Peter Ladner added a comment to The New Point Grey Road – 4 that I wanted to copy here – first, so it wouldn’t be missed; second, to add my own comment. Which is this:
I never put any credence in the idea that a Vision council would close PGR at the behest of the rich – good ol’ Chip, in particular – to please their friends, contributors or the Mayor’s new neighbours. So I was surprised when that kept being repeated as a presumed motivation.
It doesn’t make sense. First, that a centre-left party would be willing to do such a thing. I’m pretty sure they didn’t get a lot of votes from the north side of PGR, and aren’t likely to now. (Hello, Nelson Skalbania.) They’d be more in danger of losing support from their base.
Second, in the face of local opposition, the first instinct of a party in power is to spend the money somewhere else, preferably closer to their supporters. I well remember when I was on Council that as we were planning a Nanton Street greenway, it created some modest resistance on the West Side. Given both opposition and other choices, the money ended up being spent on the East Side. One need only walk or cycle the 37th Avenue Ridgeway to see the difference: almost no amenities west of Ontario; abundant traffic calming, public art, street furniture and pedestrian lighting to the east.
So why take the heat on PGR? I presume because it’s part of a long-standing, cross-party commitment to completing the Seaside Greenway, creating a continuous car-free route as close as possible to the water – whether seawall and/or bikelane. The NPA led the way, in my partisan opinion, with the work we did on the Seaside route on the north side of English Bay: a lane taken on Beach, parking eliminated or reconfigured, and yes, the paving of a separate lane through the greensward starting at the foot of Cardero Street.
With clear opposition to extending the seawall on the foreshore below PGR (hell, today it would be impossible to build the seawall around Stanley Park), the current PGR creates the next best thing: a link between Kits Beach and Jericho, and there’s no real substitute for that. It was worth taking the heat.
Here’s Peter’s take on the same issue and the reaction of a local resident:
I sometimes wonder how much of the opposition is cover for a totally understandable screw-the-rich instinct. What would the reaction to this closure be if the adjacent residents were all lower income? Why aren’t people outside this area happy that disproportionately higher property values along PGR mean higher city taxes for those benefiting from this closure and therefore lower taxes for everyone else?
People overlook the fact that the ridiculously rich people on the north side of PGR are a small minority of beneficiaries of this change. I estimate that a majority of the beneficiaries north of 4th are tenants, not to mention other people from around the city who will now be able to enjoy this street and its five rarely-used waterfront stairways.
Other than the odd angry outburst, there’s no evidence that life is any worse along 4th Ave.
Here’s one PGR resident’s expression of relief, from the West Kitsilano Residents’ Association website:
“Regarding the impact of more traffic on these side streets due to the change of making PGR open to everyone in the city including those of us living on PGR who no longer are kept up at night to 11am with load radios blasting from idling cars backed up at the PGR & Alma traffic light.
“Nor do I have to wait to get into and out of my car when parking or leaving my home because of reckless speeding commuter traffic who had no regards for the fact that we live on the street. Also I can walk my dog on the sidewalk since bikers, who feared for their life riding on PGR (especially between Blenheim and Alma) were riding on the sidewalks!
“My question to those now regrettably having to live with extra ‘local’ traffic on their streets: Are you dealing with 9-10 thousand commuter extra speeding cars? This was the nightmare we were living with for years. Read more »