A plea for a lighter, greener, cheaper, more collaborative approach to building the “Greenest City”
The sad case of Point Grey Road.
by Patrick Condon
You would think the City of Vancouver was out to make us all raging nature haters. How is it that the provision of a simple thing like bike lanes has made city voters so apoplectic that it ranks at the top of the pile of election wedge issues. Its like getting upset about crosswalks. You have to try really hard to make folks mad about, or even notice, public infrastructure. But somehow the city seems to accomplish this feat again and again.
The newest catalyst for resident apoplexy is, yet again, Point Grey Road. Residents there are furious about a six meter wide sidewalk and tree boulevard strip currently under construction on the north side of this street – in most cases on land being taken back from lavishly planted front gardens that had gradually forested over unused city land.
Point Grey Road is, of course the street that the City closed to through car traffic to complete the City’s “sea wall” along the Kitsilano district’s shore. This original effort was understandably applauded by homeowners along this “golden mile”, but dismayed residents of other parts of the city and region who had become accustomed to going there for a Sunday drive to enjoy the attractive ocean views and, to some extent, gape at the homes and gardens of the well heeled.
In this more recent case the homeowners garner little sympathy from the broader populace, given that the street closure seems to have been a factor in the fantastic increase in property values there. Spurious safety concerns raised by golden mile residents ring hollow when the 10,000 daily trips which once passed their drives now inflict residents living along nearby 4th avenue.
This is all the more sad because none of this really had to be this way. The City lately seems incapable of anything approaching a light touch when it comes to their Greenest City agenda. The current approach to Point Grey Road is emblematic of this failure of imagination. Truly sustainable cities emerge with a much lighter hand. The City’s ham handed approach unnecessarily disrupts existing cultural and urban ecosystems, and, in the process, racks up unnecessary political and capital debts. Its sad. A much lighter approach to Point Grey Road was always available. But a lighter approach would have required a more holistic sensibility which, i would argue, the City lacks. A more truly sustainable approach would be accepting of “both and” solutions rather than the current “one way my way or the highway” approach.
The City’s approach to designing and building green infrastructure seems similar to the much maligned approaches taken by highway engineers of the 1960’s. Those folks happily ripped up city blocks for flyovers and cloverleafs, and leveled every neighbourhood in the freeway’s path. There is thus not a small measure of irony in using these same design approaches for green infrastructure in the only city that stopped a highway from gutting its downtown.
What would a lighter approach have looked like on Point Grey Road? Well i suppose the City could have started off by at least trying the one way street proposed by citizens prior to the City’s controversial and precipitous complete street closure. That plan could have been implemented with a can of yellow paint to mark the bike way and a few signs. If that proved inadequate after a few years then some new signs and some more paint to divert the one way traffic to 4th ave could have worked. This is the kind of “tactical urbanism” strategy famously used by Jannette Saduk-Khan, New York City’s transportation commissioner, who first used a can of paint and some movable chairs to close off Times Square in New York City, a move that both proved what was possible and allowed for low cost real time experimentation to get it right.
But instead we got a very over-engineered grey street, with green functions (walking, biking) rigidly, unnecessarily and expensively separated. We could have had a “complete” street instead, one with wheeled circulation functions more mixed and existing trees preserved. We could have had a street that enhanced rather than degraded ecological functions, a street that added habitat rather than removed it, a street where storm water was cleaned and infiltrated into the water table rather than discharged unmitigated into English Bay waters.
There was a time not so long ago where the City was pursuing these simpler green infrastructure strategies; notably at its Crown Street Green Street Project of 2005. That seems like a different world now. Take a look at that sustainable street with its naturalized drainage and no need for storm drains and expensive curbs and pipes. Would Point Grey Road not have been the natural place for a public display of this lighter green touch? a project that could have been implemented for a fraction of the cost of the current project? and a project strategy that you can easily imagine working around existing mature trees rather than savagely clear cutting every shred of green within the right of way?

Sadly our chance to get it right on Point Grey Road has passed. But there is, I believe, a larger issue here. Its not too late to engage in a fundamental rethinking of what it means to be the Greenest City. Its not too late to recognize that a green city is an efficient city, a city that looks for the most modest and easy to realize solutions possible; a city that finds the solutions that emerge most easily and almost by themselves; a city that analogically follows the judo maxim of “Maximum efficiency, minimum effort” rather than the smash face brutality of over engineered solutions evident at Point Grey Road.
The proliferation of unneeded urban highways in our North American cities is just the most obvious example of the problem with the smash mouth tactics of failed urban engineering. We should not repeat that mistake in applying “green” infrastructure to the fragile ecosystem of the city.
In the end, the world’s “greenest city” must, to be worthy of the name, be a city that works with not against ecological systems, and works with not against its most dominant species: its citizens. We should have learned by now that its a mistake to depend on technocratic responses to narrowly defined problems. In the end, a green city becomes and stays green by always seeking the lightest possible way to achieve both its ecological and political ends. And those ends are enhanced by an open and holistic citizen focused process. The planning for Point Grey Road has more than once failed to meet this green standard. To be the greenest city means learning to avoid this mistake.













I’ve always been in favour of Vision’s initiatives, but I can’t help but think Patrick Condon is right: they’ve often been tone-deaf ideologues ramming through a “well-meaning” agenda. They’ve burned through their political capital now, and God knows what reactionaries we’ll get next.
Patrick Condon Wrote: “But instead we got a very over-engineered grey street, with green functions (walking, biking) rigidly, unnecessarily and expensively separated.”
Is separation of bikes and pedestrians on routes such as the Burrard bridge or the Stanley Park and False Creek seawalls unnecessary? I think most people would strongly disagree – I know I would. And I fail to see what makes the Point Grey greenway any different.
“Over-engineered grey street …” A comment that omits the fact that half the boulevard will be planted, that this is a high-traffic route for cyclists and pedestrians, and that the driveways presented a safety hazard in some cases where the encroaching planting blocked views.
This subject was not worth 12 paragraphs.
The controversy does not stem from a crime or human rights violation, it is simply the rightful reclamation of public land encroached upon by private land owners. The wealth of the neighbourhood and references to the ‘Golden Mile’ are irrelevant. What is relevant is safe public access on a public road.
The comparison of the moderate design treatment of Point Grey Road with Vancouver’s never-built vast freeway network is completely inappropriate, a typhoon in a coffee mug.
Years ago I encroached (with the city’s permission BTW) onto the front boulevard with planting beds, including a now 25-foot tall magnolia tree. I am in full knowledge that the city can reclaim the public boulevard any time for public infrastructure. I will save the tree and replant it, should it come to that, but will not raise the issue to an apoplectic level based on spurious conjecture about the city’s motives and a weak practical understanding of what truly sustainable public infrastructure consists of.
I have no sympathy for Point Grey residents as they would no doubt for me, and hope that Patrick Condon soon retires to the Gulf Islands where he can enjoy hundreds of km of charming open ditches. May he never have to deal with Godzilla invasive species like Japanese knotweed growing in them, injured bicyclists and pedestrians on a busy route forced into them by errant cars on hidden driveways, and to pay the high maintenance costs associated with keeping them open and flowing year after year.
There are far more important issues to deal with out there.
I have to say that it really peeves me when academics and residents with vested interests try to excuse significant encroachments onto public land. Public officials in the Metro have to deal with very serious encroachments that are so unsafe it will make your hair stand up.
In principle, Point Grey residents and their defenders don’t have a leg to stand on.
I seem to recall that many here were against exactly this kind of elimination of the PGR householders encroachment when it was floated as a way to accommodate both bikes and cars on the original PGR.
I think you will find that it was the PGR landowners that were against the elimination of the encroachment.
The mere mention of “bike lane” will make a vocal minority “apoplectic” so the very premise of this piece is flawed. Besides, the NPA tried to make bike lanes an election wedge issue last time round. Seems entirely unlikely that this particular project is going to upset more than a few anti-cycling extremists.
I also question Condon’s assertion that all the traffic simply moved to other roads – he mentions 4th Avenue specifically. Does he have data to back that up? Anyone?
Certainly the traffic chaos that was predicted to happen (as usual) failed to materialize. “Disappearing traffic”. Do we see evidence here?
I can see why you are so upset with the sidewalk being six meters wide! It is actually only three meters wide which is minimum for a high use connector between Jericho Beach Park and Kitsilano. Now the residents of Vancouver can safely bike or walk instead of driving on their Sunday outing. Also the substantial reduction in cars from 10,000 per day will reduce the flushing of petroleum products in the marine waters.
The sidewalk, boulevard and road placement is designed to eliminate the driveway cuts in the present sidewalk. This was to accommodate wheelchair users, pram pushing mothers and small children on pedal bikes.
The Point Grey Road is actually the missing link in the world renowned Greenway around Stanley Park, English Bay, False Creek and on to the Spanish Banks Park.
With Point Grey road being ripped up to carry out major sewer and water updates, it was the idea time to complete and build this missing link. My grand children generation will being taking advantage of this jewel when I am either in a nursing home or dead.
Mr. Condon seems unaware of the real and feigned apoplexy that accompanies bike lanes – or any other infrastructure not dedicated to motor vehicles – in most cities of the world.
Being “green” is about more than just some non-native turf grass and decorative hedges (which are in trespass, I should add). It’s also about actually shifting the transportation paradigm of the city to make streets more accommodating for cycling and walking so that people of all ages and abilities can make it a part of their regular lives.
And that’s pretty much what this city administration has been doing. What Condon calls “ham handed”, I see as bold. Rather than kowtow to a the usual vocal critics, they’ve been making bold, controversial changes to some streets that make cycling and walking more attractive. So far, it seems to be working. It will be interesting when the census numbers for commuting mode share are released in November.
They should go even further and give every bikeway and greenway in Vancouver the Pt. Grey treatment.
Over the top rhetoric really not helpful. It only serves to create toxic lack of good dialogue that is far too common today in the city and around the world.
Plus the opinions are not based on evidence or best practices.
At the current volume of bikes, sometimes over 3,000 a day, a shared bike/ped space simply does not work. Especially since there people training along the route and they habe to cycle faster to get exercise.
And with all the joggers, the narrow sidewalks are not that comfortable to walk on.
Thank you for the confirmation that the bikeways are not really commuter paths but are training tracks.
An example of the over the top rhetoric referred to in Richard’s post.
Most people just ride their bikes on Point Grey Rd and don’t train. Although it’s a good question whether streets should be designed for fast exercise riding. And what is the difference to fast riding on an ebike (clearly not for exercise)?
The surface upgrade to Point Grey Road is mainly for pedestrians and other users of the sidewalk.
The cyclist are still in the street sharing the space as they were last summer. The cyclists will be riding the roadway with the hopefully slow moving cars and trucks.
Point Grey Road was shut down to reach the goal of a 8 to 80 standard that was being used for the entire extensive Greenway. This section was the missing gap.
I feel the same way about all the trees that got cut down to make the wider seawall path … even it it is understandable, that they are old and past expected lifespan, etc……….. its still bad optics to have a bunch of stumps and makes it seem like there is hypocrisy around every corner, despite any real truths of the matter. One example where I think they did too little (as opposed to above doing potentially too much) … as a visible tree ‘saving’ exercise (even just saving a token number) would have been helpful to quiet some critics.
Fripperies like trees and CO2 absorbing greenery should not interfere with cyclists’ urgent need to have water views during their leisure jaunts.
… or during their training and endurance rides. Fallen cherry blossoms are a slippery safety hazard too.
Yes, Bob, a public sidewalk and a bike lane on a popular bike and pedestrian route shouldn’t interfere with wealthy resident’s self-proclaimed “right” to subsume a boulevard into their property.
On much of it asphalt is being removed to plant trees and greenery. Especially the eastern section is really quite grey now. It will be much better.
This is correct. If you add up all the paving the residents did in the public boulevard it is roughly equivalent to the area covered by the new 3m sidewalk. VanMap with the 2015 orthophoto activated clearly indicates that about 60% of the waterfront residents in the three blocks east of Alma appropriated the boulevard to build parking spaces for their Maseratis, or at least extended the wall-to-wall excessive paving from their property to the street.
Bob, the article is about a sidewalk. What does cycling have to do with it?
This article is so full of nonsense that I don’t know if I want to even waste my time debunking it but…
I don’t think that the city is operating like the old highway roadbuilders of the past. I don’t think they had open houses, multiple surveys and stakeholder groups.
More good pictures and comments on this story here:
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2017/03/24/Vancouver-Lighter-Shade-Green/
Thought, I believe, the new point grey road is an improvement on the past situation, there is many good points in the Patrick Condon article.
I share the thought that “But instead we got a very over-engineered grey street, with green functions (walking, biking) rigidly, unnecessarily and expensively separated.”
That is Point grey road is still designed as if it was a arterial, where the car is king (and pedestrian are un-welcomed on the street pavement) and not as a neighborhood street where the car are just tolerated, and pedestrian are welcomed on the street like it should have been as below in Germany (or many fietsstraats in Netherlands)
http://collectivitesviables.org/media/397927/Allemagne-Freiburg-Rieselfeld-2012-Alexandre-0599.JPG
So, yes, the new design falls short of expectation and doesn’t match the function of the street: it is an expensive mistake the city shouldn’t repeat… In the meantime, this realization doesn’t bode well for the future of the arbutus (once touted as a greenway).
I basically agree that other designs may have been possible. But something like the neighbourhood street in your photo probably wouldn’t work because Point Grey Road is in effect an arterial bike route to Kitsilano, Point Grey/UBC, in addition to being a greenway. In the Netherlands and Germany a major cycling connection would also be built separate from people walking.
Agreed. This example could not handle the volumes of cyclists, pedestrians and local motor vehicles. Widen it by 50% and it wouldn’t be much different than PGR.
This is great as a neighbourhood street and I’d like to see more of it in Vancouver. We see hints of it at the Arbutus Lands, Olympic Village (less green) and the rest of False Creek South (even more green).
The problem with that analysis, Voony, is that if the same situation was exported to the location in your photo, the adjacent residents would have taken over the public access without permission, planted it up and therein narrowed it to something very inadequate.
Moreover, Condon’s theories on public infrastructure designed like natural systems seems reasonable until you face decades of very expensive maintenance and, in many cases, ripping out in favour of standard storm sewers. I doubt Condon has even a month of municipal service to based these things on.
To explain further, what has actually worked in the Lower Mainland in practice (as opposed to academic theory)?
Answer: Very large wetlands at the bottom of a watershed (preferably in a large park) where storm runoff is adequately biofiltered and toxins are trapped. If designed correctly, they can be nearly self-sustaining, but even they require periodic mucking out and replanting with aquatic species.
The best thing a city can do is to protect its streams and expand the riparian forests on their banks, then build large artificial wetlands at the edges to accept and clean storm sewer runoff before it enters the stream. Several cities here are doing just that. Unfortunately, Vancouver culverted 26 salmon-bearing streams and cut down the riparian forests along with the climax old growth, so that opportunity is long gone.
These efforts to mimmick “natural systems” with our street infrastructure has become hopelessly inadequate in practice. All the itty bitty Mickey Mouse swales and “infiltration” ponds proposed today (like Condon’s Crown Street example) have turned out to be next to useless and purely cosmetic after two decades of practice in Metro cities that exist in a high rainfall environment. Moreover, infiltration is extremely limited when you’ve got 30-60 m of hard, impenetrable glacial till and foundation sandstone not 60 cm below the surface.
But these terms still look good in academic papers, op-eds and BCSLA conference seminars where maintenance is a dirty word.
MB – I mean, Alex; that’s a bit of an insult considering: Patrick Condon is currently the Chair of Urban Design program at the University of British Columbia where he holds the James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Livable Environments. Condon’s career spans more than 30 years, first as a professional city planner and later as a teacher and researcher. He started his academic career in 1985 at the University of Minnesota, moving to the University of British Columbia in 1992, acting first as the Director of the Landscape Architecture program and later as the James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Livable Environments. He is now senior researcher with the Design Centre for Sustainability at UBC, a sustainable urban design think tank that evolved from the original efforts of the Chair, and directs the University’s new urban design degree program.
He has worked for many years to advance sustainable urban design in Canada and elsewhere in the world. He has lectured widely, and is the author of several books, most recently Design Charettes for Sustainable Communities (2007) and Seven Rules for Sustainable Communities (2010).
Professor Condon and his partners have received awards from the Canadian Institute of Planners and the American Society of Landscape Architects for their work.
He certainly deserves a modicum of respect.
You’d better zip back over to The Tyee where it’s heating up with even Ken pitching in.
I have met Patrick Condon. I disagree with many of his theories as being impractical and often formulaic, but sometimes he nails it. Credentials are not everything. Dissent is part of building a better world.
Hey Alex. 31 comments on the Tyee on this story alone today. Wow. You must be on the payroll, or is it all volunteer?
You are actually counting? Good for you. Means that you’re paying attention. When I encounter op-eds I believe are based on weak premises, I tend to counter them from the comfort of my own study.
I can understand so many postings over there. You’re getting thoroughly beaten up but not making any headway. Looks like the lefties have had enough of the pampering of the Point Greyers and are just not buying the pretence that concrete really means green.
I have always been quite happy to bike along 3rd Avenue in Point Grey. Like almost all the commenters, I didn’t need my city to spend over $10 million so I can glide through the gilded gated mansion row. What a joke!
It’s practice, not a boxing match. I would agree that more Tyee commenters are interested in political jabs than in participating in a constructive discussion backed up with facts and evidence. That’s their loss.
“I have always been quite happy to bike along 3rd Avenue in Point Grey.”
Good for you. The rest of us quite enjoy the new traffic calmed Point Grey Road, and it will be even better when the Phase II improvements are completed. That assessment is based on the counts of how many rode on 3rd previously, and how many then rode on the new PGR post-calming.
But then, this article is about pedestrian improvements. The cycling improvements were completed two years ago.
One item not emphasized enough in this thread is universal accessibility. A level 3m wide sidewalk with clear sightlines and visually unobstructed driveways will be safer and accommodate all users of all ages, including people with disabilities. This point was made repeatedly over at the Tyee, but commenters there seemed not to be interested.
Point Grey Road is not some private country club drive as some portray it with the changes. It is a major public route that connects major waterfront parks.