CRD Watch Homepage

The History of Victoria’s Centennial Square and How Its Current Municipal Government Nearly Destroyed It


Part 2 of a three-part series
By Mary Fowles
Oct 2, 2026

—————————————————————————————————

It seems impossible that Centennial Square, created with so much meticulous care a little more than sixty years ago, could become at once so neglected, despised, and then sentenced to death by the very leaders it was built to embolden with civic pride.

In Part 1 of this series, I sifted through years of archival newspaper articles and photographs to reconstruct the history of Victoria’s Centennial Square. I hope this series can complement several other excellent essays that have been written about the square and its historical significance.

In this part, I looked into the origins of the idea of “revitalizing the Square” and discovered that it stretched back over a decade. The idea first began under Mayor Lisa Helps’ leadership in September 2016, two years into her first term. It began with a public engagement process called “Visual Victoria,” a design campaign that invited residents and local business owners to completely reimagine the city’s downtown public spaces and how people moved about in the city.  The revitalisation of the square was just one part of a far greater paradigm shift occurring with respect to Victoria’s downtown core.

As will be concluded by the end of part 3 of this series, between 2016 – 2026, a dizzying amount of time and money was spent on discussions, engagements, and planning towards one opaque goal: “The Revitalization of Centennial Square.”  But the last decade has resulted in few tangible improvements.

Let’s begin.

Visual Victoria

In 2016, the Visual Victoria process put into motion the first steps towards implementing a new 2017 Downtown Public Realm Plan (DPRP) that would replace and cancel out the Victoria Downtown Beautification Strategy which had been in place since 1995.

The decades-old Beautification Strategy had served as a guide for the city on things like the aesthetics of sidewalks and signage for downtown Victoria over the prior 25 years, and was considered integral to the city’s “effective commercial economic health.” It viewed the downtown core as a place for retail and tourism, and its guidelines sought to enable ease and enjoyment in commercial shopping. 

Replacing the Beautification Strategy was just one part of a massive shift occurring with respect to the downtown core at that time.

Rapid Urban Growth

Over ten thousand new residents were expected to stream into downtown over the next several decades, becoming the occupants of high-density condos constructed along the transit corridors of Douglas and Blanshard Streets. Massive rezoning of those areas had taken place in 2012.

The Beautification Strategy had acknowledged–even as far back as the early 1990s–that Centennial Square was “underutilized;” yet it had always strictly defined the Square as an important civic gathering spot.  Where any redesign or expansion was considered, it was only considered within the context of improving the square’s ability to fulfil its purposes of civic gathering, assembly, and celebration.  

But under the pressures of rapid urban growth, the footprint of the square was starting to look more and more valuable.

The square was now being talked about as a vital public amenity that should step up to play an expanded role in an area otherwise devoid of parks and public facilities.

Square as ‘Deadspace’

While the square was once decried as merely “outdated” or in need of a renovation, now it was urgently being labeled as “deadspace,” and the 2017 DPRP wished to see the Square “energized.”

The pressures put on the square to accommodate the surrounding city planning decisions ultimately engendered confusion about what the purpose of the square was or should be. This deep-seated confusion may be one reason why nearly all attempts to meaningfully change and improve the square over the last decade have ended up obstructed.

As predicted, by 2021, the Downtown Core’s population had steadily increased. It grew by 38% between 2016-2021, reaching 13,000 residents. Victoria’s 2050 Official Community Plan, later adopted in 2026, expects even more growth “totaling approximately one million square meters of new building development” in the downtown core by 2049.  This ever-increasing density, the OCP notes, is needed as the city tries to reach its target of adding 26,600 additional households across the entire municipality of Victoria within the same timeframe.

On December 8, 2016, a few months into the 2016 Visual Victoria process, city staff presented a report to Council explaining that Centennial Square had been identified as a priority public space for significant improvement. 

The minutes from that 2016 meeting show that the historical and heritage importance of the Square, the fountain, and the trees were barely discussed or acknowledged. The report did not reference the heritage significance of the square at all.

Committee discussions ping-ponged from installing permanent public washrooms, to adding temporary play installations, to the broad theme of making the square more welcoming, then staff recommended Council vote on a motion to “develop a long-term plan for the renewal and revitalization of Centennial Square.”

A Time of Cultural Change

It is important to note here that re-defining the square was co-occurring within a time of significant cultural change, a pivotal era of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, and new policies being developed related to the accessibility and inclusivity of public spaces.

In 2018, a statue of John A. Macdonald, Canada’s first Prime Minister, which had not been part of the original municipal square design but added later, was removed in a flash decision, a gesture from a city coming to terms with Canada’s orchestration of the Residential School system and trying to make the square more welcoming to Indigenous communities. Removing the statue built on the reconciliation process that had begun in the square in 2009 when one entryway and section of the square was renovated to include a Spirit Park to honour and recognize the traditional territories of the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

Under Lisa Helps, the city also began work on advancing an equity policy, established a new “All Our Voices” approach to civic engagement, as well as a BikeToria Plan building protected bicycle routes in the downtown area.

It is perhaps through this lens of change that a motion moved by Councillor Isitt and seconded by Mayor Helps put forward a dizzying array of potential directions for the square’s future. But none of the “long term plans for the square” embedded within the motion gave any weight at all to the historical importance or sentimental value of the landmark.

The motion instead established that anything and everything might one day be up for grabs: renaming the square, the “future of Centennial Fountain”, expansion, other uses, future facilities, and the list went on.  After a few minor amendments, the motion was unanimously carried, but with almost no discussion about the square’s heritage value.

The only councillor who raised concerns about what it might mean to the wider community to begin tampering with its history, Councillor Pamela Madoff, recited a favourite quote: ‘You can’t go forward without looking back’.

With the expectation that city staff would soon provide a fulsome body of work on the historical importance of the square, she urged: “We need that foundation to make informed decisions. Without it we will start to make mistakes.”

After passing the motion, City Council directed staff to “develop a long-term plan for the renewal and revitalization of Centennial Square in the first half of 2017.”


This launched a “Centennial Square Action Plan” that would unfold over the next couple of years.

With respect to the square, Victoria had just crossed the threshold into a completely different universe. This motion ultimately cleared a path towards the eventual vote on dismantling one of the city’s most historically-significant landmarks eight years later.

Activation and Tactical Urbanism

Around this time, urban design trends associated with what is known as ‘tactical urbanism’ and ‘placemaking’ were gaining popularity globally and also at City Hall. 

Instead of discussing universally-understood concepts like beauty, heritage landmarks, civic history, and gathering in public places, urban planners and city leaders were employing jargon-heavy concepts like “activation,” “animated spaces,” “vibrancy,” “playability,” “placemaking,” “sticky edges,” “multi-modal transportation,” “interactive space,” and “passive engagement.”

While these approaches to urban design and planning are commonplace across the world, they also come with valid criticisms.

Using these approaches to determine the fate of Centennial Square ultimately proved detrimental to caring for and preserving its historical value.

With priority given to these urban design trends, the historical or monumental characteristics of the square began to look far less important and at times disappeared from sight completely.

The first step of the Centennial Square Action Plan was to conduct an “Inventory and Analysis” of the Square. The inventory mapped out the square by how “active” its “edges” were, rating them on a scale from  “vibrant and active” to  “dull or inactive.”

“The Square is defined by its edges,” the Inventory and Analysis stated. “Currently, most of the edges in Centennial Square are inactive or dull. Most importantly, there’s no “areas to stick to,” and “it needs activation of its edges.”

Ironically, the inventory admitted the square actually was being used – but by the wrong people, in the wrong ways. The analysis stated: “There are a number of different groups hanging out on the lawn areas, both by Spirit Square and the Sequoia tree. However, neither of those groups are welcoming or inclusive and predominantly take over the space when they are present.”

This stand-alone statement appears in the analysis but was not explained further. The comment seems incongruent with–even offensive to– a city striving to become a bastion of diversity and inclusivity.

This urban design approach of “activation” has been heavily criticized because of its insidious underbelly. It can function to chase away marginalized and non-conforming groups and gate-keep access to the collective commons– all under the guise of “revitalization.”

In addition, “activation” as a design trend is frequently paired with hyper-surveillance and the monitoring of public spaces. This is exactly what ended up happening later, in 2024, when the Council decided that cutting down the Great Sequoia tree was justified, as doing so would increase “sightlines” to Douglas Street (more will be said on this in part 3 of this series).

The Inventory and Analysis found that the square needed: “Short term tactical interventions such as food trucks/ lighting/ paint to activate the square.” Other ideas tossed around included altering the public space with temporary installations to manufacture different “experiences.”

From this perspective, sitting and enjoying a landscape that has been tended over many decades by city staff – a free, enjoyable, and inherent public right–would in all likelihood have been described as “dull”. A commemorative fountain, mature trees, a quiet landscape offset from the street, a peaceful plaza, or benches tucked into corners, are static, and through this lens are impossible to qualify.

Critics argue that strictly focusing on “activation” further risks replacing genuine public life with a manufactured environment that is imposed upon people from the top down.

 This approach ignores the fact that people can and should be allowed the liberty to determine and create their own style of enjoyment within the public landscape.  

At worst, the result of this design approach is the hijacking of our collective commons– an inherent natural right of citizenship– for the commercialization or even the “Disneyfication” of our public lives.

No Heritage Protection

It is also important to note here that even though the square is situated within the Old Town Heritage Conservation Area, Centennial Square itself, including the fountain and monoliths, has never held any legal heritage status.

The city’s Heritage Advisory Panel (HAP) was aware of this, which is why its chair later penned a letter to City Council in spring of 2024 urging Council to put a pause on the decision given the fountain’s “historic importance as the central focus of the square and an exemplary piece of mid-20th century public art.” The HAP asked to review the plans before any changes were approved. The HAP’s request was ultimately shot down and voted out by the mayor and the majority of City
Councillors.

Engagement

Between June and September 2018, public and stakeholder engagement took place as part of the Centennial Square Action Plan.

But the engagement was carried out through the lens of “activation”, and specifically asked the public and stakeholders to “identify the types of ‘experiences’ they would like to have in Centennial Square.”  The public were never polled directly about dismantling the fountain, removing the monoliths, or felling the trees of significance.

The engagement provided many suggestions that could have been implemented right away, such as restoring the shopping mall, increasing seating, adding security, and grading the terraced steps so that all people could access the plaza, but this broad feedback was only gathered to “inform future design improvements” and not immediately implemented.

At a Committee of the Whole meeting in Lisa Helps’ second term, on July 18, 2019, city staff recommended that City Council endorse the results of the Action Plan engagement.

Staff recommended Council  “Consider removal of the Sequoia tree to expand seating options on the soft lawn area.” This is the first time the Giant Sequoia–an iconic tree species–was singled out for removal. While “improving the sightlines to Douglass Street” had been discussed, cutting down the tree had not been mentioned before. It was buried in the plans and not explicitly discussed.

A Statement of Significance written by the city’s Heritage Planner was provided to the council at that meeting, and it outlined in great detail the important heritage value of the fountain.  Yet staff still recommended adopting the “draft plaza refresh concept” which would see the fountain adapted for “accessible water play.”

The Council ultimately voted to approve the draft plan. The decision was moved by Councillor Alto, seconded by Councillor Thornton-Joe, and endorsed unanimously. 

But the plan was then put on hold for several years as the world grappled with the Covid-19 pandemic, recovery, and a coinciding homelessness crisis which even saw the square transform into a homeless encampment for several months–a reflection, perhaps, of the true reality of public life stripped bare.

It was not until 2023 that plans were picked up again, this time with an entirely different set of leaders at the helm, and the new city mayor, Marianne Alto, who had all been elected in October 2022.

Part 3 of this series will explore how Victoria’s current municipal council nearly wiped out the entire historical character of Centennial Square with one sweeping vote in 2024; it will also uncover ‘the Great Sequoia lie’.

Bio: Mary Fowles is a Canadian journalist based in Victoria, BC. She holds a degree in Cultural Studies and Religious Studies from McGill University and a graduate diploma in Journalism from Concordia University. In 2022 she received the Jack Webster Award for Excellence in Legal Journalism. Mary can be reached at maryfowles.com

————————————————————————————————-

See also:

From Civic Square to Splash Park – Part 1 The History of Victoria’s Centennial Square and How Its Current Municipal Government Nearly Destroyed It – CRD Watch Homepage

Index of documentation related to Centennial Square and the Sequoia – CRD Watch Homepage