Finally, some changes on the Coal Harbour seawall:
Harbour Air Group is asking for yet another extension (this will be the third) on the temporary dock facilities currently blocking the seawall at Coal Harbour. Back story here. And they’re essentially asking for an open-ended extension, “until the situation at the new facility is resolved.”
But this time it’s applying to retain the on-water facilities while removing “a portion of the access ramp to the docks and replace it with a new access ramp that avoids the area needed for seawall construction …”
They will also “remove its existing buildings/facilities onto a smaller City-owned land area adjacent to the seawall (including retaining some small buildings in place and adding some replacement prefabricated structures.)”
The result:
There are some unknowns in the description, but the rendering seems to suggest that the seawall will at last be open to the people who own it.
Yes, it could have been done sooner. So the question now: why wait til September? If Harbour Air Group would like to earn a few brownie points, how about an open route through the site for Canada Day?
Even better why don’t they just relocate to the new terminal as was planned. If they don’t like the lease then move their operations to Richmond, end of story. They don’t have a legal leg to stand on with the safety assessment, this is all about money.
It is not absolutely apparent from the diagram that people will be able to cycle through here without dismounting. I’m asking the city for clarification.
Thanks Richard, I’d like an answer to that too. Let us know what you find out.
I was walking my bike through there (as I always do) earlier in the year, and approached a uniformed employee to ask if he could dip the headlights on the empty idling shuttle van he was stood next to, as it was hard to see. This prompted a full on curse-filled rant about cyclists in general, delivered so close to my face that I was was wet with his spit. I asked for his name and went in to make a complaint.
The manager inside denied they had an employee of that name, so I took him outside and pointed the guy out. He’d lied about his name, the manager said. I was offered no appology, the manager just shrugged and went back in.
These are not nice people. I haven’t used this route since, and won’t use it again if it means walking past their employees.
The manager is a woman… Shuttles run from quite a ways from the seawall.. Entertaining story though
Hi Penny
I’ll post it here or send it to Gordon for him to post.
It would be a good time to let Mayor and Council mayorandcouncil@vancouver.ca know about the incident you described. It sounds totally unacceptable.
I agree with Joe. Enough is enough. I’ll send my opinion to mayor and council.
Unbelievable. Never mind the facts that harbour air employs hundreds of people, transports hundreds of thousands (keeps cars off the roads), offsets all of their flights and brings an enourmous amount of tourism / business dollars to our Province. The facility that was built is not suitable for their operation – who’s fault is that – not harbour air’s.
BTW – If any of you actually get out and run or bike the seawall it is connected.
Author
Harbour Air is a business – and a good one – but not a philanthropy. And it can continue to operate using its current docks. Indeed, it can operate without using the seawall at all or requiring an obscure and poorly signed detour. And it has had years to do so. It doesn’t seem like an onerous requirement to ask them to do what they had reasonably expected would be necessary before negotiations broke down.
@Lorne
Businesses around Vancouver and the region pay more to create a high-quality public realm that we all can be proud of. Most understand the benefits of creating a city that people like to live in and visit. There is a cost to this though. It would certainly cheaper for a lot of businesses to set up trailers and containers but we would end up with an ugly city that people would not want to live in or visit.
Harbour Air benefits as much or more than other businesses from the tourists that are attracted to Vancouver and the region. It is time that they did their fair share and contributed to making the city a better place. Time to get rid of the trailers. It is not 1950 any more.
If they don’t want to, it is a quick Canada Line ride to the airport. It is a shorter flight to Victoria and probably Naniamo. They would save fuel and money flying from there. It would be great not to have the jet fuel fumes and the noise from the planes in the Harbour.
I am in favour of no further extensions and, as Gordon mentions, let’s re-open the seawall immediately. Another extension lessens any incentive they have to come to an agreement on the terms of a lease with the operators of the new terminal. Just because they don’t like the rent for their facilities doesn’t mean they get to squat on city land. That should have no bearing on the deliberations. Another facility is available – they must dismantle the shacks/trailers now. Give the seawall back to the people.
On July 6, just three weeks after the City sent a notice to neighbours about this project, it sent another notice, saying that the application had been withdrawn. See the notice:
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/developmentservices/devapps/1075wwaterfront/withdrawn.pdf
When I heard about this project to open up the missing link in the seawall, I felt it was the best Urban design and public space news to hit Vancouver in a while.
When I heard that the project had been withdrawn, I was very disappointed.
If I were a cynic, I would think that the owners of the current float plane terminal did this very deliberately, because:
1. They realized that relocating the “shacks” now will hurt their negotiations with the province and the new terminal operators, and
2. They want to show the City who has the upper hand in this matter.
Thoughts?