Just a reminder.  The extensive changes and improvements to Point Grey Road (despite the silly charges regarding the rich and real estate) is because of this:
The natural foreshore between Kitsilano and Jericho Parks is going to remain this way.  It was never really an option to extend the seawall along here.  And yet without some connector that met a reasonable definition of safety, accessible to all ages and abilities, the missing link would have become intolerable.
So yes, Point Grey Road is essentially a piece of the seawall and the Seaside Greenway.


  1. Could you go into detail about why it was “never really an option to extend the seawall along here?” Apparently I missed this whole issue. Technical reasons? Cost? Politics?

    1. Some good background info here on the impacts. Section 1 discusses the range of impacts, while Section 3 has info specific to sea walls.
      It comes down to environmental impact, three levels of government plus Ports, DFO, etc, and very high costs. When there was going to be a seaside route along there, it meant buying up the properties along the bluff. That was abandoned decades ago due to high costs.
      The seawall path idea last came up in 2012 and was quickly shot down. Hard to see it getting more traction now.

  2. I agree with the questions above. Given that those property owners are going to have to build a retaining wall to stop their properties washing into the chuck at $1000 a spoonful, I thought it was an opportunity to partner. Check out the damage due to King Tides, storm surges and rising water levels in Sydney beachfront suburbs for an example of the problem elsewhere.

  3. For most of its length it would not be able to tie back to the city because of a substantial bluff. That might work for some riders but means a commitment to do the whole length. (For pedestrians there could be a series of stairs along the way.)

  4. “The natural foreshore between Kitsilano and Jericho Parks is going to remain this way. It was never really an option to extend the seawall along here.” = Hogwash. Not only was this seawall extension along the foreshore part of the Bartholomew Plan, the first formal City Plan for the City of Vancouver as early as 1925 (and Bartholomew warned that if the City did not take control of the land for that purpose immediately, it would become too expensive for the City to buy it back later for a scenic transportation route), but the City also attempted to purchase properties on the North side of Point Grey Road in the 1970’s to have the seawall extension option preserved, succeeding in purchasing only a few properties, which are now the small pocket parks between Alma and Macdonald streets. As Bartholomew had warned, the properties became too expensive for the City to buy back the land and riparian rights from residents for park space and a transportation route from False Creek out to Jericho Beach. Nevertheless, despite the cost, in 2012-2013, Vancouver’s Vision City Council was still prepared to construct the extension of the seawall along the foreshore, which is the obvious place for a seawall and seaside greenway, and a well-known Point Grey Road resident offered $10 million as a donation to get the project started then, in 2013, but environmentalists screamed that they did not want the foreshore and its wildlife touched. The same Vision Council in 2013 and today tabled the seawall extension for the time being, stating that it would take too long (years that the Vision Council does not have left in office) to complete. Consequently, they have opted to put an “inland seawall” (their words) on Local, Residential Point Grey Road because it is fast (doable within their time left in office). Yet, they have also repeatedly declared that they are still pursuing the seawall extension design at the seaside, and that Point Grey Road is simply a fast, temporary measure to complete Vision’s “vision” of a completed Seaside Greenway. In other words, the millions to make Local, Residential Point Grey Road into a temporary Seaside Greenway will be wasted and the residents and users of the area put at grave safety risk from the substantial narrowing of the roadway for a vastly wide “inland seawall” promenade. Very ironic, since constructing the seawall extension at the foreshore would actually prevent further erosion and destruction of the wildlife there that is occurring daily now without the seawall extension at the seaside. That is precisely what a seawall is for. There is no logic or precedent for creating an “inland seawall” or Seaside Greenway on a 9-block Local, Residential road that is not seaside; the Phase 2 design is absurd, paving over existing green space, tearing out existing necessary infrastructure, spending millions of taxpayer’s dollars, creating a narrower roadspace for thousands of cyclists, local motorists and maintenance/service vehicles to try to navigate safely, and constructing an extensively-wide walkway for low volumes of pedestrians that will abut driveways, putting pedestrians at dire risk (according to independent traffic engineers’ reports on the Phase 2 design) — all because Vision refuses to do what is right for the city and think long-term (seawall extension at the forshore), thinking only about itself in the short-term (a high-cost 9-block walkway that can be built within the two years that Vision has left in office). Disgusting and reprehensible.

  5. I love the new Point Grey Road Greenway. The city did an awesome job on this and I feel super safe when riding on this road. I am looking forward to the pedestrian enhancements. However, it would be super awesome to have a path closer to the water.as well. If path along sea edge is difficult, why not put a path on pylons further out in the water. This would create an “in sea” routing. Not sure about cost, but it would make for a great seaside path.

    1. But, Arno, the safety you “feel” now will be substantially reduced with the narrowing of the road by 12 feet, which will squeeze the thousands (City count) of cyclists against each other, parked cars on the South side and moving local mortorists, the planned raised crosswalks, which will impede the flow for cyclists, and the double-parked service and maintenance vehicles that daily service the affluent North side homes. You need to think ahead to the actual consequences of Phase 2, not just the City-engineered design on paper.

      1. I’ve found a glimmer of hope for you Susan. You’ve long complained about cyclists riding 3 abreast in both directions. With the narrower road cyclists may actually ride single file or just 2 abreast. Won’t that be wonderful?
        Oh and if the bikes are single file your impatient neighbours’ luxury cars may finally be able to exceed 20km/h. Imagine being so important that getting home a full 49 seconds sooner is a matter worth months of complaints to city hall.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *