UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Ports and public access : developing an approach for recognizing the opportunities for public access… Burke, D. Leslie 1971

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1971_A6_7 B87.pdf [ 13.79MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101833.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101833-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101833-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101833-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101833-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101833-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101833-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101833-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101833.ris

Full Text

PORTS AND PUBLIC ACCESS: DEVELOPING AN APPROACH FOR RECOGNIZING THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE PORT-ORIENTED URBAN WATERFRONT by D. Leslie Burke B.Sc, St. Mary's University, 1969 and Stephen Hugh Silverman B.A., Boston University, 1965 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the School of Community and Regional Planning We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard. The University of British Columbia May 1971 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date A P R ) / ^ , )Q7/ i i i PREFACE This study is concerned with developing an approach by which the impact of changing technology and land use can be viewed as an opportunity to increase public access to the port-oriented urban waterfront. Like most, this study represents the fruition of an idea developed over many months. In part, the idea was spawned during the summer of 1970 when both authors, under the direction of Dr. V.S. Pendakur, were engaged in a series of studies concerned with developmental activities which directly and indirectly involved the Port of Vancouver. Through what was initially a personal but rather casual concern for recreational use of the downtown water-front emerged the larger issue of the port's changing profile and the opportunities which it provided. In the early conceptualization and development of a study, one is host to numerous ideas, approaches, and perspectives. When two people collaborate to write a study -- as in this case -- the number of ideas and their subsequent interactions can prove sufficiently formidable as to make a task unworkable. Happily, this rather unpro-ductive situation did not emerge in the instance of this paper because of the many similar views shared by the authors and because of early agreement on several basic issues. Initially, a decision was made that the study must be both exploratory and explanatory. The iv research experience gained during the summer of 1970 indicated that great quantities of information regarding the topic to be con-sidered were already available, albeit in many scattered and some-times obscure places. While acknowledging the academic significance of generating original data, it was felt that an appropriate aggre-gation of existing data coupled with a presentation and analysis of current trends was both sorely needed and of infinitely greater practical value. For it was in the proper combination of the available data that trends could be perceived and planning opportun-ities appreciated. Tt was then decided that a general explication of the issue was insufficient; rather, that the study must specifically examine a single area in order to proyide an opportunity for the nuances of the problem to emerge. Thus the form and approach were, set: a broadly based but detailed consideration of the changing port-oriented urban waterfront, followed by an in-depth study of a single such waterfront — Vancouver, British Columbia. In an undertaking such as this one -- concerned as it is with many cities and many waterfront developments -- generalizations are sometimes inescapable. However, in that part of the study dealing specifically with Vancouver, it must be assumed that the conclusions drawn in that section relate only to that city. The parallels from the study of Vancouver that are of general application are discussed in the concluding chapter. As tn any Instance of joint development and authorship, it can become extraordinarily difficult to identify chapters or divisions of the total piece as the work of one or the other author. Such is the case with this study. Nonetheless, as it is necessary to indiv-idually ascribe authorship, it can be said that both authors shared fully in the development of Chapters IV and V, that D. Leslie Burke was primarly responsible for Chapter II and the Appendix, and that Stephen H. Silverman was primarily responsible for Chapters T and III. vi ABSTRACT Traditionally located within the hearts of cities adjacent to the city core, ports utilize a continuous section of the urban waterfront. In recent years technological innovations within the shipping industry have had a dramatic impact on port development. But even as ports undergo internal changes, they are also subject to pressures from the cities which surround them. The result of this interaction is a condition of change that provides an opportunity for satisfying urban planning goals. This study examines how the opportunity for one of those goals, that of increasing public access to the port-oriented urban waterfront, may be recognized within this context of change. As both an explanatory and exploratory report, the study first broadly considers the elements that interact to bring about change along the port-oriented urban waterfront and then specifically considers the Port and the City of Vancouver, British Columbia. The thesis that results from the study is that the recognition of opportunities for public access to the port-oriented urban waterfront can be developed through an analysis of public planning goals, changing shipping technology, and the competition for waterfront land. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. LAND USE IN TRANSITION - A CONCEPTUAL INTRODUCTION . . . 1 A. Changes in Urban Form 1 B. Changes in Port Technology 4 C. The Port Oriented Urban Waterfront 6 D. Purpose of the Study 11 IX THE WORKING WATERFRONT - AN OVERVIEW OF THE PORT FUNCTION 17 A. Introduction 17 B. Waterfront Development 18 C. The Working Waterfront 21 1. The Deep Sea Port Site 21 2. The Inland Port Site 24 3. Port Hinterlands 26 4. Port Operations 29 5. Inland Transport 35 6. Passenger Service 38 7. Waterfront Industry: Water Oriented 41 8. Waterfront Industry: Non-Water Oriented 41 D. Shipping Technology 45 1. Containerization 45 2. Supercarriers 51 v i i i Chapter Page III. THE NON-WORKING WATERFRONT - A STUDY OF REDEVELOPMENT . . 61 A. Survey Approach 61 B. Development Impetus 62 C. Redevelopment Objectives 65 D. Public Access Tssues 69 IV. CASE STUDY - VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA 80 A. The Setting 82 1. The Lower Mainland and Metropolitan Vancouver . . 82 2. The City of Vancouver 82 B. The Inner Harbour 94 1. Goals 98 2. Physical and Visual Access 103 3. Legal Access 108 4. Zoning and Land Values 109 5. Physical Character 122 6. Land Transportation Network 128 7. Land Use 132 8. Utilization of Site Advantage 136 C. The Port of Vancouver 141 1. Historic Development . 142 2. Resource and Export Orientation 145 ix Chapter Page 3. Hinterland Change 149 4. Containerization and General Cargo 156 5. Facility and Industrial Location 168 6. Economic Impact 177 D. Summary and Conclusions 185 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 200 A. Summary 201 B. General Conclusions and Planning Methodology . . . . 205 C. Further Study 212 BIBLIOGRAPHY 214 Appendix I. Cargo Tonnage, Port of Vancouver and City of Vancouver Study Area, 1955 - 1970 224 II Berths and Berthing Accommodations, Port of Vancouver and City of Vancouver Study Area, 1955-1970 231 III Ports of North America 236 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Interior and Exterior Ports 22 2. Inland Cargo Movements by Mode, United States, 1960, 1965 . 36 3. Round Trip Passenger Fare, New York to London 1966 . . . . 39 4. Examples of Waterfront Industries Based on Use 42 5. Water Required in the Production Process in Selected Industries 43 6. Vancouver and British Columbia Population Forecasts . . . . 86 7. Inner Harbour Land Use 97 8. Greater Vancouver Land Value . . . . . . • 113 9. Greater Vancouver Industrial Land Values 115 10. City of Vancouver, Land Value by Use and Area 116 11. City of Vancouver, Waterfront Property Assessment 1970 . . 117 12. Greater Vancouver, Freight Movement by Air 130 13. Inner Harbour, Land Use Characteristics 139 14. Inner Harbour, Utilization of Site Advantage 140 15. B.C. Ports, Foreign Trade Cargo Tonnage Handled in 1965 . . 144 16. Coastal Activity Generated by the Port of Vancouver . . . . 146 17. Port of Vancouver, Major Commodities 1970 147 18. Vancouver-Montreal Port Tonnages, 1955 - 1970 149 19. Port of Vancouver Coal Movement, 1935 - 1970 153 .XT Table Page 20. Port of Vancouver Cargo Forelands, 1967 155 21. Port of Vancouver, Cargo Forecasts to 1985 158 22. Port of Vancouver, Containerized Cargo Forecasts . . . . 162 23. Port of Vancouver, General Cargo Import Hinterland . . . 165 24. Port of Vancouver, Distribution of Berthing Accommodations 1955 - 1970 174 25. Inner Harbour, Cargo-Generated Income 180 26. Inner Harbour, Cargo-Generated Employment 180 27. Marine Multiplier Applied to the Inner Harbour 181 28. Port of Vancouver Impact on Income and Employment . . . . 183 xi i LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Hinterland Concepts 27 2. Berthing Configurations 30 3. Transatlantic Passenger Service 40 4. Canadian International Shipping 46 5. Growth in Size of Vessels, 1945 - 1975 52 6. Western Canada 40 7. Metropolitan Vancouver 83 8. City of Vancouver, Municipal Statistics 88 9. City of Vancouver, Population Density 89 10. Metropolitan Vancouver, Commercial Floorspace 90 11. City of Vancouver, Commercial Floorspace 92 12. Downtown Vancouver, Business Structure 93 13. City of Vancouver, Waterfront Land Use 95 14. Inner Harbour Study Area 96 15. Inner Harbour Street System 104 16. Inner Harbour Waterfront Rail System 105 17. Inner Harbour Zoning, 1955 Ill 18. Inner Harbour Zoning, 1970 112 19. Downtown and Waterfront Land Values, 1961 . . . .' 118 20. Inner Harbour Study Sub-Areas 119 xi i i Figure Page 21. Inner Harbour Study Suh-Areas, Assessment Value Changes . . 120 22. Inner Harbour, Slopes 123 23 A Inner Harbour Water Depth 125 23 B Inner Harbour Water Depth 126 24. Burrard Inlet Sewage Outfalls 127 25. City of Vancouver, Major Land Transportation Network . . .129 26. City of Vancouver, Traffic Flow 133 27 A Inner Harbour, Port Facilities and Land Use 134 i 27 B Inner Harbour, Port Facilities and Land Use 135 28 A Inner Harbour, Condition of Structures 137 28 B Inner Harbour, Condition of Structures . 138 29. Port of Vancouver Tonnage Movement, 1955 - 1970 148 30. Port of Vancouver, Shift in Grain Foreland 151 31. Port of Vancouver, Shift in Coal Foreland 152 32. Projected Growth of World Population 154 33. Port of Vancouver, Deep Sea Cargo Tonnages 157 34. Port of Vancouver, Growth of Prime Containerizable Cargo . 161 35. Port of Vancouver Imports, Growth in Container!'zation . . .164 36. City of Vancouver, Warehousing Areas 166 37. Port of Vancouver Cargo Movement, City and Out-of-City Terminals 170 -XtV Chapter Page 38. Port of Vancouver Berthing facilities 1955 173 39. Port of Vancouver Berthing Facilities 1970 174 40. Inner Harbour, Major functional Areas 188 .XV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Appreciation for the encouragement and support received during the development of this study is due to Dr. V\ Setty Pendakur, Professor Paul 0. Roer, Professor William Rees, and the Richard King Mellon Foundation. In the formulation and writing of this study it was a sincere pleasure to work with Les and to unravel the mysteries of containerization and the transportation option. But most credit must go to H.B., whose hopes and consi-derations made many things possible and who made us able to stop calling Mar Vista home. S.H.S ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Appreciation for the encouragement and support in the early conceptualization and development of this study is extended to Dr. V.S. Pendakur. Thanks also are due to Professor Paul 0. Roer and Professor William Rees who contributed extensive criticism to the study as it neared completion. Finally, I wish to express grateful appreication for the opportunity to work with Steve and develop not only the study but a lasting friendship. D. L. B. CHAPTER I LAND USE IN TRANSITION - A CONCEPTUAL INTRODUCTION To attempt an understanding of any issue, one must haye an idea both of the context in which that issue exists and the perspective from which it is viewed. Since many seemingly simple issues are the summation of numerous concepts and employ a sometimes esoteric vocabulary, it becomes additionally necessary to explore the composite of ideas that meld to form the apparent issue. To begin to satisfy these requirements, this chapter provides a general conceptual introduction to the problems and opportunities brought on by change within the central city port-oriented waterfront in regard to increased public access. A. CHANGES IN URBAN FORM The nature of change in human settlements has had a strong influ-ence on the development of a point of view from which to consider pub-lic access and the working waterfront. In 1967, Julius Stulman emphasized the need to "develop a methodology for dealing with change that provides for maximizing our potential abilities as a constant factor within div-erse and changing patterns of our human ecology."^ The concern with the nature of change is thus summed: an awareness of its force and a reali-zation that we must recognize change in process to understand and benefit from i t . 2 The physical form of the city is the result of a continual change. The evolution has not merely affected the physical stze of the city but it has broadly altered the manner, locale, and even spirit of settlement. An obvious example that runs through the full course of history is the constantly changing relation between the center and the periphery of the city. In the Middle Ages and through much of the Renaissance, the center of the city was favored as the living quarter and the outskirts were generally viewed as less favorable for residen-2 tial development. The center was the market square where craftsmen made and sold goods in their homes and market halls were used for the 3 sale of single commodities such as cloth, fur, shoes, bread, and grain. Within the center of the city lived not only the low or moderately incomed tradesmen and craftsmen but the wealthy as well. Towns were to a certain degree self-supporting and, while this grew less true as time went on, it meant that an efficient and ~ in those times of relatively primitive transportation -- concentrated population settlement was necessary.^ But in the latter part of the Renaissance and particularly in the Baroque period, there is a shift away from the center as a desir-able place for residential development. The increasing concentration of capital and the greater mobility of money as a means of exchange led to speculation on urban sites. In consequence, the poor quarters were separated from those of the rich; the former were more densely built up than the latter. The poor class was restricted to the older and less healthy quarters, or housed in new dwellings erected as objects of 5 speculation. 3 The emerging social and economic order had far reaching effects on the relationship among the places men lived, worked, and sold. Sale and production, home and workshop, became separated. Life was divided between the dwelling place and the office or workshop and, though the distances v/ere still short, the journey to and from the place of work became an important part of daily life. The need for communication grew. Ultimately, In the nineteenth and especially the twentieth centuries, through the transportation/communication advances of a technological society and the increasing separation of home and place of work, the residential function of the central part of the city eyolved to only a small degree; that function was taken over by the outlying districts. The centripetal struc-ture gave way to a centrifugal one.6 Historically too, the impact of particular geographic characteristics strongly influenced urban develop-ment. It has been said that today there are certain great cities in which a disproportionate part of the world's most important business is conducted: London, Paris, Moscow, New York, Tokyo. They have been christened the 'World Cities' 7, and they are all seaports. In 1968, the seven largest metropolitan areas in the United States contained 20% of o that nation's population. They too were all seaports. In 1969, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development reported that 80% of cities with a population greater than a million had harbors with a g draft of 25-30 feet. In Canada, the major metropolitan areas of Montreal, Toronto, and "Vancouver are also major portsJ° The significant if obvious interrelation is that bodies of water substantially influenced 4 the location and pattern of development tn a multitude of metropolitan areas. A century or more ago, water courses had the same dramatic influence on metropolitan development as do the modern expressways. Oceans, rivers, and lakes provided an important transport medium and early industrial, commercial, and residential settlements developed around natural harbours. These Initial settlements traditionally evolved into the city's major business district and, though the business center was originally spawned by activity along the waterfront, it eventually developed a momentum of Its own and gradually grew independent of the harbour. The proximity of most ports — herein called "working waterfronts" — and major downtown business areas — the central business district (CBD) — is the result of historic location forces. B. CHANGES IN PORT TECHNOLOGY Today, within most important cities in North America and throughout the world, the oldest developed areas are adjacent to the water. Because of the age of these areas, it is not surprising that waterfront blight is common. Buildings and piers are frequently abandoned and shoreline structures are not maintained. In reporting on deterioration within major working waterfronts, the Wisconsin Department of Resource Development cites as causes 0 ) the disappearance of certain waterborne shipments on which a 5 port was dependent, C2) the Inability of a port to handle the newer, larger vessels, C3) the loss of traffic to better facilities elsewhere — often built with public money.^ The urban waterfront, like any other com-ponent in the complex system that is the city, is in the process of change. But industries that exist only in port-oriented waterfronts are the ones most susceptible to the problems that changing technology and urban pressure can bring about. As far back as 1928, it was recognized by the Institution of Civil Engineers that A port which can offer quick dispatch will attract ships and by dealing with increased tonnage will also increase its earning power on the capital outlay on the port works, such as entrance-channel, locks, quays, wharves, sheds, railways, etc. It is therefore good policy for a port to spend money on cargo-handling appliances as intensively as possible, special consideration being given to the class of vessel likely to use the docks, the nature of the cargo to be handled, and the hinterland to be served by the docks.12 None of this is less true today than it was then. But the equipment of 1928 is now obsolete both in form and function. s Ship construction and world trade patterns have gone through numerous phases, each requiring alterations in port facilities. More so, technological advances have become so rapid that even new equipment can grow rapidly out of date. An official of the International Cargo Hand!trig Co-ordination Assocfatton responded to a query on whether modern port 6 facilities would be obsolete in a few years in this manner: "It's hard to say. Prophecy is dangerous in a business where two and two 13 seldom come to four." Because of the great capital expenditure required and considerable time-lag in construction (a new berth, or even reconstructing an old one, can take up to five years), port equipment and facilities are normally intended for long term use.^ Thus ports become the least flexible link in the transportation chain. But change continues to occur within the shipping industry and the working port must anticipate and respond to change if it is to remain economically viable. The technological revolution that is having such considerable physical impact on the modern port is having an equally important impact on the thinking of port operators. Because of the great changes which must be brought about in port facilities to accommodate the requirements of modern waterborne transport, many of the old rules of port location, construction, and capital outlay — once taken for granted -- are now being re-examined. And it is because of this re-examination of not simply the port operation but of the role of the entire waterfront that the winds of change are beginning to blow strong. C. THE PORT ORIENTED URBAN WATERFRONT: PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES Earlier, the changing relation between the center and the periphery 7 of the city was discussed. It has been suggested that the results of the increasing development of the periphery will eventually lead to the emergence of the centerless region — metropolitan areas grown so large that there is no longer any real core. Perhaps this is so. Alternatively, it has also been suggested that some of the major modern cities are now experiencing an "implosion" of sorts and that a new centripetal force is drawing j_n and re-establishing the impor-tance of the core or city center. In either case, regardless of the direction of the trend, a change in land use within the core is explicit. As city form and structure evolve, "new" uses of "old" land emerge. There is a form of perpetual succession at work: the same plot of land serves as the site of myriad land uses, with each new use emerging from the economics and Zeitgeist of the age. Agricul-tural areas become residential or industrial areas which become or adjotn commercial and business areas which become hearts of great cities or slums or both. But characteristic of metropolitan expansion is a shortage of land, particularly within the center of the city or region. Because of the proximity of ports to the centers of important cities, the pressure for more land is felt both by the city and the port. While port enterprises require more land to accommodate increased traffic and the new facilities required by advanced shipping technology, and the city which surrounds the port begins to view the urban working waterfront as an area where land should be made 8 available to accommodate a growing population, an expanding economy, and social and political aims of the city. The competition that has developed, coupled with the current re-evaluation of port .operation and function, makes the atmosphere of change even more volatile. The urban waterfront -- that linear section of the central city fringed by a waterway, particularly the area adjacent to the CBD — has characteristics which it shares with other land forms, e.g., soil types, slopes, even land use and economic value. But particular com-binations of characteristics distinguish one land area from another. At a very detailed level, of course — one where an area is described by an Infinite array of characteristics — it will become totally unique. But we are here concerned with the fact that particular char-acteristics of the urban waterfront set it apart from other types of land and make it more desirable and/or more attractive for certain kinds of development. The use of the urban waterfront in the port function has been introduced. But there are many other functions that urban waterfront land can satisfy. It can provide open space within the city and serye as a break in the repetitive patterns of urbanization. The surface water itself and the irregularity of the shore line offer contrasts to the more linear elements within the city. The increased interest in historic preservation is often especially meaningful to the waterfront, because so much of a community's history is associated with water. In Australia, within the key cities of Sydney, Melbourne, 9 Adelaide, Perth, and Hobart, the port function plays a vital role in economic activity. Yet these cities manage to devote half of their waterfront land to park and recreational uses. As industrial and trade centers which emphasize the port function, they evidence that a high proportion of waterfront land can be devoted to recreation 15 while maintaining a viable economy. But increasingly, city governments are becoming aware of the need to Integrate public use of the downtown waterfront with the existing port-oriented uses. Traditionally, the port-oriented urban waterfront is an enclave of private enterprise where the public is restricted --if not actually prohibited — from access. In some cities, the devel-oping awareness involyes an attempt to unite elements of the city Into a recognizable whole. For others, public access to the working water-front is a means of achieving economic and developmental goals. The urban working waterfront has traditionally been a private area, sep-arated both visually and physically from the rest of the city. The currently popular form of achieving public access to this area is not simply through upgrading and increasing public roads and transportation services, but through the more ambitious encouragement and building of public and private large-scale multiple-use developments along the harbourfront. Public access through recreational development Is emerging in several major North American cities. Recreation facilities within the city center and along the urban waterfront are provided not 10 merely as an alternative to crowded urban living conditions, but in the belief that parks and recreational facilities are vital to a quality living environmentJ6 By recognizing the opportunity provided by the change in water-front land utilization, there is the potential for infusing new life and amenity into the city. To this end, many of the world's ports serve multiple-use functions as naval bases, yacht marinas, and/ or as a base for fishing fleets.^ 7 In addition, there are the new uses for old port structures. Abandoned bulkheads, for example, are 18 often used as supports for new piers. And rather than representing additional use of port facilities, these functions evidence instead an additional exploitation of the port configuration. As urban populations continue to grow -- no matter what the relative city/suburb split waterfront land will come under increas-ing pressure. Because of current port and cargo-handling technologies and the alterations that they are bringing about in land use, the profile of the waterfront is changing at a relatively rapid pace. But as urban populations grow more dense and as leisure time continues to increase, the need for recreational facilities rises. The urban waterfront, because of its location and amenities, becomes particularly attractive. No one doubts that land use along the urban waterfront is going to change. That much is inevitable. It is perhaps more diffi-cult to determine where and at what points a transition will occur or land will become available. But to take advantage of the change requires anticipatory planning. n D. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The delineation of an approach, as attempted in this paper, Is undertaken with a view toward its use by a public planning agency. It is an obvious but underutilized principle that planning decisions should not represent ad hoc responses to issues but should in fact be recognizable elements inthe greater mosaic of public goals which, themselyes, must be well enunciated. If the policies and strategies used to satisfy public goals remain unchanged over time, it is not unusual for succeeding generations to view them as either arbitrary or abrasive. Thus a planning agency must be aware of demographic and qualitative changes within the population and within the physical land areas under Its jurisdiction, particularly changes in lifestyle and values, affluence and technology. Once public goals have been formulated or updated, the challenge becomes one of defining signifi-cant issues that relate to the satisfaction of goals. Problem defin-ition comes in two stages: 0 ) recognizing the issue, and C2) analyzing its elements. It is to just such a planning problem that this thesis is addressed since a policy of increasing public access to the waterfront is frequently stated by city or regional planning authorities, but Its accomplishment may be limited or lost because opportunities go unrecognized. 13 It is. contended that the alternate uses for waterfront land that will be available in the future must be considered how. Public objec-tives must be determined and strategies must be formulated sufficiently in advance to assure that public access to the urban waterfront can become an integral part of waterfront development. Were cities to wait too long, the urbe^n waterfront would be subsumed by developments designed for decades and a remarkable opportunity lost. This study looks at the urban waterfront in an attempt to extra-polate those elements that can be used to determine the growing oppor-tunities for public access; it demonstrates that recognition of the opportunities for public access to the port-oriented urban waterfront can be developed through an analysis of public planning goals, changing shipping technology, and the competition for waterfront land. In examination of this thesis, the following positions are taken: 1. In Canada, national and local planning goals for public access to the port-oriented urban waterfront are either non-existent or non-operational. 2. Changes in shipping vessel technology and in terminal facilities are resulting in both new and more intense land use requirements within the port. 3. Economic and population pressures force a competition for waterfront land in which industrial and port-oriented users cannot successfully compete. The impetus for change along the port-oriented urban waterfront is obsolescence. The land transport network serving the port acts as a deterrent to public access to the waterfront. Public access to the port-oriented urban waterfront is prompted primarily by economic and developmental goals and not because of any recognition of a public right to waterfront access. Public access can be integrated into the fabric of the port^oriented urban waterfront. 15 FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER I 1. Julius Stulman, Evolving Mankind's Future (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1967), p. 42. 2. E.A. Gutkind, The Twilight of Cities, CNew York; The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962), p. 45. 3. Ibid., p. 37 4. Ibid., p. 21. 5. Ibid., p. 36. 6. Ibid., p. 44. 7. Peter Hall, The World Cities (London: Weindenfeld and Nichol-son, 1966), p. 7. 8. As reported in the U.S. Statistical Abstract of 1970, those metropolitan areas are: New York, Los Angeles-Long Beach, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detraoit, Boston, San Francisco-Oakland. Their combined populations at the time was in excess of 40,420,000. 9. Parsons, Brinckerhoof, Quade & Douglas Engineers, "Multi-Use Port Configurations", World Ports (February 1970), p. 4. 10. A list of ports and harbours in the United States and Canada will be found in Appendix III. 11. Wisconsin Department of Resource Development, Waterfront  Renewal (Madison: Wisconsin Department of Resource Development, 1968), p. 12. 12. Henry Ashman Reed, Appliances for Handling Goods in Ports and  Docks, Vernon-Harcourt Lecture, 1927-28 (London: The Institution of Civil Engineers, 1928), p. 3. 13. R.B. Oram, Cargo Handling and the Modern Port (London: Pergamon Press, 1965), p. 78. 14. Ibid., p. 79. 15. C.N. Forward, "Coastal Cities of Australia", Community  Planning Review, Fall 1970, pp. 15, 17. 16 16. Louis F. Twardzik, "Plan for Leisure", Community Planning  Review, Fall 1970, p. 8. 17. Parsons, p. 4. 18. Donald F. Wood, "Waterfront Renewal in Metropolitan Areas", Journal of the Urban Planning and Development Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 93 CDecember 1967), p. 203. 17 CHAPTER II THE WORKING WATERFRONT - AN OVERVIEW OF THE PORT FUNCTION A. INTRODUCTION With two~thirds of the earth covered with water, man never travelled far overland before being confronted by the aquatic environment. Tt was to land's end he came as hunter and fisherman. And even as he adopted an agrarian lifestyle, man's dependency on waterbodies did not decrease, for it was along river valleys and lake shorelines that he found land most productive. With strong nomadic instincts, man used waterways as natural avenues for travel and, ever increasingly, for the transport of commodities too heavy to be easily moved overland. He followed rivers out to the seas and oceans of the world, continuously expanding his frontier to include all the globe within his reach. Clinging tenaciously to the wave^swept ocean coasts as he harvested the sea, or farming land along inland waterways, man's dependency on water travel dictated much of his early settlement pattern. As trade became an important factor in human interaction, the dependency on marine transport grew. In the shift from an agrarian to an urban lifestyle, man characteristically formed settlements at the junction of transport lines. Whenever water formed one of those lines, the land-water interface took on new importance. Over time, the func-tion of transferring goods and people from land to water within this interface became more specialized. And while man stil l lived, farmed, fished, and hunted at water's edge, he also learned to coexist with the port function that had become an increasingly more visible part of his environment. 18 As time went on, urban lifestyles became more specialized and more diverse. This diversity was particularly reflected in the increasingly complex development patterns within urban areas. But as a legally en-forceable system which separated land areas by use evolved, it became common for man to work in a strictly industrial or commercial district and to live in a strictly residential one. As these urban areas grew in complexity, so did the uses of land along the urban waterfront. Similarly divided into functional or use areas, the urban waterfront began to provide a host of new functions. This chapter is directed to a study of man's use of the port-oriented urban waterfront today. Traditional land use classifications provide many categories and sub-categories on which such a study might be based, i.e., industrial, commercial, heavy industrial, manufactur-ing, etc. For the purposes of this analysis, however, the general classifications of "non-working" and "working" waterfronts are more appropriate. B. WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT Buildable land — land affording adequate foundation strength, good drainage, and relatively even slope — is suitable for a wide range of human uses, regardless of its location. But proximity to waterways adds a further dimension to the uses of land and provides an attribute both desired and required by a range of specialized users. 19 Within this study, waterfronts are described in terms of the uses to which they are put. The "non-working" waterfront describes areas where the land abutting the water is in residential, commercial, or recreational use. These are uses which do not normally require a proximity to the water but are nonetheless frequently found at or near the water's edge. Residential development is perhaps the most common use to which man has put land. In addition to year-round waterfront residences, there is now the well-established phenomena of the summer cottage which, in taking advantage of the marine environment, evidences a more specialized use of waterfront. From this land base, a person is able to boat, swim, and pursue other leisure activities requiring water. Rapid population increases, higher family income, and expand-ing urban areas have substantially increased residential demands on waterfront landsJ Recreational use of urban waterfront has long been popular. Beaches, parks, promenades, and boating areas have traditionally served the leisure needs of man. More recently, marinas, yacht clubs, golf clubs, and children's camps have joined an expanding list of public and private recreational uses of waterfront. Even so, the increase in leisure time which has been experienced over the last half century, and the forecasts for yet further increases, indicate that the current demand for recreational use of waterfront land is only a 2 fraction of what can be expected. 20 Commercial use is the third major classification of land use common to waterfront areas. Some of the commercial users requiring waterfront locations for their operations range from large water resorts to marine suppliers and boat sales and rental businesses. Other operations such as hotels, restaurants, and shops can be part-icularly enhanced by a waterside location offering a view and the special environmental amenities such locations provide. In comparison to the residential, recreational, and commercial uses of the waterfront, one must consider the major uses which comprise the "working" waterfront. Industrial users are considered waterfront industries if they require large volumes of water in their processing or if they are 3 directly dependent on water transport of raw materials or products. Included as well are other industries located on waterfront lands in order to be close to suppliers or customers which are themselves waterfront industries. The requirements of working waterfront users were once satisfied in the concentrated waterfront area adjacent to the city core. Popu-lation spread around this core and in some areas waterfrontage which would have been better suited to industry was taken over by residential and recreational uses. The unregulated take-up of these lands, especially when they were outside urban boundaries, predestined their use long before city boundaries and zoning controls enveloped these suburbs. As cities grew, the summer cottages which once surrounded 21 it were converted to year-round housing, contributing to the total of 4 non-working waterfront land. C. THE WORKING WATERFRONT In addition to the industrial use of the working waterfront, one also finds many operations that combine to form what is known as the "port". The port function is one that includes elements designed to transfer goods and people from marine to inland carriers. It must include a berth for the water carrier, a place for the discharge of cargo, storage space while the cargo awaits further transhipment or use, and a land transportation linkage for its distribution and/or collection. These components are found in all port areas, although they vary in form with (1) the nature of the port site, (2) the type of vessel which serves i t , and (3) the type of cargo handled.^ 1. The Deep Sea Port Site The location of a port is an important factor in its growth and development. Basically, ports are considered to be (1) exterior and located directly on the ocean coast, or (2) interior and situated away from the open ocean. Historically, many of the world's great ports, including London on the Thames, Hamburg on the Elbe, and Montreal on the St. Lawrence, 22 TABLE 1 INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR PORTS Exterior Ports Location New York (USA) Atlantic Coast La Havre (Fr) English Channel Boston (USA) Atlantic Coast Europort (Ger) North Sea San Francisco (USA) Pacific Ocean Los Angeles - Long Beach (USA) Pacific Ocean Halifax (Can) Atlantic Ocean Seattle (USA) Pacific Ocean Interior Ports New Orleans (USA) 100 mi from Gulf of Mexico Philadelphia (USA) . . 105 mi from Delaware Bay Portland, Ore. (USA) 112 mi from Pacific Ocean Amsterdam (Hoi) 15 mi from North Sea Rotterdam (Hoi) . 18 mi from North Sea Hamburg (Ger) 67 mi from North Sea Antwerp (Belg) 50 mi from North Sea London (Eng) 67 mi from North Sea Source: Roy S. MacElwee, Ports and Terminal Facilities. have been interior ports. These centers grew as a result of a combin-ation of factors. Even though it took longer to sail to an interior port rather than to an exterior one, sailing vessels needed protection from the elements and a few days difference in travel time was not considered important; since ships were small, estuaries were usually deep enough for ocean-going vessels; most important, before the era of railraods, land transport was difficult and slow and thus a seaport located far inland often represented an economic advantage for the shipper.' 23 Modern navigation, however, has brought grave problems to many inland ports. Ships have now grown much larger and subsequent operat-ing costs are increasing. Shippers want fast easy access to ports and a rapid ship turnaround.* Further, many interior ports are unable to accommodate today's larger vessels because of inadequate channel depth and width. It is not unusual that in some inland ports, approaches and departures can only be made at high tide. Delays to larger vessels are all the more costly.^ Yet navigation problems alone are not the only consideration in 8 evaluating the port site. Ladislas Sigoe in a 1941 article on the urban waterfront identified several other factors which are relevant even today in evaluation of a port site. Along with navigation, Sigoe emphasizes that the importance of any port for waterfront commerce will be determined by such factors as its location with respect to natural trade routes, the size and character of the city, the resources of its hinterland and their stage of development, and the economic status of the population, including their ability to produce goods for export and to use and purchase imports. As a result of some of these very considerations, many interior ports which developed into urban and industrial giants like London and Hamburg have maintained a marine importance despite disadvantages in navigation. In order to improve their position, navigation on •"Turnaround time" refers to the duration of a ship's stay in port; it is the time taken up in waiting, discharging, and loading cargo. 24 connecting waterways has been improved to accommodate larger vessels. However, exterior ports and even some interior ports located not far from the ocean and which possess such amenities as favorable trade routes, location, and rich hinterlands have both made large gains relative to even the strongest inland ports. Rotterdam and Antwerp, inland ports located close to the sea with few navigational problems, have overtaken London and Hamburg as the major European ports.^ In North America, New York -- an exterior port -- has grown to become 12 the world's largest seaport. Understandably, the synergistic effect of navigational problems and changes in trade routes has often caused interior ports to be replaced by exterior locations. On the River Seine in France, the Port of La Havre, located at the mouth of the river, has become more attractive than the older ports of Vieux Port, 13 Caudebec, and Rouden, all located upstream. 2. The Inland Port Site Large land-locked waterbodies such as the Great Lakes and major continental waterways such as the Mississippi River system have devel-oped a different type of inland port. These waterways have evolved complex networks of internal trade along their shores, carried on by vessels which do not travel the oceans. On the Great Lakes system, the internal movement of passengers, freight, and especially bulk cargo in the form of iron ore and wheat has long been important 14 trade. It was on this trade that the major ports of Buffalo (New York), Chicago (Illinois), Cleveland (Ohio), Detroit (Michigan), Green 25 Bay (Wisconsin), Hamilton (Ontario), Milwaukee (Wisconsin), and Toronto 15 (Ontario) developed. Before completion of the St. Lawrence Seaway, most shipments destined out of the Lake area to transocean ports were transferred from lake vessels to ocean ships at ports like Montreal^6 which were accessible to both lake and ocean vessels. When the St. Lawrence Seaway opened in 1959, it provided direct access for ocean vessels to Great Lake ports. While the development of these ports was enhanced by the direct ocean access, interport traffic on the Lakes is still an important trade source today.^ Over the years, major river systems have maintained their impor-tance as inland transportation corridors, especially in competition with road and railway carriers in the movement of bulk cargo. For example, the Mississippi River and its tributaries provide a shipping route along which developed the riverports of St. Louis (Missouri), Cairo (Illinois), Memphis (Tennessee), Vicksburg (Mississippi), Natchez (Tennessee), Baton Rouge (Louisiana), and New Orleans (Louis-18 iana). Of these ports, only Baton Rouge and New Orleans are served by deepwater ocean shipping, i.e., vessels requiring 30 feet of water 19 depth. The other ports have developed on river commerce and are still served today by rivercraft. Rivercraft are shallow draught vessels, tugboats and barges, designed to navigate the river and 20 canal systems which comprise 4,000 miles of inland waterway. While some of these craft are extremely small (under 10 tons), large barge 26 "tows" are most common.* The largest of these carry upwards of 50,000 21 tons, rivaling most ocean vessels. 3. Port Hinterlands The word "hinterland", adapted from the German, has been used freely to mean an area served by a central place. Guido Weigand has described the port's hinterland as "organized and developed land space, which is connected to the port by means of inland transport lines, and 22 which receives or ships goods through that port." Thus a hinterland lies inland and includes all areas other than those served by deep sea transport. Weigand adds that "a port does not necessarily have exclus-ive claim to any part of its hinterland, and an inland area may be the 23 hinterland of several ports." The extent of a hinterland varies with each commodity exported and imported through the port. Import hinterlands are areas of destination for goods imported through the port, and export hinterlands are areas 24 where outbound shipments of the port originate. These import and export hinterlands need not and usually will not have the same boundaries. (See Figure 1). The aim of the hinterland shipper is the most economical movement of his cargo to its foreland destination. The foreland is the area connected to the port by deep sea vessels. In costing cargo movement, *Tows are combinations of barges linked together and propelled by tugboats. 27 28 consideration is given to (1) the inland transportation costs to the port, (2) the port transfer costs, handling storage, etc., and (3) the shipping costs from port to foreland user. The hinterland area of the port for any cargo will depend on its offer-ing the most economical routing for that cargo in competition with alternative routes. o r nc. Both H.M. Mayer and S.N. Manfred suggest the hinterland of a port can be considered as having three component parts. First, the immediate urban area hinterland, within which the port competes with all other ports for traffic and, because of proximity, is generally successful. Second, beyond this immediate urban area is a hinterland area which varies from time to time and commodity to commodity and depends on the port's relative advantages in regard to inland freight rates. The extent of this non-competitive hinterland depends upon the rate structure of inland carriers. The boundaries of this hinterland are extended or contracted by the modification of these rates. Third, there is the competitive hinterland, within which a given port must compete with other ports on the basis of frequency of sailing and quality of service offered the hinterland shipper. Of great importance to the port are both the geographical and political composition of the hinterland (the "organization") and the degree of population density, and resource and industrial activity (the "development"). These hinterland characteristics serve to define not 29 only the extent of port use and, therefore, port size, but also pres-cribe the very nature and composition of the cargo handled through the port. In turn, this latter consideration dictates the nature of port facilities. Finally, certain generalized patterns of goods movements through North American deep water ports have been observed. Census studies of goods movements established that import cargos are more regionally captive than export cargos. Further, they have determined that 72% of North American import cargos are consigned to receivers inside the urban area while 81% travel less than 100 miles from the discharge 27 berth. Large portions of these goods are unrefined bulk cargos shipped for processing from foreland resource areas to waterfront plants. 4. Port Operation The essence of the port operation is the transferring of cargo from land to water carrier. It forms the "splice" or the "knot" in the transportation line from hinterland to foreland. The efficiency and form of this function must be considered in light of the impact of port transhipment on the overall transport cost. Port transfer costs 29 often comprise 50% of the total transport costs and up to 75% of the 30 cost of transporting goods by sea. It is with this point in mind that the elements of port operation are examined, a. Berths A berth is the water space required for ship docking and 31 is the starting place of all port planning. (See Figure 2). Berths 30 WHARF ARRANGEMENT 1 tt" TRANSIT HANDLING TRANSIT STORAGE BERTHING :§i§3 LONG TERM STORAGE 1 "- I L AN D T R ANS P OR T ACC E SS BERTHING C O N F I G U R A T I O N S F I G 2 31 must provide adequate depth and width for the vessel which will tie up alongside. Berth dimensions vary greatly depending on the size of ship they are designed to accommodate. Ocean berths must provide a minimum depth of 16 feet to a maximum that ranges from 40 feet for most ocean carriers to 70 feet for some supertankers.* Widths range from 15 feet 32 to 200 feet. Berths are serviced by a dock or pier to which the ship is moored for loading and unloading. The complete facility consisting of berth, dock, and storage area for cargo at waterside is referred to as the "terminal". b. Cargos The terminal design is largely dependent on the nature of the cargo handling operation to be accommodated. Cargo handling is classified into one of three categories on the basis of cargo type: 1. General cargo, includes all packaged and manufactured goods and is low in volume and high in value. 2. Dry bulk cargo, includes all dry goods moved in an unpackaged form, such as wheat, grain, ores, coal, etc. Dry bulk cargo is low in value, high in volume. 3. Liquid bulk cargo, includes all liquid cargo moved in tanker vessels, mainly petroleum products. It is low in value, high in 33 volume. c. General Cargo Terminals General cargo requires a considerable amount of careful •"Supertankers" refers to vessels over 50,000 dwt. 32 handling which, until recently, has not been extensively mechanized at dockside. To accommodate this movement, the terminal areas must con-tain adequate berthing and land for four specific functions: 1. Transit handling and transit storage of cargo* - this includes the land or pile supported deck serving the cargo operation which influences the loading and unloading of the vessel, the aisles, aprons, shed, loading platform, truck stops, roadways, railway track, and other operation areas actually used for ship discharge and loading. 2. Access for land transportation - this includes the road and railway lines providing access and egress to the terminal area. 3. Long term cargo storage** - such storage is usually provided by warehousing near the dock and therefore does not necessitate long distance transportation and handling. 4. Auxiliary services - this includes administration, parking 34 lots, maintenance shops, and personal services. The most recent innovation in the handling of general cargo has been the introduction of containerized handling methods. The object •"Transit Handling" applies to the movement of cargo from ships to both long and short term storage areas. Cargo is often moved from a long term storage warehouse to a transit storage shed on the pier for assembly before loading on the vessel. **Long term storage is usually provided in warehousing upland from the dock. Incoming cargos are stored in these areas until consigned to the customer; outgoing cargos are stored until removed for shipment. 33 of this method is the reduction of ship turnaround time in port by reducing ship loading and unloading time. Containerization reduces dockside manual handling and saves ship time as well as damage and loss through carelessness, pilferage, and the shortages which accompany 35 manual handling of cargo. This advancement in cargo handling has been accompanied by increases in size of container ships which handle general cargo. The change to larger vessels and more efficient cargo transfer generates the need for land intensive cargo handling areas. In the future, the number of berths required to move cargo will decrease, but the amount of land needed to adequately support 37 each berth (the "back-up land") will increase. The four specific cargo handling functions mentioned above will change in form but will stil l have to be accommodated on the site, d. Bulk Cargo Terminals Both liquid and dry bulk terminals have the same type terminal operations. The terminal area for bulk cargo movements must accommodate the standard four functions that apply to the general cargo terminal, but because of differences in handling methods the nature of these functions are changed in form. Bulk handling of cargos has always been highly mechanized; conveyor systems have long been used for high volume goods transfer. Handling methods for bulk cargos vary from commodity to commodity, but several general characteristics apply to most operations: (1) Large storage areas are required - these areas can be (a) 34 enclosed, as is the case with grain elevators, (b) exterior but covered, as with sulfur and other powered commodities, or Cc) open stockpiles as for coal or ores; (2) Transfer from stockpiles to ship is mechanized - this can take the form of conveyor belts, special hopper cars or, as is the case with liquid bulk cargo, pipelines. Because of the specialized nature of handling required for each commodity, and the large volume movement, bulk berths are most commonly designed for one type of cargo. Imported bulk commodities are often processed at waterfront plants, thus saving the cost of inland transport. Liquid bulk carriers which load and discharge by pipeline allow more flexibility in berth location than do most dry bulk carriers. Land storage areas for liquid bulk do not require waterside location since pipelines offer an economical way of moving cargos overland. Similarly, berthing can be provided for supertankers in deepwater offshore anchorages with use of underwater pipelines for cargo transfer to shore. Dry bulk cargos are transhipped from ship to shore by a variety of methods dependent on the type of cargo. Conveyors, air pressure devices, shovels, and hoppers are some of the many devices employed in dry bulk transhipment. All of these methods are more costly than liquid pipeline movement with the result that stockpiles of dry bulk cargo are usually provided at berthside. Berths, therefore, must be provided with waterfront back-up areas for storage as well as area for the accomodation 35 of the land transport system moving the dry cargo overland. Ever increas-ingly, this land transport system is provided by unit trains, high speed single-purpose trains of up to one mile in length which move the cargo from inland origin to ocean berth. Adequate sites for accommodation of 38 these functions are considered to be 100 acres. 5. Inland Transport The efficient port operation must provide for inland transportation of cargos to and from the terminal. Inland transportation linkage at ocean ports are provided either on water via waterway carriers, or on land by rail and truck transport. Inland water carriers, usually barges, may load cargo by calling at the dock after the ocean vessel has departed or have cargo transferred 39 directly from the ocean vessel. These transfer operations require minimal amounts of land. London makes much use of this ship-to-barge transfer operation and 85% of its trade is handled by inland waterway 40 carriers up and down the Thames. More generally used as inland carriers are land transport systems, common to river, lake, and ocean ports. Land systems require terminal space for loading and unloading of goods and a continuous right of way out of the terminal (usually through an urban area). With the exception of the few ports like London that rely on water transport, land access to the port terminal is considered vital to the successful functioning of the entire port operation. An inadequate land transportation 41 system can strangle a port. 36 Railways, once the exclusive land carrier of packaged freight to port terminals, have gtven way to trucks as the principal carrier of 42 this type of cargo. Truck transport of general cargo will be further encouraged with the introduction of containerization. Rail transport has, however, been able to retain the competitive advantage in the movement of bulk cargo. Items such as ores and grain are moved largely 43 by rail. As a result of the large tonnage involved in the movement of bulk cargo, railways stil l carry the largest proportion of cargo inland. Typical of this are the figures for inland cargo movements in the U.S. (See Table 2). New rail technologies, particularly the land bridge TABLE 2 PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN OF INLAND CARGO MOVEMENTS BY MODE IN THE UNITED STATES 1960, 1965 Mode 1960 1965 Railway 43.4% 42.6% Motor Trucks 22.5 23.3 Great Lakes 7.5 6.6 Inland Waterways 9.4 9.2 Pipelines 17.2 18.3 Total 100.0% 100.0% Source: Interstate Commerce Commission, 1966 Inland Water-Borne Commerce Statistics. 37 concept* and the use of unit trains may allow the railways to compete in some measure with truck transport. Pipelines, especially solid pipe-lines**, hold promise of improving efficiency in land goods movement. Their future use can provide a new competitive element which would have an extensive impact on existing transport nodes by 0 ) providing for the movement of dry bulk goods through pipelines which could be located underground, and (2) by eliminating the now expensive handling and storage tech-niques at berthside. Whatever the split of cargo handling by land transportation modes, these systems cover extensive land areas of the urban waterfront in order to serve working waterfront users. Marshalling yards and spur lines along with main line tracks occupy large acreages with steel track. Motor carriers must be provided with roadways within the port terminal. Outside the terminal area they are either served by water-45 46 47 front freeways as in San Francisco , New York , and Toronto , or they enter the city street system where they combine with the local traffic and contribute to congestion.^8 The actual amount of waterfront *The land bridge concept of goods movement proposes to ship goods from Europe to Asia using North America as a "bridge". The operation involves a container shipment to an east coast port (Halifax, N.S.) for loading onto a high-speed unit train which would transport the shipment to the west coast (Vancouver, B.C.) for discharge onto another container ship bound for the Orient. **The "solid pipeline" concept of goods movement involves moving a solid commodity such as an ore in a liquid medium, e.g., an oil or sulfur solution with coal or ore. The mixture would be piped from the resource area and separated prior to shipment. 38 land taken up by the transportation function* serving the waterfront varies greatly from city to city and even between different sections of the waterfront within a city. A study of Cincinatti's waterfront dis-closed 20% of the area was devoted to land transport while a study of San Francisco's northern waterfront disclosed the transportation indus-49 try and freeways utilized 14% of these areas. A final important consideration of land transport has to do with the configuration of the facility right of way. Alignments are often run parallel to the waterline forming a barrier to that portion of the waterfront, especially where expressways or rail tracks parallel the shoreline too closely. Expansion inland by waterfront users becomes impossible and direct access by pedestrians and slow moving vehicles 50 becomes difficult. 6. Passenger Service Up until World War II, passenger transportation across the ocean was almost entirely handled by ocean liners. With advances in long-range aircraft, a newer and faster mode of transportation became avail-able. The impact of air transport on this movement was significant, with the result that by 1966 only 11% of the more than five million passengers, travelling between the U.S. and Europe went by sea. (See •"Transportation Function" refers exclusively to the railway yards, terminals, motor transport areas, and the waterfront freeway. 39 Figure 3a). Air transportation captured this traffic not only by offering tremendous time savings, but also by providing more economical service. The 1968 comparable fares between New York and London by air and ship are listed in Table 3. TABLE 3 ROUND TRIP PASSENGER FARES, NEW YORK TO LONDON, 1966 Mode First Class Tourist Summer Winter Summer Winter Air $712.00 $712.00 $484.50 $399.00 Ship $946.00 $856.00 $496.00 $420.00 Source: Alfred H. Keil and Philip Mendel, Transportation by Sea: Today and Tomorrow. The impact of airlines on trans-oceanic passenger movement has been significant in that it has relegated ocean passenger liners to providing cruise service. This is a lucrative trade which has more than doubled in the years since 1959 and is increasing at the rate of about 20% per year. (See Figure 3b). However, the passenger volumes for trans-Atlantic cruise movement are measured in the thousands while the total trans-Atlantic movements are measured in the millions. None-theless, the cruise business has become sufficiently lucrative so that CO C/> <£ a. LL. O 00 tt (A)' TOTAL 10 19|54 19|56 19|58 19|60 19|62 BY SEA 19|64 19661 (B) TOTAL 600 450 150 CRUISE I916T1 _19161_ 19|62 19163 19|64 T R A N S A T L A N T I C PASSENGER SERVICE! (A) SEA PORTION OF TOTAL PASSENGER TRAVEL (B) CRUISE PORTION OF TOTAL SEA TRAVEL 19|65 1966 FIG 41 the Cunard Line, with its 65,000 ton vacation ship Queen Elizabeth 2, 51 entered the year-round holiday business in 1969. 7. Waterfront Industry: Water Oriented A number of different industrial functions require waterfront location for efficient operation. These uses can be catagorized on the basis of their association with and need for water: 1. Functions such as shipbuilding, marine suppliers, and drydocks which carry on service and repair of marine vessels. These ancillary services require waterside location and are required by marine users. 2. Processing plants dependent on water transport for movement of their raw materials or finished products. It is in this category that one finds such operations as steel mills and sugar refineries. 3. Those industrial uses requiring excessive amounts of water in C O their operation either as coolant or directly in their processing. Some waterfront industries make dual use of the waterfront. Examples of all the above uses are listed in Table 4. An indication of the volumes of water required by those users in category three is provided in Table 5. As can be seen the products of some of these users require excessive volumes of water in production. 8. Waterfront Industry: Non Water Directed The industrial character of working waterfront lands often attracts users who have no necessity for proximity to water. Many of these industries are attracted because there are fewer incompatabilities with 42 TABLE 4 EXAMPLES OF WATERFRONT INDUSTRIES BASED ON WATER USE Category I Category II Category III Marine Shipping Plants Requiring Water Processing Plants Requiring and Repair Transport Services Water Shipyards Boatyards Drydocks Lumber Mills Ore Processing Bulk Food and Grain Movement Thermal Power Generating Plants Coking Plants Food Processing Plants (meat, flour, sugar) Soap and Detergent Plants Pulp and Paper Mills Steel Mills existing Industrial and port-oriented land uses. Others are attracted to industrial zones because there are economies to be gained, i.e., they are using some of the products produced by waterfront industry and are able to reduce transport costs. Many of the users are drawn by industrial zoning which doesn't restrict development to water-54 oriented industry. Many of these firms are small enterprises and many have a nuisance 55 factor of odor or smog. Some of the firms such as those dealing in 56 petroleum products and chemicals have seepage problems. Others, such as tanneries, textiles, and slaughterhouses make no use of the 43 TABLE 5 WATER REQUIRED IN THE PRODUCTION PROCESS IN SELECTED INDUSTRIES Industry Unit Gallons per Unit Automobile Vehicle 10,000 Chemical Ton of H2S04 780 to 7,270 Distilling One proof gallon of whiskey or spirits 125 to 167 Meat 1000 lbs., finished product 2,750 P etroleum One barrel of crude oil 1,141 Pulp and Paper Ton - Including cooling water - Excluding cooling water 57,000 35,800 Steel Net ton (blast furnace smelting) 24,798 Tanning Square foot of hide tanned 10 Source: American Association of Manufacturers, Water in Industry. of the water except for disposal of wastes. Many firms in this category were initially attracted to waterfront sites because waterbodies were available for disposal of their effluent; in most cases this waste was 57 disposed of without treatment of any kind. C O Arthur Laeben in his study of waterfront industry suggests non-water-oriented industry is using industrial lands along urban waterfronts 44 to the detriment of legitimate waterfront users. He suggests that the answer to the problem is the creation of a new zoning ordinance for "waterfront industry". The industries for urban waterfronts, he suggests, should combine high employment denisty with low nuisance factors and frequent use of water transport. The working waterfront can make strong contributions to the local, regional or national economy. In the port city of San Francisco, it is estimated that 12% of the total work force is supported directly or 59 indirectly by the port. A study in Virginia has shown that one in every eight Virginians in the State is supported by port and port-related activity. 6^ Such strong evidence on the importance of the working waterfront is not isolated; it can be found in any area where working waterfronts exist. It doubly emphasizes the need for care in making policy and planning decisions affecting the working waterfront. It is an exceptional circumstance in any urban area to find all waterfront lands given exclusively to either working or non-working uses. The more common occurrence is a mixture of these two elements. A recent study of 70 miles of waterfront adjacent to deep-draft naviga-tion channels in 17 Wisconsin ports and harbours provides an indication of this land use mixture.6^ It disclosed that 40% of the area was used for non-navigational uses including storage and commercial uses, i.e., downtown shopping, land transportation, parking, residence, parks, and beaches; about 20% was used by waterfront industry including ship-building; another 20% v/as used for cargo handling; and the final 20% of 45 the land was undeveloped or abandoned. D. SHIPPING TECHNOLOGY While the impact of containerization and supercarriers has been mentioned briefly above in relation to terminal operation, it is an area of such potentially great importance that it must be specifically considered in terms of vessel technology. The shipment of cargo by sea has experienced tremendous growth tn the period since the last war. Coinciding with that growth in the movement of goods by sea has been an increase in the size of ships moving seaborne cargo. Figure 4 depicts graphically the extent of these trends, showing an absolute decrease in the number of vessel movements by more than a half from the 1956 high, while tonnages themselves have more than doubled. This would indicate a fourfold increase in the cargo tonnage carried by each vessel. The impact of shipping technology which has resulted in this dramatic increase in sea tonnage must again be examined on the basis of the type of cargo carried. 1. Containerization The average size of general cargo vessels in 1940 was about 6000 dwt (dead weight tons). Introduction of the "Liberty Ship" at 10,840 dwt and its dominance in ocean trade from that period increased the 1967 average size general cargo ship to 8000 dwt with very few general CO cargo vessels larger than 10,000 dwt. Very few changes in ship design took place prior to 1967. General 46 M25 M O O h 7 5 Cargo loaded and unloaded (millions of tons) \ 1 \ 1953 I ' I I L. 19^6 1959 I . i Vessels loaded and unloaded \ (thousands) 1962 1965 I I I I L. CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL'. S H I P P I N G ^ . SOURCE: BANK OF MONTREAL BUSINESS REVIEW/ AUGUST 1969 F IG. 4 47 cargo was moved in freighters whose speed had increased from 8 to 15 ~ 18 knots since the war. Mechanization had become more eyi.dent on the waterfront scene as cranes, located on the ship or on the dock, replaced winches, ropes, and pulleys. While these factors decreased shipping time from point to point, the amount of time a general cargo vessel spent tn port still comprised 50-60% of the total trip time. It became evident that any real economies to be gained in ocean transport could only be achieved by reducing terminal transhipment time. Introduction of mechanized handling into general cargo tranship-ments at terminals was difficult. A freighter's load could consist of canned foodstuffs, bales of cotton, and automobiles. Cargo items such as these are moved from the ship's hold by crane. Bagged or crated goods are off-loaded into wooden platforms which are removed by crane to the dock transit area where a fork-lift truck transports them to a storage area. Larger individual items such as automobiles are similarly lifted onto the dock and moved to a storage area. Because of the irregular shapes and sizes of individual items, mechanization of the transhipment process was only possible if these items were prepackaged into containers or cubic unit lots of standard sizes. Older freighters were not constructed for storage of these cubic prepackaged lots and, as a result, much space in the ship's hold was unuseable, or, in the case of larger containers, the hatches were not large enough to allow them to be lowered below deck. The trend in freighter construction therefore moved from the all 48 purpose general cargo hull to a specialized one designed to take a certain type of prepackaged cargo. Ship forms have moved to one of several types of special purpose vessels: 1. Part containerships - These vessels are designed to handle general cargo in loose and/or palletized form, in addition to containers. Some conventional general cargo ships have been converted to part con-tainerships by a "jumbotization" process which adds a container section amidship, thereby lengthening the vessel. These vessels offer the advantage of versatility by being able to handle both prepackaged and loose cargo. 2. Lift-on/Lift-off full containerships - These vessels are especially designed to handle containers. Containers are steel or aluminum boxes constructed in standard sizes of 8 x 10 x 20 to 40 feet. These ships are equipped with hatches opening onto 40 foot sections. Vertical tracks are provided so that the containers slide into place. Containers are usually stacked four high with upper containers supported by the cornerpieces of the lower ones. Loading and unloading is done by a crane located either on the ship or on the pier. The full con-65 tainership provides for rapid transhipment from vessel to dock. 3. Roll-on/Roll-off containerships - These vessels operate on the same prinicple as the car ferry. Containers on wheels or trailers are driven onto the ship through ramps on the side, bow, or stern of the vessel. This offers the adyantage of not requiring expensive cranes and hydraulic lifting equipment. Howeyer, this type of yessel Is not 49 as economical as the lift-on type since roll-on/roll-off containerships can't take full advantage of available storage space because of their design requirements.66 4. LASH (Lighter Aboard Ship) vessels - These ships are designed to carry barges which are themselves loaded with cargo. As the LASH vessel enters port, the barges are lowered into the water by a crane fitted on the ship's stern. The barge can be loaded with loose cargo or containers and are pushed or towed toward dockside where they can be unloaded by conventional port equipment. This method offers the advantage of allowing the mother ship to serve ports with shallow water since the barges can be dropped offshore and moved to dock by tugs.67 5. Unitized cargo vessels - Unit ships are provided with flush decks, square holds, uniform deck height, hydraulic elevators, and side ports and are used to transport palletized cargos. In this instance, the cargo is packaged onto wooden platforms or pallets to a specified width and height. Pallets are handled by fork l i f t trucks in the ship's hold, reducing manual handling and speeding ship turna-round time. The advantage of these vessels is that they do not require expensive crane facilities. Unlike large steel containers, the pallets are inexpensive and there is no problem in returning empty pallets 68 since they occupy little space. These unitized handling methods have permitted rapid turnaround, 69 in some instances reducing port time by 50-70% and allowing larger 50 vessels to be unloaded quickly. Shipowners, as a result, have con-structed larger vessels in order to take advantage of the economies of scale to be gained through their operation. Larger vessels do not require many more crew than the standard size ship and, when compared to the time and cost of traditional goods movement, the containerships are relatively cheaper to build, power, and operate. Container vessels of 30,000 tons7^ and capable of speeds averaging 20-30 knots have recently entered the shipping f i e l d . ^ Speed is becoming Increasingly important to the shippers of general cargo. They find the range of cargo handled by water vessels gradually being limited through competi-tion with other modes of transport. Higher value goods are being captured by the air transport sector as the ton-per-mile costs drop for this seryice; low value goods are being lost from general cargo movement to the bulk carrier segment of ocean transport as means are found to 72 move them in bulk lots. Since 1967, these technologies have had considerable impact on port operation, especially in regard to the movement of general cargo by containership. The Port of Oakland, in the first six months of 1970, 73 had 63% of its total cargo handled in the form of containers. On a more global scale, a study by Litton Industries on world shipping forecasts non-bulk commodities will be increasingly moved in unitized loads. By 1973, they estimate 23% of all U.S. cargos will be moved on 74 containerships, and by 1983 the figure rises to 40%. Other studies estimate that by 1975, the annual transport capacity of containerships 51 will overtake that of conventional general cargo vessles. Increases in vessel size have in some harbours rendered the water depth inadequate, necessitating extensive dredging operations by the port authority for accommodation of these larger vessels. Antwerp, Europe's leading container port, has recently completed a 50 foot deep channel to the sea. 7 6 Competitive pressure is also placed on the port authority by the advent of containerization to provide special container berths and handling equipment and to insure space for uncon-gested inland transport linkages. 2. Supercarriers Ship sizes for liquid bulk and to a lesser extent dry bulk carriers have been increasing since World War II. (See Figure 5b). At the end of the war, the 12 tanker of 18,000 dwt was considered a giant, but by 1950, 30,000 ton ships were being built. By 1960, liquid bulk tankers increased to 100,000 dwt77, and in 1970 some tankers in service were 326,000 dwt with 65 foot draughts. Projected designs for these tankers have reached 500,000 dwt requiring a length of 1,3000 feet and a draught of 85 feet. Dry bulk carriers are not as large as the giant liquid carrier, the largest being 145,000 tons and the vast majority 78 between 25,000 and 50,000 tons. If current trends continue, by 1973 the increase in bulk tankers and carriers of larger than 200,000 dwt will have moyed to the point where they make up one-half of the world tonnage capacity.7^ (A) DIMENSIONS IN METERS F^ H —r~ " ! " "1 . -rj>-40 - i d (B) 1 I I 1 -4000 • _ .* _3000 -2000 TANKERS / * _1000 J -J CONTAINERSHIPS ' I 19i60 i 19i70 oo o CO GROWTH IN S I Z E OF V E S S E L S SOURCE: AiHi KEIL AND P, MANDEL/ TRANSPORTATION BY SEA— AND: CONTAINERI SATION INTERNATIONAL, SEPTEMBER 1970 F I G. 5 53 The Increasing tonnage of bulk carriers naturally results in corres-ponding increases in draught. As can be seen in Figure 5a, yessel dimen-sions have increased greatly in draught since W.W. IT. Such dramatic increases in size have resulted in restricted access by larger vessels to shallow harbours. However, the dredging operation required to deepen a 40 foot harbour in order to accommodate a 65 foot draught craft can become economically unfeasible. * * * Urban waterfront land has similar working and non-working use char-acteristics, regardless of its location on river, lake, or ocean fronting land. The central core of these urban areas in many instances has been recently converted from working use or is stil l performing the work func-tion. Of these, the port or transportation oriented function is the most specialized and because it requires a certain combination of land form and water depth, it often dictates the development pattern of all the waterfront. As the industrial and port-oriented uses which made up the earliest settlement of the urban waterfront are made technologically obsolete, the users are presented with the alternatives of modernizing, redeveloping, or relocating. They usually find their upland boundary bordered by a dense urban settlement and, as a result, reinvestment in a downtown site can have severe disadvantages. Land for expansion may be prohibitively expensive or simply impossible to obtain; inland transportation may be 54 more expensive since the route must traverse a congested urban area and zoning ordinances against industrial use is becoming more frequent in urban areas, faced with these alternatives, many operations abandon urban waterfront locations and look for alternate sites in more favoura-ble locations, Non working use of the urban waterfront is already common with large tracts of land given to residential and public and/or private recreational areas. Demand for such non-working waterfront is growing with population increases and economic improvements. This demand, along with changes brought by improvements in transportation and industrial technologies, is placing increased pressure on working waterfront land, especially in urban areas. 55 FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER II 1. American Society of Planning Officials, Waterfronts:  Planning for Resource and Residential Uses, Planning Advisory Service #118 (.Chicago: ASPO, January 1959), p. 1. 2. Ibid., p. 2. 3. Arthur F. Loeben, "Philadelphia Waterfront Industry", Geographical Review, Vol. 47 0947), p. 272. 4. Donald F. Wood, "Waterfront Renewal in Metropolitan Areas", Journal of the Urban Planning and Development Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 93 (December 1967), p. 200. 5. G.G. Weigend, "Some Elements in the Study of Port Geography", Geographical Review, Vol. 48 (1958), p. 185. 6. Ibid., p. 187. 7. Ibid., p. 186. 8. Ladislas Segoe, Local Planning Administration, Municipal Management Series (Chicago: International City Managers' Associa-tion, 1941), p. 699. 9. James Bird, The Geography of the Port of London (London: Hutchinson University Library, 1957), pp. 13-64. 10. Werner Klugmann, Facts and Figures About the Port of Hamburg (Sattelmaier: Verlag OKIS, 1966), pp. 23-29. 11. Ibid., p. 13. 12. First National City Bank of New York, The Port of New York:  Challenge and Opportunity (New York: First National City Bank of New York, 1967), p. 8. 13. Weigend, p. 187. 14. A.W. Currie, Canadian Transportation Economics (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967), Ch. 22. 56 15. American Association of Port Authorities, Ports_of the  Americas (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Port Authorities, 1961), p. i i . 16. Ibid., p. 77. 17. Ibid., p. 89. 18. Mississippi River Commission and Lower Mississippi Valley Division, Corps of Engineers, Mississippi River Navigation (Vicksburg, Mississippi: Corps of Engineers, March 1967). 19. Association of Port Authorities, p. 61. 20. Rivercraft on the Mississippi River system below Cairo are provided with a water depth of twelve feet. A nine foot channel exists for the 858 miles from Cairo north to Minneapolis. A nine foot depth is also available from Cairo to Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, a distance of 980 miles along the Ohio River. This nine foot depth also extends 90 miles up the Monongahela River and 72 miles up the Allegheny from Pittsburg. The Great Lakes and the Mississippi are joined by the nine foot Illinois Waterway from Chicago to Grafton, 111. A nine foot channel is maintained along the Missouri River from just above St. Louis to Sioux City, Iowa. Beyond that, a seven foot channel extends to Kansas City, Missouri, and a six and a half foot depth as far as Omaha, Nebraska. In al l , approximately 4,000 miles of nine foot channel are provided, linking the Great Lakes with the Gulf of Mexico. Barges, which carry most river cargo, are designed to a draft of nine feet. The standard dry cargo barge is about 195 feet long and 35 feet wide, with a capacity of 1500 tons. Liquid cargo barges are usually 295 feet long and 50 feet wide, with a capacity of 2,500 tons. From Mississippi River Commission, pp. 7, 13-15. 21. The largest recorded tow was moved on the Mississippi by the Sprague (1907), a paddlewheel towboat which moved 67,307 tons of coal on a sixty-barge tow. The combination measured 1,125 feet by 315 feet and covered six and a half acres. From Mississippi River Commission, p. 4. 22. Weigand, p. 192. 23. Ibid., p. 193. 24. Ibid., p. 194. 57 25. H.M. Mayer, Port of Chicago and the St. Lawrence Seaway (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 120-121. 26. Schaffer N. Manfred,The Competitive Position of the Port  of Durban (Johannesburg: H.H. van Hoen, 1962), p. 192. 27. Arthur D. Little, Port Development Requirements^ Report to  the Delaware River Port Authority (.Arthur D. Little, April 1965), 28. Waterfront plants save the cost of transporting high volume raw materials inland. This is the reason for the growth of such giants as Bethelem Steel's Sparrows Point plant in Baltimore, Maryland, the largest steel mill in the world. From Association of Port Authorities, p. 60. 29. Peter Engelmann, "Changing Site Requirements for Port Operations", ASCE Waterways Journal, Volume 84 (1958), p. 1769-30. Arthur D. Little, The Port of San Francisco: An In-Depth  Study of Its Impact (Arthur D. Little, 1966), p. 118. 31. Engelmann, p. 1769-72. 32. Alfred H. Keil and Philip Mandel, "Transportation by Sea — Today and Tomorrow", Proceedings of the I.E.E.E., Vol. 56, No. 4 (April 1968), p. 519. 33. Little, San Francisco, p. 20. 34. Engelmann, p. 1769-73. 35. Ed Parott, "Cargo Handling in the Port of Vancouver", The Port  of Vancouver, Symposium Proceedings, ed. by Robert W. Collier (Vancouver: University of British Columbia, Department of Extension, June 1966), p. 42. 36. "Dry Cargo Ship Trends in Perspective", Fairplay, January 22, 1970, p. 7. 37. Engelmann, p. 1969-72. 38. Capt. B.D.L. Johnson, "Port Management and Development", The  Port of Vancouver, Symposium Proceedings, ed. by Robert W. Collier (Vancouver: University of British Columbia, Department of Extension, June 1966), p. 31. 58 39. Association of Port Authorities, p. 62. 40. Rolt Hammond, Introduction to Dock and/Harbour Engineering (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1958), p. 129. 41. Wisconsin Department of Resource Development, Waterfront  Renewal (Madison: Wisconsin Department of Resource Development, 1968), p. 14. 42. Little, Delaware, p. 17. While trains once carried all packaged freight, trucks now account for two-thirds of this movement. 43. First National City Bank, p. 11. 44. Litton Industries, Advanced Marine Technology Division, "The Future of Oceanborne Shipping", Fairplay, February 5, 1970, p. 41. 45. Lawrence Halprin, Freeways (New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1964), p. 54. 46. Robert Moses, The Expanding New York Waterfront (New York: Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, 1964), p. 14. 47. Toronto City Planning Board, Plan for Downtown Toronto (Toronto: Toronto City Planning Board, 1963), p. 17. 48. R.C. Barnstead, "Congestion Costs and Flexibility of Goods Movement", Proceedings of the First Canadian Urban Transportation  Conference, ed. by John Steel (Ottawa: Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, 1969), p. 169-177. 49. Little, San Francisco, p. 126. 50. Wisconsin, p. 9. 51. Port Resources Information Committee Inc., New York Port  Handbook, 1969 (New York: Port Resources Information Committee, 60 Broad Street, N.Y.C., 1969), p. 89. 52. National Association of Manufacturers, Water in Industry (New York: National Association of Manufacturers, 1965), p. 16. 53. Wisconsin, p. 38. 59 54. American Society of Planning Officials, Municipal Waterfronts:  PIanning for Commercial and Industrial Uses, Advisory Service Information Report #5, (Chicago: ASPO, December 1952), p. 5. 55. Loeben, p. 272. 56. Urban Design Group, Harbour Development: Port of Portland, Me. [Newport, Rhode Island: Urban Design Group, February 1969), pTl2. 57. As Loeben and Wood both point out, prohibitions on dumping effluent into waterbodies were not enacted until recently. In most areas they are stil l non-existent. 58. Loeben, p. 272. 59. Little, San Francisco, p. 6. 60. D.C. Darnton and CO. Meiburg, The Contributions of the  Ports of Virginia to the Economy of the Commonwealth (Charleston, Virginia: University of Virginia, October 1968), p. 1. 61. Wood, p. 200. 62. "Fewer 'Liberty' Replacements", Fairplay, February 15, 1968, p. 8. 63. , Peter Dawson, Proceedings of the International Container  Symposium, 1968, p. 91. 64. "Todd Shipyard Corporation", Container News, December 1970, p. 12. 65. "Future Containerports as the Dutch See Them", Containeri- sation International, September 1970, p. 18-21. 66. "Roll-on Roll-off Navy", Container News, September 1970, p. 35-40. 67. "Enter the Lash Fleet", Container News, September 1970, p. 30-32. 68. Bus and Truck Transport, February 1969. (The majority of the issue is devoted to the subject). 60 69. "Pacific and Atlantic Service Make Further Growth", Container  News, October 1970, p. 32-36. 70. New generation containerships of 40,000 dwt (equivalent in size to a 100,000 ton bulk carrier 940 feet long with 106 foot beam and 82 foot depth) are already on order from German shipyards. 71. "Marine Gas Turbine potential", Fairplay, January 22, 1970, p. 7. 72. Fairplay, February 5, 1970, p. 41. 73. "Sixty-three percent", Container News, November 1970, p. 10. 74. Fairplay, February 5, 1970, p. 41. 75. T.F.P. Mackenzie and J.W. Murray, "Trends in Dry Cargo and Container Ships", Fairplay, January 22, 1970, p. 7. 76. "Antwerp", Container News, December 1970, p. S-20. 77. H. Shinto, paper presented to the Canadian Transportation Research Forum, Vancouver, B.C., 1968, p. 1. 78. Charles M. Defieux, "Ship Sizes Grow", Vancouver Sun, July 27, 1970. 79. Fairplay, January 22, 1970, p. 7. 61 CHAPTER HI THE NON-WORKING WATERFRONT - A STUDY OF REDEVELOPMENT A. SURVEY APPROACH Wtthtn the past decade, major urban centers throughout North America have proposed and/or begun redevelopment of thefr waterfronts. This chapter will provide a qualitative analysis of the activity within several urban centers in an attempt to determine why water-front development was undertaken and why a public access component was included in the project. The purpose of the inquiry is to extrapolate common characteristics of the waterfront development and redevelopment process as experienced by the cities under study and to ascertain what characteristics may have applicability or meaning to other cities. Since the concern of this thesis is with public access to the port oriented urban waterfront in major urban centers, it was initially decided that in order to be studied, a city must 0) have both a working and non-working section, (2) have a recent waterfront development or proposed develop-ment within the city that included a public access component, and (3) meet the criteria for a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area as set by the U.S. Census BureauJ 62 Since the analysis was to be based on planning proposals, reports, and reviews, a further constraint was the availability of published material on waterfront development. To narrow in on only the most important waterfronts, it was then decided that only cities which met all the previous criteria and had metropolitan area populations greater than two-and-a-half million would be considered. Finally, in order to provide some contrast to waterfront developments in the major cities under study, several less important locales would be briefly viewed. Thus, the urban centers considered are: Boston (Massachusetts), Chicago (Illinois), Detroit (Michigan), New York (New York), Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), San Francisco (California), and Toronto (Ontario). Waterfront developments in many smaller cities were looked at, including Cincinnati (Ohio), Honolulu (Hawaii), Norfolk (Virginia), Norwalk (Connecticut), Port Hueneme (California), and Seldovia (Alaska). Unless specifically mentioned, however, all remarks in this chapter refer to the waterfront developments and redevelopments in the seven major urban centers. B. DEVELOPMENT IMPETUS Initially then, before considering public access to the port oriented urban waterfront, it is necessary to consider waterfront development — or re-development, as is frequently the case -- within 63 the city and to discover what it is undertaken. Generally, the reasons fall into one or more of several categories. That is, the waterfront may have been 0) blighted, (2) closed to public access, (3) under-utilized, (4) needed for urban extension; or the city may have desired to C5) preserve or "open-up" the area or (6) use the land to bolster and/or redirect the city's economic base. Or, particularly in the case of older cities like Chicago and New York, the waterfront may have long been an important element in the city's planning concerns. In practically every case, however, a catalyst to waterfront redevelopment was funds made available from senior levels of government to aid in carrying out feasibility 2 studies and the actual development. In the 1950's and early 1960's a surge of waterfront development proposals in the United States and Canada resulted from urban renewal legislation and the subsequent availability of Federal funds — usually on a matching basis for such redevelopment. The concern at the time was most often described as "blight" which indicated that many waterfront areas had lost their positions as economic, commercial, or industrial centers of cities. In urban centers, there had developed 64 a disregard for the ocean shores, riverbanks, baysides, and lake-fronts as expansion, population growth, industrial progress, and 3 transportation changes directed the city's attention inland. The manifestation of the disregard was a pattern that included stagnant or dropping land values, failure or re-settlement of waterfront businesses, abandonment or sale of waterfront land by railroads and industries, dwindling of public income and tax revenue, deterioration of shore residences, and an unchanging waterfront road and highway 4 system which emphasized the inadequacy of waterfront access routes. The attention paid to the condition of the waterfront may not have been as considerable as it was were it not for the fact that the waterfront was both economically and geographically important to these cities. As break-of-bulk transport centers, the waterfront provided both employment and revenue. But since these cities had originally developed around their ports, their downtowns and central business districts were still located in proximity to the waterfront. In the long run, it appears that interest in waterfront development stems from a concern with the city's future. The American Society of Planning Officials has stated: If the central city is not made more liveable, it will continue in its process of decay and decline, especially in relation to the suburban areas around it . One activity that may aid in preserving the central city is a plan to build a waterfront that has both beauty and utility. It should be remembered that most cities with important commercial or industrial waterfronts are trade centers. Their growth and development as trade centers will depend on the condition of that waterfront, and 5 the facilities that serve it and the rest of the city. 65 C. REDEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES It has been suggested that urban renewal legislation had an impact not only on the actual redevelopment of the waterfront but, perhaps to an even greater degree, on the re-evaluation of the waterfront's role and potential in the central city. Further, though money from senior levels of government may have played a role in the actualization of waterfront redevelopment, the development proposals themselves reflected the goals of the particular city — and it is important to note that these very goals seem to reflect city size and economic structure. Thus smaller cities like New Bedford, Massachusetts, Jersey City, New Jersey, and even Norfolk, Virginia, express the major thrust of their waterfront redevelopment plans in terms of either recapturing or making 7 available land primarily for industrial development. The concern here is with bolstering a single but highly significant sector of the economic base. With larger cities, the emphasis on industrial use of waterfront land is not so all-pervasive and, instead, the waterfront is seen as a resource that can be used to satisfy a wide variety of needs for both the city and the region. While problems of the particular urban waterfront may vary among cities, many objectives and develop-ment plans are similar. Uniformly, the waterfront is viewed not as being essentially of a single purpose. And it is with this idea of multi-purpose use and the concern for emphasizing the central city that public access considerations emerge within the port oriented urban waterfront. 66 The City of Boston, for example, sees its downtown waterfront renewal of the Faneuil Hall area not only as a means of encouraging port development, but also to reinforce neighborhood districts, pre-serve historic buildings and traditions, create a waterfront residen-cy tial community, and increase visitor traffic to the city. The downtown docks in the City of Philadelphia had been the foundation of the City's commercial development and the basis for much of the City's cultural heritage. But the docks had grown obso-lete and the waterfront blighted. It became apparent to the City that because of historic associations, proximity to the City center, easy accessibility, and direct waterfront contact, "the area had tremendous potential in commercial, cultural, educational and recreational uses g directly related to the full development of the metropolitan region". The Lower Manhattan Plan of the City of New York was not a plan solely for waterfront renewal or development. Rather, it was a generalized strategy for the comprehensive redevelopment of all of lower Manhattan. One of the major concerns of the plan was with the decline of the goods-handling activities in the peripheral sections of downtown. In pointing to the results of this decline, the plan acknowledges that on both the Hudson and East Rivers in the area, only 18 of the 51 piers were in regular use. Further, all but 7 of these piers were more than 50 years old. Of the goals formulated for the development of Lower Manhattan, a principal concern was to strengthen 67 the business core by improving its working environment and "taking advantage of the great natural beauty of the waterfront" J° For the City of Chicago, the urban waterfront has long been of concern, particularly in regard to its recreation potential. In the City's Comprehensive Plan, it is stated that "one of the most notable accomplishments of Chicago's history has been the establishment of the lakefront parks. No other American city has preserved so much of its waterfront for the public's enjoyment."^ Among the long-range planning objectives for the downtown waterfront area is the attempt to improve and expand public access through recreational facilities in the CBD, "giving special attention to increasing the quality and 12 quantity of lakefront land." The San Francisco Bay Plan was instigated because of a concern with the deterioration of the Bay. The major policy emerging from the Plan is that the most important uses of the Bay are those which provide substantial public benefit and which treat the Bay as a body 13 of water, "not as real estate." Further, it recognizes that the "Bay and its shoreline offer particularly important opportunities for recreational development in urban areas where large concentrations of 14 people now live close to the wharf but are shut off from i t . " The Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board has prepared a plan for the entire metropolitan waterfront. The City's waterfront included substantial land for recreational development and public open space 68 integrated into Toronto Harbour. Plans for increasing access to the Toronto Island — in addition to a policy of generally increasing 15 public access to Lake Ontario — are clearly enunciated. Further, two broad green "wedges" of parkland will cut into the compact urban area from the northwest and northeast, with the former designed to follow the waterfront near the downtownJ6 These major cities all look to the nearby waterfront to satisfy a variety of needs felt throughout the city and the region. Yet while the expressed objectives for waterfront redevelopment are frequently cast in grandiose terms (e.g., Boston will "open the City to the Sea"J7 New York will "raise the standard of the total environment", Toronto will produce an "exciting waterfront for Toronto's generations to 19 come",)they are inevitably followed by more specific rationale. Three objectives which are common to the waterfront development plans considered in this study are (1) to enhance the importance of the central city, (2) to increase economic activity, and (3) to provide greater public access to the water. Development of the urban waterfront is clearly approached by cities as a means of accomplishing these objectives. Further, because of the success with which these objectives can be united in development schemes, it is frequently impossible to cite single parts of the development plan as satisfying only one of the objectives. 69 For these major cities all port cities the development of the central core is a major planning objective which waterfront develop-ment merely complements. Development of the core is critical to the development of the city as a whole. Thus the urban waterfront is 20 used to "attract visits from across the nation" , to "recapture the 21 interest of the suburbanites in the central city" , and to "win large 22 crowds with varied interests back to the center of the city". This is not to suggest, however, that these cities minimize the economic importance of their port facilities. Attitudes voiced in the San Francisco report and echoed throughout all waterfront development planning in major urban centers are unequivocal in their concern for "developing adequate port terminals...to keep (the city) in the fore-front of the world's great harbors during a period of rapid change in shipping technology (and) developing adequate land for industries that 23 require access to shipping channels. D. PUBLIC ACCESS ISSUES The concern with public access to the urban waterfront is, in many 24 instances, used as a device to satisfy the economic goals of the city. While this is not the only rationale presented, many waterfront develop-ment plans emphasize the economic benefits to be derived from providing 25 increased public access. Yet no matter what the reason for wanting 70 to increase access to the waterfront, it seems clear that many cities feel that people are effectively separated from the downtown urban waterfront. In a survey of Boston residents conducted by Kevin Lynch, respondents had no clear image, of the downtown waterfront and were 26 perceptually if not actually cut off from it. Public access is rarely defined conceptually and is discussed most often in regard to commercial, recreational, or aesthetic development of the waterfront. The specific requirements of access, while depend-ing on the nature of the development itself, include increased road access to the waterfront, along the waterfront, and between waterfront developments. In cases where limited access may already exist, it is to be improved. In Chicago, "there is a need to improve access to the 27 recreation areas on the lake" while "redesigning highway facilities 28 to allow better pedestrian access." San Francisco recognizes the 29 requirement for "developing new public access to the Bay." In New York,30 Philadelphia,31 Boston,32 Detroit, 3 3 Toronto,34 Cincinnati, 3 5 Oahu, and Seldovia, Alaska (population: 350) , there are expressed goals of increasing vehicular and pedestrian access to the downtown waterfront. The concern of these seven major cities can be seen as a concern with the most efficient use of a resource: the urban waterfront. The goal is to optimize development to maximize social and economic benefits while reinforcing the central core. Thus while the concern with the 71 working waterfront remains strong throughout the redevelopment propos-als, port activity is considered as just one use — while highly important ~ of many diverse uses and varied functions that are in competition for what must ultimately be considered the limited land area and limited resources of the waterfront. The achievement of economic viability depends on how a particular city perceives its needs. Smaller cities geared almost exclusively to the port function see waterfront development and redevelopment stil l primarily as a means of enhancing the port facility. But it is the city that has already achieved a fairly broad economic base that can see waterfront develop-ment as a means of concurrently bolstering city taxes, increasing employment, bringing people back into the city center, developing a blighted or under-utilized area, promoting tourism, and providing recreational facilities -- all while encouraging port development. Public access is most often viewed in an overall framework of recreational facilities. The role of waterfront recreation, as normally considered in the waterfront development schemes discussed above, generally falls into one or more of the following types of use: 1. Intensive recreational facilities for local communities --playgrounds, fieldhouses, playing fields, picnic areas. 2. Water oriented uses for both local and metropolitan demands — bathing beaches, marinas, or fishing. 3. Passive recreational uses — parks, promenades, hiking and cycling paths, scenic view areas. 72 4. Special uses which relate the water to the city — museums, 38 aquariums, commercial areas, historic preservation. When considering the special requirements of urban waterfront recrea-tion, however, major cities generally emphasize the latter two cate-gories and marina facilities. Thus the result is a land use mix developed on a waterfront site with recreational facilities which provide public access. Ideas range from high-density waterfront 39 residential and hotel facilities integrated with boat basins to plans that would include ferry and container terminals, promenades, parks, yacht harbors, restaurants, shops, and apartments.^ Specifically considering the recreational facilities that might best serve an urban-wide or metropolitan area, the Portland Metropol-itan Commission noted that the nature and location of many types of development are "determined by the presence of a particular kind of 41 terrain or other natural feature." Further, it goes on to express a need for "large-investment-required types (of facilities) such as an aquarium, botanical garden and conservatory, etc., which, because they are so expensive, normally can be provided only once in the urban area. Complementing this view, but in specific reference to the urban water-front, the City of Chicago notes that "located as it is so close to the dense areas of the City where recreation is most needed, (the waterfront) offers a unique opportunity for fulfilling increasing 43 amounts of recreation demand." The waterfront here is intended to appeal to the diverse interests of both the city and metropolitan 73 population and its facilities include zoos, museums, gymnasia, lagoons, formal gardens, shipping docks, picnic areas, promenades, and cycling 44 paths. In another example, the San Francisco Plan proposes initially to expand cojnmercial fishing and recreation facilities and develop a waterfront park adjacent to Fisherman's Wharf, an already highly successful tourist and commercial development. In addition, however, as marine terminals and piers grow obsolete in the area between Fisherman's Wharf and the central downtown core (north of China Basin), new projects are recommended that would emphasize public and commercial recreation, increase the amount of open water, and enhance views of the Bay from hilltop vista points, the Embarcadero, and adjoining 45 streets. While there is not unanimity among all cities as to the type of public access facilities that would best f i t an urban waterfront envir-onment, two of the most common uses of the land adjacent to the water-front have been mentioned: parkland and one-of-a-kind special uses, e.g., museums, historical sites, etc. In regard to the recreation use of the water itself, in many cases pollution is a major problem 46 and swimming is potentially hazardous. However, one finds some type of boating facility either developed, recommended, or under review for expansion in most urban waterfront areas. Marinas, yacht clubs, sailing areas, boat moorings and the associated facilities, 74 shops, and services are felt to have considerable attraction for both the boat-owning public and the tourist.^ 7 * * * The purpose of this chapter was to review development on urban non-working waterfront land in seven major cities in North America to better understand why developments which included a public access component were undertaken. Principal factors in selecting waterfront areas for redevelopment were determined to be extensive blight and/or under-utilization of waterfront lands. Redevelopment projects within the seven cities considered were frequently both studied and carried out with partial financing from a senior level of government, normally the federal government. The cities were concerned with three main objectives: (1) encouraging prominence of the central city, (2) increasing economic activity, and (3) providing public access to the waterfront. Waterfront developments, adjacent to the central city area, with mixed commercial, recreation, and sometimes residential facilities were developmental responses to these objectives. The prominence played by each component varied with the particular project but the public access input, considered under the areas of recreation Included parks, open-areas, promenades, museums, and boating facilities. 75 Several smaller cities that had undertaken waterfront development projects were also considered in the course of the study. Most often, because of limited economic bases, redevelopment was single-purpose in nature and tended to emphasize or merely broaden the type of waterfront development which already existed in the area. 76 FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER III 1. In the 1960 U.S. Census there are two considerations for defining a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA). First, a central city with a minimum population of 50,000 is required; the country in which the central city is located is called the "central country". Second, economic and social relationships are used to identify contiguous countries which are metropolitan in character so that the periperhy of the specific metropolitan area may be determined. 2. This is, of course, not to say that all cities received grants for all waterfront development undertaken. It was that waterfront lands were redeveloped under guidelines of urban renewal legislation that made funds available. 3. "Renewal of Waterfront Areas", Journal of Housing XXI No. 5 (June 1964), p. 236. 4* Ibid., p. 237. The problem of waterfront deterioration had been addressed many years earlier by the American Society of Planning Officials: "The worst of the problems are: the unregulated mixture of land uses, which is uneconomic and unhealthy; the deter-ioration of commercial and industrial facilities along the water-front; and floods, erosion, pollution, and other sources of water-front damage." From: American Society of Planning Officials, Municipal Waterfronts: Planning for Commercial and Industrial Uses, Advisory Service Information Report #45 (Chicago: ASP0, December 1952), p. 1. 5. ASP0, p. 2. 6. Housing, p. 236. 7. Ibid., p. 238, 240. 8. Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, Waterfront Redevelopment Division, Report on the Downtown Waterfront - Faneuil Hall Renewal Plan (Boston: Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, June 1962), p. 15. 9. "Waterfront Renewal", Official Architecture and Planning, December 1968, p. 1559. 77 10. Ibid., p. 1561. This part of the city was subsequently shown to be deficient in a wide variety of recreational facilities. See: New York, Department of City Planning, Community Renewal Program, Recreational Facilities^in New York City (New York: Department of City Planning, 1968). 11. Chicago Department of City Planning, Basic Policies_for the  Coroprehehsive PI an of Chicago (Chicago: Department of City Planning, 1964), p. 39. 12. Official Architecture and Planning, p. 1567. 13. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, San Francisco Bay plan (San Francisco: San Francisco Bay Conser-vation and Development Commission, January 1969), p. 1. 14. Ibid., p. 3. 15. Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board, "Waterfront Map" (Toronto: Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board, 1968). 16. Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, PI an for the Metropoli tan  Toronto Planning Area, Supplement (Toronto: Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, December 1963), p. 3. 17. Boston Chamber of Commerce, p. 15. 18. Official Architecture and Planning, p. 1561. 19. Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board. 20. Boston Chamber of Commerce, p. 21. 21. Ibid., p. 20 22. Housing, p. 239. 23. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, p. 1. 24. See Boston Chamber of Commerce, p. 21. 25. Robert Moses, Parks Commissioner for the City of New York fcr twenty-six years, is something of an exception. While he is clearly proud of the public access to the waterfront in Manhattan (most of which he credits to himself), he does not see it as serving an 78 integrated role with any other sector of the city; parks and ports are separate; "Roughly one-half Cof the waterfront) has been opened to the public use...most of the balance of Manhattan water-front is reserved for commerce and industry, as it should be". Robert Moses, The Expanding New York Waterfront [New York: Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, 1964), p. 7. 26. Kevin Lynch, The Image of the City (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, I960), p.' 24. 27. Chicago Department of City Planning, p. 39. 28. Ibid., p. 42. 29. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, p. 1. In an article published in the Vancouver Sun, Wednesday, February 17, 1971, entitled "Frisco Curbs Pier Buildings", the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted a height limit to a waterfront area where a skyscraper was proposed. The rationale for the limit was that the skyscraper would "destroy the city's visual balance and bar the public from the waterfront area". 30. Official Architecture and Planning, p. 1561. 31. Ibid., p. 1559. 32. Ibid., p. 1564. 33. Ibid., p. 1567. 34. Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board. 35. Housing, p. 239. 36. Oahu Development Conference, Urban Design Study of the Honolulu  Waterfront (Honolulu: Oahu Development Conference, 1968), p. 21. 37. Alaska State Housing Authority, Seldovia Comprehensive Develop- ment Plan (Anchorage: Alaska State Housing Authority, Spring 1969), p. 1. 38. This categorization is based on a review of Chicago's recrea-tional and waterfront access facilities in: Johnson, Johnson, and Roy, Inc., A Progress Report on the Future of Chicago's Lakefront (Chicago: Johnson, Johnson, and Roy, Inc., 1968). 79 39. Boston Chamber of Commerce, p. 21. 40. Oahu Development Conference, p. 19. 41. Portland Metropolitan Planning Commission, Recreation Outlook  1962-1975 (Portland: Metropolitan Planning Commission, September 1962), p. 87. 42. Ibid., p. 88. 43. Johnson, Johnson, and Roy, Inc., p. 5. 44. Ibid. 45. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Plan Map 10. 46. The serious long-range consequences of shoreline pollution in regard to the recreational use of the waterfront are noted in several reports on recreation conducted in the Puget Sound region. See particularly: F.M. Lockfeld, Marine Shorelines in the Puget  Sound Region, Report #8, Project Open Space (Seattle: Puget Sound Governmental Conference and Puget Sound Regional Planning Council, November 1964). 47. While Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, San Francisco, Toronto, and Detroit all have or plan to have boating facilities, Boston is perhaps the most ambitious. It sees the effect of its concentra-tion on boating and marina development within its urban waterfront as providing the impetus for developing "a major marine shopping center for New England". Boston Chamber of Commerce, p. 15. i 80 CHAPTER IV CASE STUDY - VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA Preceding chapters have discussed some of the problems faced by urban centers in regard to their port-oriented waterfronts. If the area has slipped into disuse and become a non-working waterfront, there may be problems of commercial and residential blight and of vacant land held for long periods in speculation. If it is stil l a working waterfront, there are problems of obsolescence and the seemingly constant struggle to maintain an economic viability. Whether the waterfront is currently in active use or not, limited public access can continue to be a problem. In this chapter, attention will be focussed on a single city to investigate in detail the downtown water-front and its role and relation to that city. The City of Vancouver, British Columbia, because of its pre-eminence as one of Canada's largest cities, because of the importance of its port, because it is the site of major businesses and institu-tions, and because of its magnificent natural setting, has already been the subject for many social and economic studies. In keeping with the attitudes expressed in the early part of this report, the authors felt that the vast majority of the data necessary for the study to be undertaken was already available and that the most diffi-cult problem would be one of synthesis rather than new data generation. 81 To a large measure this has proven true. This case study of both the City and the Port of Vancouver primarily is a reflection of information that has previously been available in numerous scattered sources. This information has been critically re-examined and brought together for the purposes of this study. In some instances, however, where the existing literature was found to be either superficial or lacking in the requisite information, the authors have supplemented or supplied the missing data through personal research. Much of the information to be discussed in this section is based on data provided by the Vancouver City Planning Department, the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the National Harbours Board, and from Kates, Peat, Marwick & Company, J.B. Ward and Associates, C.N. Forward's "Waterfront Land Use in Metropolitan Vancouver"^, and N. Griggs and P. Tassie's "Urban Growth and Transportation Implication in Port Development" . Initially the chapter will explore the setting, development, and growth forecasts for the region and the City. The role of Vancouver's waterfront, particularly the working waterfront, will be considered in terms of access and land use patterns. Much of the subsequent discus-sion will be devoted to spatial change within the port in regard to the development of the port function and the effect on tonnages, commodities, and industrial settlement. Finally, the implications of the full range of changes within the City and the port will be evaluated in regard to the integration of, public access facilities within the setting of the working waterfront. 82 A. THE SETTING On the extreme southwestern coast of Canada within the Province of British Columbia lies the Fraser Lowland (see Figure 6). Geograph-ically part of the Georgia Depression, the area is bounded on the north by the Coast Mountains and on the south by numerous low hills. The broad flat-bottomed valley which rests between these two ranges is Canada's most important corridor to the Pacific. 1. The Lower Mainland and Metropolitan Vancouver Extending for almost 100 miles inland along this corridor is the Lower Mainland Region, home for more than half of British Columbia's population. Economically, the area provides three basic functions: it is the hub of the Province's secondary industries; it is the Provincial focus for service activity; and it is the major port for Western 3 Canada. In the western end of the region lies metropolitan Vancouver (see Figure 7) covering almost 460 square miles and including six cities, eight municipalities, and some unorganized territory. It con-tains almost 90% of the population of the Lower Mainland and its center is the City of Vancouver. 2. The City of Vancouver The City of Vancouver, British Columbia, sits on a 32,000 acre peninsula in the southwest part of the Province, about twenty-five M E T R O P O L I T A N V A N C O U V E R SOURCE: GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT F I G. 7 85 miles from the United States border. The City is fringed on the north by Burrard Inlet, on the south by the Fraser River, and on the west by the Strait of Georgia. Settlement within Vancouver, historically associated with the port, initially developed near the shipping and industrial enterprises along that portion of Burrard Inlet which was later to become the downtown area. Early in its history, Vancouver became the western terminus of the Canadian Pacific Railway and devel-oped its port for ships trading with the Orient. The completion of the Panama Canal in 1915 firmly established the City as a major sea-port since it allowed for the shipping of prairie wheat via Vancouver 4 to Europe. Within fifty years of receiving its Charter in 1886, 5 Vancouver grew from "just another lumber town" to become Canada's third largest city ~ a position it has retained for more than forty years. Through time, the City developed into a transportation term-inal and subsequently became the southern terminus for the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, the northern terminus for the Great Northern Railway, and the western terminus for the Canadian National Railway. In addition, Vancouver is at the western end of the Trans-Canada Highway system and is connected by freeway to the interstate highway system of the United States. As the heart of a metropolitan area, Vancouver shows a concentra-tion of activity within its City limits. While it represents only 10% of the metropolitan land area, Vancouver holds 46% of the metropolitan 86 population and 70% of the commercial floor space. Population within the City and the metropolitan area has increased dramatically and, if forecasts are correct, it will continue at an even faster rate. The 1971 population of the City is greater than the 1941 population of the Province; by 1986, the City is projected to have almost one-third of the Provincial population ~ 29.9% of the people in 0.01% of the land. TABLE 6 VANCOUVER AND THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA POPULATION FORECASTS Vancouver Metro Area Lower Mainland British Columbia 1921 163,220 222,294 249,331 524,582 1931 246,593 337,218 371,319 694,263 1941 275,353 394,588 440,052 817,861 1951 344,833 562,048 636,548 1,165,210 1961 384,522 790,259 894,144 1,629,082 1966 410,375 892,384 1,005,657 1,873,674 1971 435,000 1,026,000 1 ,158,000 2,144,000 1976 458,000 1 ,169,000 1 ,321 ,000 2,447,000 1981 480,000 1,335,000 1,508,000 2,793,000 1986 500,000 1 ,524,000 1 ,722,000 3,188,000 Source: Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, Population Trends in the Lower Mainland. 87 Public and private development within Vancouver has been increasing, especially in recent years, and as Figure 8 indicates, there has been a rise in the number of single and multiple family residences, hotels and lodging houses, and apartment buildings. What has not increased, of course, is the physical land area of the City which has remained constant at approximately 44 square miles. Further, while the City is thus expanding, the metropolitan area is also developing. By 1986, almost half of the provincial population will live in metro-politan Vancouver. "The implication is that the present residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and recreational facilities of the metropolitan area must be virtually doubled during the next fifteen to twenty years."7 As the City of Vancouver acts as the focal point for much of the activity in the metropolitan area, so in a similar manner do discrete areas of the City concentrate certain types of activity. While a recently published survey of population density throughout the metro-politan area was based on 1966 figures and indicated that the highest densities in the City ("more than 20 persons per gross acre") existed both in and around the downtown area, (see Figure 9), a 1970 City Planning Department report indicates that downtown residential density o exceeds 45 persons/acre. Similarly, as indicated in Figure 10, the downtown Vancouver area contains 41% of the commercial floorspace of the metropolitan area and almost 60% of the commercial floorspace of 88 • APARTMENT BUILDINGS .4 5|Ei 610 §15 ' HOTELS AND LODGING HOUSES 5|5 610 6|5 PRIVATE DWELLINGS 85 co 3 ID O ,7 5 *5|5 '6|0 '6 5 C I T Y OF VANCOUVER M U N I C I P A L S T A T I S T I C S SOURCE! CITY CLERK/ CITY OF VANCOUVER F I G . 8 C I T Y OF VANCOUVER, P O P U L A T I O N D E N S I T Y SOURCE: GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL D I S T R I C T CO 90 VANCOUVER DOWNTOWN 10,896,000 OTHER 14,631,000 TOTAL 24,980,000 METROPOLITAN VANCOUVER VANCOUVER 24,980,000 OTHER 10,349,000 TOTAL 35,876,000 M E T R O P O L I T A N VANCOUVER COMMERC I AL F L O O R S P A C E SOURCE: GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT F I G. 10 91 the City. The generalized distribution of cojnmercial activity in the area shows a concentration of development in the vicinity of the CBD waterfront (See figure 11). And while the downtown area is the center for most commercial activity, the area surrounding the downtown shows considerable commercial development. The City of Vancouver, in recognizing the pressures of increasing population and development within the metropolitan area, views the downtown peninsula as serving a local, regional and provincial function. The downtown is intended to be the center for offices (professional, institutional, industrial, governmental), retailing, entertainment and culture, hotels and conventions, and major institutions. (See Figure 12). In addition, the downtown is visualized as the "port and international terminal for the Pacific coast of the North American continent for customs, bonding, brokerage, and passengerliners, but not including heavy industrial functions."^ Planning by both the City Planning Department and the regional planning authority (the Greater Vancouver Regional District) is directed toward strengthening the position of the downtown peninsula as the principal "node" is a system of regional development. Within this system, certain municipalities in the Regional District become growth foci, providing office, retail, and service functions for the surrounding area. These smaller nodes form a hierarchal structure linked by transport lines. The downtown peninsula, serving as the C I T Y OF VANCOUVER/ COMMERCIAL F L O O R S P A C E SOURCE: GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL D I S T R I C T II ro A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J . K. L. M. N. CORE OFFICE BULGE FINANCIAL DISTRICT HOTELS INSTITUTIONS CIVIC AREA GENERAL BUSINESS / THEATRE ROW ROBSON STREET SHOPPING' HASTINGS STREET SHOPPING GRANVILLE STREET SHOPPING CHINATOWN SKID ROW WHOLESALE WHOLESALING MILES DOWN TO WN V A N C O U V E R B U S I N E S S S T R U C T U R E F ! G. 12 SOURCE: C I T Y PLANNING DEAPRTMENT oo 94 regional center, is the largest of the individual nodes. As a result, existing transport lines converge on the area and major new ones --including a rapid rail and bridge-freeway system -- are planned. B. THE VANCOUVER INNER HARBOUR The City of Vancouver contains 98.2 miles of waterfrontage, or about 30% of the total length of the waterfront in the metropolitan area.^ Within the City, the waterfront is divided ctmong port, in-dustrial, residential, and recreational users. (See Figure 13). The City of Vancouver and particularly the Burrard Inlet water-front developed in a context of trade and shipping. Figure 14 identifies the five-and-a-half miles that comprise the Inner Harbour — the land area with which this chapter will be directly concerned. Within this study area, land uses are varied. As Table 7 shows, about one-third of the area is taken up with manufacturing, commercial, and storage uses. Almost one-half of the land area is devoted to shipping, terminals, and land transport facilities. About one-seventh of the land is taken up by recreation, fishboat moorings, marinas, towing, and vacant land. Of the remainder of Vancouver's waterfront acreage that is not engaged in the port function, a substantial amount appears to be devoted to recreation. (See Figure 13). In his report on waterfront ] AGRICULTURAL AND UNUSED RECREATIONAL RESIDENTIAL MANUFACTURING LAND TRANSPORTATION, UTILITIES, CONSTRUCTION, SERVICES-2 M I L E S C I T Y OF V A N C O U V E R / WATERFRONT LAND USE SOURCE: CN. FORWARD/ LAND USE IN METROPOLITAN VANCOUVER/ B.C. 97 TABLE 7 INNER HARBOUR LAND USE BY FUNCTION Land Use Acres3 % Manufacturing, warehousing, major 133.60 31.4 repairs, gravel operations, etc. Transport, utility communication 256.40 60.4 CPort) Automotive, wholesale, outdoor 20.20 4.7 retail and commercial recreation Retail, personal services, indoor 7.15 1.6 commercial recreation Public Parks and recreation 9.75 1.9 Total 427.10 100.0 Source: Greater Vancouver Regional District, Development  Map Series VII. aIncludes area between railway line and water as of June 1970. land in metropolitan Vancouver, C.N. Forward noted: Waterfront recreational land, including parks and golf courses, is strongly concentrated in the peninsular area of Vancouver City and Point Grey. The greater part of the shoreline from the mouth of the North Arm around Point Grey to the Coal Harbour boundary of Stanley Park is open to the public as recreational land. The Point Grey and Stanley Park sections are wooded and between these extremities are long stretches of sand beach suitable for swimming.12 98 This appraisal of recreational land within the City makes Vancouver sound ideal. On inspection, however, it becomes evident that some of these areas are inaccessible (especially in the University-West Point Grey area) while others are substantially undeveloped. Bathers have also become more cautious about swimming in local waters because of 13 rising coloform counts and increasingly frequent pollution scares. Nonetheless, the Vancouver beaches along English Bay, Kitsilano, and Spanish Banks can attract 50,000 to 100,000 people on a summer after-noon. 1. Public Goals Numerous public goals have been provided for Vancouver's water-front over the past twenty years. Today, with fourteen miles of beachfront (which includes the inaccessible and undeveloped areas), many groups within Vancouver argue that the currently available public waterfront does not satisfy the needs of the City. They stress that, while more beachfront around the City is desirable and should be secured, it is particularly important to assure public access to Vancouver's downtown harbourfront. a. Parks Board The Vancouver Board of Parks and Public Recreation has long stressed that publicly accessible waterfront is critical to a city growing in population and importance and that such accessibility is related directly to the liveability of the City. The current total 99 of public waterfront ts felt to be insufficient and impediments to public use are widespread. This problem, particularly noticeable in regard to Vancouver's working waterfront, has prompted Parks Commis-sioner Helen Boyce to note that, "Public access to Vancouver's harbour is one of the most pressing problems to the City today. b. Technical Planning Board The Vancouver Technical Planning Board, when proposing a study of a pedestrian walkway along Coal Harbour more than ten years ago, held a different view of whether the available public waterfront was sufficient, but considerably refined the issue in regard to the Inner Harbour and the downtown waterfront. G. Sutton Brown, then chairman of the TPB, felt that in comparison with the total length of waterfront in Vancouver, "the public access thereto (the downtown waterfront) is quite limited, especially the particular kind of access which would allow the public to enjoy the fascination of viewing, at 15 close range, the activities connected with the Harbour and boating. c. The National Harbours Board The National Harbours Board, the Federal body which man-ages and administers Vancouver's harbour, is critically aware of the potential uses of the Inner Harbour: Here in Vancouver, we have been and are being forced to take advantage of every natural configuration of the land, and every natural deposit of material for reclama-tion, all in our desire to create space.16 But while encouraging growth and development of the Port of Vancouver, 100 the NHB is aware of the City of Vancouver's need for downtown water-front land. After the NHB gained control of the land in the area west of Centennial Pier to CPR Pier B-C, it was suggested that a major new dock facility be constructed. The NHB's response was that We should be careful about spreading commercial and industrial facilities west of Centennial Pier...there are both aesthetics and practicality to consider. Rail and truck access would not be the best. In addition, the land abutting the port is being developed for such things as Project 200 composed of highrise commercial and residential buildings. Possibly...the port area involved should be developed to merge in with things such as Project 200 by providing berthing for passenger ships, perhaps a world trades center, shopping malls, and maybe a fisherman's wharf.17 d. The City Planning Department The Planning Department of the City of Vancouver, in con-sidering current and potential uses for the downtown waterfront, is in ideological accord with the priorities expressed in the proposals for waterfront development discussed in Chapter III. But aware of the needs of a growing city and an expanding metropolitan area, the Plan-ning Department is concerned with the need to arrange harbour facilities efficiently for transhipping and for economy of investment and operation. It has noted that the current scatteration of port facilities is "not 18 really economic or efficient". But there are critical considerations in rearranging the port facility. The Director of the City Planning Department has stated A better harbour cannot be obtained without a worse down-down, unless development of both is carefully co-ordinated ...In terms of linear footage, the growth in water frontage for recreation will far outstrip requirements for dock 101 facilities...Despite the obvious growth of the port... because of the reduction in the hours of work and the need for recreation for an expanding population, we will need more water frontage for recreation than for port facilities in the next twenty years...If Vancouver is to maintain an enviable position both in the world of tourism and environment, then there is one slogan we should adopt, in addition to port development, 'Conserve Vancouver's Blue-Green Belt', because there is some danger that we could sacrifice recreation needs to port development, or vice versa, rather than balancing both objectives.19 In March 1970, the City Planning Department completed work on five alternative development plans for downtown Vancouver. In all of the five plans, at least half of the downtown waterfront was devoted to marinas and open space and, in one of them, "Concept 5", approxi-mately 80% of the waterfront between Gore and Chilco is designated for such use. The description of Concept 5 includes the following: The waterfront would be redeveloped in a pattern of several distinctive and unique sub-areas--each designed to provide alternative types of harbour activities. These would include and mix facilities for community and tourist leisure, retailing, small pleasure craft, ocean liners and ferries. A waterfront promenade would tie these together and would eventually provide a beautiful and fascinating walking area.20 In February 1971, the Planning Department reported to City Council that Concept 5 "is the public's choice as the most favored option and 21 philosophy to guide the downtown plan". As a result, it is now proposed that over a thirty year period the waterfront land adjacent the downtown would change from predominately rail yards and industry to commercial, marine, and some residential use. 102 e. Greater Vancouver Regional District The Greater Vancouver Regional District, an authority that exists between the municipal and the provincial level of government, is engaged in planning for the City of Vancouver only insofar as the City relates to the Official Lower Mainland Regional Plan. While i t 1 is specifically required that zoning changes within the region be in accord with those set forth in the Official Plan, the ruling is gen-erally superfluous in the case of Vancouver. The long.range regional plan for Vancouver's Inner Harbour area (as well as for all of Vancouver) mirrors current zoning and it appears that the City's conventional water-front zoning was accepted in toto at the time the Plan was prepared. It therefore seems likely that should Vancouver decide to alter its waterfront development pattern, the GVRD -- in its capacity as overseer of the Plan — would approve such redesignated land use so long as the change was in accord with other elements of the Official Plan. These "other elements" are the development concepts around which the Plan itself was formulated and which could have a direct bearing on develop-ments along Vancouver's waterfront. Of the five general policies for achieving growth as specified in the Plan, the first is "orderly development", defined in part as a series of regional towns "comple-menting a Regional business, social, and financial Core in downtown 22 Vancouver". Therefore, because of its location on the downtown peninsula adjacent to the CBD, the Inner Harbour cannot avoid having serious consequences for downtown Vancouver. If the City's downtown 103 is indeed to become an economic and social core for the entire metro-politan region, then the uses of the Inner Harbour waterfront become significant for the Regional District. 2. Physical and Visual Access To understand the nature of access to Vancouver's Inner Harbour waterfront, one must consider the spatial configuration and development of the area. A glance at Figure 15 will show that the downtown city street system appears to end abruptly when it reaches within 500 feet of the waterfront. However, when the Canadian Pacific Railway lines in the area are added, (see Figure 16), it becomes clear why the street system extends no further -- the rail lines effectively cut off the Inner Harbour from the rest of the city. Within Vancouver's Inner Harbour, land ownership is primarily vested in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the National Har-bours Board. The CPR maintains two railway yards along the Inner Harbour. The largest one runs almost the. entire length of the down-town waterfront, extending from Cardero Street on the west to Columbia Street on the east, and acts as a barrier to the waterfront. Eight-foot high chain-link fences are drawn across several streets in the downtown area to prohibit entrance into the yards. It must be recog-nized that while it may be difficult, dangerous or illegal,physical access is in fact available to much of the Vancouver harbourfront. Many of the downtown streets continue into the waterfront area and do 106 "dissolve" into the CPR railway yard. (See Figure 15). Particularly in the area east of Granville Street, such north-south streets as Columbia and Cambie are not fenced-off along the waterfront and one can wander into the CPR yard. These and numerous other streets act as feeders either to the railway yards or to businesses located on the waterfront. There is no public street system for waterfront business and, if an operation is not serviced by a private waterfront access road, the north-south street is then used as if it were a lane or an alley. That is, if a north-south street continues north of Hastings, Cordova, Water, Alexander, Powell, or Wall Street, it is likely that loading docks, delivery and shipment areas, employee parking (usually at right-angle to the curb), and other activities normally carried out on private property or in the rear of some business operation will occur on the street itself. One result of this arrangement is frequent congestion within these areas. In addition, there are also mid-block lanes, e.g., between Cambie and Richards along Cordova, which divide a block in a north-south direction and lead directly into the CPR yards. Of the numerous potential access points along all of the Vancouver harbour, there are two that are substantially less confusing and less dangerous to approach. At the foot of Burrard Street and at the Foot 107 of Main Street, there are neither railroad lines to cross nor congested truck-loading areas.* The single area along the harbourfront that is purportedly intended for public use is extraordinarily difficult to find and, once located, is difficult to approach safely. New Brighton Park is in the eastern part of the City in close proximity to the Second Narrows Bridge. The Park is approached via an unmarked road which, if traveling westerly, requires a sudden hairpin turn. To enter the Park, one travels this road through a narrow concrete tunnel (actually a railway overpass) whereupon the road abruptly stops and no parking is allowed. Pedestrian access is provided by a walkway which is itself difficult to find. To walk in the access road could prove extremely dangerous since it is shared with the adjacent Alberta Wheat Pool and heavy trucks travel the road constantly. In none of the access points discussed above is one able, in the words of Alderman 23 Art Phillips, "to dip your toe in the water". The attempt here has been to determine those points along the Inner Harbour where, through physical access, it is possible to gain close visual access to the waterfront. Most of the eastern section of the waterfront has development (industrial and residential) along the shore which blocks any ground level view. While this is generally true in the downtown area, some excellent vantage points are available *At the Foot of Burrard, Heatly, and Renfrew Streets are service roads with direct access to waterfront industries. These industries cannot be approached via the regular City street system. 108 looking north from the mid-block parking lots and dead-end City streets, especially between Carrol and Cambie on Water. Both the Foot of Main and the Foot of Burrard offer exceptional view points, as does the CPR station parking lot at the end of Seymour Street -- site of the under-construction Project 200 development.* 3. The Legal Rights of Access The foregoing discussion indicated the access available for approaching the Vancouver harbourfront. However, since all lands are owned and leased primarily by the NHB or the CPR (with a scattering of private owners), making use of such access may be legal or illegal, depending on the reasons for such use. There is no overall historical precedent for providing public access to the downtown working waterfront; even the mere term "public access" has never been judicially defined in Canada or the United 24 States. Certain chapters of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia would, on the surface, appear to have relevance in regard to this matter. •Project 200, now in the first stages of construction at the Foot of Granville Street, is a development of the Canadian Pacific Railway that is proposed to total nearly 10 million square feet of floor space. To be built on a 16.6 acre platform above the present Canadian Pacific Railway tracks, Project 200 will include fifteen separate buildings to comprise an office-hotel-trade-residential-retail center. It has been attacked as "waterfront vandalism" that will "brutalize" the City, "cut off the downtown view of the mountains and the waterfront", and "satur-ate" the downtown peninsula with cars. 109 The Land Registry Act, Chapter 208 (RSBC 1960), section 86b notes in regard to subdivision that: Where the land subdivided borders on the shore of any navigable water, access shall be given by sufficient public highways to such navigable water at distances not greater than three chains between centre lines, or, in district municipalities or unorganized territory where the parcels in which the land is subdivided exceed one acre, at distances not greater than two chains between centre lines. 23 The CPR, however, received Inner Harbour land in the 1885 agreement with the Provincial government whereby the railway agreed to establish a terminal in the area of Coal Harbour and English Bay. The grant was not covered by the Land Registry Act and, therefore, the CPR was not 2fi required to provide public access to the waterfront. Insofar as public access relates to the use of City streets in Vancouver, the City's Street and Traffic By-Law, No. 2849, defines "street" as including "public road, highway, bridge, viaduct, lane, and sidewalk, and any other way normally open to the use of the public" but then goes on to say "but does not include a private right of way 27 on private property." In the case of the waterfront service roads and the CPR yards, it then becomes clear that use of the access, except for legitimate business reasons, may constitute trespass. Both CPR and NHB property contain innumerable signs proclaiming that the area is private property and that trespassers will be prosecuted. 4. Zoning and Land Value Legal control over land use is achieved through zoning legislation. no Municipal governments use zoning as a tool with which to control city growth and development and the importance of zoning in Vancouver's development is evident in recent statements by local officials. Alder-man Brian Calder believes that the way to make Vancouver a liveable 28 human environment is by "controlling developing through zoning". Bill Graham, Director of Planning for Vancouver, has stated his belief that zoning, and particularly comprehensive development zoning ("CD1") allows greater civic control over growth while providing more flexibil-29 ity for individual developments. Zoning does provide an indication of land use in an area by pro-hibiting all but the permitted uses to be developed within the zoned area. As can be seen from Figures 17 and 18, the only zoning changes effected along the waterfront in the last fifteen years have occurred in the west end of the study area. The change resulted in conversion of this area from "Industrial" to "CD1" comprehensive development in 1961. The pressure which preceded the zoning change and led to the redevelopment of the Coal Harbour area is now being felt along the waterfront in the area from Cardero to Abbott Street. It is within this area that the CPR intends to construct its Project 200 office-commercial -residential complex. In 1968, the developers of Project 200 applied for and were granted rezoning of 500 feet of shoreline to comprehensive development in order to proceed with the first stage of the Project. Continuation of Project 200 into the second stage will affect 2000 feet of shoreline -I 1 1 M-l INDUSTRIAL • i M-2 INDUSTRIAL I N N E R H A R B O U R Z O N I N G / 1 9 5 5 17 SOURCE: VANCOUVER CITY ASSESSMENT DEPARTMENT CD-I COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT t i t M-2 INDUSTRIAL I N N E R H A R B O U R Z O N I N G , 1 9 7 0 F I G. 18 SOURCE: VANCOUVER CITY ASSESSMENT DEPARTMENT 113 from Howe Street to Abbott Street, by making use of the air rights over the existing CPR yards. While the railway yards in the Project 200 area will sti l l exist after completion of the development, con-struction of any new port facilities in the area east of Abbott will be greatly impeded due to access problems for vehicular traffic and high levels of urban development. Zoning, through its control of land use, exerts an influence on the market value of land. Land value is an economic indicator that represents the worth of property to an owner and/or user. Since different land uses yield different economic returns, those properties which generate the highest dollar value because of their actual or potential use have the highest land value. A comparison of land values in the Greater Vancouver area has shown that industrial land is one of the lower valued land uses. TABLE 8 GREATER VANCOUVER LAND VALUES . $/Acre • $/Acre Median Residential $ 25,000 $ 175,000 $ 70,000 Apartment 40,000 520,000 200,000 Commercial 130,000 1 ,960,000 500,000 Industrial 2,500 350,000 50,000 Source: Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board, Real Estate Trends in  Greater Vancouver, 1970. 114 Land value can vary considerably within a single land use category because of such things as site location, foundation materials, and level of servicing. The value of industrial land in metropolitan Vancouver ranges from a low of $2,500 per acre in Port Coquitlam to a high of $350,000 per acre in Vancouver. As Table 9 shows, the compar-ative values of the Vancouver Inner Harbour waterfront industrial lands are about average for the Greater Vancouver area, and that non-waterfront properties are almost double the per acre value of the Inner Harbour waterfront. The low value of waterfront land is even more pronounced when considering the complete range of land values. Table 10 indicates that waterfront industrial land provides some of the lowest values of any land use in the City. It is also important to consider the difference between land values along the waterfront and land values in the urban areas which lie adjacent to the waterfront. The figures in Table 11 are used by the City Assessment Department*and indicate the value of land along the Inner Harbour waterfront; they have remained relatively stable for the 30 past fifteen years. Meanwhile, the corresponding land values in the upland areas adjacent to the waterfront are generally much higher than those along the waterfront itself. This is especially evident in the •Assessment values in Vancouver are based on market values and represent 100% of the actual land value. 115 TABLE 9 INDUSTRIAL LAND VALUES IN GREATER VANCOUVER Area $/Acre Vancouver Cambie - Granville 305,000 - 350,000 Cambie - Main 175,000 - 260,000 Powell - Clark Drive 150,000 - 195,000 Boundary Road (poor footing) 40,000 - 50,000 Boundary Road (good footing) 50,000 - 75,000 Marine Drive 50,000 - 75,000 Inner Harbour 50,000 - 75,000 Burnaby Lougheed Highway at Boundary Road 45,000 - 55,000 Lougheed Highway at Willingdon 75,000 - 90,000 Marine Drive 20,000 - 30,000 Other 30,000 - 60,000 North Vancouver City 25,000 - 40,000 North Vancouver District 25,000 - 40,000 Port Coquitlam 2,500 - 3,500 Richmond 15,000 - 30,000 Source: Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board, Real Estate  Trends in Greater Vancouver, 1970. aValue calculated on the basis of $1.25/square foot and $1.75/square foot. 116 TABLE 10 CITY OF VANCOUVER LAND VALUES BY USE AND AREA Use/Area $/Acre Residential West of Main 130,000 - 175,000 East of Main 95,000 - 110,000 Residential Apartment West End 435,000 - 520,000 South Granvtlle-Oak 335,000 - 435,000 Kitsilano 270,000 - 350,000 Marpole 205,000 - 260,000 Mt. Pleasant 260,000 - 305,000 East Hastings 180,000- 215,000 Commercial Hastings-Granyille-Burrard 1,315,000 - 1,960,000 Hastings-Dunsmuir 870,000 - 1,315,000 Hastings-Melville 650,000 - 1,090,000 Burrard-Bute 570,000 - 1,045,000 Davie-Denman-Robson 435,000 - 520,000 Broadway: Oak-Cambie 350,000 - 435,000 Cambie-Main 305,000 - 390,000 East Hastings 175,000 - 260,000 Victoria-Renfrew Industrial Cambie-Granville 305,000 - 350,000 Cambie-Main 175,000 - 260,000 Powell-Clark Drive 150,000 - 195,000 Boundary Road (poor footing) 40,000 - 50,000 Boundary Road (good footing) 50,000 - 75,000 Marine Drive 50,000 - 75,000 Inner Harbour Waterfront 50,000 - 75,000 Source: Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board, Real Estate  Trends in Greater Vancouver, 1970. aValue calculated on the basis of assessment values in Table Vancouver Waterfront Property Assessment. 0 117 TABLE 11 CITY OF VANCOUVER WATERFRONT PROPERTY ASSESSMENT, 1970 Area $/Square Foot Chi 1co Street to Cardero Street Cardero Street to Heatley Avenue Heatley Avenue to Clark Drive Clark Drive to Boundary Road 6.30 (land area) 1.75 Qand area) 1.45 (land area) 1.25 (land area) Cardero Street to Boundary Road .53 (water area) Source: City of Vancouver Assessment Department. area adjacent to the CBD from Cardero to Abbott. (See Figure 19). The difference becomes less pronounced as one moves easterly, away from the CBD. In order to examine the relation of land use and zoning to land value along the waterfront, a study was undertaken of the area between Chilco and Cardero and between Heatley and Clark. (See Figure 20). Area 1 in Coal Harbour was selected because of recent zoning changes and because the adjacent upland area was not in industrial use. The effect of a zoning changes from industrial to CD! permitting a variety of land uses had a dramatic effect on land values. As can be seen from Figure 21, the Coal Harbour waterfront area increased in value since 1959 at a faster rate than has the adjacent upland area. The absolute values D O W N T O W N A N D W A T E R F R O N T L A N D V A L U E S , 1 9 6 1 ( M E A N D O L L A R P E R S Q U A R E F O O T ) SOURCE: VANCOUVER CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT F ! G . 00 SOURCE: V.S. PENDAKUR (UNPUBLISHED RESEARCH FILES) 121 of the properties, however, are not yet equal with the upland area which themselves exhibit a high land value. Area 2, between Heatley and Clark, was selected because of its active working waterfront and because the upland area was industrially zoned and used. Value changes, it might be assumed, would be comparable between the waterfront and upland areas because of the similar charac-teristics of use and location. As Figure 21 indicates, however, land value changes have definitely not been comparable. The waterfront land had a higher absolute value in 1956 than did the adjacent upland. However, the much higher rate of increase in value experienced by upland properties to 1969 has resulted in the upland having a higher absolute value than the waterfront. In explanation of this phenomena, one must look to the ownership and control exerted over the waterfront area by the National Harbours Board and the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is because of the port use of the waterfront and the power exerted by these two agencies that land in the area is zoned and subsequently assessed at a lower level than upland area similarly zoned and used. Overall, waterfront lands are among the lowest in assessed value of any land in the City and are maintained at this relatively constant level especially in the area adjacent to the CBD. The recent waterfront rezoning in the Coal Harbour area is evidence of the dramatic effect that zoning change can have on property values. 122 5. Physical Character Vancouver's Burrard Inlet waterfront extends between Coal Harbour* and the Second Narrows Bridge. The geographical features, particularly the bearing capacity, slope, and water depth are important determinants of land use in any area. The bearing capacity of land along Vancouver's Inner Harbour is so high that there is no need for securing additional 31 foundation for even the heaviest industrial structures. a. Slope The slope for much of the study area is a gentle one, well-suited to a wide variety of land uses and one which provides easy access to the water. As Figure 22 shows, slopes in the western part of the study area within 500 feet of the water are generally under 5%. A section between Cardero and Granville has slopes ranging up to 10% and, in the east end of the area between Victoria and Boundary, slopes become much steeper, up to 20%. Most of the port facilities have been constructed in the area west of Victoria where slopes to the water are less steep. b. Water Depth Water depth adjacent to the shoreline is an important *While geographically part of the Inner Harbour, the Coal Harbour area is now frequently excluded from assessments of Vancouver's harbourfront. Located in the extreme western section of the Harbour, the area found early use serving coastal operations and provided a light manufacturing zone which made use of tug and barge sea traffic. In recent years, this area has been rezoned to non-port use. It now serves as a base for pleasure craft, amphibian planes, and harbour tours. I N N E R H A R B O U R , S L O P E S SOURCE: CN.FORWARD/ LAND USE IN METROPOLITAN VANCOUVER/ B.C. F I G. 22 124 restraint to shipping activity. Depending on the nature of the harbour bottom adjacent to the berths, water depth at berthside must usually provide for the draft of a fully loaded vessel at low tide. In the case of deep sea general cargo vessels, depth of 30 feet at berth is at present considered adequate. Entrance to all facilities in Burrard Inlet must be gained through the First Narrows channel which provides 39 feet of water at low tide. Figures 23A,B provide a breakdown of water depth at berthside along with the nature of operations carried on at the berth. It can be seen from this chart that Coal Harbour pro-vides the most shallow water along the area. The water depth east of Cardero is generally adequate for accommodating deep sea vessels and, 32 while the frequency of berthing in some parts of this area is low, water depth is rarely the restriction, c. Water Quality The value of a waterbody to uses other than shipping is dependent to a large degree on water quality. Waterbodies have long served a convenient and economical disposal function for the wastes of private industry and public utilities. In evidence of this is the fact that while most of the City of Vancouver is sewered, the water-front is not. As a result, most facilities located along the Inner Harbour dump waste directly into the Inlet, regardless of the nature of the waste. In addition to harbourfront industries, Burnaby, Port Moody, the North Shore Municipalities, and the City of Vancouver have outfalls that drain into Burrard Inlet. (See Figure 24). In al l , 128 pollution of the City's waterfront is contributed to from five major sources: discharge of untreated sewerage from the upland areas; discharge of untreated industrial waste; discharge of organic refuse from food processing plants; seepage from petro-chemical storage tanks; and dis-charge of oil and untreated sewage from vessels. 5. Land Transportation Network Rail and roadway lines along the waterfront provide inland transpor-tation to the facilities located there. The Canadian Pacific Railway corridor runs the full length of the waterfront connecting to Canadian Pacific yards on the north shore of False Creek and Great Northern Railway yards to the east of False Creek. This corridor provides Canadian National Railway with access to all National Harbours Board piers and joint access between CP and CN to most of the NHB elevators along the waterfront. (See Figure 25). The Canadian National Railway has extensive trackage on the north shore of Burrard Inlet which joins with the Pacific Great Eastern Rail-way line to serve all of the north shore waterfront. Until 1967, this trackage was accessible only by use of the CP corridor between Campbell Avenue and the Second Narrows Bridge. That is, there was no approach to the Second Narrows railway bridge except via the CP line along the waterfront. However, completion of a link between the Great Northern line in Burnaby through a new railway tunnel parallel to Boundary Road and across a new railway bridge at Second Narrows replacing the 12? 130 old crossing provided direct access to CN's north shore line without 33 use of CP's waterfront line. Completion of a marshalling yard on the North Shore by CN to the east of Neptune Terminals has added to the railroad facilities provided for North Shore rail movement. The most recent study of railroad movements in the Vancouver area shows the CPR is stil l the dominant carrier in metropolitan Vancouver, handling about 55% of the cars moving into and out of the area. The CNR accounts for another 30% with the GNR and the PGE accounting for the remaining movements. TABLE 12 FREIGHT MOVEMENTS THROUGH GREATER VANCOUVER BY RAIL (TONS) Canadian Canadian Great Pacific B.C. Movements Pacific National Northern Great Hydro TOTAL Railway Railway Railway Eastern Out 70,000 34,000 16,000 6,000 5,000 131,000 In 119,000 67,000 3,000 16,000 4,000 209,000 TOTAL 189,000 101,000 19,000 22,000 9,000 134,000 % 56% 30% 5% 6% 3% 100% Source: British Columbia Research Council, Freight Movements Through Greater Vancouver. 131 A recent proposal was made by the City of Vancouver for a terminal railway to serve the Port of Vancouver. This proposal involved estab-lishment of an area within which all rail movements would be controlled by a terminal agency. This would effectively eliminate the presence of individual railway companies within the port. Thus all companies would have cars delivered to a central terminal marshalling yard from which individual companies would make up their trains for movement inland. This proposal was rejected by the NHB who would have controlled the terminal facility on the grounds that individual companies were pro-viding adequate service. Further, the NHB would have been hard pressed to find adequate space for the marshalling yard required by such an operation. It could only be achieved by a major land f i l l operation or 34 by dislocation of present users in the area. Vancouver's waterfront industry is served by the City street system for motor vehicle movement. This same system provides service to the CBD -- the largest single generator of traffic flows from other parts of the City and from the North Shore. As Vancouver's CBD is located on a peninsula between False Creek and Burrard Inlet, entrance to the down-town is concentrated either on the narrow neck of land to the east or on one of the three bridges from the south. From the north, entrance is gained only over Lions Gate Bridge. Approximately 55% of the traffic entering the CBD enters from the east. Powell, Cordova, and Hastings Streets lie adjacent to the water-front and are commonly used for access to the CBD and large sections 132 of the waterfront. Traffic flows along these streets are considered to be high at 10,000 to 12,000 vehicles per day, providing congested condi-tions on the street system in the area. (See Figure 26). Conflict has also developed between road and railway carriers in this area. In al l , there are eleven grade crossings of road and rail lines. At all these crossings, delays are common as roadways are blocked for long periods by passing rail carriers which have the right of way. 7. Land Use The Vancouver Harbour area provides the amenities of ease of access, solid building foundation, and deep water berthing -- essential qualities which are highly attractive to both port and manufacturing operations. Land use in the Inner Harbour strongly reflects its suitability for these uses. (See Table 7, page 97, and Figures 27A,B). The predominance of industrial users, covering over 30% of the area, and of port and transportation users, occupying over 60% of the area (including railway lines, NHB roadways, and currently used docks and piers), make the Inner Harbour the most intensively used harbourfront on the Canadian Pacific coast. As Figures 27A and B indicate, the section most intensively used along the waterfront is that area between Granville and Victoria which provides the most gentle slope to the water -- once more indicat-ing the importance of ease of access within the study area. Parking areas account for approximately 5% of the remaining area. The only area giyen exclusively to recreation consists of the previously mentioned i/Zl TRANSPORTATION, UTILITY, COMMUNICATION ' 2 3 S C A L E I O O O F E E T MANUFACTURING, WAREHOUSING, ETC, RETAIL, PERSONAL SERVICES AUTOMOTIVE, WHOLESALE, OUTDOOR RETAIL PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION E R H A R B O U R , P O R T F A C I L I T I E S A N D L A N D U S E SOURCE: GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISJRICT F I G. B 136 New Brighton Park in the City's east end which occupies 1.8% of the City's waterfront. Table 13 provides a summary of land use and user characteristics 35 along the Inner Harbour. Buildings, piers, and wharves in the water-oc front area are for the most part over 35 years old. Centennial Pier and the Alberta Wheat Pool (see Figures 27A,B) are the only two major facilities constructed in the area within the last ten years. Age, however, is not considered as relevant an indication of usefulness as building condition. Figures 28A,B present a summary of the condition of structures along the waterfront. As can be seen, the quality of building condition is highly variable within the Inner Harbour, thus making generalization very difficult. It is important to note, however, that high quality wharves and structures are often flanked by decaying or poor quality facilities and that such juxtaposition is common in the case of both shipping terminals and manufacturing wharves. 8. The Utilization of Site Advantage Of the numerous land users in the Inner Harbour, it cannot be assumed that each makes active use of his waterfront location or, in fact, that the operation is waterfront oriented. A 1967 study done by J.B. Ward and Associates provided an inventory of users along the 37 waterfront and their orientation of their use. Table 14 provides a summary of the finding; of the report for the Vancouver Inner Harbour area. OO TABLE 13 INNER HARBOUR LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS Land Use No. of Users Mean Year of Origin Mean Year of Major Investment Mean Floor Area (Square Ft.) Mean Site Area (Acres) Mean Waterfrontage (Feet) Mean Total Employment Mean Total Parki ng (Spaces) Construction . 1 1960 1957 11,000 0.3 4 3 Sales, Service and Repair Marine Land 9 8 1943 1958 1944 1931 21,400 10,950 3.38 1.31 150.0 48.3 27.5 23.4 20.7 12.5 Processing Fish Other Foods Minerals and Metals Lumber 17 3 3 1947 1932 1933 1947 1938 1942 17,195 236,666 48,166 1.42 5.93 4.57 133.5 236.7 616.7 35.1 167.0 43.7 16.0 97.0 29.0 Recreation 2 1940 1940 12,910 3.45 150.0 2.0 6.0 Terminals Goods Passengers 10 4 1943 1956 1934 1956 93,689 1,664 14.81 0.77 368.6 75.0 52.1 3.3 38.8 16.0 Transportation Service, Marine and Land 13 1943 1943 50,763 3.32 190.3 57.8 33.2 Public Administration & Communication 8 1939 1936 7,500 0.21 27.5 20.9 16.8 Other 2 1959 1953 550 0.30 37.5 2.0 2.0 I Mean 1943 1942 39,105 3.76 170.3 39.2 24.7 TOTAL 80 3.128,411 300.5 13,620.4 3,137.2 1,973.0 Source: Waterfront Surveys, 1969, 1970. 140 TABLE 14 INNER HARBOUR UTILIZATION OF SITE ADVANTAGE Property Use Orientatlona Temporarily-b Conditional b Total Acceptable Acceptable Not Acceptable Water Oriented 6 Harbour Oriented 64 Non-Harbour and Non-Water Oriented 12 City Street-Ends and Sewer Outfalls 15 Exceptional 3 2 40 15 3 2 11 0 0 0 2 13 12 0 0 TOTAL 100 60 13 27 Source: J.B. Ward and Associates, "Report on the Port of Vancouver". aAs explained in the report, "Water Oriented" are industries or services requiring water access for other than deep-sea or coastal shipping; "Harbour Oriented" are industries or services requiring prime harbour facilities for deep-sea or coastal shipping; "Non-Harbour and Non-Water Oriented" are uses not requiring water access for any reason; "Exceptional" are uses excluded from the analysis due to policy acceptance of their location'. ^"Acceptable" and "Not Acceptable" are terms to indicate only if the industry or service could function elsewhere if harbour devel-opment required the specific location now or in the future. c"Temporarily-Conditional" is the term for uses which lie between Acceptable and Not Acceptable, i.e., the location of the service or industry on the harbourfront is neither wholly dependent or independent of its site. 141 Of the 100 property users in the Inner Harbour, 70 were in water or harbour-oriented use. Of this number, only 42 were considered "acceptable" by the report with another 13 termed "conditionally acceptable". Fifteen were considered "unacceptable" even though they were in uses oriented to the waterfront. The report evaluated as "acceptable" all active users of harbour navigation, including pier and wharf operations. "Conditionally acceptable" users were construction, tugboat, and fishing operations which could be located in areas other than the Inner Harbour. Non-harbour oriented users consisted of com-mercial, government, industrial and storage operations which did not require a waterfront location. Street-ends and sewage outfalls were considered acceptable functions as public facilities. C. THE PORT OF VANCOUVER The Port of Vancouver covers an area from Point Atkinson in the North to Roberts Bank in the south.. (See Figure 7, page 97). It ex-tends to include all of Burrard Inlet, False Creek, and Sturgeon Bank, but excludes both arms of the Fraser River. Port facilities are found in Vancouver, Burnaby, Port Moody, West Vancouver, North Vancouver, and Delta. The dominance of the City of Vancouver over the Port is an historic development. But to properly understand the particular problems of Vancouver's waterfront in regard to its port function, it 142 is necessary to describe the shipping activity which has generated the City's waterfront development and which, in large measure, will define the function of the waterfront in the future. A description of this tremendous growth in Vancouver's shipping activity must include some discussion of the position of the port in relation to hinterlands and forelands, its competition with other B.C. ports, and the type of cargo handled through the Port. 1. The Historic Development Like many other ports along the Pacific Coast, Vancouver was first developed in 1859 as a single purpose port. In this instance, the site was selected for milling timber which grew along the banks of Burrard Inlet. This type of single-purpose port, common to British Columbia's coast, reflected a resource-oriented economy. On the whole, such ports serve localized hinterlands and provide the node through which either raw materials are shipped to processing plants or refined or semi-refined products are shipped to markets. Most of these west coast ports handle only a single type of cargo from a mine, mill, or other resource area. Usually the cargo is bulk in character and these ports provide one or two deep sea berths at the end of a bulk loading install-ation. Land movement is not highly developed and the transportation networks which emerge are traditionally maritime rather than landward in 38 character. As a result, the cargo flow structure through west coast ports is oriented to external markets and characterized by high volume 143 export movements in a limited number of commodities or commodity groups.* Import flows to single purpose ports are characterized by high volume movements of a limited number of commodities essential to the production of their export items. Only Vancouver, Victoria, and New Westminster handle import flows which are directly consumer oriented and, of these, 39 only Vancouver handles a significant volume. While Vancouver's heritage too was as a single purpose port, it had outstanding amenities in its deep water, ice-free, protected harbour which provided inland access to the Fraser Valley. Because of these advantages, the Port did not decline with the exhaustion of the local timber supplies. Instead, the Vancouver waterfront was able to serve for a time as the locale of a central lumber mill which processed tim-ber cut further up the coast. The lumber itself was exported on ships which called with increasing regularity at Vancouver. Arrival of the Canadian Pacific Railway promoted sawmill expansion and provided new port facilities over which small tonnages of diversified goods were 40 transhipped. The years 1890-1900 were years of growth, based primarily on local commerce, expanding coastwise shipping, and popula-tion growth from 1000 to 111,000.41 Canada's Pacific coastline, guarded by the Coast Mountains, provides only a few land routes. Of the forty-five sea ports (see Table 15) which *Two-thirds of B.C.'s total export tonnage in 1965 was concen-trated in five commodities. See Tablel7, page 147. TABLE 15 144 FOREIGN TRADE CARGO TONNAGES HANDLED IN B.C. PORTS, 1965, (TONS) Port Export Import Total Percent of Rank 1965 Total Baraberton 9,836 24,684 34,529 .29 .15 Blubber Bay 753,630 753,630 . 6 3.27 Britannia Beach 52,612 7,804 60,416 26 .26 Butterfly Bay 22,761 22,761 32 .10 Chemainus 300,066 6,874 306,940 16 1.33 Coal Harbour 1.269 1,448 2,747 41 <.01 Cowichan Bay 20,217 1,150 21,367 . 33 .09 Crofton 294,656 91,628 386,284 13 1.68 Duncan Bay 469,246 48,605 517,851 12 2.24 Esquimalt 3,300 8,178 11,478 34 .05 Gold River - 318 318 45 <.01 Harmac 7,806 48,105 55,911 27 .24 Hatch Point 5,181 _ 5,181 39 .02 Howe Sound - 6,700 6,700 36 .02 Jedway 230,571 - 230,571 18 1.08 Kitimat 87,878 492,371 580,249 11 2.52 Knight Inlet 93 - 93 46 <.01 Lady smi th 1,805 2,173 3,978 40 <.01 Marble Bay 138,100 - 138,100 22 .60 Nanaimo 646,923 77,202 724,125 7 3.15 New Westminster 1,017,900 197,578 1,215,478 2 5,28 Ocean Falls 74,920 90,559 165,479 20 .71 Plumper Bay 2,400 - .2,400 42 <.01 Port Alberni 750,708 60,386 811,094 5 3.85 Port Edward - 5,509 5,509 37 .02 Port McNeil 115,591 - 115,591 23 .50 Port Mellon 66,544 5,459 72,003 25 .31 Port Moody 671 ,453 3,833 675,286 9 2.93 Port Simpson 29,002 14,266 43,268 28 .19 Powell River 322,454 50,830 373,284 14 1.62 Prince Rupert 561,555 324,884 886,439 4 3.85 Quatsino, Port Alice 55,972 99,583 155,555 20 .67 Saturna Island 450 - 450 44 <.01 Sidney 2,005 3,389 5,394 38 .02 Sooke 5,400 2,737 8,137 35 .03 Squamish 9,606 17,167 26,773 31 .12 Stikine 82 1,813 1,895 43 <.01 Tahsis 338,032 - 338,032 15 1.47 Texada 683,088 - 683,088 8 2.97 Toquart 658,783 - 658,783 10 2.86 Vananda 89,115 - 89,115 24 .39 Vancouver 9,290,502 2,067,296 11 ,357,789 1 49.41 Victoria 1,003,889 146,003 1 ,149,892 3 5.00 Watson Island 1,157 29,224 30,381 30 .13 Zeballos 249,199 - 249,199 17 1.08 TOTAL 19,045,757 3,937,756 22,983,513 Source: Ross Robinson, Spatial Structure of Port Linked Flows: The Port  of Vancouver, Canada 1965_., 145 have developed along the west coast, only Squamish, Prince Rupert, and Metropolitan Vancouver (including the Port of Vancouver and the Port of New Westminster), have developed into coastal rail terminals with con-nections to a transcontinental line. Of these three west coast ports, Vancouver enjoys the most favorable site and dominates in the movement of goods. In addition, the traditional concept of a port — implying a land-water nodal point which provides a berthing, storage, and land transportation system ~ applies only to Vancouver, Victoria, and New Westminster. Among the ports of Vancouver, Victoria, and New Westminster, there are both similarities and sharp differences. All lie at the south-western corner of the Province. Victoria, however, is at a competitive disadvantage in inland movement with other locations inasmuch as land transport vehicles must be ferried to the mainland across the Strait of Juan de Fuca. New Westminster is an inland port located on the Fraser River. Navigational problems have rendered it less attractive than more coastal locations. As a result, Vancouver has occupied the dominant position'in west coast cargo movements among coastal British Columbia ports. 2. The Resource and Export Orientation The structure of resource-oriented export ports implies certain characteristics of shipping economy — low load factors for inbound shipping, good prospects for full loads outward, and utilization of 146 special purpose bulk carriers. It also implies the possibility of a degree of intercoastal trade which, because of the difficulty of over-land transport, has grown to significant proportions along the B.C. coast. Vancouver's intercoastal trade in 1970 accounted for 30% of its total cargo movements. TABLE 16 COASTAL ACTIVITY GENERATED BY THE PORT OF VANCOUVER Year Number of Vessels Net Registered Tonnage Cargo Tonnage Outward Cargo Tonnage Inward 1970 15,173 9,969,090 4,377,959 3,449,026 1967 19,162 1,185,584 4,534,772 4,866,747 1964 19,438 8,483,913 3,242,827 4,518,018 1961 22,696 13,172,228 2,413,592 3,196,783 1958 28,656 12,405,516 1,940,224 3,388,647 1955 31,437 14,467,393 2,031,427 3,821,188 Source: National Harbours Board, Supplement to the Annual Reports 1955 to 1970. Vancouver, in its role of a resource oriented port, is a major export port: in 1970 nine-tenths of its international traffic was export. The 147 Port has further developed from a single-purpose harbour into a major bulk commodity port. Access to a hinterland which extends to the interior of B.C. and the Prairie Provinces has caused diversification of the Port from its original lumber handling function. In 1970 this resulted in the exporting of five major commodities which accounted for 90% of the Port's foreign exports: TABLE 17 MAJOR COMMODITIES HANDLED THROUGH THE PORT OF VANCOUVER, 1970 (TONS) Grain 6,303,000 Coal 4,334,000 Lumber and Lumber Products 1,876,000 Sulfur 1,760,000 Potash 1 ,496,000 Increases in tonnage handled through the Port of Vancouver over a fifteen year period as depicted in Figure 29 show the change from a dominance of import movements in 1955 to a dominance of export move-ments in 1970. The high tonnage nature of the bulk cargo components in Vancouver's trade has resulted in Vancouver overtaking Montreal 1961 DOMESTIC FOREIGN F - FOREIGN D - DOMESTIC 1955 1964 IN OUT TOTAlX^^ IN OUT TOTAL F 1296580 3 83 5 817 51 32397 •—— F 1 19337 6 108395 89 12032965 D 3 821 1 88 20314 27 5852615 D 4518018 3242827 77 60 845 109 85012 197 93810 1958 1967 IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL F 1020507 5280253 6 3 0 07 6 0 ' F 199269 8 1 17 0 2 07 2 13 6 9 47 7 0 D 33886 47 1940224 532887 1 D 4 86 67 47 453477 2 9401519 11629631 23096289 1961 1970 IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL F 101 87 89 7 4111 80 84 2 9 9 6 9 F 1862405 17 469523 19331928 D 3 1 9 67 8 3 2413594 5610377 D 3449026 4377 959 7 8269 85 14040346 27 15 8913 P O R T O F V A N C O U V E R T O N N A G E M O V E M E N T / 1 9 5 5 - 1 9 7 0 SOURCE: NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD F I G . 29 149 in 1967 as the leading Canadian port in cargo tonnage. TABLE 18 VANCOUVER AND MONTREAL TOTAL PORT TONNAGES Year Vancouver Montreal 1970 27,158,913 a 1967 23,096,289 20,740,279 1964 19,793,810 23,070,920 1961 14,040,346 22,915,287 1958 11,629,631 17,755,024 1955 10,985,012 15,840,566 Source: National Harbours Board, Supplement to the Annual  Reports 1955 to 1970. a1970 figures for Montreal not available. 3. Hinterland Change The dramatic growth of the Port of Vancouver, which began at the end of World War II, has been a result of the gradual fulfillment of its potential as "Gateway to the Orient" -- a slogan first applied to the City in the 1890's. With construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, cargos destined for Japan, China, Australia, and other Pacific Rim countries were expected to flood through the Port. In fact, however, 150 cargos from Vancouver were primarily destined to Western Europe and 42 Northeastern U.S. ports, via the Panama Canal. It was only in the 1950's that Vancouver's promise as a "gateway" to the Orient began to be realized — a fact that coincided with Vancouver's growth as a seaport. In order to demonstrate this shift in the foreland, Figures 30 and 31 represent changes in grain and coal shipments. As Vancouver's largest tonnage exports, these two cargos accounted for almost 40% of the total tonnage handled through the port in 1970, while comprising 60% of all foreign export cargo that same year. Prior to 1955 Oriental forelands rarely absorbed more than 25-30% of total grain shipments from west coast ports. However, Canada's massive wheat deals with Mainland China and Russia shifted this pattern of trade and was a significant factor in the increase of grain shipments through Vancouver. An even more dramatic example of the shift in forelands to Oriental markets is provided by an examination of coal shipments. Until the turn of the century Vancouver Island provided practically all of B.C.'s coal exports which were destined primarily for California. (See Figure 31). Competition from petroleum products resulted in a decline in the coal export market which reached its lowest ebb in 1955. Since that date, a major new market has developed in Japan. Flows to that market through Vancouver reached over four million tons in 1970. Indicative of the growth in importance of the Oriental forelands 151 - ( OTHER M// CENTRAL AND Kl (j SOUTH AMERICA CONTINENT UNITED KINGDOM 1967 , P O R T O F V A N C O U V E R / S H I F T I N G R A I N F O R E L A N D SOURCE: D, KERFOOT, PORT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA F 1 G. SOURCE: D, KERFOOT, PORT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 153 TABLE 19 COAL MOVEMENTS THROUGH THE PORT OF VANCOUVER (TONS) 1970 4,334,000 1965 1 ,010,000 1960 677,393 1955 180 1950 5,931 1945 20,777 1940 180,449 1935 109,205 Source: National Harbours Board, Supplement to 1970 Annual Report and Denis Kerfoot, Port of British Columbia. is the fact that in 1945, Asian markets took 25% of the total water-43 borne exports from B.C. By 1962 the figure was almost 50%, and by 1967 the Orient accounted for almost 63% of all exports and provided 20% of Vancouver's imports. A recent projection of world population by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization indicates a doubling of Far East population by the year 2000. (See Figure 32). On this basis, Vancouver's position as a Pacific Rim seaport has a tremendous potential to directly serve a foreland which will contain 60% of the world's population. 154 -4000 -3800 -3600 -3400 -3200 -3000 -2800 -2600 > -2400 -2200 -2000 -1800 - 1 6 0 0 - 1400 - 1 2 0 0 - 1000 EUROPE incl USSR - 800 III 600 400 200 0 FAR EAST incl.M.China GROWTH 1990-2000 1980-90 1970-80 1960-70 1960 LATIN AMERICA AFRICA NORTH AMERICA NEAR EAST mem OCEANIA P R O J E C T E D G R O W T H O F . W O R L D P O P U L A T I O N S SOURCE: FAO MONTHLY BULLETIN OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, JULY/AUGUST 1965 • • • • • F I G. 32 155 TABLE 20 PORT OF VANCOUVER CARGO FORELANDS, 1967 (TONS) Origin/Destination Exports To % Exports From % United Kingdom 445,032 3.9 62,233 3.1 Europe 958,664 8.3 145,304 7.3 Middle East 40,725 .3 • 896 -Africa 217,555 1.9 41,676 2.1 Asia 7,262,984 62.5 417,292 20.9 Oceania 444,679 3.8 122,132 6.1 South America 177,470 . 1.5 79,532 4.0 Central America 124,674 1.0 216,459 10.9 United States Alaska 158,988 1.3 122,289 6.1 Hawaii 31,931 .1 6,927 .3 Pacific Ports 967,644 8.2 640,794 32.3 Atlantic Ports 833,807 7.1 137,173 6.9 Great Lakes Ports 27,817 .1 - -Source: Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Annual Shipping Report, Part IV. The growth of the Port of Vancouver, built over the past 15 years on Oriental trade, is expected to continue. Large population increases insure a continued market for Prairie grain for which Vancouver is the 44 principal Canadian outlet. The accelerated industrialization of Japan is increasing the demand for minerals and metals and has provided a market for coal to drive recently constructed steel plants. Diplomatic 156 recognition of Mainland China by the Canadian Government should serve to stimulate trade in both agricultural products and mineral resources. Increases in trade occurring as a result of growing export demands and growing consumer markets are shown in Figure 33 and Table 21 from 45 information gathered in 1966. The prediction calls for a doubling of 1966 volumes by 1975 and more than trebling 1966 volumes by 1985. It should be noted, however, that the projected 1975 figures for both sulphur and potash have since taken a downturn, with potash tonnages in 1970 below those of 1969. Decreases in this area, however, from a tonnage viewpoint, may be overshadowed by coal exports which are much higher than anticipated. Further, the forecast extends the dominance of bulk cargo in total tonnage over general cargo. As can be seen from Table 21, comparison of forecasts indicate the relative proportion of bulk cargo increases within the forecast period. This would indicate that Vancouver's function as a bulk port will continue into the forecast future. 4. Containerization and General Cargo Movement Containerization on the Pacific began between the continental United States and Hawaii and Puerto Rico. As the Jones Act prohibits the movement of cargo between two U.S. ports in non-U.S. vessels, these 46 markets were not open to competition by foreign ships. It was only later that containerization entered the Australia-Japan-U.S. west coast trade routes. The provision of container facilities in Vancouver is a 157 P O R T O F V A N C O U V E R , D E E P S E A C A R G O T O N N A G E SOURCE: BRITISH COLUMBIA RESEARCH COUNCIL 158 TABLE 21 PORT OF VANCOUVER CARGO FORECASTS TO 1985 (Millions of Shtpptng Tons) Category 1965 1966 1975 1985 Deep Sea Bulk Cargo Out: Grain 4.90 5.94 9.4 13.0 Potash 0.68 1.13 6.0 10.0 Sulphur 0.75 0.61 2.0 3.0 Coal 1.01 1.10 5.0 8.0 Other 0.33 0.29 1.0 1.8 Out: Total 7.67 9.08 23.4 35.8 In: Salt 0.16 0.18 0.6 1.0 Phosphate, Ore 0.13 0.20 0.5 0.8 Other 0.40 0.39 0.5 0.6 In: Total 0.69 0.77 1.6 2.4 Total Deep Sea Bulk 8.36 9.85 25.0 38.2 Deep Sea General Cargo Out: Lumber 1.28 1.01 2.1 2.6 Pulp, Paper 0.12 0.13 1.0 1.5 Other 0.40 0.49 0.6 0.8 Out: Total 1.80 1.6e 3.7 4.9 In: Total 1.07 1.09 1.7 2.7 Total Deep Sea General 2.87 2.72 5.4 7.6 Total Port Deep Sea 11.23 12.57 30.4 45.8 (Bulk: % of Total) (74.3) (78.3) (82.2) (84.2) (General: % of Total) (25.7) (21.7) (17.8) (15.8) Total Port Coastal 8.92 9.13 15.0 25.0 Total, Port of Vancouver 20.15 21.70 45.4 70.8 Source: British Columbia Research Council, Vancouver Harbour Traffic  Trends and Facility Analysis. 159 spin-off of a changing world trend to container use since Vancouver's effect on the technological change in shipping in the Pacific is mini-mal. The local changes have come about in response to the competition in goods movement between the United States and Japan. In 1969, a delegation representing six major Japanese shipping lines called on representatives both of the Port of Vancouver and of U.S. Pacific northwest ports. They revealed at that time plans to put specialized containerships in service by 1970 on Japan to North America routes. The Port of Vancouver was faced with the choice of providing the terminal facilities required for container movement and thereby retain its position as Canada's major west coast general cargo port, or make no change to accommodate container vessels and therefore see itself replaced by U.S. northwest ports. It was likely that Canada's Pacific trade would continue its historic pattern of movement through Vancouver so long as the Port provided facilities comparative to com-petitive U.S. ports, particularly Seattle. In response to this challenge for new port facilities, the NHB constructed a container terminal at Centennial Pier which included a Gantry crane and both the equipment and space required for stocking, 47 sorting, and stacking containers. Centennial's #5 shed was converted to a container freight station where containers were packed or emptied and distribution arranged. Most of the general cargo handled through Vancouver even today is moved from dock to ship the way it has been for years. Ship's cranes 160 l i f t cargo boards, slings, or large individual items onto the dock where they are moved on pallets or dollies into storage sheds. In 1968, the 2300 containers which moved through the port were shipped as deck cargo on regular vessels or traveled in part containerships. Johnson Line ships were the first specialized containerships to visit the port on July 18, 1969, when the "Axel Johnson" docked at LaPointe pier. Equipped with its own Gantry crane, the vessel could self-load and unload and special terminal cranes were not required. In the latter half of 1965, the future of containerization in the Port of Vancouver was stil l uncertain. Around the world, shippers had jumped on the container bandwagon and ports, fearing to be left behind in the rush, were forced to provide special handling facilities for new vessels. Vancouver followed suit. Studies by independent agencies produced a wide range of results in regard to the future of containeri-zation in the Port of Vancouver. As Table 22 evidences, there was dramatic variation in forecast container cargo. In 1969, Kates, Peat, Marwick and Company was commissioned by the NHB to conduct a container study for the Port to include the potential container market and an evaluation of potential container terminal sites in the Port. The study, in examining the container market, looked only at incoming foreign general cargo since this comprised most of the Port's general cargo. As shown in Figure 34, an earlier comparison of import and export prime container cargo shows a large existing gap between T T CO £1 u_ o CO Q CO 2 c CO L—1000 .500 19|70 19)75 19|80 P O R T O F V A N C O U V E R / G R O W T H O F P R I M E C O N T A I N E R I Z A B L E C A R G O SOURCE: BRITISH COLUMBIA RESEARCH COUNCIL Fl G 162 TABLE 22 PORT OF VANCOUVER FORECASTS OF CONTAINER CARGO BASED ON 1955 DATA British Columbia Research Council (Containerizable - all classes) Oohnston Terminals Limited (Suitable) Department of Trade and Commerce Economic containerizable Physically containerizable Containerizable Cargo-Tons Imports Exports Total 199,000 113,000 312,000 372,400 107,630 480,030 1,866,413 599,591 2,466,004 6,993,481 1,239,718 6,233,199 Sources: W.J. Sheriff, The Port of Vancouver: General Cargo Require-ment; Johnston Terminals Limited, Cargo Containerization and  the Port of Vancouver; Department of Trade and Commerce, Containerizable Cargo Handled at Canadian Ports in Interna- tional Trade During the Year 1965. imports and exports. This gap is expected to increase dramatically as general cargo imports grow faster than exports. The rationale for examining only inbound movements is based on the fact that shipping lines planned to f i l l return containers to the best of their ability with cargo that could use but didn't require a container (the so-called "secondary" container cargo). The study indicated that by 1975, 40% of all general cargo imports including steel but exluding lumber would be containerized. (See Figure 163 35). It was further expected that by 1975 the use of part container-ships would decrease substantially inasmuch as 90% of all containers would be handled by full containerships. The bulk of the container fleet by 1975 is expected to consist of vessels of from 15,000 to 20,000 dwt and capable of carrying 250 to 48 350 containers. Most of these will rely on port cranes for loading and unloading. On the basis of one berth with two cranes being able to load and unload 300 containers a day, by 1975 there will be a need for one berth to handle full containerships and four berths to handle part containerships. a. Terminal Location An important factor in the location of new berthing in the Port of Vancouver is the cargo destination. The Kates, Peat, and Marwick study indicated that 70% of incoming general cargo is destined for local and B.C. consignees while 30% moves overland out of the 49 Province. This estimate agrees favourably with a study of distri-bution of Vancouver 1965 imports. Distribution of local cargo is almost exclusively by truck, while 30% of the overland movement is handled by rail. At present, most containers are unpacked at dockside warehouses 50 and reloaded into trucks and boxcars for local delivery. Occasionally a container is loaded into a flat bed and taken to a forwarder or consignee. The shipment of containers overland has not readily developed since shippers are reluctant to have containers leave the 164 SOURCE: KATES, PEAT, MARWICK AND CO, 165 TABLE 23 PORT OF VANCOUVER GENERAL CARGO IMPORT HINTERLAND % of Total General Consigned Destination Cargo Tonnage Vancouver 79 Non-Vancouver 21 U.S. West 2 U.S. East a 1 Canada West3 11 Canada East 7 Source: Ross Robinson, Spatial Structure of Port Linked Flows:  The Port of Vancouver, Canada 1965. aThe Saskatchewan-Manitoba border is considered to be the division between eastern and western Canada terminal because of the difficulty in having them returned. Also, there is an empty backhaul problem which results from the little east-west movement of containerized cargo. Empty containers are not provided with special rates. Local cargos are unpacked at dockside and moved to one of the major warehousing areas of the City. (See Figure 36). Proximity to these areas led to selection of Centennial Pier as the most likely area for further container expansion in the Port. It was expected that economies would be gained by locating a container berth along with mixed vessel berths at one general cargo terminal. Such a terminal would provide "XT 1. EAST BROADWAY-EAST VANCOUVER WAREHOUSING AREA 2. FALSE CREEK-LOWER MAIN STREET WAREHOUSING AREA 3. NEW WESTMINSTER-MARPOLE-NORTH ARM OF FRASER 4. POWELL STREET EAST WAREHOUSING AREAr 5. LAKE CITY INDUSTRIAL AREA] 6. WEST BROADWAY INDUSTRIAL AREA 7 ."RICHMOND 8. LULU ISLAND 4^  CLZD HAST 2 j / R O A D W A Y O B A N V 1 r-m CO -< INGS ST ( R T 4 0 1 ) -5-F I G C I T Y O F V A N C O U V E R / W A R E H O U S I N G A R E A S SOURCE: KATES/'PEAT, MARWICK AMD COMPANY: 167 750 foot frontage per berth, 40 foot draft, and 20 acres of back-up land which would include area for a freight station for the packing and unpacking of containers as well as for handling general cargo for mixed 51 container ships. It was feared that location of a container terminal in another section of the port would render several wharves on the south 52 shore of Burrard Inlet derelict. The problem of congested road and rail access to the area was rec-ognized but proposed to be overcome by construction of a road/rail overpass onto Gore Avenue and by further improvements to the rail con-53 nector from the False Creek area at Campbell Avenue. The Port of Vancouver Development Committee has since recommended against accepting the report's findings in terms of site location. It has recommended instead a container facility to be developed at the Lynn Terminal site (District Lot 204) on the north shore, east of Second Narrows Bridge. The decision was based on the land transport congestion and the limited expansion possibilities of the south shore Centennial operation. A further consideration was the preference of the Japanese "Big Six" for a north shore terminal and the fact that the 54 area is owned by NHB. Leaseholders in the Lynn Terminal area have been informed that their leases will not be renewed in 1973 when the majority 55 of them expire. The decision to construct a container terminal on the north shore has been even further supported by recent findings that there will be no improvement in the street pattern in the Centennial Pier area for 168 at least five years. The north shore terminal area would provide relatively uncongested road service to the warehouse areas and would provide direct rail access to railyards in Port Moody and Port Coquitlam. A container terminal on the north shore would result in no fur-ther expansion of the Centennial Pier area, although the present operation will be continued. Over time, increasing amounts of general cargo will move via the north shore terminal rather than through the City's waterfront. Such a specialized containership berth could increase the amount of cargo handled at a berth from the present maximum of 100,000 tons a year to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 57 500,000 tons a year. Even more cargo could be moved with larger ships. Thus asthetrend to containerization continues, the City's leadership position in the movement of general cargo would be severely affected by a north shore container terminal. 5. Facility and Industrial Relocation The gentle slopes of the south shore of Burrard Inlet historically provided the most attractive location for the construction of the earliest harbour facilities. The arrival of the first rail line along the south shore of the Inlet further enhanced this section of the waterfront for port development. As a consequence, most port facilities were originally constructed along the Inner Harbour, within the limits of the City of Vancouver. 169 In recent years, however, new facilities constructed within the Port of Vancouver have located in areas out of the City. The result is a shift in port function from Vancouver to other areas of Burrard Inlet and Roberts Bank. In order to determine the magnitude of the shift, tonnage movements through various sections of the Port over the past 15 years were studied. While tonnage figures across indiv-idual port facilities are not readily available, it was possible to provide figures of relative movements over facilities located in the 58 Port through the use of a combination of sources. As Figure 37 indicates, the emphasis over the last fifteen years in tonnage move-ment has shifted away from the City of Vancouver waterfront. Speci-fically, 65% of the movement in 1955 was over piers located within the City while in 1970 the figure was reduced to 25%. High tonnage bulk terminals such as the Roberts Bank facility located out of the City have been the main reasons for this dramatic shift in tonnage movement away from the City waterfront. Another indication of the shift over the past fifteen years from the Inner Harbour section of the Port to out-of-City areas can be seen in an assessment of the Port facilities available for cargo movement. As summarized in Table 24, berthing accommodation in the City section of the Port has remained relatively constant. This is the case in terms of the absolute numbers of berths and in terms of footage of berth available. The remainder of the Port, however, has more than doubled the number of berths and almost trebled the footage of berth 170 1955 1958 1961 CITY OUT-OF-CITY BULK g g g g C - CITY OC - OUT-OF-CITY C OC C OC C OC 1955 GEN. BULK 37 49000 3 3 4 4 0 0 0 7 52000 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 1958 GEN. BULK 317 9000 47 83000 531000 3 1 3 6 0 0 0 1961 GEN. BULK 3 3 1 3 0 0 0 5501000 1255000 397 1000 TOTAL 7 093000 3892000 _109.85000 TOTAL 7 962000 3667 000 1 1 6 2 9 0 0 0 TOTAL 8819000 5226000 1 4 0 9 0 0 0 0 1964 GEN. BULK 3617 000 67 4 0 0 0 0 17 02000 77 34000 C OC C OC GEN. 353 8000 2 5 6 2 0 0 0 1967 BULK 5997 000 1 0 9 9 9 0 0 0 1970 GEN. BULK 3 2 8 8 0 0 0 617 9000 2 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 5 5 5 2 0 0 0 TOTAL 10357 000 9436000 197 93000 TOTAL 9 5 3 5 0 0 0 13561000 2 3 0 9 6 0 0 0 TOTAL 9 4 67 0 0 0 17 692000 27 1 5 9 0 0 0 P O R T O F V A N C O U V E R C A R G O M O V E M E N T C I T Y A N D O U T - O F - C I T Y T E R M I N A L S SOURCE: SEE APPENDIX I F IG. 37 171 TABLE 24 PORT OF VANCOUVER BERTHING ACCOMMODATIONS 1955 - 197Q 1955 1958 1961 1964 1967 1970 City Section Berths Deep Sea 24 24 28 28 29 30 Coastal 7 7 7 7 7 7 Grain 12 12 12 11 10 10 Oil 1 1 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 44 44 48 47 47 48 Feet of Berthing 28,035 28,035 30,820 29,200 29,595 29,570 Grain Terminal Capacity CBu) 17,216,500 20,366,500 20,366,500 18,138,500 18,138,500 18,138,500 Oil Terminal Capacity tBa) 150,000 150,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Out of City Section Berths Deep Sea 4 4 12 15 14 16 Coastal - - - - - -Grain 1 1 1 1 1 1 Oil 9 9 9 9 8 8 TOTAL 14 14 22 25 23 30 Feet of Berthing 6,585 6,585 11,880 12,435 14,035 16,935 Grain Terminal Capacity (Bu) 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 6,750,000 Oil Terminal Capacity (Ba) 50,039,000 51,094,000 51,185,000 51,185,000 51,152,000 51,152,000 Source: See Appendix II. 172 space available to vessels. In addition, recent improvements have significantly increased the grain handling capacity of the out-of-City section of the Port while the City area has remained relatively constant over the time period. New investment in port facilities has been made largely in the out-of-City sections of the Port. This change in Port form is further reflected in Figures 38 and 39 which show the location of facilities built in the Port since 1955. Berthing at Lynn Terminals, Neptune Terminals, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Vancouver Wharves, and Roberts Bank represent the major facilities con-structed within the last decade, all of which found out-of-City locations. Within the City, however, changes have also been taking place. The Coal Harbour area which had been the site for coastal shipping activity and light manufacturing in the 1950's is in the process of conversion to commercial-residential use. CPR Pier B-C is no longer extensively used as a land-sea transhipment point but vessels tie up here while lumber is loaded from barges. A proposed new crossing to the North Shore and such major comprehensive develop-ment schemes as Project 200 will further alienate waterfront land from the Port function. Centennial Pier, known also as Project 100, was the one major improvement in port facilities provided within the City. Located at the foot of Heatley Avenue, this facility was orig-inally to cover 100 acres of land, much of which was to be f i l l . Centennial Pier was to provide ten deepsea berths and the utmost in 175 modern general cargo handling facilities. Further, it was expected to centralize the Port's general cargo operation and provide a barrier against non-port redevelopment within the Inner Harbour. As constructed to date, Centennial Pier provides six berths and includes the only complete container operation in the Port. However, it covers only an 59 area of fifteen acres and will be limited to this size. Future constuction of bulk terminals anywhere on Burrard Inlet has been prohibited by a National Harbours Board policy which requires that all new bulk berths must be located at the new Federally developed Roberts Bank, port area which now has a bulk coal berth.60 There are many reasons for the NHB decision to move future bulk terminal develop-ment out of Burrard Inlet. The growing size of bulk carriers requires that they be provided with adequate water depth, without depending on the tide. This is especially important when considering that the cost of operating one of these large vessels runs between $5,000 -$10,000 per day.61 An important requirement for guarding against delay is the guarantee of huge stockpiles of materials. In the Roberts Bank coal operation, one-half million tons per berth is the minimum stockpile required. Maintaining these stockpiles in an economical fashion has only been possible by use of unit trains of 100 to 150 cars (some 1 1/2 miles long) which carry the bulk commodity from hinterland to stockpile. These trains are loaded without stopping as they roll under loading chutes and may unload the same way or pass through huge rotary dumpers. Such trains, used in the Roberts Bank 176 operation, employ up to twelve locomotives to move 15,000 tons of coal from the Prairies or Crow's Nest mines to the terminal. The round-trip requires three or four days. The Roberts Bank terminal how provides 0 ) direct vessel access from deep water with no tidal delays. C2) water depth of at least 60 feet at low tide, C3) very large acreages of level land immediately adjacent to deep water berths, and (4) direct and uncongested railway access free from developed urban and industrial areas. The eventual development of 5000 acres by a land-fill operation, the Provincial government guarantee for 3000 acres of back-up land, plus direct uncongested freeway linkage to Highway 499 South and 401 East promise to make this area the most attractive on Canada's west coast for future bulk operations. .Changes in the location of bulk berths in the Port of Vancouver have resulted from (1) the advent of specialized facilities for handling bulk cargo, (2) the larger sites required for accommodating stockpiles, (3) the specialized bulk handling equipment, and (4) the increasing depth requirements of bulk berthing. As indicated in Appendix II, the area of the Port lying outside the City waterfront has been the site for all bulk berths to be constructed 177 since 1955, with the exception of the Alberta Wheat Pool's three bulk berths completed in 1966. There are 12 bulk berths in the City, comprised of 10 grain berths CAlberta Wheat Pool - 3, NHB - 5, United Grain Growers - 2), one sugar berth (B.C. Sugar Refinery), and one liquid berth (B.A. Oil). Prior to 1955, 10 bulk berths existed outside the City of Vancouver. Of these, 9 were liquid bulk berths* and one was a grain berth. Today there are 18 bulk berths outside the City located on Burrard Inlet. The newer dry bulk berths include Pacific Coast Terminals' two bulk berths (loading potash and coal), Vancouver Wharves' three bulk berths (one loading potash and sulfur, one loading concentrates, and one discharging phosphate rock), Neptune Terminals' two coal berths, and a new grain terminal operated by Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. (See Appendix II.) 6. Economic Impact A comprehensive study of the economic impact of cargo move-ment through the Port of Vancouver has never been undertaken, with the result that the economic value of the port function to the City and metropolitan area is not accurately known. There are two basic approaches to such an evaluation which have been successfully applied *0ne of these liquid berths is no longer in operation. 178 elsewhere. The first, pioneered by the Delaware River Port Authority 62 in 1953, is a cargo-generated income approach. This is a two stage method involving the calculation of direct income generated by port activity and the indirect or secondary income generated by expenditure of direct income. The value of direct income is calculated on the basis of income generated by handling a ton of cargo, multiplied by the number of tons of cargo shipped through the port. The value of CO secondary income is calculated by use of a marine "multiplier". The multiplier concept is one used in the input-output technique of regional analysis. It is an empirically calculated factor which repre-sents the impact of one dollar introduced into the local economy in terms of the amount of secondary and tertiary goods or services it buys. The sum of direct and secondary income provides the total income generated by the port function. The second approach to the economic evaluation of port operation involves an assessment of the employment generated by the port. This method has been used in many studies including ones conducted in New York 6 4 and Virginia. 6 5 This method is also two-staged, involving calculation of direct employment in port operation and application of a marine multiplier to determine secondary employment. The difference between the two approaches is that the first provides a dollar assess-ment of the port's impact and the second provides a job assessment of impact. 179 Tables 25 and 26 are summaries of the application of both these methods to the City of Vancouver section of the port operation by Tassie and Griggs.66 Table 25 provides the dollar evaluation of the port's impact and finds its basis in a 1963 study of the Port of Milwaukee done by Eric Schenker.67 In applying Milwaukee figures to Vancouver, some attempt was made to compensate for the difference in circumstances between the two locations. A marine multiplier of 2.62 was applied to the Vancouver situation to determine secondary impact. Table 26 provides the employment impact of the port calculated using the 2.62 multiplier. On the basis of these calculations it was deter-mined that the Port function in the City waterfront contributes 15% 68 of the City's gross product and 25% of the total labour force. The study indicated their assessment would provide only "ballpark" 69 figures on the impact of the Port on the City. Of the many reasons for inaccuracy, the most significant is the use of a multiplier adopted at random. A multiplier is subject to variation in size for many reasons, including the size of the region to which it is applied, the proximity of the region to other regions, the total and per capita regional income, and even personal tastes.'70 Examples of the difference in the numerical value of the multiplier are more evident in a consi-deration of other studies. The following marine multipliers have all been used in port studies: Seattle 2.0 (1958); Los Angeles 2.25 (1950); Great Britain 2.3 (1940); Wichita 2.5 (1950); Portsmith, New Hampshire 2.8 (1966); New York City 3.0 (1956); Houston 3.1 (1964).71 The 180 TABLE 25 CARGO-GENERATED INCOME, INNER HARBOUR Estimated Value Income Multiplier 2.62 Cargo-Generated Income $84,291,250 $222,493,675 Foreign and Domestic Passenger Service 2,608,720 6,834,846 Other 1,000,000 $231,984,521 TOTAL $88,529,970 Source: Peter Tassie and Neil Griggs, The Urban Growth and Transpor- tation Implications of Port Development. TABLE 26 CARGO-GENERATED EMPLOYMENT, INNER HARBOUR Total Employment Marine Multiplier Full-Time 2.62 Waterfront On Site 2,415 6,331 Waterfront Off Site 914 2,396 Vancouver Longshoremen 1,800 4,720 Marine Services, Agents etc. 8,656 22,680 Waterfront Trucking 1,340 3,521 Railway Off Site 200 529 TOTAL 15,325 40,177 Source: Peter Tassie and Neil Griggs, The Urban Growth and Transporta- Implications of Port Development. 181 application of the lowest (2.0) and highest (3.1) of these multipliers to the Vancouver situation result in a variation of +20% in the economic assessment provided by Tassie and Griggs. Table 27 indicates that this spread could mean a difference of 17,000 jobs and $100,000,000 in estimated income resulting from port activity. TABLE 27 MARINE MULTIPLIERS APPLIED TO THE INNER HARBOUR Multipliers 2.0 2.62 3.1 Estimated Income 88,529,970 177,000,000 232,000,000 274,000,000 Estimated Employment 15,325 30,650 40,200 47,500 Divergence from 2.62 Multiplier -23.8% +17.8% In view of the inavailability of further data, no attempt was made to refine the estimates of port impact provided in Tables 25 and 26. Rather, emphasis was placed on a comparative study of the economic impact of the Port of Vancouver operation on income and employment 182 for the years 1955 and 1970. A relative measure of the change which had occurred rather than an absolute measure of the economic impact was undertaken. A relative study of this nature required the application of common base factors to the tonnage figures for both 1955 and 1970. A 72 study by Arthur D. Little Inc. on another west coast port, San Francisco, was selected to provide factors for the purposes of the analysis. The factor appearing in columns one and two of Table 28 provide values on a dollar of income per ton and on employment (people) per 1000 ton These factors, empirically based on 1964 San Francisco Port activity, account for both direct and secondary impact of port tonnages on income and employment. The figures were not altered to account for Canada-U.S. differentials nor were they discounted to 1955 or porvided with annual increases to 1970 because a common base was desired for comparison of 1955 and 1970 activity. As can be seen in Table 28, while the absolute tonnage in the Port increased almost by a factor of three, the income and employ-ment generated by the cargo less than doubled. In the city section, while cargo movement increased, the income and employment generated by that cargo decreased. Important to note as well is the decrease in the value generated per ton of cargo through the Port -- $42/ton in 1955 as compared to $25.50/ton in 1970. Employment generation has also decreased from 48 people jobs/1000 tons in 1955 compared to 29 people jobs/1000 tons in 1970. These figures are indicative of Vancouver's TABLE 28 PORT OF VANCOUVER IMPACT ON INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT 1955 Factor Factor $/Ton Employ-ment/ 1000 Tons Port of Income Vancouver Generated Total $'s Tonnage Employ- City City City ment Tonnage Income Employ-$'s ment Out-of-City Tonnage Out-of-City Income $'s Out-of-City Employ-ment General Cargo 114.68 13.13 2,405,000 275,805,400 31,577 1,921,000 220,300,280 26,223 474,000 54,358,320 6,224 Lumber, Steel, Newsprint 45.40 5.38 2,096,000 95,158,400 11,276 1,820,000 83,628,000 9,891 276,000 12,677,200 1,224 Dry Bulk 16.31 1.87 5,220,000 85,138,200 9,761 2,994,000 48,832,140 5,599 2,226,000 36,306,060 4,182 Liquid Bulk 2.79 .35 1,264,000 3,526,560 442 350,000 976,500 122 914,000 2,550,060 320 TOTALS 10,985,000 459,628,560 53,156 7,095,000 353,736,920 40,835 3,890,000 105,891,640 12,221 % of Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 64.6% 77.0% 77.0% 35.4% 23.0% 23.0% 1970 General Cargo 114.68 13.13 1 ,837,000 210,667,160 24,120 1 ,318,000 151 ,148,240 17,305 519,000 59,518,920 6,815 Lumber, Steel, Newsprint 45.40 5.38 3,591,000 163,031,400 19,320 1,970,000 89,438,000 10,599 1 ,621 ,000 73,593,400 8,721 Dry Bulk 16.31 1.87 18,925,000 308,666,750 35,390 5,679,000 92,624,490 10,620 13,246,000 216,042,260 24,770 Liquid Bulk 2.79 .35 2,806,000 7,828,740 982 500,000 1,395,000 175 2,306,000 6,433,740 807 TOTALS 27,159,000 690,194,050 79,812 9,467,000 334,605,730 38,699 17,692,000 355,588,320 41,113 % of Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 34.9% 48.5% 48.5% 65.1% 58.5% 51.3% 184 transition to a bulk commodity port using automated methods requiring less handling and generating less income on a per ton basis, These figures are not to be interpreted to mean that the overall port-related income and employment in the City has experienced a decrease. Because of the importance of the City to the Port and the region, a secondary income and employment impact cannot help but be felt v/ithin Vancouver. The spatial separation of cargo movements may be assumed to indicate that the ton of general cargo moving through an out-of-City section of the Port is responsible for $114^ 68 of income to that area. Some of this income is generated at pierside but much is expended in the City of Vancouver where the concentration of commer-cial and service functions exist. As a result, cargo received in an out-of-City section of thePort still has a significant impact on income and employment within the City. The intent of Table 28, it must be re-emphasized, is to provide a relative view of the port's economic influence on the City and metro-politan area rather than an absolute evaluation of its impact. In this regard, while the Port of Vancouver has experienced a dramatic increase in tonnage, the value of that tonnage to the local economy has not experienced so marked an increase. This is a reflection of the high volume low value nature of the cargo moving through the port. 185 D. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS From its early history as a lumber town, the City of Vancouver has developed into the center of a thriving metropolitan region. The basis of this growth has in large measure rested on development of the Port of Vancouver along the shores of Burrard Inlet. From a single purpose port, Vancouver has developed into the major bulk commodity port in the nation, handling a wide variety of cargos. The local population meanwhile has overflowed into the surrounding region to form the third largest metropolitan area in the country. During this development, the City of Vancouver waterfront was the location for most of the port operations carried out in the Port of Vancouver, although geographically the Port area extended to all of Burrard Inlet. The working character of the City waterfront along Burrard Inlet, resulting from the early concentration of port functions within that section, has led to a lack of integration of that area with the remainder of the City. The heavily used rail corridor extending the length of the City's Inner Harbour waterfront has made the separation even more explicit by conceptually and functionally severing the waterfront from the City. Indications for the future growth of the urban area and the port function are optimistic. Economic and social indicies predict a 50% increase in metropolitan population by 1986 and a trebling of the Port's tonnage by 1985. The City of Vancouver has assumed responsibility 186 for accommodating much of this urban growth, especially on the down-town peninsula. In the face of urban pressures, particularly evident within the last fifteen years, the newer facilities in the expanding port oper-ation have been locating in areas of the waterfront outside the City. The result of this redistribution has been a shift in the emphasis and importance of the port function from the City's waterfront to other areas of Burrard Inlet. Technological innovations in berthing accommodation result in the need for deeper water, larger port sites, uncongested back-up lands, and uncongested transport links ~ all of which add to the momentum for shifting much of the port function from the congested City waterfront. This shift in emphasis of the port function from the City water-front to other areas of the Port has resulted in the opening of sec-tions of the urban waterfront to non-port use. In some areas the change in use has resulted in occupation of waterfront lands by users which are non-port or non-harbour oriented, but which comply with the industrial zoning of the waterfront area. In other areas, how-ever, the pressures of high density urban development which make the port operation less viable along the City's waterfront have resulted in changes from working to non-working land uses. In two areas adjacent to the CBD, where urban pressures are strongest, rezoning from industrial land use to CD1 has occurred and construction of office, commercial, and residential buildings is either completed or underway. 187 Integration of the concept of public access to the urban water-front has long been considered an urban objective. While operation-al izing that objective has thus far been difficult, recent stands taken by local and regional governments, government agencies, and the NHB indicate a greater unanimity in achieving this goal in light of the redistribution of the port function away from the City waterfront. At present the Vancouver waterfront can be divided into three more-or-less distinct functional areas (see Figure 40): (1) Chi 1co to Abbott, an area where urban pressures are felt most strongly and redevelopment into non-port, non-harbour uses is already occurring; (2) Abbott to Victoria, the most intensively developed and actively used area of the port operation remaining on the City's waterfront; and (3) Victoria to Boundary, a sparsely developed section of the waterfront with steep embankments leading from the waterside. Development of any type of public access will have to be considered in regard to the functional units. The west section -- Chilco to Abbott -- is undergoing extensive redevelopment. Land use in the area Is being converted from industrial and port use to commercial, office, and high-density residential use. In the Coal Harbour area just such a massive development has been approved by the City of Vancouver and would include a waterfront promenade to be constructed by the developers. The City expects similar 189 types of walkways to be included in any development up to the Project 200 area. Development of Project 200 is of a different nature. This complex will utilize the air rights over the railway yards and, as a result, will provide visual access from a higher elevation, no sea-level access. Thus public access in the west section of the City's harbourfront is being planned into the privately financed redevelopment projects. The center section of the waterfront — Abbott to Victoria — is at present actively engaged in port operations. The provision of public access in this area would involve integration of access into the existing port structure. The economical operation of the port would preclude public use of the water along the waterfront and public access would consist of visual access to the waterfront port operations. The importance of such access is not to be minimized as working waterfronts have long been recognized as having considerable drawing power, both for local residents and tourists alike. The provision of public parking and viewing areas could be integrated into the waterfront area along with restaurants, clubs, and shops on taller buildings with a view of the area. The eastern section — Victoria to Boundary — is at present sparsely developed. It proyides berthing for some port activity and includes the only direct public access to the waterfront at New Brighton Park. This area, because it is the least intensely developed 190 of the City's section of Burrard Inlet, offers opportunity for both port and recreational use. The most recent policy decisions of NHB — to exclude new bulk terminals from Burrard Inlet and to construct a new container terminal on the north shore — would indicate the area will not generate further port development. As a result, it provides an opportunity for further developing the public access to the water for a wide range of recreational activities. To sum port-city roles and interaction, it could be concluded that; 1. Vancouver's concerns for strengthening its downtown, emphas-izing and capitalizing on the role of the City within the region, and taking advantage of the visual and environmental diversity offered by the land-water interface for its citizens and as a tourist attraction, are similar to those concerns expressed by other major cities in North America. 2. In Vancouver, the City's population is effectively divorced from access to the downtown waterfront both physically and visually because of the lack of physical integration of the working waterfront into the life of the City. 3. While the waterfront is largely public owned (NHB owns more than 2/3's of the land), the area is primarily leased to private users and public access is restricted in much the same way as if the urban waterfront were privately owned outright. 4. The port function is being transferred from the City to other 191 out-of-City areas of the Port of Vancouver. This is especially the case in the western area of the Port from Chilco to Abbott. 5. Public access along the urban waterfront must be provided with consideration of the economics of the working waterfront. In some cases physical access is appropriate whereas in other, visual access is called for. A further appraisal must be made in regard to the City's approach in recognizing the opportunities for increasing public access to the urban waterfront. In this instance it is felt that: 1. A concern for increasing public access to the downtown water-front has been evidenced by several government departments with the City of Vancouver for a number of years. This concern and the awareness of the issue of public access seem to originate not so much in regard to a preconceived and well-formulated City policy but, instead, in reaction to the sometimes sudden availability of waterfront land in the market, specifically in the Coal Harbour area. Opportunities have been seen only in response to the emergence of actual physical space along the urban waterfront. 2. While the City seems interested in increasing public access to its waterfront, this unstated policy -- if one is to judge by the City's encouragement of large waterfront development projects — segregates public access from those areas of active port operation. That is, there appears to be an underlying assumption that public 192 access and port facilities must be kept mutually exclusive. Such an attitude obviously limits the perspective in determining increasing public access opportunities. 3. There has been no indication on the part of the City that it considers public access in terms other than physical access. As desirable as physical access may be, the City's concern with visual access appear to be more of a negative voice than a positive one.* The absence of concern for visual access limits the perception of opportunities. 4. The City has not approached issues regarding the waterfront in a broad conceptual way. The City Planning Department has essentially no detailed data on the functioning of the harbourfront and on otherwise detailed City maps, the port area appears as an almost total blank, with only an outline of the harbour appearing. Disregarded as to its specific functioning it is perhaps understandable that the opportunities which can arise within the harbourfront from sometimes gross configur-ations and generalized patterns are not so much ignored as simply unrecognized. •Project 200 and the recently City-approved Harbour Parks development will seyerely limit views of the Inlet and the mountains for anyone not actually within the developments. 193 FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER IV 1. Charles N. Forward, Waterfront Land Use in Metropolitan  Vancouver, British Columbia, Geographical Paper No. 41 (Ottawa: Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, Geographical Branch, 1968). 2. Peter Tassie and Neil Griggs, The Urban Growth and Transporta- tion Implications of Port Development (unpublished Master's Degree thesis, University of British Columbia, April 1970). 3. Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, Population Trends in  the Lower Mainland, Summary Report (New Westminster: LMRPB, 1968), p. 1. 4. Denis E. Kerfoot, Port of British Columbia: Development and  Trading Pattern, B.C. Geographical Series #2 (Vancouver: Tantalus Research Ltd., 1966), p. 25. 5. William E. Graham, "Planning—The Port and the City", The  Port of Vancouver, Symposium Proceedings, ed. by Robert W. Collier (Vancouver: University of British Columbia, Department of Exten-sion, June 1966), p. 15. 6. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Planning Department, Commercial Floorspace (Vancouver: GVRD, 1970). Commercial floor-space includes: commercial activity comprising retail shops, services, service commercial businesses, commercial recreation, and tourist accommodation. 7. Forward, p. 20. 8. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Planning Department, Population Density - 1966 (Vancouver: Greater, Vancouver-Regional District, 1970), p. 3. 9. Vancouver City Planning Department, Downtown Vancouver:  Development Concepts (Vancouver: City Planning Department, June 1970), p. 13. 10. Ibid., p. 23-24. 194 11. Forward, p. 16. 12. Ibid., p. 9. 13. "Two Swim Pools Idled", Vancouver Sun, April 6, 1971, p. 1. 14. Interview with Helen Boyce, Vancouver Parks Commissioner, March 1, 1971. 15. G. Sutton Brown, "Pedestrian Walkway - Coal Harbour Water-front" (submission to the Board of Administration, City Hall, Vancouver, B.C., March 3, 1959), p. 1. 16. Capt. D.D.L. Johnson, "Port Management and Development", The Port of Vancouver, Symposium Proceedings, ed. by Robert W. Collier (Vancouver: University of British Columbia, Department of Extension, June 1966), p. 30. 17. "Port to Grow 50% in Three Years", Vancouver Province, September 24, 1969, p. 13. 18. Graham, p. 16. 19. Ibid., p. 17. 20. Vancouver Planning Department, Development Concepts, p. 57. 21. "Costliest Plan Public's Pick", Vancouver Sun, February 27, 1971, p. 31. 22. Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, Official Plan for the  Lower Mainland Regional Planning Area (New Westminster: LMRPB, 1966), p. 3. 23. Interview with Alderman Art Phillips, March 11, 1971. 24. Interview with Professor E.C.E. Todd, University of British Columbia School of Law, March 15, 1971. 25. British Columbia, "Land Registry Act", Revised Statutes of  British Columbia 1960 (Victoria: Queen's Printer, 1960), Chapter 208, section 86b. 26. British Columbia, Sessional Papers 1886 (Victoria: Queen's Printer, 1887), pp. 460-1, 464, 469. 196 27. Vancouver, Street and Traffic By-Law No. 2849 (Vancouver: Queen's Printer), definition #41. 28. Interview with Alderman Brian Calder, March 17, 1971. 29. Interview with Mr. William Graham, Director, Vancouver City Planning Department, March 10, 1971. 30. Interview with Mr. H. Urquhart, Vancouver City Assessment Department, June 17, 1970. 31. Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, The Dynamics of  Industrial Land Settlement (New Westminster: LMRPB, 1961), p. 32. 32. Forward, p. 19. 33. F.C. Leighton, "A Brief on the Development Problems of the Greater Vancouver Port Area", March 7, 1966, p. 12. 34. Interview with Jack Chadwick, Executive Secretary, Port of Vancouver Development Committee, March 12, 1971. 35. A survey of the users of the Vancouver waterfront was conducted in the Fall of 1969 by Tassie and Griggs. This original survey has been amended and augmented as a result of research conducted by the authors in the summer of 1970. Coverage was extended to 80 of the 100 users of waterfront land within the study area. 36. Forward, p. 17. 37. J.B. Ward and Associates, "Report on the Port of Vancouver" (study conducted for the National Harbours Board, Vancouver, 1967). Three waterfront users were excepted from this evaluation: Harbour Park (immediately adjacent to Stanley Park), the Bayshore Inn, and New Brighton Park. 38. For a discussion of this point, see Ross Robinson, Spatial  Structure of Port Linked Flows: The Port of Vancouver, Canada 1965 (unpublished Master's Degree thesis, University of British Columbia, 1968), p. 30-31. 39. Ibid., p. 30. 197 40. Kerfoot, p. 6. 41. Ibid., p. 7. 42. Ibid., p. 5. 43. Ibid., p. 103. 44. Forward, p. 26. 45. British Columbia Research Council, Foreign Trade Study:  Lower Mainland Ports (Vancouver: British Columbia Research Council, 1967), p. 5, 6. 46. Michael R. Bonavia, Economics of Transport (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1963), p. 132. 47. Natioal Harbours Board, Centennial Pier (Ottawa: National Harbours Board, 1970. 48. Litton Industries, Advanced Marine Technology Division, "The Future of Oceanborne Shipping", Fairplay, February 5, 1970, p. 41. 49. Kates, Peat, Marwick and Company, "Container Study for the Port of Vancouver" (study conducted for the National Harbours Board, Vancouver, B.C., 1969), p. III-6. 50. Container shipments for consignees within 100 miles of the landing port must be unpacked at the terminal by virtue of a 1970 union agreement. 51. Kates, p. IV-5. 52. Ibid., p. V-2. 53. Ibid., p. V-3. 54. Chadwick interview. 55. Interviews conducted with north shore leaseholders, Summer 1970. 56. Chadwick interview. 57. First National City Bank of New York, The Port of New York: Challenge and Opportunity (New York: First National City Bank of New York, 1967), p. 26. 199 58. See Appendix I. 59. Chadwick interview. 60. Chadwick interview. 61. F.C. Leighton, "Economic Forces Behind Roberts Bank" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Professional Engineers of B.C., Vancouver, December 6, 1968). 62. Delaware River Port Authority, The Value of a Ton of Cargo to  the Area Economy (Philadelphia: Delaware River Port Authority, 1953). 63. The concept of the multiplier was developed by Richard F. Kahn, "The Relation of Home Investment to Unemployment, Economic  Journal XLI, p. 173-198. Also discussed by W. Leontief, Input-Output Economics (New York: Oxford Press, 1966). 64. Port of New York Authority, The Port and the Community (New York: Port of New York Authority, 1956). 65. D.C. Darnton and CO. Meiburg, The Contribution of the Ports  of Virginia to the Economy of the Commonwealth (Charleston, Virginia, 1968). 66. Tassie, p. 181-189. 67. Eric Schenker, The Port of Milwaukee, An Economic Review (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967). 68. Tassie, p. 189. 69. Ibid., p. 183. 70. Darnton, p. 24. 71. Ibid., p. 25. 72. Arthur D. Little, The Port Of San Francisco: An In-Depth  Study of Its Impact (Arthur D. Little, 1966), p. 32. 200 CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS At times, the path to discover the potentials for public access to the central city working waterfront may have seemed roundabout. But the complexity of the issues necessitated sometimes lengthy des-criptions because, in the authors' view, it is only through an under-standing of the past and the present that we can hope to recognize change in process and to understand and benefit from i t . It is obviously not a simple task to develop an appreciation for the issues which inter-mingle and bring about changes along the port oriented urban waterfront. However, even given the considerable number and variety of issues involved, it is essential to extrapolate from these issues the critical elements that comprise the basis for a perspective and, ultimately, a methodology that will aid in recognizing increased opportunities for public access to the urban waterfront. To this end, this final chapter will review the concerns of this study, discuss the thesis presented in the initial chapter, and present some of the constituents for develop-ing a methodology that have emerged in the course of the entire study. 201 A. SUMMARY The introductory chapter began broadly by considering some of the important elements that affect human settlement. The initial concern with the historic development of cities led quickly to the recognition that of the many significant factors which influence settlement, develop-ment, and expansion, the availability of navigable water bodies was paramount. The discussion then narrowed considerably and began to explore the use of waterfront lands and, in particular — prompted by the increasing numbers of people flowing into the city — of urban waterfront land. Finally, both because of the historic and current importance of ports and port facilities existing in major downtown urban areas and the frequent attempts of major cities to revitalize and rejuv-enate their central city cores, the study fixed itself on the use and development of core area working waterfronts and the considerable opportunity for increasing public access that existed within this working waterfront setting. While Chapter I provided a conceptual basis on which the remainder of the study was to be constructed, Chapter II provided an overview of the development of the modern port and an explication of the major cate-gories of urban waterfront land use. The nomenclature "non-working waterfront" was used to describe those urban waterfront areas whose primary use was residential, recreational, and/or commercial. Because of one or more negative factors of geography, hydrology, or economics, 202 and the positive attractions of setting, amenity, and/or obvious recrea-tional potential, these particular waterfront areas did not develop industrially. The major emphasis of Chapter II, however, was on those areas which developed into "working waterfronts" and on the evolution and current implications of such use. A detailed discussion of factors in port location and operation pointed to increasingly rapid changes in port facilities and function. Beginning with the economic problems of water transport and the subsequent requirement for larger ships and shorter turn-around time, both the advantages of exterior ports over interior ports and the growing port mechanization required by container-ization and the ticreasing number of huge containerships and supertankers became more pronounced. Ultimately, these and other changes within the shipping industry, coupled with problems of inland transport and urban encroachment, pointed to a single critical need: more land. But because of the convergence of these very problems within the city core and along the working waterfront, usable land was scarce. Thus emerged the dilemma of enterprises in the urban working waterfront: pressure rapidly in-creasing for a commodity whose availability was rapidly decreasing. From a description of what has become a classic problem of the urban working waterfront emerged in Chapter III a review and a consider-ation of the attempts of major North American cities to develop their downtown waterfronts. In many of the examples considered, the land developed or redeveloped into non-working waterfront usage had once 203 been in active port use but had become obsolete, been abandoned, or in some way had simply fallen into disuse. The primary concern within the chapter centered on the cities' goals and objectives for the urban waterfront as well as for the particular waterfront developments. It became evident that the downtown waterfront was viewed as a resource and its most efficient use was of prime concern. From the attitudes expressed by the cities considered, it was clear that waterfront devel-opment was seen as critical to the enhancement of the central city: developing the urban waterfront would emphasize the downtown which, in turn, would achieve regional objectives of concentrated and orderly settlement, local economic objectives of stimulating business and trade within the core area, and political and economic objectives of increas-ing public access to the downtown waterfront. On the specific issue of public access none of the cities considered clearly defined a concept of public access but implicitly made apparent their attitude that it was an issue of considerable importance, particularly in regard to realizing planning and economic goals. Until Chapter IV, the attempt had been to broadly review the major activities taking place within the working waterfront and to consider the events leading up to those activities. These early chapters allowed a view of change in process and provided a significant environmental milieu against which the highly detailed consideration of Vancouver, B.C., could be conducted. With an awareness of the traditional problems 204 of modern ports in modern cities, the attempt within Chapter IV was to see how the City of Vancouver was experiencing and dealing with the situation and to see how the notion of public access f i t into the present and future configuration of the City's working waterfront. The inquiry into the development of the City and the Port of Vancouver indicated the classic settlement and growth pattern associated with those areas of natural access by water, with naturally protected harbours, and which served a hinterland for which it acted as a trading or import-export center. As the historical development of the port and the City appeared to be traditional, so did the contemporary conflict between an important port requiring additional land to grow and a growing city encroaching on port land to satisfy its own needs. But while the study of Vancouver indicated that the City f i t well into the stereotype of port-city problems, it also dramatically emphasized that special consi-derations and special qualities make each city and each situation unique. Though the issues Vancouver faced were rather common, the specifics of history, the setting and amenities, the politics, economy, and con-straints all acting upon this particular City caused it to respond and perhaps recognize opportunity in an uncommon manner. Thus while the City of Vancouver may have a good deal of waterfront area accessible to the public, it nonetheless finds access to the downtown working waterfront essential to the City's future. While the railway corridor around the Inner Harbour effectively separated and legally prohibited 205 public access to the downtown waterfront, it may also have been an important positive factor in limiting the non-working development of abandoned or under-utilized sites along the waterfront simply because of access difficulties. Because scattered and unplanned redevelopment has been hindered, this situation can be viewed as an opportunity for comprehensive development planning along the waterfront. But it also became apparent that the Inner Harbour, long zoned for and recognized as a rather homogenous area for port-oriented waterfront use, could in fact be geographically and functionally segregated into three distinct areas, each serving different purposes and each showing a remarkable degree of difference in their respective relation to the port. In the end, however, it seemed that Vancouver only recognized opportunities for increasing public access to its downtown waterfront in a rather limited sense. B. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND PLANNING METHODOLOGY Conclusions When any urban waterfront is viewed in regard to its specific problems, a variety of opportunities may emerge. By placing special emphasis on the interaction of public planning goals, changing shipping technology, and the competition for waterfront land -- as this study has done -- and by relating their impact in a specific and spatial way to the urban waterfront, the potentialities for increasing public 206 access began to emerge. But there are also some general conclusions that can be drawn, particularly in relation to the positions stated, in the beginning of this paper. 1. NHB policy includes no provision for creating or encouraging public access to the harbour. The National Harbours Board is the Fed-eral agency concerned with ports and, therefore, any Federal policy or planning concerned with public access to the port-oriented waterfront would emerge from this agency. That there is in fact no policy pro-vision in this regard is evidenced by the single-purpose role of the National Harbours Board in its attempts to increase port activity and enhance port development solely in a transport and industrial capacity. 2. Increasing amounts of land are needed for the port operation. Port land use requirements are being dramatically affected by changes in shipping vessel technology and terminal facilities. The phenomenal growth in vessel size since 1940 — a 500% increase in the size of freighters and a staggering 1800% increase in the size of tankers — has resulted in the need for deeper berths, huge container cranes, new and extensive storage and stockpile space, and a more efficient and uncongested ground transportation network. Especially if a port is expected to grow, these factors will force the requirement for more land. 3. The port function cannot successfully compete for waterfront land against urban land uses. As indicated by the land values in 207 Greater Vancouver, industrial uses are not able to pay as high a rent or produce as high a return for land as are commercial and most other uses. Responding to the increasing local and metropolitan populations, the cities of New York and Boston both publicly intervened in the re-development of the harbourfront into non-working uses. 4. That obsolescence is a prime impetus for change along the port-oriented urban waterfront is substantiated in every major city considered throughout this study. Facility obsolescence can result from the decline in trade of a particular commodity, changes in tech-nology, incompatible adjacent land uses, or the strangling effect of an inefficient and congested land transportation system. 5. The continuous nature of road and rail lines, while serving the port-oriented urban waterfront, also form an effective barrier to public access inasmuch as these lines normally run parallel to the waterline. Because the waterfront land transport system developed over a period of years and was primarily concerned only with the activity of the port, provisions for overpasses, underpasses, or any form of safe crossings for the general public were not included. The railway corridor along Vancouver's Inner Harbour is a classic example of the continuous and unrelieved barrier. 6. The economic development of the city in general and the city core in particular is most often responsible for the non-working redevelopment of the harbour. Chicago, San Francisco, and Philadelphia o 208 clearly acknowledge encouraging developments that include public access (frequently in the form of recreational facilities) as a means to achieve local and regional economical goals. 7. Public access has been shown to be effectively integrated into working waterfronts by developments in San Francisco and Toronto. How-ever, the continued viability of the port function must remain at the heart of any attempt at integration. Planning Methodology The concern of this study has been in determining the significant constituents of a methodology by which increased opportunities for public access to the port-oriented urban waterfront may be recognized. An awareness of public planning goals, changing shipping technology, and the competition for waterfront land have been shown as essential to any attempt to analyze and recognize change in process along the working waterfront., These factors must be an integral and overall part of any methodology that purports to evaluate the opportunities that arise from urban waterfront change. Specifically, public planning goals must be viewed in a hierarchy that includes local, regional, and national concerns. Distant cargo hinterlands and matters of importance to all of Canada necessitate the establishment of national goals for the "local" waterfront by the National Harbours Board. While 209 fully recognizing the need for efficient port operation, city goals which include objectives for making the urban waterfront available for the local and regional population should be identified. Changing shipping technology involves evaluation of vessel technology and berthing accommodation needs in light of the volume and types of cargo transhipped through the port area. Finally, the competition for water-front land occurs at various levels of intensity, generated by a com-bination of decreasing availability of urban waterfront land and increasing urban population. The principal contestants in the compe-tition, by virtue of their size and the type and scale of their pro-posed development, are the ones that determine the level of that inten-sity. No matter how detailed a study of the working waterfront may be, it may also be virtually useless in recognizing public access oppor-tunities unless it is properly conceived. It is critical that public access be satisfactorily defined in an operational manner so as not to exclude myriad opportunities that could arise from a waterfront study. Thus an investigation of opportunities for access should first consider the possibilities for access, e.g., visual, physical, sea-level, above-ground, walkways, roadways, recreational facilities. The manner in which a city recognizes emerging opportunities on its waterfront depends almost exclusively on the perception which it brings to a study of the area. Ultimately, there are five points of 210 concern that spring from public planning goals, changing shipping technology, and the competition for waterfront land which are all closely related and which are all relevant to the perception of public access opportunities along the port-oriented urban waterfront. These points form the heart of a methodology and provide a framework on which a study approach can be developed. 1. On land use change within the working waterfront: What's the  impetus for change and what's the local response? This study has indi-cated that the climate of change has been brought about by both positive and negative forces. Growing port hinterlands, changing shipping techno-logy, and increasing urban pressures all lead to the subsequent require-ment for more land. The working waterfront enterprise reacts to this condition by (a) relocating the port-oriented facility, (b) intensifying use at the present site, or (c) simply biding time before making a decision. 2. On the change among waterfront land users: When is the initial non- working encroachment likely to begin? Change in urban waterfront land users occurs when the land is left vacant or is not fully utilized. It then becomes ripe for redevelopment into non-working uses, particularly when the land in question is of a sizeable quantity. The result is a dynamic form of actual or incipient change that provides an opportunity for redevelopment which, in a city like Vancouver, may be first 211 recognized and seized in its early stages by the private developer. Currently, the non-working encroachment of working waterfront land is often of a large-development multi-use nature and includes residential, commercial and some recreational elements. 3. On the effect of the port on the city: How important is the  impact of the port? While historically ports had considerable positive impact on the growth and development of the city within which it operated, today this impact is frequently perceived by the city as including negative elements as well. Ports, in occupying major portions of city cores, inhibit city expansion and use of the waterfront. In some instances the city itself is not so much the direct economic beneficiary of the port as is the region or even the nation. Port facilities occupy urban land which could provide greater economic return if in other uses; intensification of use of urban waterfront land in port functions increases the demand on the ground transportation system, thereby adding to the congestion of already-congested central city areas. And local employment within the port inevitably decreases as facilities become increasingly automated. 4. On the attitude of the city toward the waterfront: For whose  use is the downtown harbourfront? Increasingly, the waterfront is considered by city governments as a resource to be developed for the ben-efit of the city"and the region. There is a recognizable trend that the urban waterfront does not belong solely to the historic users of the area and that the future use to which the land is put is of consid-erable public importance. In order to assure that its needs are met, 212 the city is becoming increasingly involved in development of the downtown waterfront. 5. On public access and the urban waterfront: Who speaks for  the public and what's access? It has been noted that city governments of several major urban centers cite the historic prohibition and exclusion of the public from the downtown waterfront. Working water-front land engaged in the port function is privately owned or leased to private concerns. Where there is a continuous strip of port-oriented waterfront, as is the case in Vancouver, non-business pedes-trian and vehicular access to the waterfront may be physically possible but legally prohibited. But the city, while acknowledging the tradi-tionally private control of a land area that is of considerable public value and concern, generally does not specify, define, or require public access as criteria for private urban waterfront redevelopment. D. FURTHER STUDY Though many possibilities for further study grow from this report, it is felt that three specific studies would be most beneficial in increasing public access opportunities along the port-oriented urban waterfront. All of these studies relate to developing a policy aimed at improving the quality of life for urban residents and gaining an appreciation for the waterfront as a limited resource which should be protected for public use. Such research would involve: 213 1. A study that would determine how Federal-Municipal coopera-tion might be achieved in order to integrate public access facilities into the port-oriented urban waterfront; 2. A study that would promote recognition of the misuse of the urban waterfront by industries and businesses which make no active use of a waterfront location but which restrict use by the general public; and 3. A study that would detail how guaranteed public access to the waterfront might be made a condition for future public and private developments and redevelopments. 214 BIBLIOGRAPHY A. BOOKS Bird, James. The Geography of the Port of London. London; Hutchinson University Library, 1957. Bonavia, Michael. Economics of Transport. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1963. Currie, A.W. Canadian Transportation Economics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967. Gutkind, E.A. The Twilight of Cities. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. Hall, Peter. The World Cities. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1966. Halprin, Lawrence. Freeways. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1964. Hammond, Rolt. Introduction to Dock and Harbour Engineering. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1958. Herfindahl, Orris C.and Kneese, Allen V. Quality of the Environment:  An Economic Approach to Some Problems in Using Land, Water, and  Air. Resources for the Future, Inc. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1965. Leontief, W. Input-Output Economics. New York: Oxford Press, 1966. Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the City. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1960. Mayer, H.M. Port of Chicago and the St. Lawrence Seaway. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957. Mumford, Lewis. The Urban Prospect. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968. Oram, R.B. Cargo Handling and the Modern Port. London: Pergamon Press, 1965. 215 Plager, Sheldon J., and Maloney, Frank E. Controlling Waterfront  Development. Public Administration Clearing Service No. 30. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida, 1968. Segoe, Ladislas. Local Planning Administration.. Municipal Management Series. Chicago: International City Managers' Association, 1941. Stulman, Julius. Evolving Mankind's Future. Philadelphia: J.B. Lipincott, 1967. Wiles, Franklin A. Land Development and Taxation in a Central Commer- cial Zone. Vancouver: Rawson and Wiles, Ltd., June, 1965. B. NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS "Antwerp". Container News, December 1970. "Dry Cargo Ships in Perspective". Fairplay, January 22, 1970. Engelmann, Peter. "Changing Site Requirements for Port Operations". ASCE Waterways Journal, Volume 84 (1958). "Enter the Lash Fleet". Container News, September 1970. "Fewer 'Liberty' Replacements". Fairplay, February 15, 1968. Forward, C.N. "Coastal Cities of Australia". Community Planning  Review, Fall 1970. Kahn, Richard F. "The Relation of Home Investment to Unemployment". Economic Journal XLI. Kenyan, James. B. "Land Use Administration in the Built Up Urban Waterfront." Economic Geography XLII (September 1968). Litton Industries. Advanced Marine Technology Division. "The Future of Oceanborne Shipping". Fairplay, February 5, 1970. "Marine Gas Turbine Potential". Fairplay, January 22, 1970. "MacKenzie, T.F.P., and Murray, J.W. "Trends in Dry Cargo and Container Ships". Fairplay, 22 January 1970. 216 "Pacific and Atlantic Service Make Further Growth". Container News, October 1970. Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas Engineers. "Multi-Use Port Configurations". World Ports, February 1970. "Roll-on Roll-off Navy". Container News, September 1970. "Renewal of Waterfront Areas". Journal of Housing XXI No. 5 (June 1964). Rimmer, P.J. "The Problem of Comparing and Classifying Seaports". Geographical Review XVIII (March 1966). "Sixty-three Percent". Container News, November 1970. "The Super Agency". Business Week, May 11, 1968. "Todd Shipyard Corporation". Container News, December 1970. Twardzik, Louis F. "Plan for Leisure". Community Planning Review, Fall 1970. Vancouver Province. April 27, 1963, September 24, 1969. Vancouver Sun. December 7, 1968; July 27, 1970; February 17, 27, April 6, 1971. "Waterfront Renewal". Official Architecture and Planning, December 1968. Weigand, G.G. Some Elements in the Study of Port Geography". Geo- graphical Review, Volume 48 (1958). Wood, Donald F. "Waterfront Renewal in Metropolitan Areas". Journal  of the Urban Planning and Development Division. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 93 (December 1967). C. REPORTS, GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS, ETC. Alaska State Housing Authority. Seldovia Comprehensive Development  Plan. Anchorage: Alaska State Housing Authority, 1969. American Association of Port Authorities. Ports of the Americas. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Port Authorities, 1961. 217 American Society of Planning Officials. Municipal Waterfronts: Planning for Commercial and Industrial Uses. Advisory Service Information Report #45. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, December 1952. . Waterfronts: Planning for Resource and Residential Uses. Planning Advisory Service. Report #118. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, 1969. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Port Development Requirements: Report to the  Delaware River Port Authority, 1965. . Port of San Francisco: An In-Depth Study of its Impact, 1966. Barnstead, R.C. "Congestion Costs and Flexibility of Goods Movement". Proceedings of the First Canadian Urban Transportation Conference. Ed. by John Steel. Ottawa: Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, 1969. British Columbia Research Council. Foreign Trade Study: Lower Main- land Ports, Vancouver: British Columbia Research Council, 1967. , Vancouver Harbour Traffic Trends and Facility Analysis. Vancouver? British Columbia Research Council, 1967. Brown, G. Sutton. "Pedestrian Walkway - Coal Harbour Waterfront". Submission to Board of Administration, City Hall, Vancouver, B.C., March 3, 1959. (Mimeographed). Chicago Department of City Planning. Basic Policies for the Compre- hensive Plan of Chicago. Chicago! Department of City Planning, T96T Darnton, D.C., and Meiburg, CO. The Contributions of the Ports of  Virginia to the The Economy of the Commonwealth. Charleston, Virginia, 1968. Dawson, Peter. Proceedings of the International Container Symposium. Defieux, Charles M. The Port of Vancouver. Ottawa: National Harbours Board, 1969. Delaware River Port Authority. The Value of a Ton of Cargo to the Area  Economy. Philadelphia: Delaware River Port Authority, 1953. 218 Detroit. Detroit Regional Transportation and Land Use Study. Land  Use Inventory. Detroit: Detroit Regional Transportation and Land Use Study, 1967. First National City Bank of New York. The Port of New York: Chal1enge  and Opportunity. New York: First National City Bank of New York, 1967. Forward, Charles N. Waterfront Land Use in Metropolitan Vancouver, British Columbia" Geographical Paper No. 41. Ottawa: Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, Geographical Branch, 1968. Graham, William E. "Planning—The Port and The City". The Port of  Vancouver, Symposium Proceedings. Ed. by Robert W. Collier. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, Department of Exten-sion, June 1966. Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. Waterfront Redevelopment Division. Report on the Downtown Waterfront - FaneuilHall Renewal PTan. Boston: Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, June 1962. Greater Buffalo Development Foundation. Buffalo Waterfront. Buffalo: Greater Buffalo Development Foundation, 1962. Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board. An Outline of Proposals for the  Growth and Development of the City of Vancouver. Submission to the City of Vancouver on the Issues Report, City of Vancouver Plan. Vancouver: Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board, October 1969. — . Real Estate Trends in Metropolitan Vancouver. Vancouver: Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board, 1971. Greater Vancouver Regional District. Planning Department. Commercial  Floorspace. Vancouver: Greater Vancouver Regional District, 1970. . Planning Department. Population Density - 1966. Vancou-ver: Greater Vancouver Regional District, 1970. International Association of Ports and Harbors. Proceedings of the  Fifth Conference. Tokyo, 1967. J.B. Ward and Associates. "Report on the Port of Vancouver". Study conducted for the National Harbours Board, Vancouver, 1967. (Mimeographed). 219 Johnson, Capt. B.D.L. "Port Management and Development". The Port of  Vancouver, Symposium Proceedings. Ed. by Robert W. Collier. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, Department of Extension, June 1966. Johnson, Johnson, & Roy, Inc. A Progress Report on the Future of  Chicago's Lakefront. Chicago: Johnson, Johnson, & Roy, Inc., 1968. Kates, Peat, Marwick & Co. "Container Study for the Port of Vancouver". Study conducted for the National Harbours Board, Vancouver, 1969. Keil, Alfred H., and Mandel, Philip. "Transportation by Sea—Today and Tomorrow". Proceedings of the I.E.E.E., Volume 56 No. 4 (April 1968). Kerfoot, D.E. Port of British Columbia: Development and Trading  Pattern, B.C. Geographical Series #2. Vancouver: Tantalus Research Ltd., 1966. Klugmann, Werner. Facts and Figures About the Port of Hamburg. Sazzelmaier: Verlag Okis, 1966. Leighton, F-C "A Brief on the Development Problems of the Greater Vancouver Port Area", March 7, 1966. — . "Economic Forces Behind Roberts' Bank". Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Professional Engin-eers of B.C., Vancouver, December 6, 1968. Lockfeld, F.M. Marine Shorelines in the Puget Sound Region. Report #8, Project Open Space. Seattle: Puget Sound Governmental Conference and Puget Sound Regional Planning Council, November 1964. Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. Official Regional Plan for  the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Area. New Westminster: Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, 1966. . Population Trends in the Lower Mainland, Summary Report. New Westminster: Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, 1968. — . The Dynamics of Industrial Land Settlement. New Westmin-ster: Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, 1961. Manfred, Schaffer N. The Competitive Position of the Port of Durban. Johannesburg: H.H. van Hoen, 1962. 220 Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board. "Waterfront Map". Toronto: Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board, 1968. Mississippi River Commission and Lower Mississippi Valley Division, Corps of Engineers. Mississippi River Navigation. Vicksburg, Mississippi: Corps of Engineers, 1967. Moses, Robert. The Expanding New York Waterfront. New York: Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, 1964. Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Plan for the Metropolitan  Toronto PIanning Area, Supplement. Toronto: Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, December 1963. National Association of Manufacturers. Water in Industry. New York; National Association of Manufacturers, 1965. National Harbours Board. Centennial Pier. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1970. . Supplement to the Annual Report. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1955-1970. The Port of Vancouver: Canada's Key City of the West. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1958. New York City Department of City .Planning. Community Renewal Program. Recreational Facilities in New York City. New York: Department of City Planning, 1968. New York. Community Renewal Program. Between Promise and Performance. New York: Community Renewal Program, 1968. Oahu Development Conference. Urban Design Study of the Honolulu  Waterfront Honolulu: Oahu Development Conference, 1968. Parott, Ed. "Cargo Handling in the Port of Vancouver". The Port of  Vancouver, Symposium Proceedings. Ed. by Robert W. Collier. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, Department of Extension, June 1966. 221 Philadelphia. City Planning Commission. City Center Redevelopment  Area Plan. Philadelphia: City Planning Commission, 1963. Philadelphia. Office of the City Representative. "Community Renewal Program: Major Policies and Proposals", Press release from the Office of the City Representative, January 1967. (Mimeographed). Port of New York Authority. The Port and the Community. New York: Port of New York Authority, 1956. Port Resources Information Committee Inc. New York Port Handbook, 1969. New York: Port Resources Information Committee, 60 Iroad Street, N.Y.C., 1969. Portland Metropolitan Planning Commission. Recreation Outlook 1962- 1975. Portland: Metropolitan Planning Commission, September 1962. Reed, Henry Ashman. Appliances for Handling Goods in Ports and Docks. Vernon-Harcourt Lecture, 1927-28. London: The Institution of Civil Engineers, 1928. Robinson, Ross. Spatial Structure of Port Linked Flows: The Port  of Vancouver, Canada 1965. Unpublished Master's Degree thesis, University of British Columbia, 1968. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. San Francisco Bay Plan. San Francisco: San Francisco Bay Conser-vation and Development Commission, January 1969. Schenker, Eric. The Port of Milwaukee, An Economic Review. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967. Shinto, H. Paper presented to the Canadian Transportation Research Forum, Vancouver, B.C., 1968. Tassie, Peter, and Griggs, Neil. The Urban Growth and Transportation  Implications in Port Development. Unpublished Master's Degree thesis, University of British Columbia, 1970. Toronto City Planning Board. Plan for Downtown Toronto. Toronto: Toronto City Planning Board, 1963. Tri-State Transportation Committee. The Changing Harborfront. New York: Tri-State Transportation Committee, 1966. 222 Urban Design Group. Harbor Development: Port of Portland, Me. New-port, Rhode island: Urban Design Group, February 1969. Vancouver. City Planning Department. City of Vancouver Plan: Part  1 - The Issues. Vancouver: City Planning Department, December, 1968! ; . Downtown Vancouver: Development Concepts. Vancouver: City Planning Department, 1970. Van Norman, C.B.K. An Urban Redevelopment for Downtown Vancouver to  Create a New Residential Neighborhood. Vancouver: CBK Van Norman and Associates, March, 1962. Wisconsin Department of Resource Development. Waterfront Renewal. Madison: Department of Resource Development, 1968. D. STATUTES British Columbia. "Chapter 33, An Act to Make Certain Provisions to Facilitate Public Access Over Private Roads". Revised Statutes  of British Columbia. Victoria: Queen's Printer, 1960. . "Chapter 55, Vancouver Charter". Revised Statutes of British Columbia. Victoria: Queen's Printer, 1968. . "Chapter 208, Land Registry Act". Revised Statutes of British Columbia 1960. Victoria: Queen's Printer, 1960. "Chapter 387, Trespass Act". Revised Statutes of British Columbia. Victoria: Queen's Printer, 1960. . Sessional Papers 1886. Victoria: Queen's Printer, 1887. Vancouver. Street and Traffic By-Law No. 2849. Vancouver: Queen's Printer, 1947. E. INTERVIEWS Mrs. Helen Boyce, Commissioner. City of Vancouver Parks Board, March 1, 1971. 223 Mr. Brian Calder, Alderman. Vancouver City Council, March 17, 1971. Mr. Jack Chadwick, Executive Secretary. Port of Vancouver Develop-ment Committee, March 12, 1971. Mr. L. Crawford, Researcher. British Columbia Research Council. March 12, 1971. Mr. Bill Graham, Director. City of Vancouver Planning Department, March 10, 1971. Mr. Art Phillips, Alderman. Vancouver City Council, March 11, 1971. Professor E.C.E. Todd. Professor of Law, University of British Columbia, March 15, 1971. Mr. H. Urquhart. City of Vancouver Assessment Department, June 17, 1970. Mr. A.P.W. Watkins, Assistant Secretary. Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board, April 13, 1971. 224 APPENDIX I CARGO TONNAGE, PORT OF VANCOUVER AND CITY OF l/ANCOuYER STUDY AREA 1955 - 1970 The f igures in th i s section trace the growth of Port of Vancouver cargo tonnages and indicate the change in the volume of cargo passing through City terminals. While s pec i f i c tonnage: across indiv idual terminals was not ava i l ab le , a combination of sources was used to a r r i ve at an estimate of tonnage on the basis of a v a i l a b i l i t y of berthing, the type of cargo handled over the berth, and the nature of the cargo moved through the Port. 225 TONNAGES FOR 1955 BULK Total Port Tonnage (Actual) Tonnage Through Study Area (Est.) GENERAL Total Port Tonnage (Actual) Tonnage Through Study Area (Est-) Asbestos 24,000 - Autos-Parts 142,000 142,000 Cement 185,000 140,000 Chemicals 59,000 45,000 Coal 85,000 ,J 15,000 Coffee 16,000 10,000 Fertilizer 38,000 38,000 Fish 77,000 77,000 Flax 61,000 61,000 Fish Oil 11,000 11,000 Hog Fuel 206,000 50,000 Flour 269,000 269,000 Logs 1,289,000 500,000 Food-Beverage 31,000 31,000 Oil-Gas 1,264,000 350,000 Fruit . 22,000 20,000 Ores-Concentrates 106,000 35,000 Glass-Metals 154,000 130,000 Salt 25,000 20,000 Hardware-Equipment 37,000 37,000 Sand-Gravel 696,000 45,000 Kerosene 104,000 104,000 Sugar 90,000 90,000 Lime 57,000 57,000 Sulphur 22,000 - Lumber 1,125,000 900,000 Wheat-Grain 2,393,000 2,000,000 Paper-Newsprint 268,000 250,000 Scrap Metal 16,000 14,000 Tallow 12,000 12,000 Wood Products 28,000 20,000 Wood Pulp 521,000 520,000 Others 1,552,000 1 ,100,000 TOTAL 6,484,000 3,344,000 TOTAL 4,501,000 3,749,000 TOTAL TONNAGE, PORT OF VANCOUVER: 10,985,000 TOTAL TONNAGE, STUDY AREA: 7,093,000 Estimates are based on: National Harbours Board tonnages; Vancouver Grain Exchange; Maritime Shipping Exchange; The Canadian Ports and Shipping Directory; C.N. Forward's Land Use in Metropolitan Vancouver, B.C.; and waterfront surveys conducted in 1969 and 1970. 226 TONNAGES FOR 1958 BULK Total Port Tonnage (Actual) Tonnage Through Study Area (Est) GENERAL Total Port Tonnage (Actual) Tonnage Through Study Area (Est) Asbestos 52,000 - Autos-Parts 310,000 300,000 Cement 185,000 140,000 Chemicals 87,000 50,000 Coal 69,000 - Coffee 14,000 10,000 Fertilizer 17,000 17,000 Dry Goods 90,000 80,000 Flax 40,000 40,000 Fish 81,000 81,000 Hog Fuel 165,000 50,000 Fish Oil 14,000 14,000 Logs 1,093,000 300,000 Flour 248,000 248,000 Oil-Gas 972,000 400,000 Food-Beverage 21,000 21,000 Ores-Concentrates 56,000 30,000 Fruit 52,000 60,000 Salt 71,000 65,000 Glass-Metals 164,000 150,000 Sand-Gravel 1,116,000 50,000 Hardware-Equipment 50,000 50,000 Sugar 91,000 91,000 Kerosene 11,000 11,000 Wheat-Grain 3,992,000 3,600,000 Lime 18,000 18,000 Lumber 1,051,000 850,000 Paper-Newsprint 229,000 200,000 Tallow 13,000 .13,000 Wood Products 30,000 25,000 Wood Pulp 498,000 498,000 Other 719,000 TOTAL 7,919,000 4,783,000 TOTAL 3,710,000 3,179,000 TOTAL TONNAGE, PORT OF VANCOUVER: 11,629,000 TOTAL TONNAGE, STUDY AREA: 7,962,000 227 TONNAGES FOR 1961 BULK Total Port Tonnage (Actual) Tonnage Through Study Area (Est.) GENERAL Total Port Tonnage (Actual Tonnage Through Study Area (Est.) Asbestos 85,000 - Autos-Parts 199,000 190,000 Cement 115,000 80,000 Animal Feed 50,000 50,000 Coal 739,000 Chemicals 100,000 60,000 Fertilizer 77,000 60,000 Coffee 16,000 10,000 Flax 36,000 36,000 Dry Goods 133,000 100,000 Hog Fuel 286,000 50,000 Fish 32,000 32,000 Logs 728,000 350,000 Flour 208,000 208,000 Oil-Gas 1,190,000 400,000 Food-Beverage 49,000 40,000 Ores-Concentrates 95,000 10,000 Fruit 33,000 30,000 Salt 91,000 75,000 Glass-Metals 210,000 180,000 Sand-Gravel 1,138,000 50,000 Hardware-Equipment 46,000 40,000 Sugar 90,000 90,000 Lime 16,000 16,000 Sulphur 51,000 - Lumber 1 ,324,000 850,000 Wheat-Grain 4,751,000 4,300,000 Paper-Newsprint 179,000 150,000 Scrap Metal 31,000 25,000 Tallow 27,000 27,000 Wood Products 33,000 30,000 Wood Pulp 922,000 500,000 Other 960,000 775,000 TOTAL 9,472,000 5,501,000 4,568,000 3,313,000 TOTAL TONNAGE, PORT OF VANCOUVER: 14,040,000 TOTAL TONNAGE, STUDY AREA: 8,814,000 228 TONNAGES FOR 1964 BULK Total Port Tonnage (Actual) Tonnage Through Study Area (Est) GENERAL Total Port Tonnage (Actual) Tonnage Through Study Area (Est) Asbestos 91,000 - Auto-Parts 216,000 180,000 Cement 154,000 100,000 Chemicals 104 , 000 35,000 Coal 1,059,000 - Coffee 20,000 15,000 Fertilizer 39,000 39,000 Dry Goods 186,000 150,000 Flak 43,000 43,000 Fish 37,000 35,000 Fodder 103,000 103,000 Fish Oil 15,000 15,000 Hog Fuel 459,000 50,000 Flour 470,000 470,000 Logs 968,000 400,000 Food-Beverage 51,000 40,000 Oil-Gas 1,230,000 500,000 Fruit-Nuts 45,000 40,000 Ores-Concentrates 262,000 - Glass-Metals 287,000 220,000 Potash 440,000 - Hardware-Equipment 116,000 100,000 Pulp Chips 939,000 - Lumber 1,971,000 1,000,000 Salt 165,000 75,000 Paper-Newsprint 250,000 165,000 Sand-Gravel 1,945,000 45,000 Scrap Metal 12,000 .10,000 Sugar 85,000 85,000 Tallow 27,000 27,000 Sulphur 719,000 - Wood Products 59,000 40,000 Wheat-Grain 5,773,000 5,300,000 Wood Pulp Other 637,000 816,000 450,000 625,000 TOTAL 14,474,000 6,740,000 TOTAL 5,319,000 3,617,000 TOTAL TONNAGE, PORT OF VANCOUVER: 19,793,000 TOTAL TONNAGE, STUDY AREA: 10,357,000 229 TONNAGES FOR 1967 BULK Total Port Tonnage (Actual} Tonnage Through Study Area (Est) GENERAL Total Port Tonnage (Actual) Tonnage Through Study Area (Est) Asbestos 145,000 - Autos-Parts 321,000 180,000 Cement 181,000 120,000 Chemicals 152,000 50,000 Coal 1,169,000 Chemical Products 13,000 8,000 Fertilizer 21,000 15,000 Coffee 19,000 15,000 Flax 528,000 528,000 Dry Goods 170,000 150,000 Fodder 102,000 102,000 Fish-Meat 39,000 35,000 Logs 1,059,000 200,000 Flour 116,000 116,000 Oil-Gas 2,015,000 500,000 Food-Beverage 44,000 40,000 Ore-Concentrates 300,000 - Fruit-Nuts 46,000 40,000 Phosphate 171,000 35,000 Glass-Metals 416,000 230,000 Potash 1,250,000 - Hardware-Equipment 84,000 70,000 Pulp Chips 1,453,000 - Lumber 2,051,000 1,000,000 Salt 282,000 75,000 Paper-Newsprint 312,000 180,000 Sand-Gravel 2,214,000 45,000 Scrap Metal 10,000 8,000 Scrap Material 482,000 • 240,000 Tallow 31,000 31,000 Sugar-Molasses 137,000 137,000 Wood Products 77,000 35,000 Sulphur 1,021,000 - Wood Pulp 693,000 350,000 Wheat-Grain 4,466,000 4,000,000 Others 1,506,000 1,000,000 TOTAL 16,996,000 5,997,000 TOTAL 6,100,000 3,538,000 TOTAL TONNAGE, PORT OF VANCOUVER: 23,096,000 TOTAL TONNAGE, STUDY AREA: 9,535,000 230 TONNAGES FOR 1970 BULK Total Port Tonnage (Actual) Tonnage Through Study Area CEst) GENERAL Total Port Tonnage (Actual) Tonnage Through Study Area (Est) Asbestos 5,000 - Autos-Parts 183,000 120,000 Cement 92,000 60,000 Chemicals 207,000 70,000 Coal 4,346,000 Chemical Products 15,000 10,000 Fertilizer 105,000 85,000 Coffee-Cocoa 22,000 18,000 Fodder 257,000 257,000 Dry Goods 126,000 100,000 Gypsum 24,000 15,000 Fish-Meat 58,000 50,000 Logs 510,000 100,000 Fish-Oil 14,000 14,000 Oil-Gas 2,806,000 500,000 Four-Cereal 66,000 66,000 Ores-Concentrates 457,000 - Food-Beverage 109,000 90,000 Phosphates 366,000 35,000 Fruit-Nuts 53,000 50,000 Potash 1,492,000 - Glass-Metals 465,000 285,000 Pulp Chips 977,000 - Hardware-Equipment 86,000 70,000 Salt 406,000 75,000 Lumber 1,769,000 1,000,000 Sand-Gravel 1,542,000 45,000 Paper-Newsprint 394,000 200,000 Scrap Materials 294,000 125,000 Scrap Metal 13,000 10,000 Seed 745,000 745,000 Tallow 50,000 50,000 Sugar-Molasses 137,000 137,000 Wood Products 70,000 35,000 Sulphur 1,782,000 - Wood Pulp 893,000 450,000 Wheat-Grain 5,388,000 4,000,000 Other 835,000 600,000 TOTAL 21,731,000 6,179,000 TOTAL 5,428,000 3,288,000 TOTAL TONNAGE, PORT OF VANCOUVER: 27,159,000 TOTAL TONNAGE, STUDY AREA: 9,467,000 APPENDIX II BERTHS AND BERTHING ACCOMMODATIONS, PORT OF VANCOUVER AND CITY OF VANCOUVER STUDY AREA, 1955 - 1970 This section i s an inventory of the Changes in berthing accommodations in the Port of Vancouver over the past f i f t e e n years; i t i d en t i f i e s the increase in out -o f -C i ty locations fo r new port berths. A. VANCOUVER STUDY AREA 1. Berthing Accommodations 232 1955 1958 1961 1964 1967 1970 B.A.- Oil 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 CPR Pier A 2-D.l-C 2-D,l-C 2-D,l-C 2-D.l-C 2-D.l-C 2-DJ-C CPR Pier B-C 2-D,2-C 2-D,2-C 2-D,2-C 2-D.2-C 2-D.2-C 2-D,2-C Quay 2 2 2 2 2 2 CPR Pier H 1 1 1 1 1 1 Western Water Terminals 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ocean Wharves 2 2 2 2 2 2 CN SS Pier 2 2 2 2 2 2 Centennial Pier - - 4 4 5 6 Ballantyne Pier 2-D,2-G 2-D,2-G 2-D.2-G 2-D,2-G 2-D.2-G 2-D.2-G Great Northern Rail Dock 1 1 1 1 1 1 B.C. Packers Dock 1 1 1 1 1 1 B.C. Sugar Dock 1 1 1 1 1 1 Jetty #3, United Grain Growers 2-G 2-G 2-G 2-G 2-G 2-G LaPointe Pier 2-D.3-G 2-D.3-G 2-D,3-G 2-D,2-G 2-D.2-G 2-D.2-G Northland Navigation 2-C 2-C 2-C 2-C 2-C 2-C Jetty #1 2-G 2-G 2-G 2-G - -Terminal Dock 4 4 4 4 4 4 NHB #4 Elevator 1-G 1-G 1-G 1-G 1-G 1-G Alberta Wheat Pool 2-G 2-G 2-G 2-G » 3-G 3-G Fish Oil Dock 1-C 1-C 1-C 1-C 1-C 1-C Fish Dock 1-C 1-C 1-C 1-C 1-C 1-C TOTAL BERTHS 24-D 24-D 28-D 28-D 29-D 30-D 7-C 7-C 7-C 7-C 7-C 7-C 12-G 12-G '12-G 11-G 10-G 10-G 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 C - Coastal Vessel Berths D - Deep Sea Berths G - Grain Berths 0 - Oil Berths 233 2. Grain Terminal Capacity 1955 1958 1961 1964 1967 1970 NHB #1 7,111,500 7,111,500 7,111,500 4,824,500 4,824,500 4,824,500 NHB #2 1,650,000 1,650,000 1,650,000 1,650,000 1,650,000 1,650,000 NHB #3 (U.G.G.) 2,705,000 3,705,000 3,705,000 3,764,000 3,764,000 3,764,000 NHB #4 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 Alberta Wheat Pool 55150,000 7,300,000 7,300,000 7,300,000 7,300,000 7,300,000 TOTALS 17,216,500 20,366,500 20,366,500 18,138,500 18,138,500 18,138,500 3. Oil Terminal Capacity 1955 1958 1961 1964 1967 1970 B.A. Oil 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 234 PORT OF VANCOUVER, EXCLUDING STUDY AREA 1. Berthing Accommodations 1955 1958 1961 1964 1967 1970 . Standard Oil 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 Shell Oil 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 T. Mount Oil Westridge Term. 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 T. Mount. Oil #2 Term. 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 Texaco Oil 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 B.A. Oil, Barnet Western 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 l-0« B.A. Oil, Barnet Eastern 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 Pacific Coast Bulk Terminals 2 2 2 2 Imperial Oil 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 Hook Chemical Dock 1 1 1 1 Lynn Terminals 3 3 4 Neptune Terminals 2 Saskatchewan Wheat Pool - 2-G Burrard Terminals 1-G 1-G 1-G 1-G 1-G 1-G West India Wharf 2 2 2 2 North Shore Dock 2 2 2 2 2 2 Home Oil 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 Asbestos 2 2 Domtar Wharf 1 1 Vancouver Wharves 4 4 4 4 Roberts Bank 1 TOTAL ' BERTHS 9-0,IG 4-D 9-0,1-G 4-D 9-0,1-G 12-D 9-0,1-G 15-D 8-0,1-G 14-D 8-0,3-G 18-D 235 2. Grain Terminal Capacity 1955 1958 1961 1964 1967 1970 Burrard Terminal 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 Saskatchewan Wheat Pool - - - - 5,250,000 3. Oil Terminal Capacity Standard Oil Shell Oil Tr. Mount ) Oil ) Westridge) ) Tr. Mount ) Oil #2 ) Westridge) Texaco Oil B.A. Oil Imperial Oil Home Oil 1955 1,270,000 1,200,000 42,700,000 3,294,000 1,541,528 32,178 1958 1,270,000 1,200,000 42,400,000 3,250,000 2,641,519 32,178 1961 1 ,361 ,497 1,200,000 42.700,000 3,250,000 NAa 2,641,519 32,178 1964 1,361,497 1,200,000 42,700,000 3,250,000 NA 2,641,519 32,178 1967 1,361,497 1,200,000 42,700,000 3,250,000 NA 2,641,519 1970 1 ,361 ,497 1,200,000 42,700,000 3,250,000 NA 2,641,519 TOTALS 50,038,702 51 ,093,697 51 ,185,194 51 ,185,194 51 ,152,016 51 ,152,016 Sources for tables in this section are: Canadian Ports and Shipping Directory; C.N. Forward's Waterfront Use in Metropolitan Vancouver; and waterfront surveys conducted in 1969 and 1970. aFigures not available. APPENDIX III PORTS OF NORTH AMERICA 237 A. U.S. PORTS Albany, N.Y. Bucksport, Maine Alexandria, Va. Buffalo, N.Y. Anacortes, Wash. Cambridge, Md. Anchorage, Alaska Camden, N.J. Appalachia, Fla. Canaveral, Fla. Ashtabula, Ohio Carrabelle, Fla. Astoria, Oregon Charleston, S.C. Atreco, Tex. Cheboygan, Mich. Augusta, Georgia Chesapeake, Va. Bainbridge, Georgia Chester, Penn. Baltimore, Md. Chicago, 111. Bangor, Maine Cleveland, Ohio Bath, Main Columbus, Georgia Baton Roughe, La. Coos Bay, Ore. Baytown, Tex. Cordova, Alaska Beaufort, S.C.: Corpus Christi, Tex. Beaumont, Tex. Delaware Breakwater, Del. Bellingham, Wash. Detroit, Mich. Boston, Mass. Duluth-Superior, Minn.-Wise. Bridgeport, Conn. Erie, Penn. Brownsville, Texas Eureka, Calif. Brinswick, Georgia Everett, Wash. Fall River, Mass. Manistee, Mich. Fernandiana Beach, Fla. Manitowoc, Wise. Freeport, Tex. Miami, Fla. Galveston, Tex. Milwaukee, Wise. Georgetown, S.C. Mobile, Ala. Glouchester, Mass. Monroe, Mich. Grey's Harbour, Wash. Morehead City. N.C. Green Bay Harbour, Wise. New Bedford, Mass. Gulfport, Miss. New Haven, Conn. Hampton Roads, Va. New London, Conn. Homer, Alaska New Orleans, La. Hopewel1, Va. New York, N.Y. Houston, Texas Newport, R.I. Huron, Ohio Newport News, Va. Jacksonville, Fla. Nome, Alaska Juneau, Alaska Norfolk, Va. Ketchikan, Alaska Oakland, Calif. Kings Bay, Georgia Ogdensburg, N.Y. Lake Charles, La. Olympia, Wash. Long Beach, Calif. Orange, Tex. Lorain, Ohio Oswego, N.Y. Long view', Wash. Palm Beach, Fla. Los Angeles, Calif. Panama City, Fla. Pascagokula, Miss. Pensacola, Fla. Petersburg, Alaska Philadelphia, Penn. Plymouth, Mass. Port Angeles, Wash. Port Arthur, Tex. Port Boca Grande, Fla. Port Everglades, Fla. Port of Hueneme, Calif. Port Isabel, Tex. Port Newark, N.J. Port Royal, S.C. Port St. Joe, Fla. Port San Luis, Calif. Port Sulphur, La. Port Townsend, Wash. Portland, Maine Portland, Ore. Portsmouth, N.H. Portsmouth, Va. Providence, R.I. Richmond, Va. Rochester, N.Y. Sabine, Texas Sacramento, Calif. St. Petersburg, Fla. San Diego, Calif. San Francisco, Calif. Santa Barbara, Calif. Savannah, Georgia Searsport, Maine Seattle, Wash. Seward, Alaska Smiths Bluff, Tex. Stockton, Calif. Tacoma, Wash. Taconite Harbour, Minn. Tampa, Fla. Texas City, Tex. Toledo, Ohio Valdez, Alaska Vancouver, Wash. Waukegan, 111. Wilmington, Del. Wilmington, N.C. Wrangell, Alaska B. CANADIAN PORTS Yakutat, Alaska Amherstburg, 0. Arichat, N.S. Baddeck, N.S. Baie Comeau, Q. Basque Cove, Q. Bathurst, N.B. Bay Roberts, N.F. Botwook, N.F. Bridgewater, N.S. Buctouche, N.B. Campbell ton, N.B. Caraquet, N.B. Carleton, Q. Charlottetown, P.E.I. Chattam, N.B. Chemainus, B.C. Chicoutimi, Q. Churchill, Man. Collingwood, 0. Comox, B.C. Contrecoeur, Q. Cornerbrook, N.F. Cornwall, 0. Dalhousie, N.B. Dtgby, N.S. Esquimalt, B.C. frobisher, N.W.T. Gaspe, Q. Georgetown, P.E.I. Goderich Harbour, 0. Goose Bay, Lab. Grand Bank. N.F. Halifax, N.S. Hamilton, 0. Hantsport, N.S. Harbour Grace, N.F. Havre St. Pierre, Q. Heart's Content, N.F. Isaac's Harbour, N.S. Kingston, 0. Kitiraat, B.C. Le Have, N.S. Lakehead, 0. Les Escoumins, Q. Liscomb, N.S. Liverpool, N.S. Lockeport Harbour, N.S. Loggieville, N.B. Louisbourg, N.S. Lunenburg, N.S. Matane, Q. Meteghan, N.S. Midland, 0. Millbank, N.B. Mount Louis, Q. Montreal, Q. Nanaimo, B.C. New Glasgow, N.S. New Westminster, B.C. Newscastle, N.B. North Sydney, N.S. Ocean Falls, B.C. Oshawa, 0. Owen Sound Harbour, 0. Parrsboro, N.S. Parry Sound, 0. Paspebiac, Q. Pictou, N.S. Pointe-au-Pere, Q. Point Noir, Q. Porpoise Harbour, B.C. Port Alberni, B.C. Port Alfred, Q. Port Alice, B.C. Port Carier, Q. Port Col borne, 0. Port Credit, 0. Port Hawkesbury, N.S. Port Medway, N.S. Port Williams, N.S. Powell River, B.C. Pdescott, 0. Prince Rupert, B.C. Pugwash, N.S. Quebec Harbour, Q. South Nelson, N.B. Richibucto, N.B. Springdale, N.F. Rimouski, Q. Stewart, B.C. Riviere Du Loup, Q. Summerside, P.E.I. St. Andrews, N.B. Sydney, CBI, N.S. St. Catherines, Q. Tadoussac, Q. Saint John, N.B. Thorold, Q. St. John's, N.F. Three Rivers, Q. Sarnia, 0. Toronto, 0. Sault Ste. Marie, 0. Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T. Sept. lies, Q. Twillingale, N.F. Shediac, N.B. Union Bay, B.C. Sheet Harbor, N.S. Vancouver, B.C. Shelbourne Harbour, N.S. Victoria, B.C. Shippegan, N.B. Welland, 0. Ship Harbour, N.S. Weymouth, N.S. Sorel, Q. Windsor, N.S. Souris, P.E.I. Woodfibre, B.C. Yarmouth, N.S. Source: Benn Brothers, Ports of the World, 1970-71. 

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101833/manifest

Comment

Related Items