News update: Point Grey seawall plan put off by park board
After 21 speakers voiced their concerns over a proposed seawall extension at Monday’s Vancouver park board meeting, park commissioners voted to defer Sarah Blyth’s motion to consider options for connecting Jericho and Kitsilano Beach. … News1130 reports that four of five Vision commissioners supported deferring the decision, but rookie commissioner Trevor Loke joined the NPA’s Melissa De Genova, and John Coupar who were hoping to quash the seawall extension entirely.
Two thoughts:
If the Stanley Park seawall didn’t exist, it would be impossible to build today. Imagine, if the shoreline were still natural, someone suggesting today that we cover a good part of it with eight kilometres of stone, concrete and asphalt. Wouldn’t happen – and our most important public space wouldn’t exist.
Second, how do we, on foot or bike, safely get from Kitsilano to Jericho? At the moment we have to compete on sidewalk and roadway with vehicles, those on Port Grey Road and those in driveways. It’s crowded, dangeous and unpleasant.
If there is to be no seawall extension, then the trade-off should be a re-allocated Point Grey Road, designed so that everyone, from 8 to 80, of all ages and abilities, from dog-walker to athlete, can comfortably make the connection separated from moving vehicles.
And that should be very explicitly part of the deal, so that if one route does not proceed, the other does.
There is actually nothing much natural about the edge of land now. The back gardens extend as far as they can, and then there is plenty of concrete to ensure they stay that way. The area between the high and low watermarks is, of course, accessible – after a fashion – at low tide, to those willing to take a small risk, and who have the necessary agility. Depending on the method of construction, a walking/cycling path need take very little away from the critical habitat area. But expecting a place in the centre of an urban area to be completely “wild” is unrealistic. It isn’t now. What it is, is exclusive. And it is remarkable how quickly our politicians fold under a little pressure from the privileged elite.
“And it is remarkable how quickly our politicians fold under a little pressure from the privileged elite.” I wonder how many of those same privileged elite are putting pressure on the provincial government to endanger our ACTUAL wilderness by allowing the Enbridge pipeline to be built. To be fair, maybe none of them. I just wonder.
Green space in a city should be designed for people. As Stephen points out it can never be wilderness anyway, so we should consider how well it is actually serving our needs instead of fetishizing it as a slice of “nature” in the city.
As Stephen rightly points out, there is little natural about the existing shoreline. A seawall could actually serve to enhance the shoreline habitat similar to what has been done around the Olympic Village and under the Convention Centre.
What about a floating walkway similar to Portland’s for at least a portion of the distance?
Were these 21 dissenters actual NIMBYs or was the dissent from elsewhere as well. I haven’t seen anything about this but I’d be fascinated to to hear.
Point Grey Road sidewalks and the pocket parks are a logical approach for an expanded walkway with “pearls on a string”. The City could insist that Point Grey property owners respect the city boulevard and not extend hedging and fencing on the city right of way adjacent to the sidewalk, and increase the available public realm for walkers.
There is a need to enter into a genuine public process to explore how Point Grey Road on street parking is functioning to see whether a two way traffic flow system could still operate, parking moved to private properties and/or side streets and also allow for a bike lane to be striped in. My belief is that it is doable, and could make this street an asset for bikers and walkers…and perhaps quieter for residents along Point Grey Road!