Sen̓áḵw (Squamish Nation) | 11 Towers | 171m | 58fl | 4M sqft | U/C

[jollyburger]

The developers of Harbour Cove have done a lot of projects locally

https://pennyfarthinghomes.ca/projects/

They also did Clipper at 1450 Creekside Drive.



There was a huge fight over the project with the second phase with unions etc

https://www.heu.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Guardian_Vol_4_No_2_June_1984web.pdf

The second phase (maybe more) was financed by the BC Central Credit Union which means it must have been connected to the B.C. Credit Union Centre building. I always thought that was some kind of UNICEF logo on that building before it became Central 1.

This site has more info:



https://www.sonjapedersen.com/harbourcove3/bldghome_print-74.html

When the Credit Centre building open they got BC Hydro to run a temporary bus route stopping in the traffic circle in front of the building:

https://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/uplo...3b-4389-a377-291685ca76f6-1978-11-21.pdf

And Fisherman's Wharf:

After 8 years of lobbying for new fish boat facilities to service the local Vancouver Fishermen, 1940 finally came with
approval for a lease in False Creek, right next to the Canadian National terminals and the trestle bridge across the mouth
of false creek. This was pitched as a facility to one day rival the already famous “Fisherman’s Wharf” in San Francisco,
CA. with 25 new floats to house up to 1,500 vessels, a large building to house net and storage sheds, offices for the
Union as well as the Harbour office, a general store and a large seafood restaurant to create local access to the fresh
product arriving daily. False Creek was proposed as the ideal locale as it was closer than Coal Harbour to the Fraser
River, still an abundant fishing ground at the time, and was favoured over chasing the tides to cross the narrows at the
mouth of the Burrard inlet. Sadly, this proposal never saw the light of day as war became the focus of the nation.

When the dust had settled it was 1950 when the Federal Government became involved and voted to spend $100,000 on a
new Fish Boat Facility in Vancouver. This plan didn’t make it off the desk for four years until the Fishing Vessel’s
Owners Association successfully lobbied for the Government to honour their commitment and construction began, with
the facility opening on Dec. 27th 1957 at a final cost of roughly $1,000,000. This new facility was well received, though
it did not live up to the original proposal, with only 5 floats, moorage for a total of 150-200 vessels, and little in the way
of upland amenities. This was designed purely as a Fishing Harbour accepting no vessels under 40’ in length at a cost of
35 cents per foot, though the lack of amenities was keeping many of these vessels away, forcing them to eventually open
the doors for Pleasure Craft moorage.

Over the years, major improvements have come along as gear and net storage was built along with an office for
administration, uplands parking and an open storage area for large items. Additional finger floats were installed to allow
for more vessels and a sales float was added as a way for the Fishers to connect directly with the local populace, close to
the world renowned Granville Island Market. Many challenges come from running a working harbour in the heart of a
busy metropolitan city. By engaging the changing demographics of our area, we hope to stay relevant and remain a
social and economic hub for the citizens of Vancouver. We have and will always serve the Fishing Fleet as our main
objective, though as before, we must continue to embrace Pleasure Craft moorage as the changing dynamics of
commercial fishing in BC affects us all and our ageing infrastructure continues to need attention.

https://www.falsecreek.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Tidings-Spring-2016.pdf

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Interesting. Is this site included in any of the city’s False Creek planning? Any idea how Harbour Cove came to be the only freehold parcel along the south shore?

I don't think this part of False Creek is in any current planning. I assume the land closer to Burrard and Cambie bridges wasn't assembled by the City in the way the central part of False Creek South was. BC Credit Union built their office there in 1978. Harbour Cove was also by Pennyfarthing in 1986. Island Cove on W2nd is also freehold strata from 1989, as is Granville Island Village from 1985 on 4th Avenue.

Mariner Point by Daon in 1984 and The Lagoons by First City Developments designed by Hotson Bakker in 1989 are both prepaid leasehold stratas, like the smaller buildings further east from the 1970s.

The buildings closer to Cambie Bridge like Newport Quay, from 1986, Venice Court by Adera and Henley Court by PCI at the end of the 1980s are all also freehold strata.

[officedweller]

Here's a cool shot from 1946.
You can see the streetcar / interurban sheds under the Burrard bridge.

https://vintageairphotos.com/bo-46-124/

You can also see those sheds at the bottom of this pic from 1947:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...%2C_False_Creek%2C_Vancouver%2C_1947.jpg

and here in August 1959:

https://geog.ubc.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2020/08/Calendar_05.png

[whatnext]

I hope the City and the Squamish are investing in a higher seawall!

[IMG]IMG_1698 by bcborn, on Flickr[/IMG]
[IMG]IMG_1700 by bcborn, on Flickr[/IMG]
my photos

[jollyburger]

Are you sure that's from False Creek? I was looking at the webcam from English Bay and the section near the Coast Guard station doesn't show much flooding and I'm pretty sure it's lower over there. It's a low point with probably no drainage so maybe it's just some collected rainwater/melted snow?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6leUACCpzQ

[Migrant_Coconut]

Could be either (or both) - even with just a 1.5°C rise, every climate change graphic points to Vanier being underwater unless the City does something about it.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Could be either (or both) - even with just a 1.5°C rise, every climate change graphic points to Vanier being underwater unless the City does something about it.

Isn't the 1.5C warming in the 15-25cm range of sea level rise?

https://www.carbonbrief.org/limiting-war...-contribution-to-sea-level-rise-by-2100/

The Vancouver map doesn't show Vanier underwater by 2100 with a 1:500 year storm + 1 metre of sea level rise.

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/vancouvers-changing-shoreline.pdf

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Isn't the 1.5C warming in the 15-25cm range of sea level rise?

https://www.carbonbrief.org/limiting-war...-contribution-to-sea-level-rise-by-2100/

The Vancouver map doesn't show Vanier underwater by 2100 with a 1:500 year storm + 1 metre of sea level rise.

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/vancouvers-changing-shoreline.pdf

I think this interactive map is the most recent version of a number of projections that are constantly being refined. It shows most of Vanier Park under water at high tide with 1.5 degrees of average heating. It's not the location that will face the most problems though - It may explain why Concord called their tower 'The Arc' - not just for the shape of the building, or the fact that it's an arch.

(Currently expectations are that the earth will be 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures arond 2033, and 2 degrees higher before 2060. [data source])

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Are you sure that's from False Creek? I was looking at the webcam from English Bay and the section near the Coast Guard station doesn't show much flooding and I'm pretty sure it's lower over there. It's a low point with probably no drainage so maybe it's just some collected rainwater/melted snow?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6leUACCpzQ

Yes I walked over from an early trip to Granville Island and decided to have a look how it was on the way to Vanier. This is as far as I got. The water was over the top of the bank at Cultural Harmony Grove.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Changing City

(Currently expectations are that the earth will be 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures arond 2033, and 2 degrees higher before 2060. [data source])

There are some similarities in that PDF map and the interactive map. But there's a vast difference in the level of flooding around Vanier Park. Just wondering if the CoV terrain dataset was more accurate.

https://opendata.vancouver.ca/explore/da...ain/map/?location=15,49.27311,-123.13811

[jollyburger]

The services agreement for the planned seawall work:

Nation cost and scope to include densification and preparation of existing or replaced soils along the existing seawall alignment to a minimum of 15m back from the existing top of bank and at least to the elevation of the existing seawall, as needed to provide a competent base for a future potential dike system or similar flood protection work by others (but not necessarily the City), as well as provision of a 15m minimum setback from the high water mark (as of date that design work for same commences) to any building or other permanent structures in accordance with City and Provincial guidelines in order to allow for the future construction of a shoreline dike structure
to mitigate sea level rise. Design of soil densification to be coordinated with and approved by the City Engineer.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

There are some similarities in that PDF map and the interactive map. But there's a vast difference in the level of flooding around Vanier Park. Just wondering if the CoV terrain dataset was more accurate.

https://opendata.vancouver.ca/explore/da...ain/map/?location=15,49.27311,-123.13811

From what I can see the 4.6m floodplane is the current anticipated flood potential that was introduced in 2012, as a result of a Provincial response to anticipated sea level rise. (Before that it was 3.5m). That was before any detailed modeling was carried out, and before any anticipation of 1.5 or 2 degrees (or more) of likely heating, and the effect that might add. The Coastal Climate model was generated in 2021, so is more recent, and based on more recent models of how sea levels might rise. This new map uses newer, more accurate elevation data than earlier versions, so it should more accurately reflect what is likely to happen (given the global temperature rise that's currently anticipated).

Obviously what it doesn't do it take into account whatever new flood defences get built. Those are currently being planned on a regional, as well as local basis, which is presumably why the agreement on Senakw references the potential for others to construct a dike. The current work at Metro doesn't seem to be addressing physical interventions, but rather at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and keeping temperature rise to as low as possible.

An earlier City of Vancouver report said that a barrier might be a better way to deal with sea level rise, rather than raising the dike all the way round the water's edge. All of this gets more attention from politicians as flooding events become more frequent (and more expensive). But so far nobody has stepped up and agreed to spend billions on whichever approach is chosen.

[officedweller]

There was a King Tide, so that pic could have been taken then.
Even at very high tide, the seawater level comes to the top of the Vanier boat ramp, adjacent to the footpath. That footpath would be at the same elevation as at Cultural Harmony Grove.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

There was a King Tide, so that pic could have been taken then.
Even at very high tide, the seawater level comes to the top of the Vanier boat ramp, adjacent to the footpath. That footpath would be at the same elevation as at Cultural Harmony Grove.

The image by whatnext is the result of a King Tide, but those are going to carry on happening, (unless the moon stops sucking), and the effects of climate change will make them higher. The EPA say "King tides bring unusually high water levels, and they can cause local tidal flooding. Over time, sea level rise is raising the height of tidal systems. Average daily water levels are rising along with the oceans. As a result, high tides are reaching higher and extending further inland than in the past. King tides preview how sea level rise will affect coastal places. As time goes by, the water level reached now during a king tide will be the water level reached at high tide on an average day."

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The current work at Metro doesn't seem to be addressing physical interventions, but rather at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and keeping temperature rise to as low as possible.

i have always found Vancouver's approach to this absolutely hilarious. these people think Vancouver or even BC has ANY say over if the global temperature rise is positively hilarious. talk about out of touch, out to lunch, and out of common sense.

they just want to kick the can down the road, do nothing and hope people fall for that —, which they mostly are.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i have always found Vancouver's approach to this absolutely hilarious. these people think Vancouver or even BC has ANY say over if the global temperature rise is positively hilarious. talk about out of touch, out to lunch, and out of common sense.

they just want to kick the can down the road, do nothing and hope people fall for that —, which they mostly are.

Of course the choices you make that affect GHG production are part of the global impact on climate change. So are the choices I make, and the other 2.5+ million Metro Vancouver residents, and those of the other 8 million on the planet.

You're not wrong that many seem to preferring nothing, kicking the can down the road, and pretending that it won't matter. However, Vancouver (City and Metro) are both adopting policies to try to limit the potential damage to infrastructure and to plan for the inevitable negative effects we're already seeing. They're also doing what they can to try to limit GHGs in their own activities, and where they control what others do (like requiring better building energy efficiency, for example, or building net-zero district heating systems).

Will it be too little, too late? Almost certainly, but doing nothing doesn't seem a particularly intelligent approach.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Where could they even put a barrier anyway? English Bay ain't the Thames.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Where could they even put a barrier anyway? English Bay ain't the Thames.

The barrier idea was for False Creek, so roughly underneath Burrard Bridge (the narrowest point). There would have to be other protection for some of the land in front of Senakw.

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I hope the City and the Squamish are investing in a higher seawall!

[IMG]IMG_1698 by bcborn, on Flickr[/IMG]
[IMG]IMG_1700 by bcborn, on Flickr[/IMG]
my photos

That would all be the city for 95% of it. The FN land stops short except for a tiny sliver of frontage.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Where could they even put a barrier anyway? English Bay ain't the Thames.

Juan the Fuca maybe? lol