I wrote this letter on May 13, 2006 in response to an article in theTimes-Colonist byAvi Friedman (who is probably a very nice man, but doesn't have a clue when it comes to Victoria). Prof. Friedman "warned" us Victorians of the dire consequences of having our shoreline built up with private development, seemingly not noticing that nearly all of Victoria's shoreline is perfectly accessible. Really, Friedman's warnings are generically apt for East Coast cities (from my personal experience, especially US East Coast cities along the Boston-Washington corridor, where so incredibly much of the shoreline is privatised), but it holds no sway here. My letter was not published:

Dear Editor:

Although Avi Friedman's reminder ("port cities must save their shorelines for the public," May 13) is well-intentioned, it's also utterly generic, and consequently without merit for thinking about Victoria's development. To call proximity to the ocean Victoria's dominant geographical feature is like calling Pinocchio's nose his dominant personality trait. Yes, it sure is there, but, like the famous nose, our city is determined by so much more, just as the proboscis changed its shape depending on whether truth was told.

I can think of many East Coast cities that fit the scenarios described by Mr. Friedman, but Victoria is very different from them. Let's take a walk: heading west fromRoss Bay Cemetery toOgden Point along Dallas Road, it is literally impossible to walk on land that isn't in public hands -- and no one in their right mind would propose changing that. Furthermore, this waterfront access is on the south, which means that even if the north side of Dallas Road were built up, neither the view nor the sun would be obstructed for the democratic mingling of populations along that wide strip. In James Bay, access to the water is blocked by our own government (via the Coast Guard), not by private developers.Laurel Point is accessible. The ferry terminal (again, government component via immigration): some blocked access. The Inner Harbour: accessible. Seaplane and Dock Basin docks: accessible.Westsong Way Park and Songhees in Vic West: accessible. The planned Dockside development: accessible. Onward through the Railyards development, with exceptionally serene walkways and patios, all the way toBanfield Park and the Trestle Bridge that takes you to theSelkirkWaterfront development: accessible. The only area where things get real tricky is south of Rock Bay, and that's because it's a relic of the kind of industrial gerrymandering of blocked access that Friedman described. But it's not because private developers have since then built "rows of high-rise buildings" that present what "just might be a new urban reality" of blocked access. Such a shibboleth, and without any relevance to what has happened or what is on the drawing board for Victoria! If anything, in Victoria citizens are better advised to keep their eyes on our many levels of government who control access to some areas.

So far, it's the "new urban reality" in Victoria that has restored access to waterfront that used to be blocked, or so polluted as to be dangerous. In the 70s, my friends and I would sometimes walk from S.J.Willis Jr.High to Mayfair Mall. To the west, rows of chimneys belched effluent from various pulp and paper factories and other manufactures. There was no Selkirk Trestle for walking, nor access to waterfront. Downtown waterfront areas were often as scuzzy, if not as polluted.

Did Mr. Friedman not walk around our city or look at a map to clarify to himself how our waterfront has actually improved, or to understand how what was here already (Dallas Road type access) has been extended to other areas?

Regards,
Yule Heibel



This is from a flickr James Bay Coast Guard "set":