UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Horseshoe Bay analysis and design proposal Gottlieb-Tanaka, Dalia 1980

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A7_3 G68.pdf [ 14.09MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094927.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094927-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094927-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094927-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094927-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094927-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094927-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094927-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094927.ris

Full Text

c . ( HORSESHOE BAY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN PROPOSAL by DALIA GOTTLIEB-TANAKA Diploma, Environmental Design, Bezalel Academy, 1975 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES • Department of ARCHITECTURE We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA January, 1981 (c) Dalia Gottlieb-Tanaka, 1981 In presenting th i s thes i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i lmen t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un iver s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f r ee l y ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fu r ther agree that permission for extens ive copying of th i s thes i s fo r s cho la r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives . It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t i on of th i s thes i s fo r f i nanc i a l gain sha l l not be allowed without my wr i t ten permiss ion. Department of Architecture The Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date i ABSTRACT Horseshoe Bay i s located i n West Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. I t i s a r e s i d e n t i a l community, a t o u r i s t a t t r a c -t i o n with business a c t i v i t y , and i t serves as a transporta-t i o n node for B.C. Fe r r i e s Corporation. These d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s create a complex s i t u a t i o n . This study deals with the problems r e s u l t i n g from c o n f l i c t s between the d i f f e r e n t i n t e r e s t groups i n Horse-shoe Bay: the residents, the ferry users, the business community and the v i s i t o r s to the Bay Area. The investigative study contains four main elements: A. A comparison and study of other ferry terminals in Europe. B. A comparison between two similar communities: Horseshoe Bay and Deep Cove. C. A p i l o t survey used as an indicator of the l e v e l of a c t i v i t y i n the Bay Area. D. Personal observation, interviews and discussions. The re s u l t s of t h i s research conclude with suggestions for design development implementations which demonstrate that through physical changes i t i s possible to achieve resolutions for the e x i s t i n g problems i n Horseshoe Bay. i I t was learned that elimination of the problem i s not necessarily the best s o l u t i o n . In spi t e of much c r i t i c i s m towards the B.C. F e r r i e s Corporation, i t was learned that t h i s operation, a f t e r a l l , does contribute to the economic a c t i v i t i e s of the Bay Area and has an enormous p o t e n t i a l for further b e n e f i t there. Collaboration of the various i n t e r e s t groups i n Horseshoe Bay w i l l contribute towards a better comprehen-sive plan f o r the Bay Area and w i l l benefit each one of them. W.W. Wood ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to thank the members of my committee for t h e i r help: Professor B i l l Waters, Professor Dino'Rapanos and esp e c i a l l y , Professor Bud Wood for his wisdom, patience and most of a l l for his friendship. I would l i k e to thank the people at B.C. Fe r r i e s who offered t h e i r help a l l along the way: Pat''Stephens, Peg Buchanan, the people at Dock Design, e s p e c i a l l y Don Fowler for allowing me free access to his o f f i c e for any information I needed, and special thanks to Len Roueche i n V i c t o r i a , the forcast analyst of B.C. Ferr i e s Corporation. I would l i k e to thank Duan Nagi for i n i t i a t i n g me into the secrete of r e a l estate from an ar c h i t e c t u r a l point of view and a l l those people who agreed to be interviewed i n Horseshoe Bay and who showed a keen i n t e r e s t i n Horseshoe Bay's future, each according to his personal b e l i e f s . I'm gratef u l to dear Mr. and Mrs. Peter Kafka for t h e i r help and kindness, and to Dave Weisser, Joe T r o l l and Tom Sewell. Special thanks to the s e c r e t a r i a l s t a f f of the School of Architecture at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia: Diana Cumpston, Maureen Whiteside and Barbara Jones, for t h e i r help, patience and an ear to l i s t e n . I am grateful to my very dear good fr i e n d , Sheila Jones, who,with her s p i r i t u a l support, encouragement and her valuable help i n typing and upgrading my use of the English language, brought me to t h i s stage. And, f i n a l l y , I would l i k e to thank two dear people i n my l i f e : Mineo Tanaka, my husband, and T a l i a , my daughter. Mineo helped to enlighten my understanding of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l profession and his help does not need any further explanation. I'm g r a t e f u l . And l a s t , dear one, my daughter, who with time w i l l understand that she was the main reason for- my f i n i s h i n g t h i s work so that I could spend more time with her and watch her grow. Vancouver 1980 V TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1. General Background 1 2. General Problems 3 CHAPTER 2. THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 4 2.1 Hypothesis 4 2.2 Objectives 7 CHAPTER 3. HISTORY AND CONTEXT OF HORSESHOE BAY 9 3.1 Introduction 9 3.2 The H i s t o r i c a l Background 9 3.3 Horseshoe Bay i n the Context of i t s Environment 15 3.3.1 Introduction 15 3.3.2 Vancouver 15 3.3.3 The North Shore 16 3.3.4 The Immediate Surroundings of Horseshoe Bay 25 3.4 Conclusions 27 CHAPTER 4. METHODOLOGY • 3 0 4.1 Introduction 3 0 4.2 Comparison and Study of Other Ferry Terminals i n Europe 30 4.2.1 Technical l i m i t a t i o n s of the study 30 4.2.2 The correspondence 32 4.2.3 The re s u l t s 38 4.2.4 Conclusions 42 4.3 Comparative Study of Horseshoe Bay and Deep Cove 4 6 4.3.1 Introduction 46 4.3.2 Physical comparisons 46 4.3.3 H i s t o r i c a l and s'ocial comparisons 49 4.3.4 Economic comparisons 51 4.3.4.1 Introduction 51 4.3.4.2 Comparative land values 52 4.3.4.3 Ownership patterns 55 4.3.4.4 P r o f i l e of community services 56 4.3.4.5 Conclusions 57 4.3.5 Comparisons of community groups 58 4.3.5.1 Introduction 59 4.3.5.2 Local community organizations: Horseshoe Bay and Deep Cove 59 v i CHAPTER 4. (continued) 4.3.5.3 Various Interest groups of Horseshoe Bay 63 4.3.6 Conclusions 71 4.4 The P i l o t Study Conducted at " T r o l l ' s " 73 4.4.1 Introduction 73 4.4.2 The objectives 7 4 4.4.3 Limitations of the survey 7 5 4.4.4 The questionnaire 75 4.4.5 The res u l t s 75 4.4.6 Applications of the data 77 4.5 Summary 82 4.6 Conclusions 82 CHAPTER 5. RESEARCH APPLICATION 8 5 5.1 Introduction . 85 5.2 Design Pol i c y : Its Implications and Recommended Resolutions 8 5 5.2.1 Introduction 8 5 5.2.2 B.C. Ferr i e s operation 86 5.2.3 The r e s i d e n t i a l community 9 8 5.2.4 The business community 104 5.2.5 Recreational f a c i l i t i e s 108 5.2.6 Changes i n zoning and r e s i d e n t i a l density 109 5.2.7 Economic implications 113 5.3 Design Development Implementation 123 CHAPTER 6. STRATEGY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT'S IMPLEMENTATION 136 6.1 Planning Guidelines. 136 6.2 The Process of Development 14 0 CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 142 7.1 A Summary of Major Conclusions 142 7.2 Research Conclusions 143; 7.3 Major Design Conclusions 149;. 7.4 Recommendations for Further Research 152 BIBLIOGRAPHY 153' LIST OF INTERVIEWS 156 APPENDIX: The Questionnaire 7 v i i LIST OF MAPS Map 1. Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t Including Horseshoe Bay 5 Map 2. Shopping Centres and Major Transportation Routes in the Region 17 Map 3. Communities Surrounding Horseshoe Bay 2 0 Map 4. Horseshoe Bay and Surrounding Area 24 Map 5. Ferry Routes between Scandinavia, Western Europe and the United Kingdom 33 Map 6. Ferry Routes Linking Scandinavia with Eastern Europe 3 5 Map 7. Ferry Routes i n Scotland 36 Map 8. Ferry Routes Linking Countries of Scandinavia 37 Map 9. Deep Cove 47 Map 10. Horseshoe Bay 48 LIST OF DIAGRAMS Diagram 1. Schematic Flow Pattern of Methodology 31 Diagram 2. Interactions of the Various Interest Groups within the Environment of Horseshoe Bay 72 LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS Photograph 1. Photograph 2. Photograph 3. Photograph 4. Photograph 5. Photograph 6. Photograph 7. View of Horseshoe Bay Horseshoe Bay, West Vancouver, August 1916 Panorama View Showing Horseshoe Bay Hotel, 1936 Ferry Terminal at Turku, Finland Ferry Terminal at Turku, Finland Ferry Terminal at City of Naahtali, Finland (View 1) Ferry Terminal at City of Naantali, Finalnd (View 2) LIST OF GRAPHS Graph 1. Growth Rate of Passengers and Vehicles, Departure Bay - Horseshoe Bay, 1962-1979 (Both Ways) Graph 2. Growth Rate of Passengers and Vehicles, Horseshoe Bay - Bowen Island, 1969-1979 (One Way) Graph 3. Growth Rate of Passengers and Vehicles Using B.C. Fe r r i e s , 1962-1979 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of Responses Received from Authorities Operating Ferry Terminals i n Europe, Compared with Information about Horseshoe Bay 39 Table 2. -Social Comparison of Horseshoe Bay and Deep Cove 50 Table 3. Commercial Services 57 Table 4. Professional, Government, Recreational and Community Services 58 Table 5. Estimated Number.of Ferry Passengers that Dine at T r o l l ' s Restaurant, 1978 79 Table 6. Horseshoe Bay - Departure Bay, One Way, 1969-1979 87 Table 7. Horseshoe Bay - Bowen Island, One Way, 1969-1979 89 Table 8. Horseshoe Bay - Langdale, One Way, 1969-1979 91 Table 9. Estimated Growth of Number of B.C. Ferr i e s Users by the Year 2000 92 Table 10. Cost Estimate for Land and Construction 121 X LIST OF DRAWINGS Drawing 1. R e s i d e n t i a l A c t i v i t i e s 62 Drawing 2. V i s i t o r s ' A c t i v i t i e s 64 Drawing 3". F e r r y U s e r s ' A c t i v i t i e s 65 Drawing 4. Commercial A c t i v i t y 66 Drawing 5. E x i s t i n g Z o n i n g 110 Drawing 6. P r o p o s e d Z o n i n g 111 Drawing 7. E x i s t i n g Land Use 124 Drawing 8. P r o p o s e d Land Use 125 Drawing 9. E x i s t i n g T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P a t t e r n s 126 Drawing 10. P r o p o s e d T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P a t t e r n s 127 Drawing 11. S i t e P l a n - L e v e l 1 12 81ft w Drawing 12. S i t e P l a n - L e v e l 2 Drawing 13. S i t e P l a n - L e v e l 3 130 X Drawing 14. S e c t i o n s \ 131 1 Drawing 15. E l e v a t i o n s 132 Drawing 16. S k e t c h e s 133 Drawing 17. S k e t c h e s 134 Drawing 18. S k e t c h e s 135 1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1. General Background Horseshoe Bay is- located i n West Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. I t i s a r e s i d e n t i a l community which att r a c t s many v i s i t o r s with i t s beautiful scenery and which serves as a transportation node for B.C. Fer r i e s Corporation. (See Photograph 1.) The three d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s : r e s i d e n t i a l , recreational and a transportation node for B.C. F e r r i e s ' i users, create a tense, complex s i t u a t i o n . On the one hand, the growth of the B.C. F e r r i e s ' operation requires more concentrated land use. On the other hand, the residents of Horseshoe Bay resent the encroaching presence of the terminal i n t h e i r community. It seems very l i k e l y that the B.C. F e r r i e s ' operation w i l l remain i n Horseshoe Bay. The intention of t h i s study, therefore, i s to provide a comprehensive plan for Horseshoe Bay that w i l l take into consideration the legitimate con-cerns of the d i f f e r e n t p a r t i e s : the residents, the busi-ness sector, the ferry operation, the v i s i t o r s and the fer r y users. Accounting for the diverse factors which exis t and incorporating them i n a comprehensive plan w i l l Photograph 1. View of Horseshoe Bay 3 contribute to create a better place to l i v e , to v i s i t and to t r a v e l through. 2. General Problems The problems of Horseshoe Bay r e s u l t d i r e c t l y from two indisputable factors. F i r s t , there i s not much land for expansion because of the s i t e topography. Second, of the four d i f f e r e n t major a c t i v i t i e s that occur i n the Bay area, two are overwhelming i n t h e i r quantity and q u a l i t y : one i s the ferry operation and the other i s the group of v i s i t o r s to Horseshoe Bay. Both factors create a s i t u a t i o n which r e s u l t s i n residents' objections, land speculation and the deterioration of r e s i d e n t i a l areas. 4 <29 CHAPTER 2. THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 Hypothesis This study began with the notion of improving and upgrading the e x i s t i n g B.C. Ferries operation and i t s . terminals. Because of the large scale of that operation, i t was decided tO-limit the study to only one s i t e at an e x i s t i n g f e r r y terminal or to propose a new one depending on research r e s u l t s . The decision f e l l on Horseshoe Bay's f e r r y terminal for the following reasons: A. It i s conveniently located. (See Map 1) B. An attempt to f i n d solutions for t h i s b eautiful place with i t s i n t r i g u i n g problems was most appealing. During the course of the study i t became apparent that i t would be impossible to tackle the problems of Horseshoe Bay s o l e l y from the point of view of the f e r r y operation. As the study evolved, i t became clearer that the d i f f e r e n t forces at work in the Bay Area are bound together and must be treated with equal consideration and attention. From the i n i t i a l idea to design a ferry terminal, t h i s work has become a study which embodies the Map 1. Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , Including Horseshoe Bay SOURCE: Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t v t r a d i t i o n a l components and structure of an urban development project. When Horseshoe Bay was chosen as the s i t e for t h i s study, the following issues had to be discussed: A. Is the Government of B r i t i s h Columbia considering a new ferry route between the Mainland and Vancouver Island and, i f so, where w i l l the new s i t e for a terminal be? B. Should Horseshoe Bay continue to be a location for a ferry.terminal or not? C. What impact has the ferry operation i n Horseshoe Bay on the l o c a l r e s i d e n t i a l and business community? When i t became clear that the Government would main-t a i n the fer r y operation i n Horseshoe Bay, the question of i t s impact on the exi s t i n g neighborhood and environment (issue C) became more important for study. Since Horseshoe Bay i s the most d i f f i c u l t and complex s i t e of a l l the four exi s t i n g f e r r y terminals on the Mainland and Vancouver Island, i t i s , therefore, the s i t e most i n need of design solutions. Hypothesis: I t i s possible for Horseshoe Bay to prosper as a t o t a l community without s a c r i f i c i n g the needs of the disparate elements which constitute i t : the residents, the business sector, the 7 v i s i t o r / r e c r e a t i o n a l sector, the B.C. Fer r i e s operation, - given a new, comprehensive design to provide a physical solution. It i s the purpose of t h i s study to investigate the d i f f e r e n t elements involved i n the community and apply i t s research findings to design p o l i c i e s and to design develop-ment for Horseshoe Bay. I t concludes with a set of recommendations. 2.2 Objectives The objectives are divided into two major parts. The f i r s t part i s an investigative process: to i d e n t i f y and assess needs as background for p o l i c y and planning. The second part applies t h i s information about the needs of the d i f f e r e n t populations using Horseshoe Bay to the goals proposed for changes i n the physical environment. The objectives of the f i r s t part are: A. Identify the problems that ex i s t i n Horseshoe Bay. B. Identify and analyze the d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s that occur i n the Bay Area. C. Apply the research findings to a design p o l i c y and f i n a l l y to a development plan for Horseshoe Bay. The second part deals with the s p e c i f i c goals for Horseshoe Bay. A. Create a better place i n which to l i v e for Horseshoe Bay's residents by reducing the pressures of t r a f f i c congestion brought on by the ferry operation and the presence of v i s i t o r s . B. Improve and upgrade the terminal f a c i l i t i e s and i t s operation. C. Improve the recreational f a c i l i t i e s for the l o c a l community and for the v i s i t o r s of Horseshoe Bay. D. Increase the business a c t i v i t y i n the ex i s t i n g commercial core, thereby providing more l o c a l employment opportunities for Horseshoe Bay's residents. 9 CHAPTER 3. HISTORY AND CONTEXT OF HORSESHOE BAY 3.1 Introduction The following sections introduce Horseshoe Bay's h i s t o r i c a l background i n the l i g h t of i t s environmental context. This chapter w i l l deal with the history of the major components that made Horseshoe Bay the way i t i s today, the history of water transportation, the t o u r i s t -recreation a c t i v i t y , the r e s i d e n t i a l community, and the business sector. (see Photographs 2, 3) 3.2 The H i s t o r i c a l Background It i s probable that the f i r s t people to reach Horseshoe Bay and to recognize i t s recreational q u a l i t i e s were the West Coast Indians. They were the f i r s t v i s i t o r s to the Bay Area. For a few days they would come and f i s h , meet with other Indian t r i b e s and then leave for t h e i r homes. No evidence has yet been found to indicate that a permanent settlement was established there. The next group of people to ar r i v e i n Horseshoe Bay, in 1895, were the loggers. They were the f i r s t developers of Horseshoe Bay by establishing a logging community. HoT.seshftP'ftmi.Wgst VnnrnuveT. August 1916, C i t y A.i-cliiVPR.'rr. Photograph 2. Horseshoe Bay, West Vancouver, August 1915. SOURCE: Vancouver C i t y Archives. 12 Before the beginning of t h i s century and u n t i l 1912, Horseshoe Bay was approachable only by water. The commu-nity changed very l i t t l e u n t i l the construction of the P a c i f i c Great Eastern Railroad l i n e from North Vancouver was completed i n 1912. Then i n 1918, a road was b u i l t to Horseshoe Bay and the area changed from a logging community to a summer f i s h i n g resort. .The opening of access to Horseshoe Bay overland permanently changed i t s development. The new modes of transportation access helped Horseshoe Bay to grow into a larger community. Residential a c t i v i t y con-tinued to be temporary, but the reasons for coming to Horseshoe Bay started to be oriented towards the recrea-t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s that the area offered to i t s residents and v i s i t o r s . Very soon there was a dance h a l l , a hotel, and summer cottages b u i l t i n order to accomodate the summer vacationers. This second character of Horseshoe Bay continued peacefully u n t i l 1953 when the Black B a l l Ferry started i t s service to Nanaimo. Looking c a r e f u l l y at the history of water transportation i n Horseshoe Bay, there were indica-, tions long before 1953 that Horseshoe Bay was becomming an important springboard for passengers on t h e i r way to other destinations along the coast. In 1921, a fer r y service was established between Horseshoe Bay and Bowen Island, and then i n 1951, service was i n i t i a t e d to Gibsons and the Sunshine Coast. For the f i r s t time, Horseshoe Bay was introduced; to a d i f f e r e n t v i s i t o r who did not come 13 es p e c i a l l y to stay or vacation i n the Bay Area. This v i s i t o r only stayed for a few hours or, at most, up to one day, waiting for the fe r r y service. The change that took place i n Horseshoe Bay between the 1920s and the 1950s, regarding i t s development as a ... major transportation node and to u r i s t - r e c r e a t i o n centre, brought commercial business into the Bay Area. This helped change Horseshoe Bay into a permanent community. The businesses that were f i r s t established i n Horseshoe Bay existed to service the v i s i t o r group. With the expansion of the t o u r i s t - r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s and the ferry service, the community developed more and more commercial business a c t i v i t y . D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the ferry operation was notice-able for the f i r s t time i n the 1950s when the Black B a l l F erries started to operate out of Horseshoe Bay. The most noticeable complaints came from Tom Sewell, a marina owner in Horseshoe Bay. His complaints concerned the danger to smaller boats as a r e s u l t of the speed of the f e r r i e s coming into the Bay Area, and he imparted an o v e r a l l negative f e e l i n g about the ferry operation. This i s e a s i l y under-stood, because Horseshoe Bay i s small, with l i t t l e room for expanding the exi s t i n g marina given the current usage mix. The 1960s brought a change to Horseshoe Bay which has lasted u n t i l the present day. The growing operation of the f e r r i e s demanded upgraded f a c i l i t i e s i n Horseshoe Bay 14 which the Black B a l l F e r r i e s refused to supply. The Government of B r i t i s h Columbia took over the operation and, since then, has invested m i l l i o n s of d o l l a r s i n order to meet the growing demand for ferry services. Expanding the f a c i l i t i e s of the terminal created resentment within the r e s i d e n t i a l community. With the expansion, additional changes began to occur. Those people who could afford i t and wanted to leave Horseshoe Bay moved to other communities l i k e West Vancouver. Those who remained i n the Bay Area were the older people and young families who found the housing suitable to t h e i r budgets and l i f e s t y l e . From a survey conducted by the Municipality of West Vancouver i n 1974,* i t was found that out of 642 residents, 38% did not own the property that they l i v e d on. Of the residents who were property owners (.62% of the whole)., only 32% actually l i v e d i n Horseshoe Bay. Thus, 68% of the landlord-property owning group l i v e d outside the Bay Area. The majority of the residents are described by the l o c a l s o c i a l worker as transients with a length of residence of between two to four years. A factor which did not change through, the years i n . the history of Horseshoe Bay i s that a large proportion of the people who l i v e d i n the Bay Area also obtained t h e i r income from a c t i v i t i e s there. Like the loggers i n the *Municipality of West Vancouver, Planning Department, unpublished survey, 1974. past who cut timber from l o c a l sources, people today work on the f e r r i e s , i n the marinas, and commercial e s t a b l i s h -ments, such as restaurants, the pub, stores and garages. This connection of residency and work has been maintained. 3.3 Horseshoe Bay i n the Context of i t s Environment 3.3.1 Introduction The following section deals with the significance of Vancouver, the North Shore, and the immediate surroundings of the Bay Area i n r e l a t i o n to Horseshoe Bay. 3.3.2 Vancouver Metropolitan Vancouver i s the t h i r d largest urban area i n Canada with a population (reported i n 1973) of one m i l l i o n two hundred thousand persons. The distance from Horseshoe Bay to downtown Vancouver i s 13 miles or a 25-minute car drive along the "upper l e v e l highway". By bus along Marine Drive the t r a v e l time from downtown Vancouver to Horseshoe Bay i s 4 5 minutes. Horseshoe Bay att r a c t s most of i t s v i s i t o r s from the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t (.GVRD). because: the drive along Marine Drive i s a t t r a c t i v e ; i t i s a short-dis-tance to a d i f f e r e n t world; from the busy c i t y , i t i s an escape to a pleasant, old-fashioned town. Vancouver at-tr a c t s residents of Horseshoe Bay with i t s entertainment 16 and c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s , shopping f a c i l i t i e s and work opportunities. The l i n k between Vancouver and Horseshoe Bay has a very important s i g n i f i c a n c e : A. Most of the v i s i t o r s group originates from the GVRD ; B. Eight months of the year v i s i t o r s from the GVRD provide one of the main sources of income to l o c a l business i n Horseshoe Bay; C. If i n the future the major ferry route to Vancouver Island should*be discontinued, these v i s i t o r s from the GVRD w i l l be the remaining, major source of income for l o c a l business. 3.3.3 The North Shore The area of the North Shore includes within i t s e l f the two d i s t r i c t s of North Vancouver and West Vancouver. Horseshoe Bay i s under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the D i s t r i c t of West Vancouver. The North Shore has an important r o l e i n the future design p o l i c i e s for Horseshoe Bay including i t s commercial, r e s i d e n t i a l and recreational a c t i v i t i e s . The commercial context The North Shore has few shopping centres: (.See Map 2) Supermarkets are located i n Park Royal i n West r 18 Vancouver, Stong's outlet i n Dundarave, super-markets on Lonsdale. Department stores on the North Shore include: Park Royal i n West Vancouver, Capilano Mall i n North Vancouver and Z e l l e r s at West Lynn. From a study conducted by the D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver i n 197 6,*'.it. was found'..that 48% of 400 respon-dents shopped i n Park Royal and only o n e - f i f t h of these 4 00 people had recently shopped i n downtown Vancouver. The rest shopped at Capilano Mall and Z e l l e r s at West Lynn i n North Vancouver. In the case of West Vancouver residents, the assumption i s that they are attracted to the Park Royal Shopping Centre too, since i t i s t h e i r only choice and i t i s considered one of the main commercial centres on the North Shore. Another factor that plays an important part i n at t r a c t i n g shoppers i s the growing core of the c i t y of North Vancouver, i . e . , Lonsdale. Lonsdale i s connected to downtown Vancouver by a fe r r y and continues the concept of the core of downtown Vancouver. According to a r e a l estate analysis,** i t i s predicted that Lonsdale w i l l grow as a shopping centre and w i l l a t t r a c t residents from a l l over the North Shore. North Vancouver D i s t r i c t , Planning and Property Depart-ment, "Community F a c i l i t i e s , Seymour 8," 1976. * Analysis conducted by Duan Nagi of Block Brothers. 19 The r e s i d e n t i a l context According to GVRD plans, the North Shore should take part i n solving the housing^problems for the growing population. Even though Horseshoe Bay i s included i n the West Vancouver Municipality which agreed to take part i n the GVRD plan, Horseshoe Bay, because of i t s small size, was excluded. But there are growing r e s i d e n t i a l neighbor-hoods only a short distance from Horseshoe Bay which influence planning considerations, such as, Lion's Bay, Bowen Island, and the nearby higher-income neighborhood of West Vancouver. (See Map 3) Lion's Bay Population figures for Lion's Bay, according to B.C. S t a t i s t i c s , * have grown as follows: 1971 - 396 people 1976 - 785 people 1978 - 1,200 people The master plan for Lion's Bay l i m i t s population growth to about 2,500 people. The residents concur with t h i s growth l i m i t . Local and community services i n Lion's Bay are comparable to those available i n Horseshoe Bay. Lion's Bay's population growth (98% i n f i v e years), puts some pressure on Horseshoe Bay to provide services, unless *B.C. S t a t i s t i c s , Census of Population, 1971, 1976. 1978 s t a t i s t i c estimated by l o c a l a r c h i t e c t . l o c a l services keep pace, but i t does not seem l i k e l y that Horseshoe Bay w i l l become the most important shopping centre for Lion's Bay residents. Bowen Island (See Map 3) Population on Bowen Island has grown as follows:* 1971 - 350 people 1974 - 705 people 1978 - an estimated 1,000 people Recently the Ministry of the Environment has been giving serious consideration towards expanding the recrea-t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s and settlement lands on Bowen Island. The reason given i s that "with the increasing demand by the residents of southwest B.C. for more recreation and s e t t l e -ment land use opportunities, the pressures on Bowen Island can only grow. " Today most of the working residents commute through Horseshoe Bay to Vancouver. There are about 55 cars, owned by Bowen Island residents, parked i n the Bay Area: 25 cars at a re n t a l r e s i d e n t i a l l o t 30 cars at the ferry terminal l o t (about 2 0% of the parking capacity of 150 cars). There are also private arrangements between Bowen Island commuters and Horseshoe Bay residents for parking space, *1971 source: B.C. S t a t i s t i c s , ' Census of Population; 1974 source: B.C. Ministry of the Environment, Resource Analysis Branch, Bowen Island: A Resource- Analysis for Land Use  Planning, Vol. 1 & 2 (The Islands Trust, Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s & Housing: V i c t o r i a , B.C.) A p r i l , 1978. 1978 source: Estimate from interviews with Bowen Island residents. the number of which i s not known. The r e s u l t i s that a s i g n i f i c a n t number of cars parked i n Horseshoe Bay belong to Bowen Island commuters. Even though the lack of parking space i n Horseshoe Bay i s taken into consideration by the Ministry of Environment's plan for Bowen Island, i t would be quite impossible to stop v i s i t o r s from taking t h e i r cars to Bowen Island unless there were a po l i c y of re-s t r i c t i n g vehicle t r a f f i c for v i s i t o r s to the Island. Bowen Island residents shop i n Horseshoe Bay and are dependent on i t as a l i n k between the Island and Vancouver. West Vancouver Compared with the residents of Horseshoe Bay proper, t h i s area of the community i s composed of people with a much higher income l e v e l . I t comprises the area of West Vancouver ringing the Horseshoe Bay community. People l i v i n g i n t h i s area do not i d e n t i f y themselves with the residents of the Horseshoe Bay area. Being surrounded by a higher income group i s a source of f r u s t r a t i o n for Horseshoe Bay's younger and less affluent people. However, th i s group i s a potential source of c a p i t a l for business investments and c l i e n t e l e for new commercial enterprises i n Horseshoe Bay due to the proximity. The recreational context Even though the North Shore o f f e r s plenty of other recreational s i t e s , Horseshoe Bay remains a unique place 23 that has no comparison on the North Shore. Residents from the GVRD and beyond i t s boundaries are attracted by the combination of the bea u t i f u l s i t e , a popular restaurant, and a dynamic fo c a l element, i . e . the f e r r i e s , a l l of which provide a convenient spot for taking a break from other a c t i v i t i e s . As well, there are recreational s i t e s , such as Gleneagles Golf Course and Whytecliff Underwater Park i n the immediate surroundings of Horseshoe Bay, and Horseshoe Bay i s on the route to Whistler Mountain. These s i t e s should be considered part of the Area's resources. Gleneagles Golf Course (See Map 4, area 7) Gleneagles i s a club with 250 members, about twelve of whom are from the Bay Area. It covers 46.21 acres and serves 30,000 people a year, most of them on a regular basis. For the most part i t attracts golfers from the North Shore who are i n c l i n e d to stop i n Horseshoe Bay for a break, a meal or a beer. Whytecliffe Underwater Park (See Map 4, area 6) Whytecliff a t t r a c t s diving clubs and v i s i t o r s who might also v i s i t Horseshoe Bay's restaurants or pub. Whistler Mountain (See Map 4, area 3) Whistler Mountain i s an expanding s k i resort. 48,000 skiers v i s i t e r Whistler i n the winter of 1977-78; Map 4. Horseshoe Bay and Surrounding Legend 1. Horseshoe Bay, Study Area 2. Tyee Point, P r i v a t e l y Owned 3. B.C. Telephone Property 4. Copper Cove 5. Whytecliff Park 6. Underwater Park 7. Gleneagles Golf Course 8. B.C. R a i l 25 when the season i s good, an increase of 8-10% i s not unusual. I t i s estimated that 10,000 skiers a day w i l l use Whistler i n the future. Skiers returning to Vancouver often stop i n Horseshoe Bay to dine at one of the popular spots. As plans for Whistler's s k i resort take shape, the numbers of skiers v i s i t i n g Horseshoe Bay w i l l increase. 3.3.4 The Immediate Surroundings of Horseshoe Bay There are two major elements within the immediate surroundings of Horseshoe Bay: 1. B.C. Telephone Company property on the west side of the Bay, and 2. B.C. Railway l i n e on the east side of the Bay. 1. B.C. Telephone Company property B.C. Telephone owns 19 acres which i s zoned RS4 (res i d e n t i a l single-family dwellings) on the west side of the Bay. This holding could play a role as a future s i t e for recreational development. Today the s i t e i s not being used. I t i s kept by B.C. Telephone as a good alternative in case there i s need for an elevated, iso l a t e d s i t e for r a t i o communication equipment. The s i t e i s not for sale. B. C ...Telephone has an exchange p o l i c y for the properties i t holds. The r e a l estate department reported that the company i s not i n the development business; therefore, B.C. Telephone has no 26 intention of developing the s i t e . They are currently abiding by the planning p o l i c y of the West Vancouver Muni-c i p a l i t y and leaving the property in i t s natural state. B.C. Telephone has expressed i t s willingness to exchange t h i s property i f i t i s possible to obtain a similar property within the c i t y , i . e . , the West Vancouver Municipality, of comparable value and communications loca-t i o n p o t e n t i a l . According to B.C. Telephone, the property att r a c t s the attention of many developers and architects wishing to take part i n developing i t . A Vancouver r e a l estate source estimates the value of the 19 acres of pro-perty, when f u l l y developed, at about $5.7 m i l l i o n , and i n i t s natural state at $300,000 to $350,000. 2. :• B.C.. Railway (See Map 4, area 8) The B.C. Railway l i n e was established i n 1912 to connect North Vancouver with Squamish. The subsequent development of the highways i n the. 1950s reduced the need for r a i l passenger service. In 1952 the el e c t i o n of the Social Credit government ushered i n the era of highway construction. This move was a blow to the t r a i n passenger service. More recently, the Report of the Royal Commission on the B r i t i s h Columbia  Railway,* recommended that the B.C. R a i l system be reduced *Mr. Justice Lloyd G. McKenzie, Chairman, Report of the' •Royal Commission on the B r i t i s h Columbia Railway, Vol...-2 (Royal Commission on the B r i t i s h Columbia Railway: Vancouver) 1978. by abandoning the passenger service from North Vancouver to L i l l o e t and the thrice-weekly service to Prince George. The Commission was aware of the important service the railway could contribute to the t o u r i s t industry: "The introduction of a t o u r i s t service on any portion of the l i n e i s a matter to be decided by the p r o v i n c i a l department responsible, i n concert with interested municipalities which might take part i n i t s funding. We do not see that the po-t e n t i a l for such a service i s s u f f i c i e n t for B.C.R. to consider p a r t i c i p a t i o n except on a contractual basis which guarantees the railway recovery of i t s costs."* 3.4 .Conclusions In t h i s chapter there are a number of conclusions that were arrived at from examining the history and context of Horseshoe Bay: 1. The history of Horseshoe Bay shows that the d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s of the r e s i d e n t i a l community, the v i s i t o r s , the ferry terminal and i t s users, and the l o c a l busi-ness community impinge on one another. The i n t e r a c t i o n i s such that any change aimed at one of these groups would have an impact on the others. 2. Horseshoe Bay should not attempt to compete commer-c i a l l y with ex i s t i n g shopping centres on the North Shore. Its commercial focus should be small-scale, emphasizing goods and services compatible with i t s resort setting. *Ibid., p. 145. 28 Recreational development i s the commercial strength of Horseshoe "Bay which should be maintained and encouraged because i t s unique combination of elements i s i t s main a t t r a c t i o n . A l i n k between the t r a i n service and the ferry terminal i s a p o s s i b i l i t y . Since the closure of the Squamish subdivision (a portion of the r a i l service from Vancouver to L i l l o e t ) has been considered, passenger service could be introduced from North Vancouver to Whistler Mountain. A fast t r a i n could operate on seasonal demand. In win-ter, the t r a i n would serve skiers wishing to t r a v e l to Whistler. In summer, i t could provide service for ferry users who would prefer to leave t h e i r cars behind. A. study should be conducted to analyze the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of usage during the d i f f e r e n t seasons and the potential market for such services. Train service would be a pub-l i c transportation alternative which would help to a l l e -viate the congestion of car t r a f f i c i n the Bay Area. The role of the B.C. Telephone Company property i s some-what complicated. On the one hand, there i s very l i t t l e land for development i n Horseshoe Bay and the B.C. Telephone property i s undeveloped. On the other hand, the s i t e i s topographically very steep and rocky and i t would be very expensive to develop and provide services there. In addition, the Municipality of West Vancouver wishes to keep the property i n i t s natural state. The property may be too valuable to leave completely in i t s natural state. I t could be developed for recreational purposes, and thus contribute to better land use i n Horseshoe Bay. 3 CHAPTER 4. METHODOLOGY 4.1 Introduction (See Diagram 1) In order to put the development of Horseshoe Bay into perspective, an investigation was carried out on four d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s . The methodology consisted of comparative studies, a p i l o t survey and personal observation, as follows: A. A comparison and study of other ferry terminals i n Europe. B. A comparison between two similar communities: Horseshoe Bay and Deep Cove. C. A p i l o t survey used as an indicator of the l e v e l of a c t i v i t y i n the Bay Area. D. Personal observation. Element A 4.2 Comparison and Study of Other Ferry Terminals i n Europe 4.2.1 Technical l i m i t a t i o n s of the comparison study To compare Horseshoe Bay's ferry terminal to other terminals i n the world by d i r e c t observation would have been i d e a l . However, li m i t a t i o n s of time and money intervene Diagram 1. Schematic Flow Pattern of Methodology Hypothesis Problems Objectives Interested Groups Comparison to ferry terminals Comparative study of Horseshoe Bay & Deep Cove B.C. Ferries operation in Horseshoe Bay Research application physical comparison s o c i a l comparison I physical analysis users analysis economic comparison I economic analysis community action comparison Conclusions Recommendations 1 Presentation design policy design development The next source of information i s the l i t e r a t u r e published about the subject. However, a search of the l i t e r a t u r e proved that l i t t l e information was available and i t s q u a l i t y was very poor. As a r e s u l t , the l a s t source of information consisted i n writing to the d i f f e r -ent f e r r y authorities that were known to operate i n a similar way to B.C. Ferr i e s Corporation. This l a s t method has an obvious l i m i t a t i o n since i t i s based on other people'.s observations and experiences and i s dependent on t h e i r kindness i n providing s u f f i c i e n t information. 4.2.2 The correspondence* Letters were sent to the following countries i n Europe: BELGIUM (See Map 5) - Ministry of Communications - Ministry of T r a f f i c and Waterways A. Sealink Ostend-Dover/Folkestone l i n e s B. P r o v i n c i a l Stoombootdiensten i n Zeeland (2 f e r r y terminals) ITALY - Societa F i n a n z i a r i a Marittima GERMANY - Der Bundesminister fur Verkehr * Explanatory Note: The l e t t e r s A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H designate routes associated with f e r r y systems within part cular countries. These designations reappear i n Table 1 for comparison purposes. 34 FINLAND (See Map 6) - The National Board of Public Roads and Waterways -Helsinki' A. The c i t y of Naantali Port Authority B. Port Authority of Turku C. Port of Helsinki Authority NORWAY - Ferry Terminals (See Map 5). A. Finnmark Eylkesredere og Ruteselskap Administration (12 terminals) B. M0re og Romsdal Fylkesbatar C100 terminals) C. Det Stavangerske Dampokibsselskab (10 terminals) D. Fylkesbaatane I Sogn og Fjordane (.40 terminals) SCOTLAND (See Map 7) A. Highland's Department of Roads and Transport (3 terminals) B. Caledonian MacBrayne Limited (few terminals - number not known) (The Pier Gourock) C. Shetland Islands Ferry Terminals: Whalsay, Bressay, Unst, Y e l l p. Strathclyde Region, Department of Roads. E. Abendeen Harbour Board SWEDEN (See Map 8) - Lion Ferry Ab: A. Varberg (Sweden) B. Helsingborg (Sweden). C. Grenaa (Denmark) D. Malmo (.Sweden) 38 E. Travemunde CGermany). F. Hamburg (.Germany) G. Bremernaven ([Germany-)! H. Harwich. CGreat Britain)! Substantive answers- were received from a l l the loca-tions l e t t e r s were sent to with the exception of the ferry operation i n I t a l y which claimed that they do not operate i n a manner similar to B.C. Fer r i e s Corporation. The following questions were addressed to the ferry a u t h o r i t i e s : A. How many people and motor vehicles go through your operation i n one year? B. Is your ferry terminal located away from a residen-t i a l area, nearby, or within a r e s i d e n t i a l community? C. I f located near a r e s i d e n t i a l area, or within, how i s the terminal accepted by the residents? D. Are the residents involved i n your ferry operation? E. What kind of an image would you say the terminal(s) i n your area or country has (have).: Is i t a commer-c i a l image or indu-strial? 4.2.3. The r e s u l t s (See Table 1.) 7 Table 1. Summary of Responses Received from Authorities Operating Ferry Terminals Country/ Ferry Belgium A B(2) Finland A B C Norway A(12) B(100) C(10) D(40) Scotland A(3) B C(Yell) D E Sweden C Canada/ Horseshoe Bay NOTE: See in Europe, Compared with Information about Horseshoe Bay Number of Passengers 1977-1978 Number of Vehicles 1977-1978 Situated near Community Accepted by. Community Involvement of Residents .Image: Commercial/ Industrial 2,783,914 8,400,000 697,856 2,760,000 yes yes yes yes yes yes commercial both 1,000,000 250,000 yes yes yes commercial 1,300,000 214,000 yes yes yes commercial 1,325,000 1,550,000 yes yes yes both 826,225 373,693 both yes yes . commercial 11,311,281 3,563,428 both yes yes none 1,304,969 3,073,788 no •- - commercial 2,800,000 1,000,000 both yes yes none n.a. 100,000 73,000 n.a. 36,000 n.a. 20,000 (May-Sept) 34,700 n.a. n.a. yes yes no yes no yes yes yes yes yes not known no none commericla none not known commercial 525,000 165,000 no yes yes commercial 2,261,812 872,685 yes both yes commercial route designations (A, B, C, D, E) in text above. Question A. Numbers of Passengers and Vehicles. Most of the terminals i n Europe are smaller,, with the exception of ferry terminals i n Belgium and Fin-land." These two terminals, i n Belgium - the port of Ostend, and i n Finland - the port of H e l s i n k i , are considered to be important c i t y ports i n Europe. When compared with Horseshoe Bay's ferry terminal, B.C. Ferries serves an equal number of passengers and vehicles but i s situated i n a very small town of only 700 people. Question B. Location of the Ferry Terminal. Most of the terminals are situated r i g h t i n the centre of the towns. The answers received indicated that, i f the terminal i s not located within a r e s i d e n t i a l community, then the nearest r e s i d e n t i a l property i s located about one-half to one and one-half miles away. (This i s considered a long distance from the terminal.) Question C. Resident Acceptance of the Ferry Operation. Without exception, a l l answered that the f e r r y i s accepted and even welcomed by the residents. Below are some quotes from the l e t t e r s : - from the Sealink Ostend-Dover/Folkestone l i n e s i n BELGIUM " ... These questions can best be answeres as follows: The Sealink l i n e s Ostend-Dover/Folkestone are of great importance for the economy of Ostend i n p a r t i c u l a r and the whole province of West Flanders as they employ ±3,000 people d i r e c t l y . I t stands to reason that the prosperity of the seaside resorts and i n p a r t i c u l a r of Ostend, i s favorably influenced by the number of B r i t i s h t o u r i s t s who a r r i v e there, and that they constitute an important source of revenue for hotels, shops, pubs etc. i n these areas...." 41 - from the Provinciale Stoombootdiensten i n Zeeland in BELGIUM "... Both f e r r i e s form an important l i n k for the non-residential t r a f f i c i n the southwestern part of our country. They also have a commercial and i n d u s t r i a l s i g nificance, even Belgium and North France. ..." - from the Port Authority, c i t y of Naantali i n FINLAND "... no problems at a l l . . . " - from the Port Authority, c i t y of Turku i n FINLAND "... employees of the terminal and ferry companies are l i v i n g i n the c i t y . . . " - from the Port Authority, c i t y of Helsinki i n FINLAND "...The Port of Helsinki i s situated i n the c a p i t a l of Finland and i t serves the most densely populated area. The emphasis of the structure of the economic l i f e i s i n the trade and service. ..." - from the Finnmark Fylkesrederi og Ruteselskap i n NORWAY "... These ferry stations are accepted as part of the areas f a c i l i t i e s of urban development. ..." from Mrire og Romsdal Fylkesbatar i n NORWAY "... The residents accept ferry communications, and thus the terminals, as a necessity for the function of our society. Of course there may be some t r a f f i c problems involved when the terminals are located close to the community centers, so we t r y to avoid that now when new terminals are planned. ..." - from the Caledonian MacBrayne Limited i n Mallaig, Invesness^shire i n SCOTLAND "...The terminal i s accepted very well by the residents since tourism contributes greatly to the economy of the v i l l a g e . ..." "... Local acceptance i s good terminals generate business for l o c a l shops. ..." - from the Shetland Islands Council i n SCOTLAND "... The terminals are regarded as es s e n t i a l parts of the islands economy, and provide a valuable com-mercial, i n d u s t r i a l and s o c i a l service. ..." - from Lion Ferry AB i n SWEDEN "... We have not noticed any negative reactions from residents to our terminals, not even i n Hamburg where the distance from the nearest r e s i d e n t i a l area to the terminal i s less than 1/4 mile. I t should be borne in mind, however, that a l l terminals are located i n c i t i e s where shipping and a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t i v e to shipping have been taken for granted for centuries." Question D. Resident involvement. In a few of the termi-nals the ferry operation generates d i r e c t employment with the ferry companies. Question E. Image. (See Photographs 4, 5, 6, 7) Most of the answers indicated the terminals had a commer-c i a l image. However, those terminals which were considered es s e n t i a l for the l o c a l urban structure are looked upon as more of an extension of the l o c a l roads and highways, a form of basic transportation. 4.2.4 Conclusions 1. B.C. F e r r i e s ' patrons are capable of supporting a larger business community. With an improved business * mix, appealing to ferry users, t h i s patronage could benefit the l o c a l economy. 2. Horseshoe Bay's r e s i d e n t i a l community i s far younger than the r e s i d e n t i a l communities around the ferry terminals i n Europe. With time the residents i n Horseshoe Bay who resent the f e r r y operation may Photographs 4, 5. Ferry Terminal at Turku, Finland Photograph 7. Ferry Terminal at C i t y of Naantali, Finland (View 46 change t h e i r attitude and see the fe r r y terminal as part of the community structure. Element B 4.3 Comparative Study of Horseshoe Bay and. Deep ..Cove (See Maps 9, 10) 4.3.1 Introduction A comparison of two communities serves as a check l i s t helping to provide a better understanding of d i f f e r e n t developments. Deep Cove was chosen for the comparison with Horseshoe Bay because of the s i m i l a r i t i e s i n t h e i r physical features and history. 4.3.2 Physical Comparisons - Both s i t e s are located i n sheltered bays - Both have similar topography with a mixture of gentle and very steep slopes - Both climates- have more annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n than Vancouver: Mean t o t a l p r e c i p i t a t i o n * -Horseshoe Bay 74.38 inches Deep Cove 70.49 inches Vancouver 60.51 inches - Both have d i f f i c u l t i e s with sun exposure because Atmospheric Environment Service, Department of the Envi-ronment, Canada, Temperature and P r e c i p i t at ion, 1941-197 0, B r i t i s h Columbia. 47 Map 9. Deep Cove wk&k PRIVATE LANDS . DISTRICT OF NORTH VANCOUVER . CENTRAL MORTGAGE a HOUSING CORPORATION 7 5 % , B.C. 2 5 % . NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD. GREATER VANCOUVER WATER DISTRICT. INDIAN RESERVES. SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 4 . CROWN / PROVINCAL GOVERNMENT / B.C. CROWN CORPORATIONS. CITY OF NORTH VANCOUVER. Waterfront Lots - Panorama Dr. Commercial - Gallant Ave. Deep Cove Park Wickenden Park 48 Map 10. Horseshoe Bay B.C. Ferries Corporation T r o l l ' s Restaurant Public Park Horseshoe Bay's Rental Boats Government Wharf Sewell's Marina Privately-owned Property B.C. R a i l Highway to Squamish B.C. Telephone Property 49 of the orientation and adjacent t e r r a i n : Horseshoe Bay has a northern exposure; Deep Cove has an eastern exposure. 4.3.3 H i s t o r i c a l and Social Comparisons Both communities were set t l e d around the beginning of t h i s century The development of both places was i n i t i a t e d by logging operations Expansion of building developments and population came with eventual road construction and improved access The Depression era of the 1930s brought an i n f l u x of new residents to both communities. People were attracted by the lower land values, rents and taxes Both communities developed along p a r a l l e l paths u n t i l the Black B a l l Ferries operation was introduced to Horseshoe Bay i n 1951. Today, however, the two communities d i f f e r i n t h e i r social,economic and p o l i t i c a l makeup. The following table (Table 2) contrasts the two communities according to some basic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The s o c i a l comparison table shows that Deep Cove has a higher percentage of residents with unive r s i t y degrees and a higher income l e v e l than residents of Horseshoe Bay. About 34% of Horseshoe Bay's residents work within t h e i r 50 Table 2 Social Comparison of Horseshoe Bay and Deep Cove Characte r i s t i c s Horseshoe Bay Deep Cove Population 635 1,975 % without university degree 95.2 % 65.3 % Average family income $ 10,345. $ 12,395. Aggregate income $ 1,769,785. $ 6,609,978. Location of employment 35 % most out of town out of town Residence: 1974* % owner occupied 38% 75 % 82 % % rental 62% 25 % 17 % Length of residence (.%) under one year 27 % 12.5 % 1-4 years 24 % 34.4 % 5-10.years 21 % 28.1 % 10-20 years 18 % 12.5 % over 20 years 10 % 12.5 % % Aged 65 years and over 11.8 % 5.5 % SOURCE: B.C. S t a t i s t i c s , Census' of Population, 1971 *Information supplied by the Municipality of West Vancouver. 51 own community while the majority of the labour force i n Deep Cove i s employed outside t h e i r community. In addition to these figures, information from i n -terviews and l o c a l community papers suggests the residents of Horseshoe Bay would l i k e to see more l o c a l work oppor-t u n i t i e s available for them, while the residents of Deep Cove would l i k e to discourage commercial development, the r e s u l t of which would be fewer work opportunities within t h e i r community. Horseshoe Bay has a higher percentage of r e n t a l dwellings than Deep Cove. This f a c t , plus the s o c i a l d i f -f i c u l t i e s Horseshoe Bay's r e s i d e n t i a l community experiences, indicate the basic differences i n the s o c i a l makeup of the two communities today. Almost half of Horseshoe Bay's residents do not l i v e i n the Bay Area longer than two to four years. In Deep Cove, however, the proportion of long-term residents i s larger. This factor contributed to the greater s t a b i -l i t y and continuity of Deep Cove's community. 4.3.4 Economic Comparisons 4.3.4.1 Introduction A description of comparative land values, ownership patterns and a p r o f i l e of commercial services follows. F i r s t , we s h a l l consider values of commerical and r e s i -d e n t i a l properties which have been separately assessed^ by 52 a r e a l estate source and the Assessment Authority of B.C. 4.3.4.2 Comparative Land Values Commercial properties The cost of commercial land i s d i r e c t l y related to the volume of business and subsequent commercial income. According to r e a l estate sources the value of com-mercial properties i s higher by 50 - 63 per cent i n Horse-shoe Bay than i n Deep Cove. An exception i s the case of the Savory Restaurant i n Deep Cove, compared with T r o l l ' s Restaurant i n Horseshoe Bay. T r o l l ' s i s valued only about 2 8 per cent higher than the Savory. No values were obtained from the Assessment Authority because of the reluctance of people there to cooperate. Residential properties The r e s i d e n t i a l properties are divided into three categories: land on the waterfront; land with a view but not on the waterfront; land not on the waterfront and without a view. No waterfront l o t i n Horseshoe Bay was available for comparison. Instead, a l o t from Copper Cove - an adjacent area - was selected for comparison. Copper Cove i s situated on the western peninsula of Horseshoe Bay, between Horseshoe Bay and Whytecliff Park. A. Waterfront l o t s - according to the r e a l estate source, waterfront l o t s are valued 17% higher per front foot i n Deep Cove than _ i n Copper Cove. - according to the Assessment Authority, some l o t s in Deep Cove are valued 50% higher per front foot than in Copper Cove. B. No waterfront, with view - according to the real estate source, l o t s i n Deep Cove are valued 25% higher than i n Horseshoe Bay. - the Assessment Authority valued Deep Cove l o t s at only 0.6% higher than l o t s i n Horseshoe Bay. C. No waterfront, no view - r e a l estate sources valued Deep Cove l o t s about 3% higher than l o t s i n the Bay Area. - the Assessment Authority sur p r i s i n g l y valued l o t s i n the Bay Area 2 5% higher than i n Deep Cove. The c o n f l i c t between the values given by r e a l estate sources and the Assessment Authority of B.C. can be explained by the fact that the Assessment Authority's valuations are usually lower than the current market value which r e a l es-tate sources quote. Analysis The r e s u l t s of the land values comparison were not surprising. It was expected that commercial land values in Horseshoe Bay would be much higher than Deep Cove since the volume of people coming to the Bay i s much greater than i n Deep Cove. Because of the greater commercial potential i n 54 Horseshoe Bay, business speculation contributes to increase land values, while commercial development i n Deep Cove i s r e s t r i c t e d almost completely to r e s i d e n t i a l services. In addition, the l o c a l residents' deep antipathy towards com-mercial speculation and development i s an obvious deterrent to expansion of t h i s sector. The combination of high potential for commercial development i n Horseshoe Bay and the current r e s t r i c t i o n s of the Municipality of West Vancouver on such development has prompted residents with property holdings near the busi-ness area i n Horseshoe Bay to hold on to these properties u n t i l zoning changes allow them to develop commercially. Meanwhile, these held-back properties are neglected and are used as parking l o t s , junkyards or rented out to transients who are attracted by the low rents. The r e l a t i v e l y high values placed on these properties do not make them feas i b l e for r e s i d e n t i a l development, and c e r t a i n l y they are not available to the lower-income group of people who come to the Bay Area. The only prospects who can afford to buy these properties are business people who would l i k e to develop them in the event of changes to commercial zoning. To resolve the phenomena of speculation and help the community of Horseshoe Bay to remain a r e s i d e n t i a l community, i t i s important to recognize the e x i s t i n g commercial pres-sure there. West Vancouver Municipality must rethink the status of Horseshoe Bay. The Horseshoe Bay of yesterday i s 55 not the Horseshoe Bay of today, and i n order to make the Horseshoe Bay of today an a t t r a c t i v e resource for the r e s i -dents, v i s i t o r s and ferry users, i t i s important to consider the future development p o s s i b i l i t i e s . 4.3.4.3 Ownership Patterns In both'communities, most of the land i s p r i v a t e l y owned. In both communities, i t i s desirable to leave as much of the waterfront open to the public as possible. In Horseshoe Bay, part of the waterfront i s a public park under the authority of the West Vancouver Municipality. In Deep Cove, as well, part of the waterfront remains under the authority of the D i s t r i c t of North. Vancouver for public park land.. An important d i s t i n c t i o n l i e s i n the number of d i f -ferent authorities which control water access and waterfront land i n Horseshoe Bay, none of which, operate i n Deep Cove. Following i s a l i s t of these c o n t r o l l i n g a u t h o r i t i e s : Under p r o v i n c i a l government j u r i s d i c t i o n : B.C. Railway B.C. Ferries Corporation B.C. Telephone Company Under federal government j u r i s d i c t i o n : The harbour area,;:under the National Harbour. Act. Analysis As a r e s u l t of the many d i f f e r e n t authorities i n -volved i n Horseshoe Bay, the si t u a t i o n becomes more complex 56 and sensitive regarding potential changes or decision-making by any one of the authorities l i s t e d . In Deep Cove, there i s a d i r e c t connection between the residents and the governing authority, i . e . , the D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver. Therefore, negotiations are simpler, the route of action more d i r e c t and more e f f e c t i v e . C i t i z e n action can be e f f e c t i v e l y focussed i n Deep Cove. On the other hand, in Horseshoe Bay l o c a l residents are removed from d i r e c t contact with higher authorities and have to use the West Vancouver Municipality as a go-between adding another bureaucratic layer to f i l t e r l o c a l opinion. This appears to be an additional problem because, for the present, r e l a t i o n s between the Municipality of West Vancouver and the l o c a l residents of Horseshoe Bay are strained. This s i t u a t i o n w i l l be discussed i n a l a t e r section. 4 .3 . 4 . 4 P r o f i l e of Community Services This p r o f i l e i s divided into f i v e categories: commercial services, professional services, government services; recreational f a c i l i t i e s ; and community services. (See Table 3.) The r e s u l t s of the comparison of d i f f e r e n t services between Horseshoe Bay and Deep Cove are surprising, since one would expect to see more services i n Horseshoe Bay, p a r t i c u l a r l y more commercial services. (See Table 4.) Instead, Horseshoe Bay keeps a r e l a t i v e l y low p r o f i l e of Table 3 Commercial Services Horseshoe Bay Deep Cove 1. ,food market 1 grocery 1 bakery 1 butcher 1 sundries store 1 variety store 1 laundromat 1 laundromat 1 g i f t shop 1 drugstore 1 book store 1 beauty parlour 2 antique stores 1 dog parlour 2 restaurants 1 coffee^tea shop 1 pub 1 restaurant 1 motel 1 fast food store 1 bank 1 health food store 1 t r a v e l agent 1 insurance o f f i c e 1 r e a l estate agent 1 gas station 2 garages NOTE: There are two new commercial buildings under con-struction i n Horseshoe Bay which w i l l add about 21,000 square feet of commercial space. commercial services. This low p r o f i l e i s due to the reluc-tance of the West Vancouver Municipality to allow an expan-sion of the exi s t i n g commercial core. 4 . 3 . 4 . 5 Conclusions The two communities started out on similar paths but have developed d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . One became a bedroom community, while the other became a transportation 58 Table 4 Professional, Government, Recreational and Community Services Horseshoe Bay Deep Cove Professional Services 2 a r c h i t e c t u r a l o f f i c e s 1 dentist 1 doctor 1 lawyer Government Services f i s h e r i e s and marine service none B.C. Ferries Corporation Recreational F a c i l i t i e s public beach Panorama Park ^ • swimming beach private marina Deep Cove yacht and Horseshoe Bay boat rentals sports club Deep Cove canoe ren t a l Deep Cove marina -moorage, gas, repair Community Services community h a l l community h a l l Deep Cove l i b r a r y 3 churches node, an important t o u r i s t a t t r a c t i o n with the potential for a growing business sector. 4 .3 .5 Comparisons of community groups 59 4.3.5.1 Introduction This section looks at Horseshoe Bay and Deep Cove in the area of community action. The d i f f e r e n t community or-ganizations and in t e r e s t groups are i d e n t i f i e d , t h e i r a t t i -tudes towards development are discussed, and f i n a l l y , the processes of change taking place i n each community are considered. 4.3.5.2 Local Community Organizations: Horseshoe Bay and Deep Cove Horseshoe Bay's Community Association Horseshoe Bay elects f i v e representatives to i t s Community Association and seven representatives to the Merchants' Association. On the average, about t h i r t y Horseshoe Bay residents take active part i n the Community Association, but they do. not appear to represent a true cross-section of the r e s i -d e n t i a l community. The people who support development oriented towards a t t r a c t i n g v i s i t o r s and t o u r i s t s to Horse-shoe Bay apparently do not pa r t i c i p a t e i n these meetings. The Community Association supports development, -not necessarily only commercial development, - i n a general way as long as the members are given an opportunity to ex-press an opinion and provide input into the projects b u i l t within the community. 60 The Association i s aware of the commercial pressure for development i n the Bay Area and would l i k e to r e s t r i c t i t . The residents of Horseshoe Bay do not have f a i t h i n the Community Association and, i n turn, the Community Asso-c i a t i o n i s aware that i t has l o s t i t s c r e d i b i l i t y . The reason for t h i s i s that the Community Association has not been e f f e c t i v e i n i t s dealings with the West Vancouver Municipality. Residents of Horseshoe Bay complain that they are neglected by the Municipality. In turn, a planner for the West Vancouver Municipality states that Horseshoe Bay i s the only community where so many plans and studies have been conducted. He blames the residents for not "getting t h e i r act together." There i s no clear consensus of community opinion. The Municipality's Planning Department recognizes the fact that Horseshoe Bay i s a d i f f i c u l t area to deal with because of the involvement of the Federal and P r o v i n c i a l Governments' interests there. West Vancouver Municipality i s powerless to e f f e c t a good solution i n Horseshoe Bay. In a sense i t has a negative influence on the development of Horseshoe Bay be-cause i t appears not to have adhered to an o v e r a l l plan. In various studies, the Municipality recognized the r e l a -t i v e l y high volume of business a c t i v i t y i n the Bay Area, but the o f f i c i a l p o l i c y has limited commercial development 61 to l o c a l r e s i d e n t i a l needs only. This appears to be a contradiction. Two new developments are under construction i n Horseshoe Bay. Both are commercial and contain about 21,000 sq. f t . of space. In certa i n cases i t appears the Municipality w i l l issue a development permit. The j u s t i f i -cation for granting a development permit i n t h i s instance was that Horseshoe Bay i s growing and serving a larger area now, - Lion's Bay and the western end of West Vancouver. While the Municipality i s r e l a t i v e l y s t r i c t with commercial development, i t appears to look the other way when r e s i d e n t i a l l o t s are turned into parking l o t s and junkyards for old cars. When'it came to the development of the Senior Citizen's project, the West Vancouver Muni-c i p a l i t y did not appear to follow i t s guidelines. The building does not appear to conform e s t h e t i c a l l y either to the l o c a l architecture or the v i l l a g e atmosphere which the Municipality has emphasized numerous times in i t s planning studies. In short, the design p o l i c y taken by the West Vancouver Municipality towards Horseshoe Bay i s confused. The Community Association would l i k e to cooperate and inter a c t with the Merchants' Association to a greater ( extent, but so far t h i s has not happened because of r e s i -dents' suspicions about potential c o n f l i c t s of i n t e r e s t . Horseshoe Bay's Merchants Association CSee Drawing 1) The l o c a l Merchants Association i s considered a weak Drawing 1. Residential A c t i v i t i e s BCF 1 2 R C PK Ml M2 area of a c t i v i t y area of influence B.C. F e r r i e s community centre community tennis court r e s i d e n t i a l commercial public park pr i v a t e marina pu b l i c marina t r a f f i c pattern area of c o n f l i c t s 63 organization. The most successful merchant, the owner of T r o l l ' s Restaurant, does not pa r t i c i p a t e i n i t s a c t i v i t i e s \ because of the wide gap between the scale of his operation and that of the rest of the merchants. However, he i s ready to support the Merchants Association i n matters where i t serves the same int e r e s t s . The merchants support commercial growth and would l i k e to see the t o u r i s t s and v i s i t o r s encouraged to come to Horseshoe Bay, since t h e i r l i v e l i h o o d depends on i t . 4.3.5.3 Various i n t e r e s t groups of Horseshoe Bay The various groups i n Horseshoe Bay are: the l o c a l residents (See Drawing 1), the v i s i t o r s CSee Drawing 2), the ferry users (See Drawing 3) and the l o c a l business com-munity (See Drawing 4). These groups d i f f e r i n t h e i r i n t e -rests and t h e i r range of a c t i v i t i e s , but they do a l l share one common int e r e s t , which i s shopping and dining i n the commercial core of Horseshoe Bay. The l o c a l residents would l i k e : A. to keep the image of th e i r community and B. f i g h t any expansion of B.C. Fe r r i e s ' land use. C. They are divided i n t h e i r opinion about commerical de-velopment; some would l i k e to see commercial expansion and some not. D. They express resentment towards the invasion of ferry users .and .visitors, into-.the'.privacy.of t h e i r ^ community. Drawing 2. V i s i t o r s ' A c t i v i t i e s 55 Drawing 3. Ferry users' A c t i v i t i e s C commercial R r e s i d e n t i a l • tf/ffl a r e a o f c o n f l i c t s | t r a f f i c pattern 66 Drawing 4 Commercial A c t i v i t y area of a c t i v i t y area of influence B.C. F e r r i e s p u b l i c park r e s i d e n t i a l commercial pr i v a t e marina public marina 'JZflJ} area of c o n f l i c t s — — t r a f f i c pattern 67 The v i s i t o r s to Horseshoe Bay are the fishermen, the neighbours and those who are attracted to the beautiful scenery and good food. A l l of them enjoy the yehicle access to the commercial area and would object to any changes that discouraged them from using t h e i r cars as a means of trans-portation. The ferry users d i f f e r i n t h e i r range of a c t i v i t i e s . This i s influenced by the time they can spend i n Horseshoe Bay. Since the time ranges from a few minutes to several hours, they would l i k e fast food service, some entertain-ment or even an accomodation when waiting hours are long and the l a s t ship was just missed. This i s a group who would make use of an a t t r a c t i v e commercial core. Workers as an Interest Group According to the 1971 Census,* there are about 310 people i n the labour force who also l i v e i n Horseshoe Bay. About 50 Horseshoe Bay residents work for d i f f e r e n t stores i n the area; about 60 residents work for the B.C. Fer r i e s . About 35.6 per cent of the labour force i n Horse-shoe Bay works within the community. From the " T r o l l ' s " Survey (see Section 4 . 4 ) , there were at least 50 people working i n Horseshoe Bay who l i v e d outside the area. * Op. c i t . 68 Most of the workers who work and l i v e i n Horseshoe Bay are dependent on seasonal demand. They would l i k e to see more s t a b i l i t y in the source of t h e i r income. Some of them have a c o n f l i c t between t h e i r wishes to see Horseshoe Bay remain a pleasant place to l i v e and t h e i r desire to i n -crease t h e i r income as workers. For a steadily growing i n -come, more people would need to be attracted to v i s i t the Bay Area. From interviews with workers who l i v e and work i n ~-Horseshoe Bay for short periods and are considered t r a n s i -ents, there i s no attachment to Horseshoe Bay as a community. They consider i t s t r i c t l y a source of income. The other type of worker sees Horseshoe Bay as his home and by work-ing there, he f e e l s he contributes to the community. Professionals inv.Horseshoe Bay. There i s a medical o f f i c e i n Horseshoe Bay with a doctor who does not reside there. Two architects l i v e i n Horseshoe Bay. One has an active o f f i c e which i s supported by l o c a l projects and commissions for work on the smaller islands l i k e Saltspring and Bowen Island. The other a r c h i -tect i s r e t i r e d but remains very active as a developer and owns some land i n Horseshoe Bay. Two two architects represent the two extreme attitudes towards development i n Horseshoe Bay. The r e t i r e d architect would l i k e to see the area grow and become an important tou-r i s t and recreation a t t r a c t i o n i n B.C. In his opinion, 69 Horseshoe Bay i s no longer simply a suburb of the West Vancouver Municipality but an important transportation node for B.C. He believes a small community of only 675 people should understand that the place they l i v e i n belongs not only to them but also to a much larger community, that of the Province of B.C. In his view, the p r i o r i t i e s of plan-ning should be approached from t h i s larger perspective. He sees great potential for the volumes of people traveling through Horseshoe Bay as a good income source which would benefit the l o c a l residents. He states that those who do not want to face the r e a l i t y of Horseshoe Bay's pote n t i a l should leave and make room for those who would l i k e to be part of the Bay Area's future. The other architect who has a practice i n the Bay Area i s one of the most outstanding leaders of the community. He i s known for his a c t i v i t i e s i n the past to prevent any development that would contribute to expand either the com-mercial d i s t r i c t of B.C. F e r r i e s ' services. (Today, however, he i s the designer of a project sponsored by one of the most important businessmen i n Horseshoe Bay which w i l l add 17,000 sq. f t . of commercial space.) B a s i c a l l y , his main intention i s to protect the v i l l a g e atmosphere of Horseshoe Bay. Deep Cove In Deep Cove the s i t u a t i o n i s simpler than that of Horseshoe Bay and not so fraught with complications. The elected representatives are supported strongly by the l o c a l 70 community. The Community Association has the strength to influence the D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver and has better control over matters related to i t s area. The community i n Deep Cove i s working together ef-f e c t i v e l y to react against the North Vancouver D i s t r i c t ' s plans for t h e i r neighbourhood. .The Deep Cove community, represented by the "Seymour Planning Association", presented a plan of i t s own to the North Vancouver D i s t r i c t , which con-tributed greatly to make clear to the D i s t r i c t Planning De-partment the desires and requirements which Deep Cove r e s i -dents f e e l are important. The D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver took the Association's recommendations into consideration and few planning changes were i n i t i a t e d , e s p e c i a l l y i n zoning. The Community Association i s supported by the l o c a l businessmen who do not see any c o n f l i c t between the community interests and th e i r own. The most important business a t t r a c t i o n i n Deep .Cove i s the Savory Restaurant. Its owner l i v e s i n Deep Cove and describes his restaurant i n an intimate way which shows the restaurant to be very much a part of the l o c a l scene. The owner ..of the Savory has a steady c l i e n t e l e , year-round, with a small increase of people coming i n the summertime. In his words, "People come to me because they've heard of the res-taurant's reputation, not from the road." The l o c a l marina i s , i n fact, a yacht club, most of whose members are families l i v i n g i n Deep Cove. This s i t u a -t i o n contrasts with Horseshoe Bay, where very few residents 71 use the l o c a l marina. The number of v i s i t o r s to Deep Cove can e a s i l y be absorbed by the community. Most of the labour force of Deep Cove work outside t h e i r community; i t i s e s s e n t i a l l y a bedroom community. The only contentious s i t u a t i o n i n Deep Cove i s created by a new group of people who are considered to be among the highest income group i n Vancouver. They buy-properties along Panorama Drive near the waterfront. The fear i s that they w i l l disturb the s o c i a l and economic balance which the community has enjoyed u n t i l now. Deep Cove, unlike Horseshoe Bay, a t t r a c t s residents from higher income leve l s to i t s community. 4.3.6 Conclusions CSee Diagram 21 The above comparisons contribute to the understanding of Horseshoe Bay as a unique place i n a unique s i t u a t i o n . The question that continues to be asked i s : why did Horse-shoe Bay develop so d i f f e r e n t l y from Deep Cove? The primary answer l i e s i n the geographical location of both communities. Horseshoe Bay i s located s t r a t e g i c a l l y at a most convenient s i t e . I t i s the shortest route between Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland; i t i s also protec-ted and sheltered from the ocean. The timing of other developments on the North Shore diverted the fo c a l i n t e r e s t for water transportation devel-opments to Horseshoe Bay. Any other option to develop a 72 Diagram. 2. Interactions of the Various Interest Groups within the Environment of Horseshoe Bay brings disturbs income community employment privacy brings disturbs employment community income privacy LEGEND ^ no c o n f l i c t s y c o n f l i c t s ->: i n d i f f e r e n t 73 ferry terminal on the Lower Mainland f a i l e d mostly because of s o c i a l and technical problems, such as: no natural sheltered water. Among the other options for a terminal, Tsawwassen was not yet connected by the tunnel. Steveston i s a f i s h i n g community, and any operation on such a scale as the ferry system would have destroyed i t s l i f e s t y l e . Since Horseshoe Bay was already engaged i n water transportation, i t was very convenient for the d i f f e r e n t developers to simply expand i t s terminal. Deep Cove, on the other hand, i s located on the Fraser River on Indian Arm. I t i s not located on any major highways and i s considered by many people to be the end of the road, -a place to hide i n nature. If any development were to take place on Indian Arm i n the future, Deep Cove has the poten-t i a l to become a springboard for those who would need to use water transportation. But i t i s very hard to foresee another ferry operation on a scale as large as that i n Horseshoe Bay. Element C 4.4 The P i l o t Survey Conducted at " T r o l l ' s " 4.4.1 Introduction Since there were no p r i o r studies which could provide information about the d i f f e r e n t groups of people coming into Horseshoe Bay and th e i r reasons for doing so, i t was neces-sary to conduct an interview survey i n Horseshoe Bay. There 7 4 was no convenient stopping place i n the t r a f f i c flow where i t would be possible to interview people before they s p l i t into d i f f e r e n t areas and functions i n the Bay Area. I t ap-peared best to approach people gathered i n a major att r a c -t i o n centre such as T r o l l ' s Restaurant. Questionnaires were dis t r i b u t e d to people who came into the restaurant. The information was gathered during two t y p i c a l non-summer days. During the summer season, presumably there would be a higher percentage of respondents for each group of outsiders. The f i r s t day of questioning was Thursday, December 14, 1978, from 9 a.m. u n t i l 5 p.m. The second day was Sunday, December 17, 1978, between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. Since the restaurant closes every day, including the weekend, by 8 p.m., these hours seemed optimal for interviewing. The majority of people come into the restaurant during the daytime. Thursday was chosen because i t i s a t y p i c a l mid-week working day; Sunday, because i t i s a day on the weekend. People who come i n and out of Horseshoe Bay during the week do so for d i f f e r e n t reasons than those who come on the weekend. I t was therefore advantageous to conduct surveys on both days. In addition, Thursday i s approaching and Sunday i s on the weekend, when t r a f f i c through Horseshoe Bay to and from the Islands increases. 4.4 .2 The Objectives The objectives of the survey were to discover who D 75 comes to Horseshoe Bay and why. S p e c i f i c a l l y : A. Who are the people that come to Horseshoe Bay? How many? B. For what reason? C. Where do they come from? D. How long do they stay or intend to stay? 4.4.3 Limitations of the survey There are certain l i m i t a t i o n s to conducting a survey: an inadequate budget, the number of people available to ask questions, and the v a r i a b i l i t y i n sample size because of the time of the year. This survey should be considered a p i l o t and used primarily as an indicator. 4.4.4 The Questionnaire 642 questionnaires were given to various people and 638 were returned with answers. Four people did not wish to p a r t i c i p a t e . Appendix I i s a copy of the questionnaire. For the participant i t was possible to provide more than one answer to each question; for example, the combina-t i o n of shopping i n Horseshoe Bay and using the f e r r i e s might be possible answers to the same question. 4.4.5 The Results The r e s u l t s of the survey questions are as follows: 1. Why are you i n Horseshoe Bay? a. 167 people were using the fer r y . b. 452 people were categorized as v i s i t o r s . Where do you l i v e ? a. 44 9 people l i v e i n the Lower Mainland. b. 61 people l i v e i n Horseshoe Bay. c. 49 people l i v e on Vancouver Island. d. 2 9 people l i v e outside of Canada. e. 18 people l i v e i n the Inter i o r of B r i t i s h Columbia. f. 15 people l i v e i n another Province of Canada. How long w i l l you stay i n Horseshoe Bay? a. 495 people were staying for a few hours or l e s s . b. 9 people were staying for one day. c. 1 person was staying for one day and one night. d. 1 person was staying for f i v e days. What do you l i k e i n Horseshoe Bay? a. 380 people l i k e d the scenery/view (mountains, ships, ocean, sea smell, f e r r i e s and sea g u l l s , e t c . ) . b. .' 223 l i k e d the food ( T r o l l ' s Restaurant). c. 131 people l i k e d the small size of ,the community and i t s atmosphere (small shops, old-fashioned, quaint). d. 70 people l i k e d the recreational f a c i l i t i e s ( f i s h i n g , diving, marina, boating). e. 4 9 people l i k e d the f r i e n d l y people of Horseshoe Bay ( h o s p i t a l i t y ) . f. 42 people l i k e d the quiet and peacefulness of the area (an escape from the c i t y ) . g. 29 people l i k e d the l o c a l pub. h. 24 people l i k e d the convenient location of Horseshoe 77 Bay to the f e r r i e s , highway and th e i r homes, i . 21 people l i k e d the waitresses at T r o l l ' s Restaurant, j . 16 people l i k e d everything i n Horseshoe Bay. k. 13 people did not l i k e a thing i n Horseshoe Bay (of these, 10 people l i v e d i n Horseshoe Bay and 3 people worked there). 1. 7 people l i k e d the drive to Horseshoe Bay. m. 5 people l i k e d the ferry service. n. 3 people l i k e d the public services (.park and water access). As mentioned e a r l i e r , people could give more than one answer to a question; therefore, the t o t a l number of answers to a question do not necessarily match the number of ques-tionnaires returned. 4.4.6 Applications of the Data Calculation of the number of ferry users that dine at T r o l l ' s Restaurant annually In order to calculate the above, i t was necessary to obtain from B.C. Ferr i e s Corporation s t a t i s t i c a l data for the year 1978 that indicate the t o t a l number of fer r y pas-sengers leaving Horseshoe Bay and the monthly breakdown of the t o t a l number of fer r y passengers. The two sources of information made i t possible to estimate the percentage of summery fer r y passengers that come to T r o l l ' s Restaurant. However, i t does not permit an accurate estimation of the number of people who do not patronize T r o l l ' s Restaurant but s t i l l v i s i t the business area, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the summer when the weather allows more outdoor a c t i v i t i e s . The over-a l l estimate, therefore, i s an approximation. (Table 5.) In the following c a l c u l a t i o n s , the month of December i s used as an indicator since i t was the month i n which the survey was conducted. The other months of the year have ]. higher or lower percentages of f e r r y users. The increase or decrease i n the percentage of the t o t a l number of ferry passengers each month leaving from Horseshoe Bay approxi-mates the number of fe r r y passengers that might come into the business area monthly. From t h i s , one can obtain an annual figure for the t o t a l number of ferry passengers that come into the business area.:. ^ .Accordingly, i t l i s assumed that the v i s i t o r s to Horseshoe Bay would follow the same pattern. Following are the data and ca l c u l a t i o n s : 167 people i n the survey at T r o l l ' s Restaurant were ferry users. They composed 2 6% of the t o t a l number of cus-tomers at T r o l l ' s Restaurant per day. 2,261,812 people l e f t Horseshoe Bay by ferry i n 197 3 for Vancouver Island, Bowen Island and the Sunshine Coast. Out of 68,073 estimated ferry users that patronized T r o l l ' s Restaurant, 31,219 people traveled during the summer season (June-September). This number constitutes about 4 5% of the t o t a l number of fe r r y users that came to T r o l l ' s Table 5 Estimated number of f e r r y passengers that dine : at T r o l l ' : Month Number of Ferry Users Leaving Horseshoe Bay % of Growth Base: 1978-December Estimated # of Ferry Users at T r o l l ' s by Mo. Estimated Ferry User T r o l l ' s ea Jan. 111,841 - 32.7 3,372 113 Feb. 114,451 - 31.2 3,447 105 Mar. 171,680 + 3.1 5,165 172 Apr. 157,220 - 5.5 4,735 158 May 182,704 + 9.7 5,495 183 June 214,448 + 28.8 6,452 215 July 308,918 + 85.6. 9,298. 309 Aug, 317,583 .+ 90.8 9,559 318 Sept. 196,325 + 17.9 5,906 196 Oct. 179,740 + 7.9 5,405 180 Nov. 140,474 - 15.6 4,229 141 Dec. 166,428 0.0 5,010 167 TOTALS 2,261,812 + 13.2 (monthly 68,073 188 (daily Estimated # Patrons" ( a l l sources) 287,985 average). SOURCE: " T r o l l ' s " survey. 80 Restaurant i n 1978. An estimated 36,854 people were using T r o l l ' s Restaurant during the rest of 1978 (.January-May, October-December) or about 55% of the t o t a l number of ferry users who were also T r o l l ' s patrons. The summer season (four months) brought to Horseshoe Bay roughly the same amount of people which came during the rest of the year (.eight months) . .cc ..According,, to B. C. l E e r r i e s * information, i n 1978, 2,261,812 fer r y passengers l e f t Horseshoe Bay on the way to Departure Bay, Bowen Island or the Sunshine Coast. That means that only 3% of the ferry passengers were dining at T r o l l ' s Restaurant and walking around the Bay Area. V i s i t o r s : Those who Came to Horseshoe Bay Not for the Purpose of Using the Ferry 4 52 v i s i t o r s at T r o l l ' s during the survey 13,560 v i s i t o r s a month (during December, 1978) 108,480 v i s i t o r s over eight-month period, 1978 108,000 v i s i t o r s during four-month summer season 216,480 t o t a l number of v i s i t o r s i n 197 8 who patronized T r o l l ' s Restaurant 601 v i s i t o r s on the average per day 188 fer r y users on the average per day 789 t o t a l number of people per day on the average at T r o l l ' s Restaurant. This number comes very close to the number of customers Mr. T r o l l reported that he served each day 81 V i s i t o r s : Those Who Came to Horseshoe Bay from the Interi o r of B.C., another Province of Canada or Outside Canada This group i s included i n the o v e r a l l group of v i s i t o r s . However, i t i s important to i s o l a t e t h e i r number from the rest for purposes of planning, because t h i s group would p o t e n t i a l l y seek temporary accomodations i n Horseshoe Bay. 62 outside v i s i t o r s were surveyed at T r o l l ' s 1,800 v i s i t e d during the month of December, 1978 14,880 v i s i t e d during the eight-month period, 1978 14,880 v i s i t e d during the four-month summer season, 1978 29,760 v i s i t e d during the year 1978. This i s an important estimate which might influence the a v a i l a b i l i t y of t o u r i s t accomodations i n Horseshoe Bay. This group constitutes 9.1% of the t o t a l number of v i s i t o r s coming to Horseshoe Bay. The Total Number of V i s i t o r s that were Attracted to Horseshoe Bay i n 1978 According to interviews with the owner, Sewell's marina at t r a c t s about 25,000 people a year, the majority of whom come during the summer. Horseshoe Bay boat rentals a t t r a c t s about 5,000 people; these too are generally summer patrons. Accor-ding to the owner, T r o l l ' s Restaurant att r a c t s about 287,985 customers a year with about h a l f v i s i t i n g i n the summer. The estimated t o t a l number of people that come into the Bay Area to use the recreational f a c i l i t i e s and community services i s 318,000, including the group of ferry users. Only 21.4% of 82 the people coming into the Bay Area are also ferry users; the majority of them are leaving Horseshoe Bay on the fe r r y . 4.5 Summary The survey was used as an indicator. I t helps to estimate the number of people that come into Horseshoe Bay and id e n t i f y t h e i r d i f f e r e n t interests i n the Bay Area. Consequently, i t provides a basis for estimating the number of ferry users that come into Horseshoe Bay to use i t s services and, therefore, provides some information about the impact of the ferry operation on Horseshoe Bay's commercial core. 4.6 Conclusions The results were surprising. I t was expected that a much higher percentage of the f e r r y users' group would use the f a c i l i t i e s of Horseshoe Bay. Instead, t h i s group i s only 21.4% of the t o t a l number of v i s i t o r s to Horseshoe Bay. This group has a s i g n i f i c a n t impact on the l o c a l business economy; how-ever, i t i s not as important as the group of v i s i t o r s which does not use the ferry system. The l a t t e r are the majority of people that come into the business core for pleasure and recrea-t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . Since only 3% of the t o t a l number of ferry users came into the Bay Area i n 1978 to use services such as the restaurant, the future business po t e n t i a l could be enormous. The majority of v i s i t o r s to Horseshoe Bay spend from less than one hour to up to several hours. This i s because most of 83 the people l i v e short distances from Horseshoe Bay or are on t h e i r way to another destination. The people who come from outside Canada, the Interior of B.C. or another Province i n Canada pos s i b l y provide a poten-t i a l for planning future t o u r i s t accomodation i n Horseshoe Bay. The business area a t t r a c t s about 29,7 60 such people per year, or 13.7% of the t o t a l number of v i s i t o r s that come into the Bay Area. (This percentage might be bigger since t h i s estimation i s based only on those who were using T r o l l ' s Restaurant.) Perhaps more residents of B.C. would also take advantage of overnight accomodations i f they were available. From people's answers to the question: "What do you l i k e i n Horseshoe Bay?", i t was clear that the kind of image the v i s i t o r s and f e r r y users had i n mind was d i f f e r e n t from the image of those who l i v e or work there. The image shared by v i s i t o r s and ferry users was that of an old-fashioned, small town; a f r i e n d l y , b e a u t i f u l and peaceful place; a place to f i n d f an escape from the crowded c i t y . The majority of people who l i v e or work i n Horseshoe Bay agreed with the v i s i t o r s about the f r i e n d l y atmosphere and the a t t r a c t i v e scenery. However, they ss.'e' negative aspects l i k e noise, lack of privacy, too many outsiders, lack of housing and permanent jobs. I t should be mentioned that many of Horse-shoe Bay's residents were attracted to t h i s community because of the kind of image that i s projected to every v i s i t o r , but r e a l i t y i s somewhat d i f f e r e n t when the t r a n s i t i o n i s made from v i s i t o r to resident. 84 With better, sensitive planning, Horseshoe Bay might be able to regain some privacy as a community, as well as privacy for i t s i n d i v i d u a l s . At the same time, the q u a l i t i e s and the images that Horseshoe Bay presents should be preserved and be emphasized i n any r e a l i s t i c planning. That brings one to an-other p o s s i b i l i t y : that Horseshoe Bay could a t t r a c t many people with or without the ferry operation. I t i s true that the "upper le v e l s highway" brought many people into the Horseshoe Bay area, providing quick, and easy access to the water. It should not be forgotten, however, that Horseshoe Bay, after the logging era at the beginning of t h i s century, evolved into a recreation centre famous for i t s ; f i s h i n g , as well as a summer resort. The fame of Horseshoe Bay attracted people from distant places to enjoy the recreation f a c i l i t i e s the Bay offered. The long and d i f f i c u l t road did not prevent people from approaching Horseshoe Bay by boat and t r a i n . C l e a r l y , Horseshoe Bay has the po t e n t i a l to become an important place for recreation in B r i t i s h Columbia. CHAPTER 5. RESEARCH APPLICATION 5.1 Introduction This chapter i s divided into two sections. The f i r s t deals with the proposed design p o l i c y and i t s implications on the e x i s t i n g use patterns i n Horseshoe Bay. The second section concentrates on the proposed plans for the Bay Area, implementing the design. 5.2 Design P o l i c y : I t s implications and recommended 5.2.1 Introduction The following section deals with the four major factors i n Horseshoe Bay: resolutions A. B.C. F e r r i e s Corporation B. The r e s i d e n t i a l community C. The business community D. The r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s Their problems are i d e n t i f i e d , the objectives are set and t h e i r implications are analyzed and evaluated. Recommendations are made for resolutions. 5.2.2 B.C. F e r r i e s operation The problems 1. As the f e r r i e s transport more people and cars, pressure grows to expand the operation. 2. There i s a lack of developable land for expansion. Data The following tables (Tables 6, 7, 8). and graphs (Graphs 1, 2) show the pattern of growth of the B.C. F e r r i e s operation i n Horseshoe Bay. The information was obtained from the B.C. F e r r i e s Corporation and covers the years from 1969 to 1979. Projections Table 9, immediately following the e a r l i e r mentioned tables and graphs, projects the estimated growth of Horse-shoe Bay's f e r r y users by the year 2000, projecting recent average annual growth rates. The data i s broken down for the three routes deaprting from Horseshoe Bay and shows the number of passengers and ^vehicles expected to depart from Horseshoe Bay's f e r r y terminal. The predicted growth was confirmed by Mr. Len Roueche, forcast analyst for the B.C. Fe r r i e s Corporation. (See Graph 3.) 87 Table 6 Horseshoe Bay - Departure Bay, Year Passengers % Growth 1969 784,154 0.0 1970 873,524 11.3 1971 909,736 4.1 1972 1,027,894 12.9 1973 1,132,808 10.2 1974 1,288,776 13.7 1975 1,321,872 2.5 1976 1,141,311 - 13.6 1977 1,161,577 1.7 1978 1,364,566 17.4 1979 1,539,727 12.8 Average growth per year One Way, 1969-1979 Vehicles % Growth 296,128 0. 0 327,248 10. 5 344,246 5. 1 380,736 10. 5 426,402 11. 9 492,397 15. 4 508,604 3. 2 430,666 - 15. 3 432,905 0. 5 507,445 17. 2 588,035 15. 8 7.4 SOURCE: B.C. F e r r i e s Corporation. 88 Graph 1. Growth Rate of Passengers and Vehicles, Departure Bay - Horseshoe Bay, 1962-1979 (Both Ways) <i>.o— 2.8-2.6-2X-CO O 0.1A .A o.o. LEGEND •Passengers •Vehicles June 7 6 increase i n t i c k e t p r i c e s >1 Hfcl fcZ fob <b<\ fo5 6fc 67 6 8 61 70 7) 72- 73 74 75 7fc 77 78 7<? YEAR 89 Table 7 Horseshoe Bay - Bowen Island, One Way, 1969-1979 Year Passengers % Growth Vehicles % Growth 1969 80,316 0.0 26,411 0.0 1970 96,079 19.6 34,044 28.9 1971 98,145 2.1 36,078 5.9 1972 118,991 21.2 42,412 17 .5 1973 121,087 1.7 44,683 5.3 1974 140,445 15.9 54,281 21.4 1975 153,832 9.5 62,652 15.4 1976 151,206 - 1.7 60,850 - 2.8 1977 152,012 0.5 64,448 5.9 1978 174,343 17.0 72,269 13 .0 1979 198,037 13.5 85,924 18 .8 9.9 12.9 Average growth per year SOURCE: B.C. F e r r i e s Corporation. 91 8 Horseshoe Bay - Langdale, One Way, 1969-1979 Year Passengers % Growth Vehicles % Growth 1969 378,699 0.0 152,273 0.0 1970 426,070 12.5 172,627 13.3 1971 450,143 5.6 186,074 7.7 1972 512,170 13.7 205,668 10.5 1973 563,879 10.0 231,426 12.5 1974 639,516 13.4 267,487 15.5 1975 681,626 6.5 291,560 8.9 1976 611,480 - 10.2 260,305 - 10.7 1977 612,591 0.1 255,746 - 1.7 1978 722,903 18.1 295,971 15.7 1979 789,008 9.1; . 333,202 12.5 Average growth per year SOURCE: B.C. F e r r i e s Corporation. Table 9 Estimated growth of B.C. Ferries users by the year 2000 number of passengers number of vehicles Route 1979 average estimated 1979 average estimated growth 2000 growth 2000 i n % * i n % * Horseshoe Bay - 1,539,727 7.3 3,900,128 . 588,035 7.4 1,501,841 Departure Bay Horseshoe Bay -Bowen Island 198,037 9.9 609,755 85,924 M 2 . 9 318,692 Horseshoe Bay - 789,008 7.8 2,081,403 333,202 8.4 920,970 Langdale TOTAL 2,526,772 8.3 6,930,935 1,007161 9.5 3,016,447 •Average annual growth measured from 1969-1979. Graph 3. Growth Rate of Passengers and Vehicles Using B.C. F e r r i e s , 1962-1979 93 94 The goals A. Reduce t r a f f i c congestion, p a r t i c u l a r l y during peak seasons. Reduce the waiting periods for vehicles boarding the f e r r i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y during peak seasons. B. Discourage the number of cars boarding the f e r r i e s . S t a b i l i z e the number of vehicles i n the parking l o t . Provide a backup system i n the form of other trans-portation modes. C. Accomodate the need for more parking spaces i n the future for the growing number of fer r y users and fer r y employees. Limit the demand for land consumption. D. Reduce congestion and confusion. Limit f e r r y users vehicles from encroaching on r e s i -d e n t i a l and commercial areas. E. Increase the loading capacity. The resolutions A. Change to a reservation system. B. Encourage the use of public transportation; Provide an alternate, convenient transportation mode. C. Expand the ex i s t i n g parking l o t . D. Separate t r a f f i c flows by a c t i v i t y , permitting limited access from ferry terminal to commercial area. E. Increase number of ships and t h e i r capacity. Increase s a i l i n g runs. The physical implications of the resolutions A. Reservation system: lanes for reserved cars lanes for 'standby' cars waiting space for one f u l l boat-load of cars per s a i l i n g within the terminal area. Horseshoe Bay's fe r r y terminal has a waiting-lane capa-c i t y for 610 cars inside the terminal and 600 cars outside the terminal. The largest capacity needed, i f three boats were loading at once, i s 590 car spaces. This means that there are s u f f i c i e n t car spaces for one s a i l i n g per route plus 610 more spaces outside the terminal i n case of delays or emergency needs. B. Public transportation convenient bus stops for the ferry users convenient baggage service for foot passengers, similar to Tsawwassen's ferry terminal or some a i r l i n e s ' service a possible l i n k between the ferry terminal and t r a i n service from North Vancouver. C. B.C. F e r r i e s parking l o t the e x i s t i n g parking l o t i s about 148,800 sq. f t . I t contains 240 parking spaces, of which 100 spaces are reserved for B.C. Ferries employees, leaving only 14 0 spaces for the public, the current parking area i s i n e f f i c i e n t i n i t s layout and i n s u f f i c i e n t i n the number of spaces 96 In order to accomodate future need for parking by the year 2000 (see Table 9, Graph 3), i t w i l l be necessary to provide three times the amount of space exi s t i n g today. However, the limited land available for park-ing and possible d r a s t i c future changes i n transpor-t a t i o n patterns should be taken into the design con-sideration. Because of the limited space for parking, there w i l l be times, p a r t i c u l a r l y during the summer season, when the parking l o t w i l l not be able to accomodate the demand. In t h i s case i t i s recommended that parking information be broadcast by the media (and on s i t e ) , providing the public with the necessary warning as similar information i s broadcast when parking l o t s are f u l l along the beaches during the summer. This i n f o r -mation w i l l allow passengers the options of leaving the car behind and using public transportation, post-poning t r a v e l , or di v e r t i n g the t r a v e l route through Tsawwassen i f possible. There are about 2 00 more parking spaces scattered around the Bay Area, including private r e s i d e n t i a l parking l o t s and street parking. The standard space required for one car i s 184 sq. f t . * The standard space required for one car + c i r c u l a t i o n space i s 320-336 sq. f t . * * *The Community Builders..Handbook, Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , Washington, D.C, 1968. ~~ **Ibid. v 97 Total area required for 1320 cars i s 422,400 sq. f t . Since there are already 148,800 sq. f t . i n the B.C. Fe r r i e s parking l o t , there i s need for an additional 273,600 sq. f t . The lack of developable land suggests the use of multi-l e v e l parking. But only 324,000 sq. f t . are recommended for t h i s use i n order not to overpower the Bay Area with a parking structure. According to the projections, t h i s size w i l l be s u f f i c i e n t for about 10 years, i f exist i n g conditions are unchanged. Other elements to be-considered include: landscaping, pedestrian walks and access to the fe r r y waiting area. Separate t r a f f i c flows by a c t i v i t y , permitting limited access from f e r r y terminal to commercial area. More e f f i c i e n t use of e x i s t i n g land for terminal f a c i l i t i e s . There i s a need to gather the d i f f e r e n t administrative a c t i v i t i e s i n one building. Today o f f i c e s are spread over the commercial core of Horseshoe Bay and a l l over the terminal. This i s an i n e f f i c i e n t use of space. According to B.C. F e r r i e s , there i s need for an addi-t i o n a l 12,000 sq. f t . of o f f i c e space today without taking into account space for expansion over the next 20 years. The expansion of o f f i c e space for B.C. Ferries should be taken into consideration i n the master plan. In case the change to a reservation system i s adopted, there should be room for a computer system. There i s a need to separate foot passenger a c t i v i t i e s 98 from t r a f f i c flow. There should be safe access for public observation. ' The e x i s t i n g restaurant, which i s located i n an incon-venient place and i s very poorly designed, should be moved to a location which w i l l be open to the public and provide a view of the water and approaching ships. The image of the terminal should be upgraded esthe-t i c a l l y and incorporated into the o v e r a l l design for Horseshoe Bay. E. Increase the number of ships and t h e i r capacity. Increase s a i l i n g runs. The implications of these issues are concerned more with the modifications of s a i l i n g schedules and the purchase of additional ships. These changes have no s i g n i f i c a n t im-p l i c a t i o n s for land use i n Horseshoe Bay. However, i n case of additional s a i l i n g s , there w i l l be need for more berthing f a c i l i t i e s . There are alte r n a t i v e s i t e s along the coast, other than Horseshoe Bay, which should be investigated. 5.2.3 The r e s i d e n t i a l community The problems 1. Lack of community privacy 2. Lack of developable r e s i d e n t i a l land 3. Increased demand for rental and housing units 4. A high percentage of turnover of residents 5. Noise of t r a f f i c and ships N 99 6. Vandalism by v i s i t o r s from outside the Horseshoe Bay community. The goals To recreate a well-defined and functional r e s i d e n t i a l community: a 'place where i t s residents would be proud to l i v e . The resolutions A. Rebuild a sense of a r e s i d e n t i a l community B. Develop housing and r e n t a l u n i t s . The physical and s o c i a l implications of the resolutions A. A sense of r e s i d e n t i a l community Redefine the boundaries of the r e s i d e n t i a l community Provide a r t e r i a l streets s u f f i c i e n t l y wide to f a c i l i -tate a t r a f f i c bypass, instead of allowing t r a f f i c to pass through the community Discourage v i s i t o r s and fe r r y users from v i s i t i n g the r e s i d e n t i a l area through use of design elements. B. Housing and rental units In 1971 there were 635 people l i v i n g i n Horseshoe Bay 75% of the houses were owner-occupied 25%.. of the houses were rented. In 1974 there were 675 people l i v i n g in Horseshoe Bay 62% of the houses were owner-occupied 100 The population grew by 6.2% and the ren t a l housing by 13%. Today there are about 60 B.C. Fer r i e s employees l i v i n g i n Horseshoe Bay. Some are management personnel, others are crew members. I t was impossible to obtain any more e x p l i c i t information about exact numbers for each group. Therefore, i t was d i f f i c u l t to make any estimates for future demand for housing by B.C. Fer r i e s employees. For planning purposes, a very rough estimate might support a growth of between 3 0-100 new employees who might seek housing accomodation i n Horseshoe Bay. Among them would be families and single people. To ac-comodate t h i s growth, i t i s assumed that rental units are pre-ferred by singles, while families would choose both re n t a l and owned housing. The density i n Horseshoe Bay varies from 8 housing units per acre to 16 units per acre. The 8 units per acre are single family houses on 50 x 122 f t . l o t s , while the 16 units per acre are duplexes, i . e . , two housing units per l o t (.50 x 122). The current p o l i c y of the West Vancouver Municipality i s to maintain the e x i s t i n g densities i n Horseshoe Bay. In an information b u l l e t i n published by the Municipality of West Vancouver,* i t was stated that the Municipality i s aware of future population;- growth and various economic and s o c i a l needs. The population p o l i c y of West Vancouver Munici-p a l i t y i s i n l i n e with the GVRD's p o l i c y of an estimated i n -crease of 500 people per year. Today West Vancouver i s below *Municipality of West Vancouver, Information B u l l e t i n , Vol. 2 No. 4, October 1978. 1 0 1 t h i s 500 per year increase. Few of the statements that were published supported the intent of the study, " ... In remaining large undeveloped areas, encourage housing forms such as single family, c l u s t e r , town-houses, duplexes, cooperative and garden apartments, etc., which blend with surrounding green space, cause minimal drainage problems and are suitable for fami-l i e s . ... The hardest h i t are the young people who wish to s t a r t a family i n the community i n which they were raised. ..."* Another intent of t h i s study i s to reintroduce residency i n the commercial area, providing accomodations for singles and for those who would l i k e to be close to the centre of a c t i v i t i e s . , Since commercial a c t i v i t i e s are concentrated usually on the ground f l o o r , other l e v e l s can be used for professional services and residency. This plan follows the zoning by-laws of West Vancouver Municipality which permit residency above commercial a c t i v i t i e s . The only contradiction might appear i f the plan does not follow the 1-2 f l o o r l e v e l which would r e s t r i c t any developments exceeding that l i m i t . I t i s d i f f i c u l t to predict future population growth for Horseshoe Bay by analyzing the population growth i n the past; the most important observation i s that whatever housing acco-modation was offered i n the area was always f i l l e d . Today there are no empty houses and no vacancies for rent. The pressure for growth shows up i n the increased number of house-holds per house unit and the ongoing zoning changes from single family houses to duplexes. From interviews with residents and *Ibid. 102 o f f i c i a l s of B.C. F e r r i e s , i t was learned that, i f housing were available, more people would have s e t t l e d i n Horseshoe Bay. The type of people who would l i k e to l i v e i n Horseshoe Bay are singles, young couples, and young families with one or two children. Their income l e v e l would range between $10,000 and $48,000 per year, which i s considered the lower middle cl a s s . With today's housing prices and t h i s low income, i t would be almost impossible for a young couple to afford even a $70,000 house without going deeply into debt. Therefore, the estimation for the next 20 years for housing i s as follows: maximum of about 60 dwelling units of d i f f e r i n g size w i l l be needed to accomodate B.C. Fer r i e s em-ployees. This number i s based on additional ships that may be added during the period i n order to accomodate the growth. Each ship has a crew of about 34 people, of which only a certain percentage w i l l choose to l i v e i n Horseshoe Bay. There w i l l also be related growth i n management personnel and terminal maintenance crews. The need for 60 dwellings i s a very rough estimate. As mentioned before, there was no s t a t i s t i c a l i n -formation available on t h i s matter from B.C. F e r r i e s . For non-employees of B.C. F e r r i e s , future growth can be accomodated by building over the highway lanes as an extension of the fourth l e v e l of the B.C. Fer r i e s parking l o t and waiting lanes. H i s t o r i c a l l y the highway of today and the B.C. Fer r i e s parking l o t are b u i l t on former r e s i d e n t i a l land and t h i s land use can be reclaimed by adding r e s i d e n t i a l l i v i n g units on the fourth l e v e l , thereby increasing the housing stock. 103 Neighbourhood Services When developing a new neighbourhood, there are some c r i t e r i a that have to be taken into account such as: elemen-tary school, recreation, shopping centres, convenience shop-ping, medical centres, o f f i c e buildings, c i v i c f a c i l i t i e s , f i r e station and ho s p i t a l . Within the area the following f a c i l i t i e s are avai l a b l e : 1) The Gleneagles School, which accomodates children from a l l over the area, from kindergarten to grade 7, has a capa-c i t y of 500 children and am enrollment of 300. I t can accomo-date population growth e a s i l y . 2) The development w i l l enjoy open space for recreational a c t i v i t i e s . The area i s surrounded by parks, such as Whytecliff Park, the waterfront park i n Horseshoe Bay, the underwater park and a public golf course. 3) Shopping centres are provided at the Park Royal Shopping Centre. 4) Convenience shopping can be accomodated by the grocery store i n Horseshoe Bay which can support a much larger community. 5) Horseshoe Bay now has under construction a new medical f a c i l i t y . A pharmacy plus medical services w i l l be provided for the area. 6) Horseshoe Bay has about 108,585 sq. f t . of commercial land (excluding parking spaces), which i s about 2.4 acres. 104 According to planning c r i t e r i a , * t h i s space could support a population of between 4,500 - 24,000 people as opposed to the current population of 675 and a possible addition of 700. Within the context of Horseshoe Bay and i t s v i s i t o r population, however, planners would not exceed the lower l i m i t s of t h i s range. The commercial land i s not f u l l y developed and can support future demand for o f f i c e buildings. 7) C i v i c f a c i l i t i e s are concentrated at Park Royal Centre, which provides services to the D i s t r i c t of West Vancouver. 8) A f i r e station i s located at Horseshoe Bay. 9) Lion's Gate Hospital i n North Vancouver provides services to a l l of the North Shore area. 5.2.4 The business community The problems 1) The business community i n Horseshoe Bay supports about 318,000 v i s i t o r s and ferry users according to the p i l o t survey conducted i n December, 1978. (See section 4.4) 2) The business community would l i k e to expand i t s a c t i -v i t i e s while part of the r e s i d e n t i a l community objects. 3) Lack of parking space to support commercial development i s a problem. There i s a clash with the existing'by-laws of the West Vancouver Municipality. * The Community Builders Handbook, Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , Washington, D.C, 1968 105 The goals A. Reduce speculative a c t i v i t i e s which contribute to the deterioration of the r e s i d e n t i a l community. Increase l o c a l sources of income. Encourage year-round t o u r i s t a c t i v i t y which w i l l sup-^ port year-round sources of income. Add a t t r a c t i v e services to the Bay Area. B. Define the boundaries of each function. Take steps to resolve the exi s t i n g tension between the r e s i d e n t i a l community and the business community. Address the need for privacy for the l o c a l residents. C. Resolve the parking problem. Provide safe pedestrian zone.:,. free from t r a f f i c flow. Provide unrestricted view of the waterfront and conveni-ent pedestrian access to the water. D. Release r e s i d e n t i a l and commercial land which i s now used for parking. Resolve the i d e n t i t y problem of each zone while empha-si z i n g man, rather than car storage. The resolutions A. Increase business a c t i v i t i e s i n Horseshoe Bay. B. Provide a buffer zone between the business core and the r e s i d e n t i a l zone. C. R e s t r i c t the business core for pedestrians only (allow access for emergency and service vehicles).. 106 D. Provide parking space outside the business core and locate i t where the B.C. F e r r i e s ' parking l o t stands for long-term parking; r e s t r i c t parking i n designated areas for short-term parking. The physical implications of the resolutions A. Commercial space Today there are about 108,585 sq. f t . of commercial land i n Horseshoe Bay, or about 2.4 acres. A commercial core i n the usual sense (containing department stores) of t h i s size would be s u f f i c i e n t to support a community of between 4,500 -24,000 people. From the exi s t i n g square footage of commercial land i n Horseshoe Bay, i t i s obvious that i t i s not i n pro-portion to the si z e of the l o c a l community which has about 67 5 residents. As noted e a r l i e r , Horseshoe Bay a t t r a c t s about 318,000 v i s i t o r s and ferry users a year (1978) , half of t h i s number during the summer season. As a r e s u l t of t h i s large volume of people passing through, sales a c t i v i t i e s increase, but are s t i l l inadequate to support the growing demand. Usually when making a market analysis for shopping f a c i l i t i e s , the following factors are taken into consideration: population, income, purchasing power, competitive f a c i l i t i e s and access to the s i t e . But i n Horseshoe Bay's case there are d i f -ferent factors involved which do not exactly follow the usual pattern of market analysis. This has to do more with the loca-t i o n of Horseshoe Bay near a ferry terminal, recreational f a c i -l i t i e s , and a t t r a c t i v e scenery. The customers supporting the 107 business core are looking for s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s which emphasize the v i l l a g e s p i r i t and a place to take a break from recreational a c t i v i t i e s that are i n the area. Since Horse-shoe Bay's business a c t i v i t i e s are vulnerable to seasonal change, i t s commercial a c t i v i t i e s should not grow proportion-a l l y to the population of v i s i t o r s , but according to the a b i l i t y of business to maintain i t s a c t i v i t y year-round. When the peak season ar r i v e s , additional business a c t i v i t i e s can be added, such as kiosks and open stands. This w i l l pro-vide an opportunity for l o c a l residents to add to t h e i r l e v e l of income by seasonal work. The business community should continue i t s development towards eating and drinking places, arts and c r a f t s shops, g a l l e r i e s , . sports supply shops and seasonal stands. ...:Current plans of l o c a l businessmen include,:, Restaurant. Mr. Sewell i s planning to add a restaurant on his property and near the marina, replacing his old restau-rant which burned down a few years ago. Ice cream parlor. Mr. T r o l l i s planning to add an ice cream parlor r i g h t beside his popular restaurant. Also, there are plans to open a restaurant i n one of the new developments under construction. These plans w i l l take care of the present demand for more food and drinking places i n the Bay Area. For the next 2 0 years i t i s recommended that land which i s now used for parking l o t s for commercial a c t i v i t i e s be re-leased, adding an additional 58,125 sq. f t . of commercial space 108 or 1.3 acres. The release of the parking l o t s w i l l help achieve a ti g h t e r plan and a well-defined commercial zone. In general, Horseshoe Bay's commercial area w i l l increase to occupy a t o t a l of 3.7 acres. B. Buffer zone It i s necessary to design an area to avoid i d e n t i t y •1. and privacy c o n f l i c t s between the r e s i d e n t i a l and the com-mercial zones. This can be resolved by a range of alt e r n a t i v e s : plant beds, hedges, trees and choice of surface treatment. C. Business zone - pedestrian zone It i s possible to r e s t r i c t parking and t r a f f i c flow through use of physical elements. The v i s i t o r s w i l l be d i -rected to the main parking l o t or to the short-term parking around the commercial core. Pedestrian walks w i l l be pro-vided from the main l o t to the commercial core. D. Parking space More parking w i l l be added for short-term v i s i t o r s by closing streets, changing the t r a f f i c pattern and using the available space more e f f i c i e n t l y . The d e t a i l s of the design w i l l make t h i s clear. 5.2.5 Recreational f a c i l i t i e s Horseshoe Bay f u l f i l l s an important role i n providing services which support recreational a c t i v i t i e s , such as a 109 eoffee place, a beer parlor, restaurants and meeting spots during breaks i n recreational a c t i v i t i e s . Horseshoe Bay i s a convenient stopping place for divers, g o l f e r s , skiers, hikers and so on. Therefore, the same f a c i l i t i e s that are recommended to be developed for the v i s i t o r s to Horseshoe Bay w i l l serve those who frequent the recreational f a c i l i t i e s of the sur-rounding area. One of the most important attractions of Horseshoe Bay i s the waterfront public park. When the warm season approaches, the park i s f i l l e d with people who come to watch the f e r r i e s , the birds and the water. The only recreational f a c i l i t i e s lacking are more community oriented ones, for instance, more tennis courts or a swimming pool. 5.2.6 Changes i n Zoning and Residential Density (See Drawings 5,6) The following changes would occur following the design for the commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l areas. A. Change zoning to commercial (.CI). : 3 l o t s zoned.CR4 - parking l o t s and/or single family dwellings 2 l o t s zoned RTl - r e s i d e n t i a l duplex, street access part of Royal Avenue - 100' x 50' B. Change zoning for community f a c i l i t y (.CU4). : 2 l o t s zoned RTl - r e s i d e n t i a l duplex, street access (for community centre) 110 Drawing 5. E x i s t i n g Zoning HORSESHOE B A Y M 3 M-M-RS4 RS4 O?0 Mi CR4 R"h R^ R^A CR3 / / / / * 5 . / LEGEND CR4 parking l o t s &/or si n g l e family CR3 parking l o t s only C l commercial RTl r e s i d e n t i a l duplex, s t r e e t acces RT2 r e s i d e n t i a l duplex, lane access RS4 s i g n l e family Ml marina with road access M3 marina, no road access CU4 community f a c i l i t i e s I l l Proposed Zoning parking l o t s &/or s i n g l e family parking l o t s only commercial r e s i d e n t i a l duplex, s t r e e t acces r e s i d e n t i a l duplex, lane access s i g n l e family marina with road access marina, no road access community f a c i l i t i e s 112 1 l o t zoned RTl - r e s i d e n t i a l duplex, street access (for tennis court) C. Change zoning for proposed Horseshoe Bay Avenue and the t r a f f i c commercial loop: 1 l o t zoned RTl - r e s i d e n t i a l duplex, street access 1 l o t zoned commercial 1 l o t zoned RT2 - r e s i d e n t i a l duplex, lane access 1 l o t zoned DR3 - parking l o t s only 2 l o t s zoned RTl - r e s i d e n t i a l duplex, street access Residential Density The new r e s i d e n t i a l development on the top of the B.C. Fer r i e s ' parking l o t and over the highway w i l l provide a higher density of l i v i n g units per acre. The ex i s t i n g density i s 8-16 housing units per acre (8 = single family dwellings; 16 = duplexes). The proposed density for Level 4 r e s i d e n t i a l development i s 180 units on 3.4 acres. Therefore, the density i s 52.9 units per acre. The proposed mix of r e s i d e n t i a l within the commercial area i s as follows. There are 108,585 sq. f t . of ex i s t i n g commercial land (2.4 acres) to which w i l l be added 58,125 sq. f t . (1.3 acres). A l l together there are 3.7 acres of commercial land and 60 l i v i n g units are recommended for the commercial-r e s i d e n t i a l area. Therefore the density would be 16.2 units per acre, which i s roughly comparable to the current zoning l i m i t s for duplexes. 113 5.2.7 Economic-Implications A. Introduction The following analysis addresses the various elements of benefit and cost that r e s u l t from the proposed design de-velopment. The major groups that are affected i n Horseshoe Bay are: the B.C. Ferries Corporation, the Municipality of West Vancouver, composed of the r e s i d e n t i a l community and the business community, and, f i n a l l y , the v i s i t o r s . The general hypothesis i s that the major economic elements are linked to the impacts incurred or generated by each of the groups from the implementation of the design proposal. The following 'discussion provides cost estimates for proposed design changes and development i n Horseshoe Bay. I t i s not the purpose of t h i s study to develop a t r a d i t i o n a l cost/benefit analysis in an economic sense. B. The B.C. F e r r i e s Corporation The proposed a l t e r a t i o n s and additions to the B.C. F e r r i e s Corporation operation i n Horseshoe Bay w i l l generate the major economic impact. The d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t benefits and costs are discussed below. v 1. Benefits 1 The i n i t i a l benefit to B.C. F e r r i e s Corporation i s the savings r e a l i z e d by improving the e x i s t i n g ferry terminal rather than constructing a new terminal i n another location. The need to purchase waterfront property and the expense of 114 access highways and terminal f a c i l i t i e s do not e x i s t . This terminal u t i l i z e s the e x i s t i n g highways, parking areas and vessel berths i n i t s accomodation towards future growth. The project provides the p o t e n t i a l f o r - a d d i t i o n a l employment; -from the design phase, through construction, during operation and maintenance, and for future additions. This w i l l encour-age more people to work or l i v e i n the Bay Area, thus increas-ing revenues for the other groups, such as the business and r e s i d e n t i a l community. In t h i s design, the administrative a c t i v i t i e s of B.C. Fe r r i e s are gathered together i n one building. Sited adjacent to the berths at the water's edge, the design provides d i r e c t v i s u a l harbour surveillance as well as automobile passenger buildup. This improves administrative e f f i c i e n c y . Presently, the foot passenger connection to the f e r r i e s from the various a c t i v i t i e s i n the Bay Area i s poor. The pro-posed design provides safe and a t t r a c t i v e pedestrian routes that are separated from the t r a f f i c flow. By attempting to a t t r a c t foot passengers, and by a reduction i n the length of waiting lanes, ferry capacity and fewer^delays may be obtained. In conjunction with these ideas i s a vehicle reservation system proposal designed to obtain greater e f f i c i e n c y i n the operation of B.C. F e r r i e s Corporation. Increased e f f i c i e n c y leads to greater savings. The Corporation's severe automobile parking problem and poor terminal t r a f f i c c i r c u l a t i o n are also addressed i n t h i s proposal. With improved parking f a c i l i t i e s , i t i s possible that 115 more f e r r y passengers may leave t h e i r cars behind and t r a v e l as foot passengers. A r e l a t i v e l y secure parking structure can charge a nominal fee and generate some revenue. Provisions have been made for future parking l e v e l additions on the proposed structure as well as r e s i d e n t i a l units above the parking and waiting lanes. This would make • available p o t e n t i a l revenues from rentals and sales. The only additional cost would be for road access im-provements to and from the terminal and parking structures. This cost can be shared with the Municipality of West Vancouver. 2. Costs The a c q u i s i t i o n of land for development i s usually one of the major costs. In t h i s proposal, t h i s element does not ex i s t since the property to be developed for the proposed t e r -minal and parking structure design i s already owned by B.C. F e r r i e s Corporation. The major cost i s therefore reduced to the actual con-struction implementation of the proposed design, including services and u t i l i t y costs. The estimated cost of construction for the proposed a l t e r a t i o n of B.C. F e r r i e s Corporation's opera-ti o n i s broken down into the cost of the parking structure, the administrative building, and provisions for pedestrian access. These costs are l i s t e d in Table 10. The additional costs of administration, operation and maintenance are to be considered. However, these costs are present i n the operation today. With the u t i l i z a t i o n of inno-vative design and technological improvements, the cost of these 116 elements can be s u b s t a n t i a l l y reduced i n the proposed development. The demand for improved ferry transportation i s great. One has only to see the long lineups of cars waiting to get onto a ferry; or review the government's ideas of providing a permanent l i n k to Vancouver Island v i a tunnels and bridges, or the Corporation's proposal for increasing the capacity of each fe r r y by providing an additional deck, or stretching the f e r r i e s even longer. This design proposal for Horseshoe Bay i s merely f o r improving one of B.C. F e r r i e s Corporation's terminals. There are many to be dealt with. Most of the ideas can be applied to the other terminals as well. The major difference with other terminals i s that they do not have an immediately adjacent r e s i d e n t i a l and business community. C. The Residential Community The impact of the proposed development on the r e s i d e n t i a l community generally i s that there w i l l be more people l i v i n g i n the Bay Area. With a population increase, there are both bene-f i t s and costs which are discussed i n the following. 1. Benefits / The proposed development should provide more employment for the l o c a l residents with both the B.C. Ferries Corporation and the business community. Most of the Bay Area residents are transients that rent housing and have a low or seasonal 117 income. The generation of employment could increase t h e i r income, provide job s t a b i l i t y and encourage a greater sense of permanence in,the community. With the greater density of development and subsequent population growth, there should be an increase i n the value of r e a l estate for both the r e s i d e n t i a l and commercial areas. The development of an improved community and recreation centre; public park f a c i l i t i e s along the water, open spaces and commercial development w i l l a s s i s t i n a t t r a c t i n g more re-sidents to the Bay Area, thereby r a i s i n g property values. In addition, with the increase i n multi-family r e s i d e n t i a l devel-opment, there should be a reduction i n the Municipality of West Vancouver's u t i l i t i e s service cost per unit. For the Municipality, the improvements i n the r e s i d e n t i a l sector development can set the basis for increased taxation which can, again, be returned to the community for improvements. Upgraded vehicular c i r c u l a t i o n patterns and parking f a c i l i t i e s would a s s i s t i n establishing a greater sense of privacy from the B.C. Fer r i e s operation and the business sector. 2. Costs \ The major i n i t i a l costs, again, are land a c q u i s i t i o n and construction. The only major land a c q u i s i t i o n cost i s that for the community and recreational centre. Most of the land costs for the community and recreation centre w i l l be municipal costs. This i n part would be subsidized by the Municipality of West Vancouver. However, more people than just the residents of 118 Horseshoe Bay w i l l be able to use these f a c i l i t i e s . For the r e s i d e n t i a l development, no additional land purchases are required. Most of the proposed units are above commercial businesses or over the B.C. F e r r i e s Corporation parking structure and waiting lanes. The estimated cost for constructing these units i s l i s t e d i n Table 10. In order to b u i l d the units, only the cooperation of the present land owners i s required. With the p o t e n t i a l return on investment, t h i s would not appear to be too great a problem. The higher density also brings the cost of additional garbage c o l l e c t i o n and to a lesser extent physical r e s t r i c t i o n . Both of these factors can be limited through the use of design elements. With improvements, municipal taxation would be increased. However, these costs may be o f f s e t by the services provided. D. The Business Community The number of f e r r y passengers and v i s i t o r s that f r e -quent the Bay Area can support a larger business community. Investigations with the business owners indicate that an ex-pansion of t h e i r services i s desirable. The i n i t i a t i o n of private investment for the proposed commercial development i s not a problem. 1. Benefits The business revenue generated would be the major benefit from the proposed design. Increased business a c t i v i t y w i l l as-s i s t i n providing jobs for l o c a l residents as well as for those 119 from other parts of West Vancouver. The improved vehicular c i r c u l a t i o n routes and parking f a c i l i t i e s w i l l even increase the frequency of v i s i t o r s and, i n turn, the business revenue. The value of commercial r e a l estate would r i s e with increased development and a c t i v i t y . Most of the commercial buildings have r e s i d e n t i a l units on the second l e v e l which provide rental income. Tied with the business a c t i v i t y i s also recreational attractions to bring people into the Bay Area. These elements have also been addressed and hopefully w i l l a t t r a c t people into the area and increase business revenue.-The medical c l i n i c has been included i n the business community for i t i s both service and revenue oriented. The presence of a c l i n i c would be of great benefit for the Bay Area and would also a t t r a c t more people to l i v e there. 2. Costs Again, the cost of land a c q u i s i t i o n i s not major. Most " of the commercially zoned properties have businesses estab-lis h e d on them. Only f i v e l o t s , three zoned CR4 and two zoned RTl, require rezoning for commercial purposes. Within the proposed design, rezoning of some of the land i s required. The cost of rezoning could be financed by the prospective r businesses to be developed. Construction would be the major cost. This i s a cost that businesses might be w i l l i n g to undertake. For the pier and restaurant on the water, there would be additional Federal Harbours Board permit fees to consider above construction costs. 120 Increased and improved business development would rais e the municipal taxation for these properties. Again, however, services would be better, some of the tax d o l l a r s would be re-turned to the business community i n the form of municipal de-velopments such as open spaces and parks which would a'ttract more business. The only other major costs would be maintenance. The commercial area should be kept clean and boundaries to r e s i -d e n t i a l areas a e s t h e t i c a l l y pleasing. Clean, environmentally oriented design generates good business. D. V i s i t o r s to Horseshoe Bay The proposed design and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , the commercial area i s v i s i t o r oriented. For the v i s i t o r , benefits, measured in monetary terms, are few. Perhaps as l i t t l e as less t r a v e l distances for parking and better service. But the benefits, i n terms of increased e f f i c i e n c y and enhanced aesthetics, are s i g n i f i c a n t and should not be overlooked. The costs also would not be greater than for any other t o u r i s t oriented area. The benefit and cost analysis for the v i s i t o r i s mainly an aesthetic one. However, v i s i t o r s ' con-tr i b u t i o n s to the economic implications of the Horseshoe Bay area can be major. 121 Table 10 Cost Estimate f o r Land and Construction 1. B.C. F e r r i e s a) Land a c q u i s i t i o n : - already owned. N i l . b) Buildings; s t r u c t u r e s ; landscaping i ) Parking s t r u c t u r e Level 1 = 115,200 sq. f t . Level 2 = 108 ,100 sq. f t . Level 3 = 101,200 sq. f t . To t a l = 324,500 sq. f t . x $12.00/sq. f t . = $ 3,900,000. i i i ) Pedestrian walk (exterior) 14,400 sq. f t . x $ 3.50/sq. f t . = 50,000. i i i ) Administration b u i l d i n g 12,100 sq. f t . x $65.00/sq. f t . = 800,000. iv) Landscaping (parking structure) 4,000 sq. f t . x $ 4.00/sq. f t . = . 60,000. v) Landscaping e x t e r i o r = 50,000. vi) Highway and access improvements (to and from parking structure) = 150,000. v i i ) . Access to r e s i d e n t i a l = 170,000. v i i i ) Covered pedestrian walk to f e r r i e s 6,600 sq. f t . x $53.00 sq. f t . = 350,000. ix) Renovations to passenger waiting area 4,400 sq. f t . x $30.00/sq. f t . = 130,000. x) A d d i t i o n a l parking and waiting lanes 41,200 sq. f t . x $20.00/sq. f t . = 35,000. r xi) . Landscaping and parking for towers on Level 4 . 100,000 sq. f t . x $14.00/sq.' f t . = 1,400,000. 122 Table 10 Cost Estimate for Land and Construction (continued) x i i ) Towers 240,000 sq. f t . x $50.00/sq. f t . = $12,000,000. Subtotal $19,145,000. 2. Municipal a) Residential/community i) Housing 60,000 sq. f t . x $55.00/sq. f t . = 3,300,000. i i ) Community centre and r e c r e a t i o n Land a c q u i s i t i o n = 200,000. Building 12,000 sq. f t . x $75.00./sq. f t . = Tennis = i i i ) Roads and improvements = iv) Landscaping = v) Concrete sidewalks = 100,000, 200,000, 900 , 000. 60,000. 540,000, 60,000, vi) F l o a t s \ v i i ) Park improvements 100,000 Subtotal $ 5,460,000. 800,000. b) Business i) Land a c q u i s i t i o n = i i ) B u i l d i n g 64,000 sq. f t . x $75.00/sq. f t . = 5,000,000 i i i ) Paving stones = iv) Landscaping = v) Parking = vi) P i e r = 100,000. 200,000. 250,000. 200,000. Subtotal $ 6,550,000. 123 Table 10 Cost Estimate for Land and Construction (continued) Subtotals: $ 19,145,000. 5,460,000. 6,550,000. Total 31,550,000. Contingency 3,155,000. Grand Total ± $ 34,310,500, SOURCE: Current cost estimates (.1980) supplied by registered ar c h i t e c t , Mineo Tanaka. 5.3 Design Development Implementation The following section i s a graphic description of the implementation of the design p o l i c y and i t s recommendations. It i l l u s t r a t e s e xisting and proposed land use patterns, s i t e plans, elevations, sections, perspectives and sketches of Horseshoe Bay. 124 Drawing 7 E x i s t i n g Land Use 125 Drawing 8. Proposed Land Use 126 136 CHAPTER 6. STRATEGY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT'S IMPLEMENTATION This chapter deals with two major issues: the planning guidelines and the process of development. 6.1 Planning guidelines This section deals with the process of organizing the various interested groups i n Horseshoe Bay towards implementing a comprehensive plan for the Bay Area. In order to bring the d i f f e r e n t groups into a meaningful framework, a committee should be established. This committee would be composed of representatives of each of the interested groups. The committee i s only a convenient t o o l i n the process of decis-ion'-making; i t should not reach any decisions for implementation without consulting i t s constituencies. This r e s t r i c t i o n i s designed p a r t i c u l a r l y to protect the residents of Horseshoe Bay who are p o l i t i c a l l y l e s s powerful than the other groups, The members of the committee represent: A, the residents of Horseshoe Bay B the business sector of Horseshoe Bay C. the B.C. F e r r i e s Corporation D. E. the Department of Tourism of the B.C. Government West Vancouver Municipality. A. The residents of Horshoe Bay The residents should e l e c t representatives from a cross-section of t h e i r community. Like the community of Horseshoe Bay, the representatives do not have to agree upon each issue and reach a consensus among themselves p r i o r to t h e i r election.. The d i f f e r e n t points of view are important for the evaluation process and the stage p r i o r to decision-making. Perhaps, for the f i r s t time, those residents who have a d i f f e r e n t point of view about the ferry operation and v i s i - . tors to t h e i r community would have an opportunity to rais e t h e i r voices. The representatives should be trusted and supported by the community; they should be intimately f a m i l i a r with Horseshoe Bay and have concern for i t s future. Temporary residents l i k e seasonal workers could e l e c t a representative of t h e i r own. This i s a s p e c i f i c group with s p e c i f i c prob-lems which should be taken into account since i t represents a s i g n i f i c a n t group of residents i n the Bay Area. The issues that should be discussed i n the community meetings p r i o r to the elections should concern a change of attitude which w i l l come to grips with the r e a l i t y of Horseshoe Bay. The fact that the B.C. Ferries operation w i l l continue i n the Bay Area should be presented to the residents through a series of lectures by s p e c i a l i s t s who are credible and 138 objective. In order to reach a meaningful plan for Horseshoe Bay, i t i s very important to help the residents understand that i t i s not any more a question of eliminating the f e r r y operation but rather how to reap the benefits from i t s presence there. The elected representatives w i l l convey t h e i r community decisions to the other interested groups when meetings take place and the comittee's thoughts and decisions w i l l be conveyed to the residents through t h e i r representatives. There should be an e f f i c i e n t flow of information to a l l concerned. B. The business sector The business sector of Horseshoe Bay should come to understand that i t w i l l be to i t s benefit to organize and select representatives which r e f l e c t the various business a c t i v i t i e s i n the Bay Area, including restaurants, r e t a i l and r e c r e a t i o n a l services. The business sector should be able to represent i t s three major i n t e r e s t constituencies: the l o c a l residents who work i n Horseshoe Bay, the business people who work i n Horseshoe Bay but do not l i v e there, and present and future owners-investors. I f t h i s i s pos s i b l e , then the business community w i l l more comprehensively represent i t s own i n t e r e s t s . C. B.C. F e r r i e s Corporation B.C. F e r r i e s Corporation, which i s responsible f o r the terminal and f a c i l i t i e s has a key role i n resolving the problems i n Horseshoe Bay and therefore has a s i g n i f i c a n t part i n planning guidelines for the Bay Area. The outcome i s based on B.C. F e r r i e s ' future development p o l i c y and i t s unofficial,, non-public p o l i c y to maintain the ferry operation in Horseshoe Bay. In order to design v a l i d guidelines for Horseshoe Bay, B.C. Fer r i e s wilir.have to adopt an open policy which w i l l earn the t r u s t of the other interested groups. Even though i t i s a government operation, i t s secrecy suggests that of a private one. Sharing r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the development of Horseshoe Bay w i l l necessitate a comprehensive plan that w i l l benefit each of the interested groups. D. The Department of Tourism of the B.C. Government As a r e s u l t of the p i l o t survey and personal observa-t i o n , i t was learned that Horseshoe Bay i s a very popular s i t e for l o c a l t o u r i s t s as well as t o u r i s t s from elsewhere. This department should have a part i n the committee's processes for i t s own information. E. The Municipality of West Vancouver West Vancouver Municipality, which i s responsible for l o c a l roads, street parking, and community f a c i l i t i e s , has an important r o l e i n resolving the problems regarding the residents of Horseshoe Bay. The Municipality i s responsible for the comprehensive plan for Horseshoe Bay and therefore should take an active, i f q u a l i f i e d , r o l e . The Municipality should encourage new view-points from the committee of interested groups. I t should be open to new ideas and new attitudes. I t might change zoning regulations^ but i t should be open to the p o s s i b i l i t y of change i n the o v e r a l l attitudes of people and planners. Once the com-mittee recognizes the fact that Horseshoe Bay i s a unique place with s p e c i f i c problems, the resolutions should r e s u l t from t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n . A l l the groups involved w i l l have to discuss t h e i r own and each other's r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s for development, including budget considerations. Then decisions on p o l i c y for the de-velopment process can proceed. This study should be consid-ered a resource for such a committee. 6.2 The process of development Following i s a l i s t of p r i o r i t i e s for development i n the order i n which they should be undertaken. 1. Adopt a reservation system. 2. Modify the B.C. Ferries parking l o t . 3. Add roads and short-term parking modifications. 4. Relocate gas station to its.new location. 5. Change commercial developments along Bay Street and renovate motel. ] 6. Add r e s i d e n t i a l development above the commercial area. 7. Build pier and restaurant development. 8. Introduce community centre, and medical building developments. 9. Add r e s i d e n t i a l development on the Level 4 parking l o t and over the Trans-Canada Highway. CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter consists of two main sections. The major conclusions of the study are presented f i r s t , f o l -lowed by recommendations for further research. 7.1 A Summary of Major Conclusions The'major conclusions of t h i s study follow the." issues that were raised throughout t h i s work: A^. Should Horseshoe Bay continue to be a location for a ferry terminal or not? B. What impact has the ferry operation i n Horseshoe Bay on the l o c a l r e s i d e n t i a l and business community? C. How do ferry terminals i n Europe coexist with residen t i a l communities nearby? D. Why has Horseshoe Bay developed into the community i t i s today? E. What are the d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s i n Horseshoe Bay, who are the people attracted to the Bay Area, why do they come, how long do they, stay? F. What conclusions can be derived from personal observa tion? And, f i n a l l y , the l a s t major issue of the study: G. How i s i t possible to resolve the problems of: lack of r e s i d e n t i a l privacy, constant t r a f f i c congestion, lack of parking space, shortage of housing, the i n f l u x of v i s i t o r s to the Bay Area, — esp e c i a l l y during the summer season, — and the overwhelming presence of the ferry terminal and i t s parking lot? The conclusions of t h i s study can be divided into two categories. One refers to the research conclusions (Issues.A B, C, D, E, F) while the other deals with design conclusions, i . e . , the physical solutions of the study (Issue G). 7.2 Research Conclusions A. HORSESHOE BAY'S FERRY TERMINAL IS CAPABLE OF ABSORBING FUTURE GROWTH AND, THEREFORE, THE OPERATION SHOULD BE MAINTAINED IN THE BAY AREA. If B.C. Ferr i e s Corporation adopts a reservation system, the Horseshoe Bay ferry terminal w i l l be able to handle future growth without basic changes i n the layout of i t s terminal. According to current population projections for Bowen Island and the Sunshine Coast, within f i f t e e n to twenty years the number of travelers to these destinations w i l l equal the current t o t a l o f travelers to a l l destina-tions through Horseshoe Bay. Even i f new terminal f a c i l i -t i e s are required for t r a v e l to Vancouver Island, Horseshoe Bay's f e r r i e s would be needed to serve Bowen Island and the Sunshine Coast. In l i g h t of these projections, the question of removing the fer r y terminal from Horseshoe Bay i s no longer an issue. This conclusion was reinforced by discussions and interviews with people at the B.C. Ferr i e s Corporation, by the findings of an unpublished study conducted by an engi-neering consulting firm i n Vancouver, and by discussions with experts i n the transportation f i e l d . B.C. Fe r r i e s ' patrons could become an important source of income to the l o c a l business community. The res u l t s of the " T r o l l ' s " survey indicated that only a small percentage of fe r r y users v i s i t the business area of Horse-shoe Bay and use i t s services. With better planning, Horseshoe Bay could a t t r a c t more fer r y users, consequently strengthening the l o c a l economy and defusing some of the l o c a l residents complaints. B. THE FERRY OPERATION IN HORSESHOE BAY HAS NEGATIVE AS WELL AS POSITIVE EFFECTS ON THE LOCAL RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. The negative impact on the r e s i d e n t i a l community occurred i n i t i a l l y i n the s i x t i e s when the B.C. Government took over the ferry operation from the Black B a l l Company and acquired r e s i d e n t i a l l o t s for i t s r i g h t of way. As a r e s u l t , the r e s i d e n t i a l area closer to the ferry terminal and i t s roads deteriorated and land speculation spread. Another negative e f f e c t i s the unesthetic appearance of the terminal f a c i l i t i e s . Its overwhelming size i s ap-parent from every corner of the r e s i d e n t i a l area. The problems of appearance and size can be minimized through design and planning. The p o s i t i v e attributes seem to be more important, e s p e c i a l l y i f the negative aspects are resolvable. The p o s i t i v e attributes are mostly economic. Local residents fi n d employment with the ferry operation as well as with the l o c a l businesses that provide services to the ferry users. The B.C. Ferries enterprise, as a source of income has an enormous poten t i a l to strengthen l o c a l business ac-t i v i t i e s i n Horseshoe Bay which today do not l i v e up to t h i p o t e n t i a l . C. FERRY TERMINALS CAN OPERATE BESIDE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES AND MAINTAIN GOOD RELATIONS WITH THEM. This conclusion was derived from the correspondence with ferry terminals i n Europe. Those terminals which are located near a r e s i d e n t i a l community responded p o s i t i v e l y and even warmly about good r e l a t i o n s with r e s i d e n t i a l com-munities. The f e r r y system i n Europe i s accepted as an essen-t i a l transportation mode by the l o c a l economy, and an i n t e g r a l part of Europe's history of water transportation and human settlements. D. HORSESHOE BAY IS AN IMPORTANT LINK IN THE TOTAL TRANS- ' PORTATION SYSTEM OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. This conclusion was derived from the comparison study between Horseshoe Bay and Deep Cove. Even though the two communities started out i n a similar way, Horseshoe Bay became a port town with a high turnover of i t s population and a business core which i s growing i n response to the ,demand for t o u r i s t and recreational services. Deep Cove became a bedroom community for a higher income group of residents who r e s i s t any increase i n commercial development beyond what i s needed to serve the l o c a l community.- Residents;-are prdudLof:.their neighbour-hood and have control over l o c a l issues i n dealings with t h e i r municipality. Horseshoe Bay i s located s t r a t e g i c a l l y at a most convenient s i t e . I t i s the shortest route, between ^ .Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland; i t i s also protected and sheltered from the ocean. The timing of other developments on the North Shore diverted the fo c a l i n t e r e s t for water transportation devel-opments to Horseshoe Bay. Any other option to develop a ferry terminal on the Lower Mainland f a i l e d mostly because of s o c i a l and technical problems, such, as: no natural sheltered water. Deep Cove, on the other hand, i s located on the Fraser River on Indian Arm. It i s not located on any major highways and i s considered by many people to be the end of the road, -n 147 a place to hide i n nature. If any development were to take place on Indian Arm i n the future, Deep Cove has the poten-t i a l to become a springboard for those who would need to use water transportation. But i t i s very hard to foresee an-other ferry operation on a scale as large as that i n Horse-shoe Bay. E . l . MAINTAINING THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES IN HORSESHOE BAY IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR RETAINING THE SPECIAL IMAGE OF HORSESHOE BAY AND ITS PEOPLE. Since the beginning Horseshoe Bay was a resort area, a springboard to other destinations, a pleasant place to l i v e and v i s i t . Side by side, these a c t i v i t i e s grew i n scale and si z e , changed over the years and influenced each other. Elimination of any one of these elements would upset or even destroy the unique combination of Horseshoe Bay's attra c t i o n s . E . 2 . RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT IS THE COMMERCIAL STRENGTH OF HORSESHOE BAY. Horseshoe Bay should not attempt to compete commer-c i a l l y with ex i s t i n g shopping centres on the North Shore. Its commercial focus should be small-scale, emphasizing goods and services compatible with i t s resort setting. People are attracted to Horseshoe Bay because of i t s beautiful scenery, l o c a l recreational f a c i l i t i e s , and the fascination of i t s constant waterfront a c t i v i t y . V i s i t o r s stay for a short time to relax and soon they return home -< 148 which i s , i n most cases, a short distance from Horseshoe Bay. F . l . HORSESHOE BAY WAS ALWAYS AN IMPORTANT LINK IN WATER TRANSFORATION FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA. . This observation flows from the history of Horseshoe Bay though some l o c a l residents would prefer i t to be an exclusively r e s i d e n t i a l community. In e a r l i e r days Horseshoe Bay was approachable only by water since no roads connected i t with Vancouver. Later, loggers used the harbour to transport t h e i r logs and, more recently, with the introduction of ferry service, i t became an important l i n k to Vancouver Island. F . 2 . THE MOST VOCAL RESIDENTS OF HORSESHOE BAY DO NOT REPRESENT THE ENTIRE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. This observation was reached aft e r many interviews with l o c a l residents and t h e i r elected representatives. It seems that the majority of the people leave l o c a l matters to t h e i r representatives, while those who oppose the general attitude of the leaders prefer not to put up a f i g h t to defend t h e i r opinions which usually favor t o u r i s t s and commercial developments. I 14 9 7.3 Major Design Conclusions G. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF: LACK ] OF RESIDENTIAL PRIVACY, CONSTANT TRAFFIC CONGESTION, LACK OF PARKING SPACE, SHORTAGE OF HOUSING, THE INFLUX OF VISITORS TO THE BAY AREA, AND THE OVERWHELMING PRESENCE OF THE FERRY TERMINAL AND ITS PARKING LOT? Each design recommendation serves as the resolution of a s p e c i f i c problem. The problem: lack of r e s i d e n t i a l privacy The design conclusions: Separate t r a f f i c c i r c u l a t i o n for l o c a l residents, from the pattern for ferry users and v i s i t o r s . Block r e s i d e n t i a l streets and prevent through t r a f f i c . - Design a buffer zone between the ferry terminal and the r e s i d e n t i a l area. The problem: constant t r a f f i c congestion The design conclusions: Improve t r a f f i c c i r c u l a t i o n by separating the v i s i t o r s and ferry users t r a f f i c from the l o c a l residents t r a f f i c . Reroute the e x i s t i n g bus route to provide more convenient stops for ferry users and v i s i t o r s to Horseshoe Bay. The problem:• lack of parking space The design conclusions: Expand the B.C. Fer r i e s parking l o t to accomodate some future growth. 150 - Provide more parking space around the business areaT The problem: shortage of housing units The design conclusions: Add about 200 l i v i n g units designed to accomodate part of the demand. The l i v i n g units w i l l house people who would l i k e to l i v e near the business area. Units w i l l vary i n square feet to meet the demand for various apartment sizes. Upgrade a rundown block and strengthen the mix of the r e s i d e n t i a l area by creating an urban renewal project on the seven r e s i d e n t i a l l o t s zoned RS4 west of Bruce Street. The problem: i n f l u x of v i s i t o r s to the Bay Area The design conclusions: Provide more commercial a c t i v i t i e s i n the Bay Area. - Add seasonal attractions to the waterfront. Provide more street parking near the commercial area and thereby reduce parking on r e s i d e n t i a l streets. Protect r e s i d e n t i a l privacy by buffer zones. Separate t r a f f i c c i r c u l a t i o n . The problem: the overwhelming size of the fe r r y terminal, i t s parking l o t and feeder roads The design conclusions: While i t would be d i f f i c u l t to disguise the terminal structure, the harsh look of the terminal can be sof-thened through design elements l i k e colour and vegetation. Design a new parking structure which should be low to o f f s e t the size of the terminal and which should incorporate more pleasing design elements. Bui l d housing units over the f e r r y waiting lanes which w i l l cover the scar the roads leave on the mountainside. These conclusions are not f i n a l and are not the only answer to the problems i n Horseshoe Bay. But these design solutions have the p o t e n t i a l to contribute to Horseshoe Bay's becoming a more a t t r a c t i v e place to l i v e , v i s i t and t r a v e l through. The design implementation demonstrates that through physical changes i t i s possible to achieve resolutions for the e x i s t i n g problems i n Horseshoe Bay. I t was learned that elimination of the problem i s not necessarily the best solution. In spite of much c r i t i c i s m towards the B.C. Fer r i e s Corporation, i t was learned that t h i s operation, aft e r a l l , does contribute to the economic a c t i v i t i e s of the Bay Area and has an enormous potential for further benefit.there. Collaboration of the various i n t e r e s t groups i n Horseshoe Bay w i l l contribute towards a better compre-hensive plan for the Bay Area and w i l l benefit each one of them. 7.4 Recommendations for further research 1. A LINK BETWEEN THE TRAIN : SERVICE AND .THE,"FERRY ..TERMINAL IS A POSSIBILITY. A study should be conducted to analyze the p o s s i b i -l i t i e s of t r a i n service during busy seasons and the poten-t i a l market for such services. Train service would o f f e r a public transportation alternative which would help to a l l e v i a t e the congestion of car t r a f f i c i n Horseshoe Bay. Since the closure of the Squamish subdivision (a portion of the r a i l service from Vancouver to L i l l o e t ) has been considered, passenger service should be introduced from North Vancouver to Whistler Mountain that would operate on seasonal demand. 2. FUTURE NEED FOR MORE BERTHING FACILITIES SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED. In the future i t i s possible that B.C. Ferries Corporation w i l l need to increase the number of ships and ; . s a i l i n g runs on the routes from Horseshoe Bay. If more berthing f a c i l i t i e s are necessary, a serious study should .. be undertaken to investigate alternative s i t e s along the Coast. While Horseshoe Bay may be the i d e a l terminal s i t e , acceptable alternatives for berthing f a c i l i t i e s may not be as d i f f i c u l t to secure. BIBLIOGRAPHY Acres Western, Ltd., Summary Report: Market Analysis and Economic F e a s i b i l i t y Downtown-Inner Harbour Urban Renewal  Scheme: A Preliminary Investigation, prepared for the City of V i c t o r i a (Vancouver: 1968) Bartholomew (Harland) and Associates, Master Plan for Balboa Park, San Diego, C a l i f o r n i a , prepared for the City of San Diego (San Diego: I960) Bowen Island Advisory Planning Commission, The O f f i c i a l  Community Plan for Bowen Island (Bowen Island: 197 6) B r i t i s h Columbia, Province of, Department of Municipal A f f a i r s , Bureau of Transit Services, Vancouver Waterfront Terminals  and Transit Functions (Vancouver: 1974) , Ministry of the Environment, Resource Analysis Branch,, Bowen Island: A Resource Analysis for Land Use Planning, Vols. 1 & 2 (The Islands Trust: V i c t o r i a , B.C., 1978) Candeub, F l e i s s i g and Associates, Comprehensive Plan for the  Town of Palm Beach, 1970 ( Miami, F l a . , 1970) Clack, Roderick, V i c t o r i a Inner Harbour Development Recommen-dations , prepared for the Environment and Land Use Commis-sion , Province of B r i t i s h Columbia (National:Capital Com-mission: Ottawa, 1974) Centre for Transportation Studies, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, A Study of 1977 Summer T r a f f i c Between Vancouver  Island and~~the Lower Mainland, prepared for the B r i t i s h Columbia Ferries Corporation under the d i r e c t i o n of W.G. Waters II (Centre for Transportation Studies: Vancouver, 1978) DeChiara, Joseph and Lee Koppelman, Manual of Housing/Planning  and Design C r i t e r i a (Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Englewood C l i f f s , N.J., 1975) Erickson (Arthur) Architects, Inner Harbour Study ( V i c t o r i a : 1973) Fox, M., and A. Mikeoun, Cha-hai (Gleneagles PTA: Horseshoe Bay, 1971) Goodman, William I, and E r i c C. Freund, P r i n c i p l e s and Prac-t i c e of Urban Planning, prepared for the I n s t i t u t e for Training and Municipal.Administration (International C i t y Managers' Association: Washington, D.C., 1968) Gottlieb-Tanaka, Dalia; Heise, Patrick; Meyer ,.\Guenter and Alfonso Tejada, "Formats for the Approval Process: An Aid to Discuss and Judge the Impact of A r c h i t e c t u r a l . Proposals on Man and his Environment," unpublished paper submitted i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of requirements for Architecture 500. 1978 Hurst, Michael E. E l i o t (Ed.), Transportation Geography, Comments and Readings (McGraw-Hill Book Co.: New York, 1974) Milwaukee River Technical Study Committee, The Milwaukee  River: An Inventory of i t s Problems, An Appraisal of  i t s Potential" (Milwaukee, Wise, 1968) Ministry of Transport, Public Harbours Regulations, 15 August  1971 (Ministry of .Transport: Ottawa, 1971) M i t c h e l l , James K., Community Response to.Coastal Erosion: Individual and C o l l e c t i v e Adjustments to Hazard on the  A t l a n t i c Shored Research Paper No. 156, The University of Chicago, Department of Geography (Chicago, 1974) New South Wales, The State Planning Authority, Planning Control of Residential Development, Technical B u l l e t i n No. 3 r (New South Wales, 1972) North Vancouver D i s t r i c t , Planning & Property Department, Urban Redevelopment 1967 , , Seymour: A City i n the Suburbs, 1971 , Seymour Planning Association, Interim . Report, November. ..1972 - May 1973 • , . Influences Commit-tee, General Influences, Special Influences (Feedback Report) 1973 : , Planning &::..Prope,rty ..Department, The Deep Cove Study, 1973 ) North Vancouver D i s t r i c t , Planning & Property Department, The Natural Environment, Seymour 1, 1975 • , , The Ex i s t i n g Neighbour-hoods , Seymour 2, 1975 , , Seymour and the Livable Region, Seymour 3, 1975 , Seymour 6, Transportation, prepared by Lea (N.D.) and Associates Ltd. for the North Vancouver D i s t r i c t , 1976 , Planning & Property Department, Housing and Population, Seymour 7, 1975 , , Community F a c i l i t i e s , Seymour 8, 1976 , , Development Partners, Seymour 9, 1976 North Vancouver D i s t r i c t Council, The Development of Seymour, 1977 Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, Real Estate and Busi-ness Trends i n Metropolitan Vancouver and B r i t i s h Colum-bia (Vancouver, 1959) ' Real Estate Trends i n Metropolitan Van-couver 1966.-197 8, S t a t i s t i c a l Survey Committee, Real Estate Board (Vancouver, 197 8) Rick, William B., Planning and Developing Waterfront Property, Technical B u l l e t i n No. 49 (Urban Land I n s t i t u t e : Washing-ton, D.C., 1967) Schwilgin, F.A., Town Planning Guidelines (Department of Public Works: Ottawa, 1973) Smith, Edward K., A Guide to Economic Base Studies for Local  Communities , Blireau of Business and Economic Research, Northeastern University (Boston, 1955) Stringer, Peter & H. Wenzel, Transportation Planning for a  Better Environment (Plenum Press: New York, 1976) Transport Canada, Government Harbours and Piers Act, Govern-ment Wharves Regulations (Ottawa, 1977) Ward (Joseph B.) and Associates (International) Ltd., Commercial Requirements, Seymour 5, prepared for North Vancouver D i s t r i c t (Vancouver, 1975) ,—""T7 LIST OF INTERVIEWS Hins Berger, West Vancouver Municipality, Parks and Recreation November 1978 Peter Cotten, teacher, Gleneagles School, Horseshoe Bay, November 1978 Ray Eagle, community leader, resident of Deep Cove, November 1978 Gordon Halinsky, a r c h i t e c t , resident of Horseshoe Bay, October 1978 Leona Jahnes, s o c i a l planner, D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver, November 1978 Miss J a r v i s , s o c i a l worker, Ministry of Human Resources, West Vancouver, November 1978 Peter Kafka, arc h i t e c t , resident of Horseshoe Bay, November 1978 Mr. and Mrs. McKee, owners of Horseshoe Bay's boat rentals, November 1978 Vic Morgan, Planning Department, West Vancouver Municipality October 1978 Tom Sewell, marina owner i n Horseshoe Bay, November 1978 Joe T r o l l , restaurant owner i n Horseshoe Bay, November 1978 David Weisser, ar c h i t e c t , resident of Horseshoe Bay, October 1978 157 / APPENDIX \ Graduate Studies, School of Architecture, university of B r i t i s h Columbia, Bwicouver, B.C. December of 1978. 158 Survey of Horseshoe Eay I am a student at IT.B.C.,- School of Architecture, working on my master's t h e s i s . The thesis deals with the impact of the f e r r y terminal operation on the community of Horseshoe Bay. • . I t vrould be deeply appreciated i f you would answer the following f i v e (5) questions. Your name i s not necessary and the questions are very general. Please mark the box that applies to you. You may mark more than one box. 1. 7?hy are you i n Horseshoe Bay? | T a . V i s i t i n g friends or r e l a t i v e s . Shopping. I Tb» Using the f e r r y . P"] c. Using the marinas. 2, Where do you l i v e ? f |a. Outside of Canada. fb. Another Province i n Canada. | (c. The lower Mainland of B.C. Q e . Working i n Horseshoe Bay r ^ { f . Other (please say) f f d. Vancouver Island. [ *)e. The Interior of B.C. 3. (This question i s only f o r those viho work i n Horseshoe Bay). If you work i n Horseshoe Bay, vjhere do you l i v e ? [ )a. Horseshoe Bay. ( }b. Vfest Vancouver. 4. How long w i l l you stay i n Horseshoe Bay? 1 )a» A few hours. X 3"fc>» One day. | j o . One day and one night. 5 . iVhat do you l i k e i n Hcrseshoe Eay? a. (Please say) {""""] c • Elsewhere . j |d. Not applicable. | |d. A week. [ [e. Other (please say) Thank you very much f o r your help! PKSSir 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094927/manifest

Comment

Related Items