about the Cactus deal. The challenge, though, is to convince all of the other naysayers on other public forums. I understand how Cactus is a bit of a magnet for criticism because of their ho-hum food, questionable hiring practices, etc. If White Spot had won the bid, the optics would have been much better since they have a long-standing history.

As with the Olympics, the silent majority will win again with respect to this deal and we, the taxpayers, will benefit.

The Watermark at Kits Beach has ruined the quietness of that beach not just directly in front of the restaurant, but off to the sides too. Instead of being able to hear the sound of the waves and the wind, you hear the clanking of dishes and cutlery, and the bustle of a commercial operation. If we want to go to a large restaurant, there are plenty of options on Cornwall or Yew Street. A small scale concession, like they had, is suitable for that beach.
Ditto for English Bay. The charm of the old stands could have been enhanced with a renovation. There are plenty of large scale restaurants, like Milestone's and The Boat House, on Beach Avenue. The beaches must be a non-commercial zone.
I have now heard that Cactus is going for Jericho Beach as well. You can see where this is going...all our quiet public beaches with commercial businesses on them, and I'm sure Stanley Park is not far behind.
I am not against those restaurants - they are plenty of them near the beaches, but they are noisy, and will have to generate so much business to pay these bills, that they will undoubtedly be cranking out customers, specials nights and the associated noise.
$20,000 / month rent is a joke. My company pays $10,000 / month for a basement in the industrial area of Vancouver. The City could make that money by raising property taxes 2 cents per house.
I don;t remember any public enquiry, forum, or town hall meeting to discuss these proposals. The day I heard about Cactus at English Bay was the day before it went to vote. Why are we consulted when a condo is proposed, or a change of use for other buildings, and not something major like this? It seems it was all done in secret. I am a resident near Kits Beach and I didn;t hear a work about Watermark until it was too late.
Did any of you hear about this in advance, or were any of you given an opportunity to make your views heard before the deals were done?

Shouldve put a Harveys there. Those burgers are to die for!
Cactus only if maria works there naked! Sigh lol
Posted via RS Mobile

Scratch that. Maria, yass, and ayane! All naked!!!!!!
Celica knows what I'm talking about! Hahaha
Posted via RS Mobile

^werd..thats a deadly combination :agree::ratedb:

if you want a quiet beach, maybe you should be looking somewhere other than the middle of a large city

Cities are inherently noisy, I agree. That is why parks are created, as a refuge from noise and commercial activity. Most cities, ours included, have desgnated areas for industrial, retail, commercial, residential, and park areas. This is so that quiet exists in residential neighbourhoods, and if you want noise and excitement, you go to Granville or Robson Street, or the PNE etc. With all due respect, it is a ridiculous argument that we should allow any noisy commercial activity on our beaches, just because we live in a city and it is noisy anyway.

the beach is right int he heart of the city.

you = fail

Yeah, you'r eright, it is centrall - hey, why not put a Wal-Mart there too, and maybe a new casino?

People tend not to want to buy a bulk bag of serviettes or a new cutlery set while at the beach (though be careful about the casino crack). There are, however, lots of people who want to take a brief break from being out in the sun to do some dining. Yeah, true--everyone loves peace and quiet. But I don't think I can remember the last time I thought "Jesus christ, the sound of forks on plates is driving me fucking insane, why the hell won't they just shut up?!"

Certainly, a concession style eatery would be great. But I am probably not the only one who wonders why I pay $8 or more for a burger and fries that is smaller yet exactly the same as the one I can purchase at the costco concession. Yet there's no real place to sit and keep my food on a plate if it's windy, the lines are generally atrocious and the service/food is slow as hell.

I very much doubt that the concessions were providing this much revenue for the city. Admittedly, the bidding/acquisition process could have been more open. But then again, ask yourself this--how many non-Vancouverites go to Vancouver and will be appreciative of this? I live in Burnaby and would have no say about how this went, yet I have no problems with how it went. Long story short: progress is eternal and Vancouver is the new Aspen.

The other end of the beach should still be quiet, no?