Vancouver mulls seawall expansion from Kitsilano to Jericho

[SpongeG]

maybe its the lululemon guy

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Where is the high tide line in relation to those properties ?

will the extended sea wall negatively impact the Royal Vancouver Yacht Club and the Tennis club?

The Bing photos are from high tide
East End: http://binged.it/NGFE4M
West End: http://binged.it/NGFV83

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I think security might be a bigger concern for a lot of these people. I hope it happens, and with the donated money there's little reason it shouldn't but it needs to be done right.

I think some may BRING up security... however a proper lit path is likely a more secure environment than a dark waterfront with few people.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I think some may BRING up security... however a proper lit path is likely a more secure environment than a dark waterfront with few people.

Well, I meant scumbags breaking into homes or yards from the back side and having a getaway via the new seawall.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Well, I meant scumbags breaking into homes or yards from the back side and having a getaway via the new seawall.

Setting aside the fact that many of these homes have castle-like retaining walls separating the publicly accessible shoreline from their homes and patios, I honestly don't think that the Seawall is an ideal get-away route for would-be buglers.

[red-paladin]

I would think in some cases this would increase the property value of the houses.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Setting aside the fact that many of these homes have castle-like retaining walls separating the publicly accessible shoreline from their homes and patios, I honestly don't think that the Seawall is an ideal get-away route for would-be buglers.

I think they should be more concerned about this bugler. (Sorry, couldn't resist hope you get a chuckle)

[jhausner]

Security is a bunch of crap. If someone wants to break into one of their mansions, they don't need a sea wall to do it. Talk to any cop on the planet and they'll tell you the same thing, "if someone wants to steal your car, they'll steal it no matter what kind of alarm or locking device you put on. A flat deck tow truck gets around any security device."

So by that reality, it comes down to the argument "easier access" and I think a sidewalk is just as easy access to their places as a new seawall and they already have a sidewalk by their places. Hell they have a road too.

Let's face it, the people against it are simply not wanting to lose their perceived 'private beach' access. That's it. It's the same reason why people building up the mountain on West Van want the black bears removed. They don't want to share their new 'private forest getaway' with the common folk or animals.

This is what money does to a lot of people unfortunately. I always say if you want privacy, go buy a 20 acre ranch up near Cache Creek. You want to live a stones throw away from 1 of the most dense downtowns in North America, expect there to be a few people around your home.

[Porfiry]

So, it's not billionaire Chip Wilson, but apparently they're fully in support and also willing to pitch in.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...04/?cmpid=rss1

When word surfaced this summer that an anonymous donor was offering the city millions to extend the seawall from Kits Beach to Jericho Beach, chatter immediately turned to the Wilsons. They have the bucks, they are big seawall users, and they’re moving into that stretch of seawall-free beachfront.

It’s not them, they say – but they would contribute. “We’re not the anonymous donor, but we’re in full support of it,” Mrs. Wilson said. They dream of cycling to work from Kits to their new Gastown offices, set to open in 2013.

[WarrenC12]

Any idea where that new Lululemon office is? Old Storyeum building? They certainly need a lot of space.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Any idea where that new Lululemon office is? Old Storyeum building? They certainly need a lot of space.

Isn't it that 1980's brick building at the north end of Burrard St Bridge, at Cornwall?
http://investor.lululemon.com/releas...leaseID=550332

I had forgotten it was ever a bottling plant!

[sacrifice333]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Any idea where that new Lululemon office is? Old Storyeum building? They certainly need a lot of space.

I think the article may have been reference personal office space, for the Wilson's, in Gastown. The LULU HQ is definitely on Burrard and Cornwall, and the company recently bought the building.

[BCPhil]

Mel Lehan with the Point Grey Foreshore Society gathered a marine biologist, a botanist and a historian to lead a walk between Kits and Jericho beaches on Saturday, to highlight what would happen to the ecosystem should a seawall be erected.

"We've commissioned a lot of studies and we found that there's more birds, there's more plants, there's lots of marine life and it's because it's a complete ecosystem that hasn't been impacted by a seawall," he explains.

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/a...wall-extension

I would have to agree with this. Why does Vancouver need to have a homogeneous bricked shoreline? To go with our homogeneous, glass-tower skyline?

The park board in 1994 voted to abandon plans to extend the seawall and preserve the shoreline as much as possible.

Yes, there are a lot of retaining walls built, but there are still sections that are perfectly preserved (or as close to perfect as possible in a developed city) that would be eliminated by any form of seawall expansion.

We also need to do due diligence and and not just accept money to build something. We need look no further than Victoria to see what happens when we build infrastructure at the behest of a private individual and just to get hands on handouts.

Len Barrie, the guy who got started down the road to riches by being an asshat and cutting down trees on a golf course that didn't belong to him, talked Langford into building an interchange to his subdivision. He offered to pay for part but decided not to live up to the agreement. Now the bridge sits over the highway, unused, with taxpayers on the hook to finish it.

Also, an anonymous $10 million donation for a public project is highly suspect and shouldn't be allowed. It's a total conflict of interest. Anyone who thinks that if the city accepted $10 million from someone and doesn't return the favor is incredibly naive. Don't tell me that Jimmy Pattison's contributions (as nice as they are) haven't helped cement his company in BC and helped with decisions made by governments (be it licenses, contracts, zoning, or keeping competition out of Vancouver *coughWalmartcough*).

By being anonymous, how can we know that this isn't buying influence? For all we know, this could be from Li Ka-shing and in exchange for being made to look like public recreation heroes, Vision will fast track viaduct demolition and transfer a chunk of land over to Concord Pacific. That's just an example of corruption, not what I actually thinking is going on. But am I really that far of from reality? Li Ka-shing did offer to buy Fantasy Garden from Vander Zalm at the time he was bidding on the Expo Lands, Vander Zalm turned him down only because he the Zalm was already helping his friend Peter Toigo to get his hands on the Expo lands. And Fantasy gardens did eventually lead to Vander Zalm's ultimate downfall when he sold it to Tan Yu (who wanted to do business in BC) for $16 million when it "luckily" came out of the ALR.

But even if we knew the identity of the donor, there is no way to know if it will influence current or future councils to vote a certain way in future dealings with the person. Corruption is a slippery slope, so it is best to avoid it.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Yes, there are a lot of retaining walls built, but there are still sections that are perfectly preserved (or as close to perfect as possible in a developed city) that would be eliminated by any form of seawall expansion.

Presumptuous. No one knows what physical form the path might take. It could be suspended on piers beyond the foreshore, which would negate that argument entirely. One assumes Mel is just trying to drum up publicity for his own political aspirations.

[memememe76]

I find it a bit OTP that a seawall will somehow ruin the ecosystem. And ironic coming from people who reside in an area not exactly known for its density. And have you seen some (or many) of the cars these residents drive?

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Presumptuous. No one knows what physical form the path might take. It could be suspended on piers beyond the foreshore, which would negate that argument entirely. One assumes Mel is just trying to drum up publicity for his own political aspirations.

That wouldn't be much of a Seawall now would it? And that seems like it would be incredibly expensive, difficult to build, and a complete eyesore. What you are describing is a several mile long shoreline pier or more commonly called a quay or wharf. Didn't we just got rid of one of those at Jericho so we could restore the beach?

How does hundreds of pilings deep into the sand preserve the beach and natural landscape?

Drumming up political support by opposing a popular recreational facility for the benefit of less than a hundred property owners (who hate the NDP) seems like a hard way to do it. And usually NDP and Vision party members are in sync. So given those facts one would probably assume something different, like that an environment loving leftist NDPer just likes the environment the way it is.

Originally Posted by memememe76

I find it a bit OTP that a seawall will somehow ruin the ecosystem. And ironic coming from people who reside in an area not exactly known for its density. And have you seen some (or many) of the cars these residents drive?

Sorry, but can you describe to me the ecosystem along the seawall as it is? I mean in most parts there aren't many plants, birds or animals. Even trees don't exist to provide the best views possible. The only exception is in the OV, where they recreated and tried to restore something natural. Maybe we shouldn't take it away in the first place this time.

And what does density have to do with preserving the natural state of the environment or building a man made structure? Because it is less dense, we should automatically build more? Or is the Seawall some kind of punishment? I don't know if that would make sense. Density in this area would just bring pollution. A seawall would just bring more discarded wrappers and dog droppings to an otherwise pretty clean place.

And who cares what kind of cars they drive? So, rich people drive expensive cars. What does that have to do with the Seawall? Does it ruin the environment more somehow that their car costs more than mine and yours? And somehow that has ruined the beach there so we may as well remove it? Oh wait, I know, because people that live there drive polluting cars, therefore the beach is ruined and should be destroyed by a man made structure. Or is your argument that they are already spoiled enough that they don't deserve to keep the beach, therefore we should change the environment to teach them a lesson. That's how I'm supposed to tie your argument all together right?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by memememe76

I find it a bit OTP that a seawall will somehow ruin the ecosystem. And ironic coming from people who reside in an area not exactly known for its density. And have you seen some (or many) of the cars these residents drive?

One has nothing to do with the other.

And by helping preserve their local foreshore they are doing something far more concrete and practical than some champagne socialist statement like buying a Prius, which is like pissing into the wind, given the developing world's rapid embrace of the automobile.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

That wouldn't be much of a Seawall now would it?

There's no need to be pedantic. Everyone knows the "seawall" in Vancouver is the term used for the seaside path, regardless of whether it's technically a seawall or something else.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

There's no need to be pedantic. Everyone knows the "seawall" in Vancouver is the term used for the seaside path, regardless of whether it's technically a seawall or something else.

I don't know that; in fact, I disagree with it. A seaside path is not a seawall.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by IanS

I don't know that; in fact, I disagree with it. A seaside path is not a seawall.

"The seawall refers to the 22km (13.7 miles) walking, jogging, cycling and inline skating path that lines Vancouver's waterfront from the Convention Centre on Burrard Inlet (Coal Harbour), around Stanley Park and False Creek, past Granville Island and ending at Kitsilano Beach Park."

http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Seawal...table-Map3.pdf