Assuming that City Council hears the last of the delegations tonight (July 29) on the Cornwall-Point Grey Road proposal (after almost a week of continual sittings, including all-day Saturday – unprecedented in my memory) , they might make a decision that could also be unprecedented.
In the history of Vancouver, I doubt there has been a council that, when given the opportunity to extend or link up a piece of the seawall (now the Seaside route), has not proceeded in doing so. From the beginnings of the seawall around World War I, every council has grabbed the chance, whether in permanent or temporary form, to give citizens more access to our waterfront by providing a separated, connected path to link up our beaches, parks and viewpoints.
.
.
That’s the reason the staff has framed this proposal as ‘Seaside Completion.’ This stretch of road is the connection between Kits Beach and Jericho – the final gap along the southside of English Bay and False Creek that needs to be added to the other 25 or so kilometres that gets as close to the waterfront as possible. Assuming that a seawall will not be built along the foreshore (and there would be another battle royal to stop such a proposal), then making Point Grey Road safe and accessible for all ages and abilities is a necessity. It is the ‘completion.’
The test for council tonight is whether proposal 2A in some essential form goes ahead. Critics may differ on the details, and more consultation will no doubt be considered. But the principle is clear: PGR cannot be maintained as a through arterial (quasi-or otherwise) expected to handle more and more vehicles and still be considered a serous part of Seaside. Alternative routes for cyclists are fine, but they are not a substitute.
Will this be the first council in Vancouver’s history that will not take the opportunity to extend our waterfront greenway? Or will it continue to build on our greatest public asset?
If the ‘seawall’ is not necessarily waterfront, then what is stopping them from simply declaring an existing bke route the “completed seawall”? This rationale for apporoval of this plan is the least compelling I have heard.
I don’t understand why this assumption has to be made. Sure, it will be a battle royal, but so will building towers in East Van. This is a battle worth fighting and the bike lane on Point Gray will just make it harder to win.
I think the better solution rather than spend tens of millions on a Seawall or pier along the waterfront, is to use that money to acquire more of the properties along Pt Grey. This can be done with both private and public dollars. Might even encourage some of the property owners to donate their property to the city.
In the end, this would prove more value to the people of the city as park space can be used for many activities not just walking and cycling.
I agree that Vancouver’s waterfront walkways and seawalls are its greatest asset. I I do not support the idea that we must have a seawall connecting Kis and Jericho Beaches. it would be nice to have, but it is not politically realistic in today’s private property rights culture. And it would not be very usable in certain weather conditions. To say that “This is a battle worth fighting and the bike lane on Point Gray will just make it harder to win” is just too trenchant a position. That is high-stakes oppositional politics, and IMO, a losing position.