UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

False Creek development: a study of the actions and interactions of the three levels of government as… Churchill, Dennis Michael 1953

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1954_A8 C5 F3.pdf [ 21.32MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106692.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106692-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106692-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106692-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106692-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106692-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106692-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106692-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106692.ris

Full Text

FALSE GREEK DEVELOPMENT: A study of the actions and interactions of the three l e v e l s of government as they affected public and private development of the waterway and i t s land basin. by Dennis Michael C h u r c h i l l A Thesis Submitted In P a r t i a l F u l f i l l m e n t Of The Requirements For The Degree Of MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of Economics, P o l i t i c a l Science, and Sociology We accept th i s thesis as conforming to the standard required from candidates f o r the degree of Master of A»ts. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November, 1 9 5 3 26 A p r i l , 1954 Mrl Neal Harlow, L i b r a r i a n University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver, B.C. Dear Mr. Harlow: Recently I was employed by the City of Vancouver to make an economic and i n d u s t r i a l survey of the False Creek area. At the termination of my employment I requested, and was gen-erously granted, permission to use material from the survey f o r a master's t h e s i s . It was agreed at the time, however, that I would not thereby make the material public p r i o r to the t a b l i n g of the False Creek Survey report before the city Council. On 1 A p r i l , 1954 I deposited with the University Library two copies of a thesis False Creek Development: . . . . As matters turned out, I was not able to use the material from the City's survey, i n as much as the d i s s e r t a t i o n was a p o l -i t i c a l science (rather than an economics) submission. Never-theless, because of my undertaking to the City Engineer and in return f o r the kind permission granted to me (and despite the eventual d i s s i m i l a r i t y between the two studies) I respect-f u l l y request that you r e s t r i c t public c i r c u l a t i o n of my thesis u n t i l 1 June, 1955 or u n t i l the False Creek develop-ment Survey i s tabled before the Vancouver City Council. Very sincerely, t. Dennis M. Churchill copy to Mr. John O l i v e r C i t y Engineer A B S T R A C T This i s a study o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e confus ion and u n c e r t a i n t y which has beset development of an important p a r t o f Vancouver ' s i n d u s t r i a l w a t e r f r o n t . F a l s e Creek i s a two-mi le l o n g , twen ty - foo t deep i n l e t . H a l f the r e s i d e n t i a l a rea of Vancouver i s separa ted from the commercial cen te r by t h i s waterway and i t s shore i s e x t e n s i v e l y occupied by i n d u s t r y . O r i g i n a l l y the i n l e t was more than t w i c e i t s p resen t s i z e , bu t the eas te rn h a l f and a c e n t r a l mud- f l a t "bay" were r ec l a imed by the f e d e r a l government p r i o r to the F i r s t World War. U n t i l 1924 the f e d e r a l govern-ment c la imed t i t l e t o the bed and foreshore bu t i n t h a t yea r acknowledged the p r o v i n c e ' s c l a i m . I t r e t a i n e d , however, the r ec l a imed area known as G r a n v i l l e I s l a n d and owns a l a r g e t r a c t o f I nd i an reserve l a n d near the F a l s e Creek mouth. A t the t u r n o f the century the c i t y was g i v e n t i t l e t o the ea s t e rn h a l f o f the bed and fo r e sho re , and l a t e r made the r ec l a imed p o r t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o the Great Nor thern and Canadian N a t i o n a l R a i l w a y s . The Canadian P a c i f i c R a i l w a y owns almost a l l the upland l o t s on bo th the nor th and south shore o f the waterway as i t e x i s t s t oday . These are occup ied e i t h e r as t e r m i n a l yards o r under l e a s e . Headl ines have been . e s t a b l i s h e d a long i t s shore and the Navigab le Waters P r o t e c t i o n A c t a p p l i e s . F a l s e Creek has been a problem area because i t i s bo th an o b s t a c l e and an i n d u s t r i a l a rea o f h i g h u t i l i t y and p o t e n t i a l . The c i t y a d m i n i s t r a -t i o n has been ab le t o cope w i t h the former , l i m i t e d o n l y by the funds a v a i l a b l e . Any o v e r - a l l development, however, has been v i r t u a l l y i m p o s s i b l e because o f : l ) a confus ion (before 1924) aa to the spheres o f r espons -i b i l i t y o f the s e n i o r governments, 2) t h e i r tendency g e n e r a l l y t o a c t w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r the o v e r - a l l development, and 3) the t o t a l l a c k o f co -ope ra t i on between themselves o r w i t h the c i t y i n f u r t h e r i n g compre-hens ive economic development. Th i s has meant t ha t the o n l y development, apar t from the f e d e r a l r e c l a m a t i o n , has been the r e s u l t o f p r i v a t e e n t e r p r i s e . I t has been the good fo r tune o f the c i t y t h a t t h i s has never , y e t , been con t ra ry to the o v e r - a l l p o t e n t i a l i t i e s o f the a r e a . Recent a c t i o n by the f e d e r a l govern -ment i n d i c a t e s t ha t the Ind i an rese rve p r o p e r t y may be d isposed o f f o r purposes i n i m i c a l to the bes t economic use o f the s h o r e / There appears to be no p o s s i b i l i t y o f the c i t y deve lop ing the waterway comprehensively by i t s own e f f o r t s , nor any l i k e l i h o o d t ha t e i t h e r o r b o t h s e n i o r governments w i l l do s o . The answer may l i e i n a s t a t u t o r y c o r p o r -a t i o n p u b l i c l y and p r i v a t e l y owned, perhaps on the order o f the E n g l i s h "mixed u n d e r t a k i n g " . Such o r s i m i l a r a c t i o n would be f a c i l i t a t e d i f the . c i t y were ab l e to a c q u i r e the F a l s e Creek l a n d p r e s e n t l y h e l d by the f e d e r a l government, perhaps by accep t i ng i t i n payment f o r the c i ty-owned (1954) a i r p o r t . P R E F A C E T h i s i s the second of two s t u d i e s made by the w r i t e r , of the problems of t h a t p a r t of the w a t e r f r o n t of Vancou-ver , B.C., ftnown as F a l s e Creek. I t attempts to d e s c r i b e and analyse the d i f f i c u l t and i n t e r e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n a r i s i n g from, f i r s t , a f a i l u r e of f e d e r a l , p r o v i n c i a l , and l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s to d i s t i n g u i s h c l e a r l y t h e i r separate powers and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n the area and, secondly, an absence of c o o p e r a t i o n between the three l e v e l s of government i n planning on c a r r y i n g out o v e r - a l l development. T h i s study emphasizes the p o l i t i c a l and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e side of the problem. The f i r s t study d e a l t w i t h i n d u s t r i a l and economic development .and was done i n November and December, 1952, f o r the C i t y of Vancouver's E n g i n e e r i n g and Lands d e p a r t -ments as p a r t of the F a l s e Creek Development Survey, be-gun i n 1950. The i n d u s t r i a l survey began w i t h a r e p o r t on the 14 wood-converting i n d u s t r i e s of the area and was made by a f o r e s t r y c o n s u l t a n t f i r m and submitted to the c i t y engineer i n September, 1952. The remaining f i r m s — some seventy — were v i s i t e d by the w r i t e r to complete the p i c -t u r e . The work was not c a r r i e d beyond the accumulation o f data, however, and no a n a l y s i s was made at that time. The *The w r i t e r was i n i t i a l l y engaged by the c i t y ' s engin-e e r i n g department i n J u l y , 195 2 a) to assess the econ-omic f e a s i b i l i t y of c e r t a i n r e c l a m a t i o n and development proposals f o r F a l s e Creek; b) to extend the sawmill survey to a l l i n d u s t r i e s , and c) to review p o s s i b l e ad-m i n i s t r a t i v e approaches to o v e r - a l l development of the waterway. The proposals were not a v a i l a b l e a t t h a t time, however, and the sawmill survey s u f f e r e d a three month d e l a y . As a r e s u l t the i n d u s t r i a l survey d i d not begin u n t i l the a v a i l a b l e time was a l l but used up. No a n a l y s i s o f the l a r g e amount of data gathered was, t h e r e -f o r e p o s s i b l e and i t was submitted i n i t s b a s i c form. i i o material was gathered as part of a large report then being prepared f o r the c i t y council by a s t a f f under the c i t y engineer and the consultative d i r e c t i o n of E.L. Cousins, P.Eng., Toronto harbour engineer. At thi s writing the re-port of the False Creek Development Survey has not been presented to the c i t y c o u n c il. It i s not, therefore, possible to state whether the writer's i n d u s t r i a l and economic survey remains i n the form i n which i t was compiled, has been made the basis of an economic analysis of the waterfront i n d u s t r i a l basin (as was f i r s t intended), or i n some other way i s incor-porated i n the f u l l report. The second study, presented here, was made on the writer's own i n i t i a t i v e and undertaken f i v e months af t e r the work f o r the Ci t y of Vancouver was completed. Its relevance and need were f i r s t pointed out, however, by D.E. McTaggert, Q.C., then the c i t y ' s s p e c i a l counsel on i t s charter r e v i s i o n , formerly corporation counsel, and subsequently alderman. The material for this study was collected with the assistance of so many people that i n d i v i d u a l acknowledges :;J t ment would require an unmanageable l i s t of names. The writer's debt to others must, therefore, be g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged through the organizations with which they are associated. These include: the Engineering, Archives, and Lands departments of the C i t y of Vancouver; the l i b r a r -ies of the University of B.C., the p r o v i n c i a l government, Vancouver c i t y , and the Vancouver Province and Sun; the the Lands Branch of the pr o v i n c i a l Lands and Forests de-partment, the Vancouver and Ottawa o f f i c e s of the Indian A f f a i r s Branch of the federal Citizenship and Immigration department, and the Vancouver o f f i c e of the National Har-bours Board. Generous assistance was also given by the Lands department of the Canadian P a c i f i c Railway, the En-*Tn the l a s t part of 1 9 5 3 there was a reorganization of the Engineering department, i n which the s t a f f of the False Creek Development Survey was reassigned. iii gineering department of the Canadian National Railway, and the General Agent's o f f i c e of the Great Northern Railway. Very considerable assistance i n the writing of t h i s work was given by Dean H.F. Angus, Dr. J.A. Crumb, and Mr. David Corbett of the Economics and P o l i t i c a l department and Dr. W.N. Sage of the History department of the Univer-s i t y of B.C., together with Major J.S. Matthews, V.D., Vancouver c i t y a r c h i v i s t , and Mr. J.W. Wilson, executive-d i r e c t o r of the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. Although t h e i r influence can be found on almost every page, the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a l l that has been said, and anything which may have been omitted, l i e s with the writer. Vancouver, B.C. Dennis M. C h u r c h i l l . December, 1 9 5 3 . i v T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S page CHAPTER ONE — Introduction. The Problem of False Creek 2 1 - Obstacle and Asset 4 2 - Administrative Responsibilities 6 Division of Administrative Authority 8 Absence of Administrative Co-operation 9 3 - Aim and Purpose of the Study 11 MAP — Showing location of False Creek basin 16 CHAPTER TWO — The False Creek Basin 18 The Waterway 19 Physical Characteristics 20 Port Relationships 22 Relationship to Vancouver City 23 MAP — False Creek Area, with major subdivisions 25 CHAPTER THREE — Early Developments, 1885 - 1895 27 1 - The Agreement with the C.P.R. 29 The Railway Extended to False Creek 31 The Land Grant 33 The Railway's Consideration 34 The Municipal Grant 38 The Canadian Pacific and the Foreshore 39 2 - Early Municipal Public Works 41 3 - Summary 43 MAP — "Bird's-eye View" perspective drawing, 1898 IV 46 page CHAPTER FOUR — The Turn of the Century I, 1896 - 1916 48 1 - Municipal Undertakings 50 Capital Costs 52 Early Development Plans 55 T i t l e to the Mud Flats 57 Power to Develop the Eastern Area 58 2 - Provincial Activities 61 The Kitsilano Indian Reserve 63 Province Claims Reserve 65 3 - Federal Government Action 67 Popular Opposition 68 Development Not Aided 70 False Creek Survey 72 Similar Administrative Actions 74 4 - Summary 75 CHAPTER FIVE — The Turn of the Century II, 1896 - 1916 77 1 - The Second Railway Development 79 The Great Northern Enters the City 80 East End development 82 The Canadian Northern Negotiates 83 The Canadian Pacific and Lulu Island Railways 85 False Creek Railway Ring Completed 87 Railways as 'Development Plans' 89 2 - Industrial Development 90 Lumber Mi l l s and Other Early Industries 91 Diversification Begins 92 The Land Boom 94 MAP — Period of 1920 97 CHAPTER SIX — The War Years, 1913 - 1922 99 1 - The Vancouver Harbour Commission 101 Fi r s t Action 102 Post War Proposals 103 Five M i l l i o n for Development 104 Commission Reorganized 106 vi page CHAPTER SIX — continued 2 - Absence of Co-ordination 108 3 - Developments Due to the War 110 MAP — Kitsilano Peninsula, Wharfage scheme 115 CHAPTER SEVEN — Prosperity, Provincial Supremacy, and a City Plan, 1922 - 1930 117 1 - The Harbour Commission Withdraws 119 2 - The False Creek Foreshore and the Crown 120 Six Federal Harbours 122 Granville Island 123 3 - The Crown, the Foreshore, and the C.P.R. 125 Foreshore Encroachments 126 The C.P.R. Negotiates 129 Values Assessed 130 MAP —Province - C.P.R. Foreshore agreement, 1928 132 Effects of the Agreement 133 4 - The City's Plans for False Creek 137 Hudson Report 138 Provincial Neglect 140 Total F i l l 142 Federal Works 144 5 - Industrial Development 145 0 — Summary 147 MAP — False Creek Development Plan, 1928 150 CHAPTER EIGHT — The Effects of Depression and War, 1930 - 1945 152 1 - Federal Government Action 153 2 - Municipal Undertakings 156 Burrard Bridge and the Kitsilano Trestle 157 The C.P.R. Tunnel 158 vii CHAPTER EIGHT — continued page 3 - Fate of the Vancouver P l a n 160 "No Progress Made" • 162 The Squatter Problem 164 Development Plans — Once Again 167 4 - P r i v a t e E n t e r p r i s e Development 168 The War Boom . 169 5 - Summary 170 MAP — ' L a n d Use of Shore Property, 1953 171 CHAPTER NINE — Post War Developments, 1946 - 1952 173 1 - I n d u s t r i a l Development, 1952 174 Important Part o f City's.Economy 176 The Waterway*s Share 177 2 - A Shortage of I n d u s t r i a l Land 178 D i f f i c u l t i e s i n New Uses 179 E x i s t i n g Businesses Squeezed 181 P r i v a t e Development Inadequate . 181 A S u c c e s s f u l P u b l i c Venture 182 3 - A d m i n i s t r a t i v e U n c ertainty 185 New Plans Necessary 187 A P o l i t i c a l Issue 188 A Time-Consuming E f f o r t 190 Feder a l Government A c t i o n 191 MAP — Ownership o f Land, 1953 193 CHAPTER TEN — Conclusion: What L i e s Ahead 195 1 - F i f t y Years o f Surveys and Reports 197 P r i v a t e Scheme Halted 198 Fa l s e Creek Development Survey, 1950 200 2 - Land S c a r c i t y and Development 202 3 - A Proposed Course o f A c t i o n 204 P r o v i n c i a l A u t h o r i t y 207 A Mixed Undertaking 208 P r i v a t e Owners 211 The Fed e r a l Government 212 viii CHAPTER TEN ~ continued page 4 - Stalemate 213 APPENDIX 215 A - An Act t o Incorporate the Vancouver Harbour Commission (1913) 216 B - Order i n Cou n c i l 941, Ottawa, 1924 217 C - Indenture between the B r i t i s h Columbia Government and the Canadian P a c i f i c Railway, 1928 219 D - The Need f o r a H e l i c o p t e r Landing Area 222 E - Proposed Course of A c t i o n f o r Vancouver 224 HAPS - I n d i a n Reserve : G r a n v i l l e I s l a n d Areas 1953 Development 229 Proposed Development 230 BIBLIOGRAPHY 231 F A L S E C R E E K D E V E L O P M E N T : Chapter One: Introduction, The Problem of False Creek. The False Creek waterway and i t s land basin, since the ear l y days of Vancouver, have been an important problem i n the economic and s o c i a l development of the c i t y , f i r s t as an ob-~ stacle to c i t y growth and men's movements, and also as a poten-t i a l l y valuable commercial and i n d u s t r i a l area. Government bodies and private enterprises a l i k e have been con t i n u a l l y challenged to develop them i n keeping with the needs of the c i t y of which they are a central part. Half of the False Creek shore l i n e i s occupied today by terminals and i n d u s t r i a l plants which are the o r i g i n or d e s t i -nation of a substantial amount of the coast-wise water-borne t r a f f i c of B r i t i s h Columbia. These businesses, depending upon the waterway f o r part or a l l of t h e i r a c t i v i t y , represent three quarters of a #45 m i l l i o n c a p i t a l investment i n False Creek i n d u s t r i e s . 3 Today the. whole area i s zoned f o r i n d u s t r i a l or 1. Documentation of th i s chapter has been kept to the minimum, and opinions expressed w i l l often depend, f o r t h e i r substan-t i a t i o n , on material to be presented l a t e r . 2. O r i g i n a l l y about 3.5 miles long (since reduced to about 2.5 miles by f i l l i n g ) and from 1000 to 2500 feet wide, i t runs west from English Bay to the heart of Vancouver c i t y . 3. Author's survey of False Creek industries, f o r C i t y of Vancouver, unpublished, 1952. 2 3 commercial use and very l i t t l e land i s otherwise occupied. One out of every ten wage earners i n Vancouver works i n the immediate v i c i n i t y of the False Creek b a s i n . 5 Three out of every f i v e Vancouver residents must cross or s k i r t the basin i n going to and from t h e i r work. Thus i t continues as a bar-r i e r to the movement of people, separating more than h a l f of the r e s i d e n t i a l section of the c i t y from i t s business and com-mercial heart. In t h i s respect i t has made necessary a major portion of the c i t y ' s p u blic works - outside of the p r o v i s i o n of house-to-house services. In one way or another False Creek d a i l y enters the l i v e s of a substantial majority of the people who l i v e , work, or do business i n Vancouver. With the growing acceptance of conscious public planning as a part of the machinery of government, and p a r t i c u l a r l y with the establishment i n the Vancouver c i t y administration of a planning department, the p o l i t i c a l and administrative d i f f i c u l -t i e s which have hithe r t o frustrated the implementation of any comprehensive development of False Creek need more than ever to be brought into focus, f o r only i f they are c l e a r l y understood can they be overcome. No comprehensive plan has much chance of implementation u n t i l they are overcome. 4. The f i r s t zoning by-law was passed i n 1927. As f a r as i t affected False Creek, i t was l i t t l e more than a recog-n i t i o n of a l a r g e l y accomplished f a c t . 5. Author's survey, op. c i t . A While today i t i s generally agreed that t h i s False Creek area should be developed to meet the needs of a r a p i d l y expan-ding commercial and i n d u s t r i a l metropolis, there has never been a generally accepted idea of what would provide a maximum Uifeiir l i z a t i o n of the basin, p a r t i c u l a r l y from a s o c i a l and economic point of view. Nor has there been any general appreciation of the p o l i t i c a l problems of such development which a r i s e from the f a c t that ownership of the bed, foreshore and upland areas of False Creek i s divided (almost e n t i r e l y ) between the feder-a l government, the p r o v i n c i a l government, the c i t y of Vancouver, the Canadian P a c i f i c Railway and the B.C. E l e c t r i c Company. This d i v i s i o n of the r i g h t s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s between the three l e v e l s of government and two private corporations has pro-duced an administrative confusion which has never yet been over-come, and which i t i s the object here to study. - 1 -The False Creek basin and i t s shallow waterway have undergone a substantial transformation since the time, 90 years ago, when the only human developments of i t s mud f l a t s and forested shores were the f i s h traps of the Indians and t h e i r v i l l a g e of Snauk (Snauq) just inside the entrance from English Bay. 6 6. Nelson, Denys, Place names of the lower Fraser v a l l e y , (typescript), Vancouver Public Library, 1927, quoting "from Prof. H i l l Tout, B.A.A.S., 1900." 5 False Creek became important to the white s e t t l e r s f i r s t as an obstacle 7 - a role i t has played ever since. I t was f i r s t bridged i n the early seventies at the central narrows (where Main Street i s today) to bring the False Creek t r a i l ( l a t e r Westminster Avenue, and today Kingsway) into G r a n v i l l e . During the next eighty years a dozen more bridges were b u i l t across the waterway (half of them were replacements f o r e x i s t -ing crossings). As the Vancouver area developed from a " s e t t l e r " to an urban stage, i t became apparent that False Creek was advanta-geously situated and physiographic a l l y well suited f o r indus-t r i a l and commercial a c t i v i t i e s . The r e s u l t i n g economic ex-pansion, which occurred i n company with that of the c i t y , thereby became a challenge to public and private i n t e r e s t s . Only with private i n t e r e s t s , however, was there persistent i n -centive to meet t h i s challenge, and today's development of the waterway i s e s s e n t i a l l y the product of i n d u s t r i a l and commer-c i a l growth, as w i l l be shown. This expansion came about through the i n d i v i d u a l e f f o r t s of businesses developing t h e i r own holdings i n t h e i r own i n t e r e s t s , unco-ordinated by any Q public planning. 7. I t stretched between the Burrard Inlet settlement of "Gastown" (Granville) and the administrative center of New Westminster and the food supplies of the Fraser r i v e r delta. (See map, p.25.) 8. A remarkable feature of. t h i s i s that, unlike so much i n -d i v i d u a l i s t i c development i n other areas of the c i t y , any regulation and control according to an established plan could not have produced r e s u l t s much better - when consi-dered both p h y s i c a l l y and economically - than ex i s t today. I t cannot be denied that False Creek could have been Successful development o r d i n a r i l y i s predicated on plan-ning. In False Creek the planning, just l i k e the develop-ment, has been by private enterprise. The great s o c i a l prob-lem of such planning, and i t s possible danger, i s i t s individu-a l i t y and the f a c t that i t generally i s unrelated to any common plan of development (usually to be achieved only at the admini-s t r a t i v e l e v e l ) . That this area of the c i t y , so important i n physical l o -cation and economic sig n i f i c a n c e , i s what i t i s today without benefit of public planning, cannot but concern both the planner and the administrator. I t at once raises the questions - to which answers are sought i n t h i s study - of whether e f f e c t i v e administrative planning was possible i n the past, whether i t would have aided or hampered development, and to what extent future public planning and development can be urged i n the best public and private i n t e r e s t s . - .2 -The False Creek waterway and basin are wholly within the c i t y l i m i t s of Vancouver. 9 The area, therefore, i s the developed as a park and recreational area, with consider-ably more aesthetic appeal than i t now has. The commer-c i a l and i n d u s t r i a l loss to the c i t y , however, would have been substantial. 9. "The said C i t y of Vancouver s h a l l be bounded as follows: . •* * * thence along the [south] shore of English Bay across the mouth of False Creek and along the [north] shore l i n e of l o t number 185 ***.•» B r i t i s h Columbia, Statutes, 1886, c.32, s.2. 7 administrative r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of tne Vancouver City Council, which i s under the same ob l i g a t i o n to provide for the orderly development of False Creek as f o r any other part of the c i t y . Not only do c i t y regulations and by-laws apply i n the False Creek area i n the same way that they apply elsewhere i n Van-couver, but the council may, within the l i m i t s of i t s municipal powers, make such s p e c i f i c ordinances f o r False Creek as i t deems appropriate and necessary. The kinds of building erected and business done there are subject to the c i t y ' s zoning, b u i l d i n g , health, sanitary and f i r e regulations. The foregoing administrative sketch, while correct, i s not complete, however. Three matters have so f a r stood i n the way of f u l l use by the c i t y of i t s administrative machinery to con-t r o l and plan the improvement and development of False Creek and undertake the expropriations and public works necessary. The f i r s t obstacle, from the point of view of the c i t y of Vancouver, has been f i n a n c i a l . D i r e c t l y from t h i s r i s e s the second - popular uncertainty. The c i t y council has never been i n a f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n where i t could boldly undertake large scale public works i n False Creek, hence there was l i t t l e to be gained from proposing them. Other needs of a f a s t growing c i t y have always had a more urgent c a l l upon the c a p i t a l a v a i l -able. For t h i s reason, while there seems always to have been some popular sentiment i n favour of the improvement and develop-ment of False Creek, c i v i c administrations have eith e r been un-able to bring before the c i t y property owners a plan and a 8 method of financing i t s f u l f i l l m e n t , or have had t h e i r propo-sals defeated when submitted to the voters as money by-laws. Di v i s i o n of Administrative Authority. The t h i r d obstacle to c i t y action i n the False Creek waterway has been the council's lack of f u l l j u r i s d i c t i o n . The c i t y has never been the sole governmental authority i n the waterway. Only the eastern part of the bed and foreshore are under the control of the c i t y . The regulation of navigation, and of a l l development l i k e l y to influence or a f f e c t i t , has always been the undispu-ted r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the federal government. The bed and foreshore other than that owned by the c i t y , however, were long subject to the c o n f l i c t i n g claims of the crown p r o v i n c i a l and the crown f e d e r a l . Since 1885, when Premier Smithe granted, i n the name of the province, large t r a c t s of land on both sides of False Creek to the Canadian P a c i f i c Railway, the p r o v i n c i a l govern-ment has acted with a free hand i n dealing with what i t regar-ded as p r o v i n c i a l crown holdings, both adjacent to and within the waterway. Beginning at the turn of the century, the f e d e r a l government also acted, when i t wished, as though the bed and foreshore of the waterway were held i n r i g h t of the crown 9 f e d e r a l . I n addition, besides regulating and c o n t r o l l i n g foreshore development through provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, i t has administered the reclaimed Granville island through the Vancouver Harbour Commission and . (after 1936) the port manager of the National Harbours Board, and the K i t s i l a n o Indian reservation through i t s Indian Commis-sioner for B r i t i s h Columbia. The c i t y came into possession of part of the False Creek bed when the p r o v i n c i a l government i n 1902 made a crown grant of that part of the bed and foreshore east of C a r r a l l Street (on the north shore) and Ash Street (on the south shore). This ownership was l a t e r confirmed by federal order-in-council.^-1 The way i n which the False Creek problem was magnified and d i s -torted by t h i s administrative.uncertainty w i l l be brought out i n succeeding chapters. Absence of Administrative Co-ordination The senior governments have, more often than not, behaved in a c a v a l i e r way towards the c i t y of Vancouver i n matters a f f e c -ting False Creek. No evidence has been found i n t h i s study 10. In 1924 the federal and p r o v i n c i a l governments agreed that since False Creek had not been a public harbour at con-federation, i t s bed and foreshore were a p r o v i n c i a l , rather than a f e d e r a l , a f f a i r . I t was further agreed that a l l previous grants and actions by e i t h e r government would be henceforth recognized as v a l i d . (see appendix p. ) 11. I t was on the basis of this t i t l e that the c i t y was able l a t e r to negotiate with the Great Northern and Canadian Northern railways f o r f i l l i n g and developing the mud f l a t s . 1 0 that any works by either government i n False Creek were ever undertaken to implement or a s s i s t a municipally-originated de-velopment, proposal, or plan, or were ever subject to modifica t i o n i n the l i g h t of the c i t y ' s p l a n s 1 2 or what i t regarded as i t s needs. The Canadian P a c i f i c Railway, the largest private property owner i n the area, has not been free from an attitude of hauteur towards the senior governments and the c i t y council, u n t i l very recent years. The railway has always i n s i s t e d on u n r e s t r i c -ted operation of i t s land and foreshore, reasoning that i t pos-sesses a federal charter and that t h i s charter gives i t * * * the right to take, us'e and hold the beach and land below high water mark i n any * * * navigable water, gulf or sea, i n so f a r as the same s h a l l be vested i n the Crown and s h a l l not be required by the Crown, to such extent as s h a l l be reguired by the Company for i t s railway and other works * * * . 1 3 Thus i t managed successfully to r e s i s t any action to l i m i t i t s holdings, modify the use made of them, or be included i n any plan or project of which i t did not approve, or did not endorse. 1 4 12. The c i t y ' s f i r s t "town plan" was not drawn u n t i l 1927, but from 1900 or before i t has had proposals, even plans, fo r p a r t i c u l a r development. 13. Canada. Statutes. 1881,c. 1, Schedule A, 18 (a). 14. The only empirical evidence to substantiate t h i s state-ment i s the company's continued holding aloof from any attempts to improve the waterway or i t s basin, or i t s par-t i c i p a t i o n only on i t s own terms or with such reservations as to discourage, or cause the stagnation of, planning action. Ma j . J.S. Matthews, a r c h i v i s t of the c i t y of Vancouver, does not share this view. He is of the opinion While at d i f f e r e n t times the way was frequently open to each of the three governments to assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the comprehensive development of False Creek, i t w i l l be shown i n this study that at no time was there s u f f i c i e n t i n d i v i d u a l i n i -t i a t i v e or a combination of executive and administrative incen-t i v e , to carry our any substantial measure. The r e s u l t was eit h e r nothing, or a fragmentary undertaking. - 3 -The problem of False Creek — what i t s course of develop-ment should be and, once t h i s i s determined, how to achieve i t — i s dependent f o r i t s s o l u t i o n not alone on the physical plan of the engineer. The waterway is an important f a c t o r i n the economy of the c i t y of Vancouver, and any development which would impair i t s economic function (even i f s t r u c t u r a l l y f e a s i -ble) would not deserve implementation. Further, the public ac ceptance of any proposed development, and the l e g a l and fi n a n -c i a l means to implement i t , isra. p o l i t i c a l and administrative questions of the highest importance. that the C.P.R. had ambitious plans f o r i t s township, which he says was the f i r s t possessed by the railway, and intended to make i t s terminal and port c i t y a t r u l y elegant one. He cit„es, i n support of t h i s , the commanding p o s i t i o n (then) of the railway's f i r s t hotel, and the lay-out f o r Shaughnessy Heights. Major Matthews blames the c i t y councils of the time for th i s plan never being f u l f i l l e d , s t a t i n g that when-ever the railway wanted to give the c i t y any park space i n the Granville peninsula area i t was refused as only r e l i e v i n g the C.P.R. of part of i t s tax obl i g a t i o n . The implementation of any development plan which includes major public works and substantial d i r e c t i o n and control of private development, depends upon the mustering of both power and authority. Without a substantial source of public money -obtained either d i r e c t l y from the public treasury or from bor-rowing - there can be no power to c a r r y out a project. The same power to be e f f e c t i v e , also requires popular endorsement and support. Authority f o r the implementation of the planned develop-ment comes only from the elected representatives. Either the government responsible to the l e g i s l a t u r e or to parliament must carry out the works, or statutory authority must be given to some agency, be i t a municipal corporation, a development com-mission, or a crown corporation. The possible courses of p o l i t i c a l and administrative action are influenced by, and dependent upon, what has gone before. Just as an engineering plan might be l i m i t e d by the existence of already completed works, so the p o l i t i c a l and administrative course i s l i m i t e d by early decisions of the crown and l e g i s l a -tures. Tha problem of False Creek i s , then, less an engineer-ing problem than a p o l i t i c o - l e g a l one. 1 5 15. This was recognized f o r the f i r s t time recently when the Vancouver C i t y Engineer's Department, i n the course of i t s current False Creek Development Survey, decided to approach concurrently i t s engineering, economic and p o l i t i c a l problems. The author was engaged f o r part of 1952 by the c i t y to gather and analyse data i n the matter of the l a s t two. For these reasons i t would be most unwise to look forward without f i r s t looking back. The objective here i s to set out c l e a r l y the course of action by the three l e v e l s of government. Only then can the problem be adequately analysed and solutions considered. Of the three obstacles to municipal or other public develop ment i n False Creek, those of finances and lack of public sup-port are common enough to merit no special attention. However the t h i r d , wherein the c i t y ' s o v e r a l l j u r i s d i c t i o n was and i s  made d i f f i c u l t or impossible by the uncertain, i r r e g u l a r , and  a r b i t r a r y actions of the senior governments, is involved, unique and important - and worthy, therefore of c a r e f u l study. This administrative confusion, i t w i l l be shown, was an important factor i n the f a i l u r e to carry out any ove-rall, long-term, planned development. But i t also stood i n the way of planning i t s e l f , f o r no l e v e l of government could, or at any rate would, accept a p o s i t i o n of paramountcy when the question of comprehensive planning was under consideration. I f False Creek i s to be considered as s t i l l i n need of a planned programme of public and private development, an under-standing of i t s p o l i t i c a l and administrative background w i l l be revealing and important. I t i s the intention here to trace the p a r a l l e l courses of devious and uncertain public action (and inaction) and economic development by private enterprises. At the same time the con-fused p o l i t i c a l and administrative s i t u a t i o n w i l l be made e v i -dent. These matters meanwhile must be set i n t h e i r economic and s o c i a l context, which means that they must be treated as a part of the over-all development of Vancouver. In t h i s setting, and with these purposes, the economic and administrative h i s t o r y w i l l hejset down to show that False Creek — the waterway and basin — has been and s t i l l is a two-fold problem. I t i s , on the one hand, an obstacle to the easy growth of the c i t y and to the movement of men and vehicles; on o the other hand i t i s a valuable physical feature well suited to commercial and i n d u s t r i a l development. Secondly, False Creek has been, and s t i l l i s , a challenge both to public bodies and to private enterprise. The former have been faced, f o r some time now, with the need to plan and develop the waterway so as to (a) lessen i t as an obstructing l i a b i l i t y , and (b) increase i t as an economic asset. Much public e f f o r t has been made to meet the former, very l i t t l e to meet the l a t t e r . The challenge to private enterprise has been, f i r s t , to take advantage of i t s commercial and i n d u s t r i a l opportunities, and, second, to integrate economic development with that of the c i t y and to advance i t i n a manner not contrary to the public i n -t e r e s t . The f i r s t of these has been met e a s i l y and with a large measure of success by private enterprise. The second, where a measure of public regulation and control i s often re-quired, has been accomplished, as f a r as i t has gone, i n almost a t o t a l absence of public overseeing. This project, then, i s an attempt to analyse the non-engin-eering aspects of the False Creek problem, i n terms of the p o l i t i c a l and economic circumstances which have influenced the develop ment of the waterway and basin, and to answer these questions: What is (or are) the basic problem(s) of False Creek to the Vancouver community? How adequately have public agencies and private enter-pris e s met the challenges of t h i s problem? Could any alternative action i n the past have been taken which might have better anticipated the problem as i t i s today? What action f o r the further development of False Creek i s open to public agencies and private enterprises? The work that follows f i r s t deals b r i e f l y with the physio-graphic setting of the waterway. Then follows the body of the work wherein i s traced the uncertain course of p o l i t i c a l and administrative action as i t affected False Creek. This is pre-sented so as to r e l a t e the False Creek problem to the growth of the c i t y and the changing s o c i a l and economic climate. F i n a l l y the future of False Creek is examined and a course of action proposed to overcome the problems which so f a r have complicated and hindered i t s development. LOCATION MAP False Creek Map showing l o c a t i o n of False Creek Basin i n r e l a -t i o n to the Greater Vancouver and Lower Mainland area. * * * * * lb R E F E R E N C E Lands alienated or covered by appli- r~ cations under the "Land Act." • I— Surveyed Timber Lease, Licence, Berth C Indian Reserve Q Land District Boundary _ Park Boundary Provincial Forest Boundary Forest Management Licence M unicipality—City —District • —Village Post Office Settlement Hospital Government Agent Mining Recorder O R E F E R E N C E Railway Rail way—Logging Road—Trunk —Main —Local —Wagon and Logging Trail A irport—Licensed —Unlicensed Seaplane Anchorage—Licensed •—Unlicensed Elevation in feet above mean sea-level Electric Power Line Telephone Line other than along railways Glacier S a x i d H e a d s U N I T E D S I A T 1 E 4 3 2 1 V A N C O U V E It Scale 1 :250,000 - Approximately 4 miles to 1 inch • 4 8 12 1 7 16 20 Chapter Two The False Creek Basin The False Creek basin i s a slight depression extending east-o ward from English Bay between the Granville peninsula on the north and the main body of the Burrard peninsula on the south. In i t s trough i s False Creek, a shallow inlet of English Bay. The waterway, through i t s short length, roughly parallels Burrard In-l e t , the main harbour area of Vancouver, which l i e s less^than of. a mile to the north. 1 At no point does the rim of the False Creek basin rise above 150 feet, and this only between Granville and Cambie streets on the south shore. The one steep part of the basin i s found in this area, where at one point the rim i s reached in only four city blocks — something less than 1500 feet. For the rest of i t s area i t i s f l a t or gently sloping. The main business and commercial d i s t r i c t of Vancouver l i e s to the north of False Creek, between i t and Burrard Inlet, while to the south and east stretches the greater part of the city's residential area. 1. See map, page 25. 18 The Waterway False Greek i s not i n size the waterway today that i t once was. I t s area has been su b s t a n t i a l l y reduced by reclamation and f i l l i n g , while at the same time i t s n a v i g a b i l i t y has been much improved by dredging. In the beginning i t extended east-ward from English Bay i n the shape of a lazy S. At i t s mouth i t i s less than 1 0 0 0 feet wide but, before any f i l l i n g was un-dertaken, i t increased i n breadth u n t i l i t was more than 4 0 0 0 feet across at the eastern end. Here there were'malodorous tide f l a t s " covered only at high t i d e , when the Creek was "con-nected with the central harbour" i n the v i c i n i t y of where Glen 2 c Drive i s today. At that time i t covered an area of some 1 0 0 0 acres. Be-cause i t was shallow and i s t i d a l , large areas were exposed at low water. Much of what was then mud f l a t s and marsh has been reclaimed by f i l l i n g , so that the water area today has been re-duced to about 3 7 5 acres. I t i s now two and a half miles long and has f i v e and a h a l f miles of shore l i n e . I t s shape today i s that of a much flat t e n e d 'U1. Also as a r e s u l t of reclaiming, a mud-flat area just inside i t s entrance became a t h i r t y - f o u r 2 . Swan, W.G., Town planning aspects of Vancouver and  Fraser River harbours, a paper to be presented at the Western Professional Meeting of the Engineering I n s t i -tute of Canada, Vancouver, B.C., July 1 1 - 1 4 , 1 9 3 4 . (Marked "advance proof, confidential".) In l i b r a r y of Vancouver City Planning Department. acre island.' 5 The f i l l f o r much of the reclamation was ob^ -tained when a 20-foot deep channel was dredged i n False Creek before and during the f i r s t World War. Despite the f a c t that only t i d a l and surface drainage waters enter False Creek, there i s some s i l t i n g , and the average depth of the channel today i s something le s s than 20 f e e t . 4 Physical C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . 5 The immediate shore of False Creek is nowhere steep and the land behind i t r i s e s sharply only along a very small sec-t i o n of the south shore. In many places the near-level shore has been expended varying distances by f i l l i n g , e ither dredged from the channel, or deposited from other sources. The re-su l t i s a large expanse of f l a t or gently sloping land where f i l l and o r i g i n a l shore have become l a r g e l y indistinguishable. Over the greater part of the False Creek basin the s o i l i s a mantle of clay, gravel, and scattered boulders. Beneath 3. Granville island, as i t is c a l l e d , i s separated from the south shore of the mainland by a narrow channel, part of which has become so s i l t e d that i t is exposed mud during most of the t i d e cycle. The City's engineers are examining the f e a s a b i l i t y of reclaiming t h i s area by f i l l i n g . 4. See C i t y of Vancouver, Map F.C.4. 1952. 5. This information was almost a l l obtained from Dr. J.E. Armstrong, who has i n preparation a survey report of the Lower Mainland (New Westminster map area) f o r the Geolo-g i c a l Survey, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, Ottawa. this mixed mantle, f o r the most part, is g l a c i a l t i l l . b Bed-rock reaches to the surface (or within a.few feet of i t ) on the h i l l back of the south shore between Granville and Cambie streets and Sixth and Eleventh avenues; • farther east between Ontario and Windsor streets just south of the o r i g i n a l shore l i n e ; where the railway cut intersects Clark Drive, and on the north shore immediately west of the mouth of the waterway. Except f o r the very l i m i t e d steep area, the whole basin i s well suited to industry. In some places heavy construction requires p i l e s , 7 p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the f i l l e d sections. Where-ver water access i s required along the shore, the property must be bulkheaded, f o r neither the f i l l nor the o r i g i n a l gra-v e l l y - c l a y w i l l maintain, against ordinary water action, a face that i s near v e r t i c a l . Where wharves are b u i l t , however, t h i s same feature permits the very easy driving of p i l e s . The generally f l a t or low-gradient nature of the basin has meant that railway access could e a s i l y be provided to 6. This is fundamentally the same clay, gravel and boul-ders as the surface material, except that the lower layer was l a i d down by g l a c i a l action and the upper stircrsd about and redeposited l a t e r by the sea. " It i s e s s e n t i a l l y of g l a c i a l and p o s t - g l a c i a l f l o o d - p l a i n o r i g i n with elevation and subsequent erosion ***." Kelley and Spilsbury, S o i l Survey of the Eraser Valley. 1939, p.8. See also Burwash, The Geology of Vancouver  and v i c i n i t y , 1918. 7. For one of the footings f o r the new (1953) Gr a n v i l l e Bridge, i t was necessary to drive through 1£0 feet be-fore bedrock was reached. (Armstrong, op. c i t . ) almost a l l areas of i t . As a r e s u l t , nearly a l l i t s indus-t r y i s served by r a i l , there i s immediate access to any part of the area by the four railways serving the Greater Vancouver area, and a l l four have established yards and terminals i n the neighbourhood of the waterway. The suitable topography f o r i n d u s t r i a l and commercial location, easy access to a l l four r a i l l i n e s , and a waterway accessible to small and medium draft vessels, have combined to make False Creek today a very favorable s i t e f o r the loca-t i o n of commercial and i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t i e s desiring a s i t e close to the center of the c i t y ' s business a c t i v i t i e s . Port Relationships. The deep-sea port a c t i v i t i e s of the Greater Vancouver metropolitan community are c a r r i e d on i n Burrard Inlet and the New Westminster area of the Fraser River. Secondary port a c t i v i t i e s (and by that i s meant coastal and l i g h t e r shipments): .are pursued not only i n these two main harbours, but i n False Creek and the North Arm of tbe Fraser River as well. It must be noted that harbour a c t i v i t i e s are not d i -vided between the two. False Creek (and the North Arm) handles only coastwise shipping, but the other two perform t h i s and a deep-sea function as w e l l . ^ 8. Ultimately the deep-sea a c t i v i t i e s i n Burrard Inlet may drive out most of the c o a s t a l t r a f f i c . In such an event only the existence of the False Creek waterway w i l l permit the retention of t h i s commerce close to the c i t y . Between tbe four harbour areas there i s an active i n t e r -change of commerce by water. This has been possible because the distance i s short and the water route r e l a t i v e l y w ell pro-tected. I t i s necessary because deep-sea ships cannot enter False Creek. The e a r l i e s t such traffic.was sawn lumber from False Creek m i l l s . Other goods, including i r o n and s t e e l pro-ducts, moved by scow from ocean ships i n the harbour to con-Q signees i n False Creek. There i s l i t t l e i f any relationship between False Creek and the Fraser north arm, and l i t t l e reason for i t . On occa-sion machinery which i s fabricated i n the former i s shipped by barge to the l a t t e r . I.C Further development of the False Creek area f o r water borne commerce, IB permitted, almost c e r t a i n l y w i l l be under-taken, depending upon the continued economic expansion of the B.C. coast. Relationship to Vancouver Cit y. Almost the whole of the False Creek basin is zoned for i n d u s t r i a l use. Much of the area is occupied by l i g h t and 9. Rapidly r i s i n g towing charges have much reduced t h i s movement i n recent times. At the same time, however, there has been a more than commensurate increase i n f r e i g h t movements between False Creek and coastal points by barge and scow. heavy industry. What non-industrial land remains i n the False Creek basin has a dubious role as r e s i d e n t i a l property, but from i t i c h there i s a high rent r e l a t i v e to the physical investment. The False Creek basin i s the c i t y ' s largest single area zoned for industry but, except on Granville Island, the indus-t r i a l development i s extensive rather than intensive. The shore l i n e i s only a l i t t l e short of f u l l occupancy. Indus-t r i a l development of those sections s t i l l occupied by residen-t i a l property i s hampered by: the small size of the parcels into which they are divided; the occupancy of nearly every such parcel by a separate dwelling; the absence of r a i l f a c i l i -t i e s ; and the high proportion of land devoted to streets with the associated high land tax (based as i t i s on street frontage). The False Creek area has been, and i s , one of good poten-t i a l i t i e s and few l i m i t a t i o n s , well oriented to the Vancouver sphere of influence. I t is an area that is both a functional part of the c i t y and possessed of a unity i n i t s e l f . Hence i t could always have had, and s t i l l can have, i t s development regulated, controlled, or even planned, either as an i n d u s t r i a l and commercial e n t i t y i n i t s e l f or, i n the larger sense, as an important and i n t e g r a l part of Vancouver. FALSE CREEK MAP PERIOD of 1886 Map showing False Creek area, with major sub-di v i s i o n s and proposed route of the Canadian P a c i f i c Railway l i n e to English Bay and Coal Harbour. * # * * * 25 ENGLISH - B A Y FALSE CREEK 8 8 6 HASTINGS MILL D.L.52 6 D.L.264A ro a* Chapter Three Early Developments, 1885 - 1895 No development of any consequence took place i n the False Creek basin much before the incorporation of Vancouver i n 1886 and the a r r i v a l of the Canadian P a c i f i c Railway the next year. The early settlements of Granville (Gastown) and Hastings were on Burrard Inlet and did not extend as f a r as False Creek either i n size or i n f l u e n c e . 1 They were connec-ted with New Westminster (the trading and administrative center for the lower mainland, and c o l o n i a l c a p i t a l u n t i l 1868) by two t r a i l s , one of which followed roughly the l i n e of what i s today Kingsway and reached False Creek at what is now Main S t r e e t . 3 1. For an account of these early settlements (but not of False Creek) see Howay, F.W., "Early settlement on Burrard i n l e t " , B.C. H i s t o r i c a l Quarterly, 1937, pp. 101-114. 2. The other, the Douglas road, skirted Burnaby Lake on the south and then went north-west to the i n l e t , where wese situated Hastings, and the summer colon^y of New Brighton. 3. The o r i g i n a l purpose of th i s t r a i l was not to connect New Westminster with Burrard Inlet, but as a m i l i t a r y road to the naval reserve at Jericho. Colonel Moody, the gar-r i s o n commander, evidently had some fear f o r the safety of the c a p i t a l and of attack by Americans. The t r a i l never got much past False Creek, however, and l a t e r became the main l i n e of communication between the c i t y of Vancouver and New Vfestminster. Cf. Green, George, History of Burnaby  and v i c i n i t y , 1927, pp. 25-26; Howay, op. c i t . , p.102. 27 Since that time False Creek has continued to be an obsta-cle to the easy passage of people and goods. The f i r s t e f f o r t to meet this problem was a private one, 4 but almost a l l subse-quent ones have been public undertakings. The e a r l i e s t t r a f f i c bridge was b u i l t by the p r o v i n c i a l government i n 1872, the f i r s t of four successive crossings of the waterway on the li n e where today Main Street forms the eastern end. These bridges car r i e d Westminster Avenue (before that the False Creek t r a i l and, a f t e r the channel was f i l l e d , Main Street) into the town of G r a n v i l l e . The f i r s t of the four was soon attacked by tere-dos (worm-like molluscs which bore into untreated submerged wood, eventually destroying i t ) . 6 I t was several times r e p a i r -ed and i n 1885 was e n t i r e l y r e b u i l t at a cost of $2,197. 7 This was the year before the incorporation of Vancouver, and i t there-after became the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the new c i t y . 4. In 1865 the Hastings M i l l found i t s supply of water inade-quate and b u i l t a flume from Mount Pleasant which crossed the t i d e marshes of the waterway on a t r e s t l e . 5. Draper, W.N., "Roads and t r a i l s " , B.C. H i s t o r i c a l Quarter-l y . Jan. 1945, p.32; Green, George, History of Burnaby and  v i e i n i t y , pp. 79-80. For erection of, and work on, False Creek bridges see also: B.C., Public Accounts, and B.C., Report of chief commissioner of lands and works. 1872-86. 6. The need f o r the f i r s t of these bridges i s d i f f i c u l t to esfciviTfstfre.pt, f o r there were les s than 100 people i n Gran-v i l l e (Gastown) i n the early seventies. This small number may not t r u l y indicate the amount of commercial Intercourse, however, f o r "the v i l l a g e had three hotels or saloons" i n 1873 and the Hastings m i l l was just a short distance away. (Sage, W.N., "Vancouver 1886-1946", B.C. Journal of  Commerce yearbook, 1946, p.102.) . 7/. B.C.? Report of Chief Commissioner of lands and works. 18^5, p\ 262. The old one was completely removed and re-placed by one 20 f t . wide, with 16 45-foot f i x e d spans. The f i r s t 'industry' to locate on False Creek, a slaughter house, appeared there at about this time, but i t cannot be r e -garded as being i n any sense the forerunner of today's indust-r i a l developments. 8 1. The Agreement with the C.P.R. The colony of B r i t i s h Columbia had entered the Canadian confederation with the promise that i t be linked to "Canada", and this the f e d e r a l government untertook to do by means of a r a i l l i n e . The agreement between B.C. and Canada provided that the r a i l l i n e would go to the western "seaboard" and that i n return the province would give to the federal government, i n trust and to be used to encourage and compensate the railway, a s t r i p of land — the "railway b e l t " — along the route. 9 The statutory terminus of the l i n e thereafter became Port Moody, and at t h i s c i t y the "railway b e l t " ended. This condition i s of very r e a l s i g n i f i c a n c e here, f o r i t meant that a l l land west of Port Moody - and this included what 8. In the s i x t i e s George Black had b u i l t up a business pro-viding the ships i n Burrard Inlet with fresh meat, which he prepared i n a slaughter house on the shore. The Granville residents d i s l i k e d t h i s and pressured Black u n t i l he moved his establishment to False Creek. (This is the r e c o l l e c -t i o n of Major J.S. Matthews, a r c h i v i s t , c i t y of Vancouver.) 9. To a width of not more than 20 miles on either side of the r a i l l i n e . Cf. "Terms of union", R.S.B.C.. 1936, p. 4671. i s today Vancouver (and False Creek) - remained the property of the p r o v i n c i a l crown ( i n so far as i t had not otherwise been pre-empted or granted). When the Canadian P a c i f i c decided to extend the l i n e to Vancouver, new negotiations were required between the railway and the p r o v i n c i a l government. The agree-ment between the company and the federal government did not i n any way af f e c t or influence the province, except i n so f a r as the federal and p r o v i n c i a l governments had committed themselves under the terms of union. In 1884 William Van Horne, general manager of the C.P.R., v i s i t e d the western terminus (coming by way of San Francisco). He considered Port Moody i l l - s u i t e d for the role of terminus, and began negotiations to extend the r a i l line to Coal Harbour and English Bay, reaching the l a t t e r by crossing False Creek. The C.P.R. therefore asked from the p r o v i n c i a l government a right-of-way and large areas of land (everything west of Port Moody, i n one request) i n return f o r extending the l i n e as f a r as G r a n v i l l e . 1 0 This was the f i r s t occasion on which the pro-v i n c i a l government was faced with a decision which would have a marked influence on the future development of the Vancouver area including False Creek. There was at that time, however, no i n d i c a t i o n of the growth that lay ahead. Land was i n abun-dant supply and money and jobs were scarce. I t must have seem-ed wholly within reason to trade a surplus commodity of l i t t l e 10. B.C., Sessional papers. 1885, p. 130-131. value f o r the scarcer jobs, wages and c a p i t a l investment. So h a l f the shore l i n e on both sides of False Creek (as well as 6,000 acres of other land) was given to the C.P.R. i n perpetuity. The f i r s t implementation of public p o l i c y i n the False Creek area was wholly reasonable i n the l i g h t of conditions as they then existed or could be f o r e s e e n . 1 1 The long-term public d i s -advantage (or, anyway, lack of advantages) which might have been o'a&oided^ i f future events could have been foreseen} was beyond any planning which men, i n public or private o f f i c e , might reason-ably have indulged i n . Apart from George Black's slaughter house, a few squatters, and a l i t t l e saw-milling by small operators, there was hardly any use or development of False Creek at the time W.C. Van Horne of the C.P.R. and the Premier of B r i t i s h Columbia, William Smithe, negotiated to extend the railway from i t s statutory t e r -minus at Port Moody to Coal harbour and English bay. The Railway extended to False Creek. I f , to public men, railways were a matter of national or p r o v i n c i a l p o l i c y , they were as much a matter of p r o f i t to the private men building them. And p r o f i t was measured, at that 11. Judge Howay remarks that tbe Smithe land-grant was an unnecessary bonus. He believed that the railway would eventually have been compelled to extend to Vancouver anyway, i n i t s own i n t e r e s t s . Howay, F.W. , and S c h o l e f i e l d , E.O.S. , B r i t i s h Columbia from the e a r l i e s t times to the  present,. 1914, V.E, p.431. time, i n d i r e c t subsidies and land grants. I t i s l i t t l e won-der, then, that William Van Home, when the question of exten-ding the railway west to Coal harbour and English bay was raised, claimed a l l the land west of Port Moody on the Burrard peninsular as a suitable and proper quid pro quo. Premier Smithe, however, was i n a p o s i t i o n where few public men of that time found themselves. I t was of small importance to the people of B.C. generally whether the railway was extended or n o t . 1 2 Support f o r the extension to Coal harbour came only l o -c a l l y from the handful of people i n the Burrard i n l e t settlements of Hastings and Granville, which were not even incorporated munic i p a l i t i e s . ^ But Van Home's engineers were not s a t i s f i e d with Port Moody as a terminus. 1^ Nor was New Westminster suitable as a port, without substantial dredging of the Fraser River. The part of Burrard i n l e t off Granville and Hastings m i l l , however, 12. V i c t o r i a was convinced that i t ought to be the western terminus. ('X#%Ethe Esquimalt & Naniimo Railway) was merely a l o c a l work, [but] this view did not p r e v a i l on Vancouver Island; there the [E. & N.] was regarded as an i n t e g r a l part of the [C.P.R.] " (Howay, F.W. , B r i t i s h  Columbia, the making of a province,. 1928, p.20071 New Westminster, smarting s t i l l from being no longer the p r o v i n c i a l c a p i t a l , also saw i t s e l f as the proper terminus. 13. The Admiralty i n London supported the Coal harbour t e r -minus, i n preference to the others, according to Major Matthews, a r c h i v i s t , c i t y of Vancouver. 14. The waterfront there was very shallow, and the shore behind i t rose very steeply within a short distance. 3 3 was inadequate, and the engineers saw English bay as i d e a l l y suited to large scale future development. The Land Grant. In answer to Van Home's request f o r a l l the land west of Port Moody - i n masterful railway l o g i c he i n s i s t e d ( 9 Sept., 1 8 8 4 ) that i t had o r i g i n a l l y been intended as part of the "railway b e l t " and therefore could r i g h t f u l l y be claimed by the C.P.R.-^5 _ s mi-kh e offered the p r o v i n c i a l reserve of Granville (see map), a large section of the Point Grey peninsula l y i n g behind the area which the railway engineers regarded as neces-sary for future terminal yard and port development, and some parcels i n Hastings township which belonged to the crown. Van Horne held out f o r a grant of 1 1 , 0 0 0 acres f o r a while, but Smithe did not move from h i s o f f e r of 6 , 0 0 0 . - L ^ i t was Van Horne who gave i n . l ? The agreement was approved by the l e g i s l a t u r e on February 2 8 t h , 1 8 8 5 , and r a t i f i e d by the Company on A p r i l 2 0 t h . ^ 1 5 . B.C., Sessional Papers. 1 8 8 5 , p. 1 3 1 . 1 6 . I b i d . . p p . 1 2 9 - 1 3 6 . 1 7 . Morley, Alan, i n "The Romance of Vancouver", Vancouver Sun, states that Smithe was w i l l i n g to give the Company substan-t i a l land i n return f o r the extension, but that he was moti-vated only by his desire to have railway money and jobs available i n the province, and that he had no p a r t i c u l a r i n -terest i n one s i t e as against another. 1 8 . B.C., Sessional Papers. 186*6, pp. 4 6 0 - 1 , 4 6 4 , 4 6 9 . Instead of the crown land i n Hastings township, as f i r s t o f f e r -ed, the Company got a l l unalienated crown land i n the Granville township subdivision, a l l of the Granville reserve except 2 . 5 acres ! 9 (after the survey t h i s was designated D.L. 5 4 1 ) which stretched from Burrard I n l e t to False Creek between Burrard and C a r r a l l Streets (except f o r the Granville township, general l y known as "Gas Town"), and which occupies about s i x of today' c i t y blocks) and nearly 6 , 0 0 0 acres south of False Creek and English bay between what are now Cambie and Trafalgar streets and stretching south as f a r as "the r i v e r road", or Marine Drive. This did not include, however, a small section at the mouth of False Creek on the south shore which was held by the federal crown as an indian reserve.2 0 The Railway's Consideration. The railway company, f o r i t s part, agreed that "the terminus * * * s h a l l be established i n the immediate v i c i n i t y ' of Coal harbour and English bay and upon land which i s to be granted i n pursuance of t h i s agreement. [And] t n e Company s h a l l erect and maintain the terminal workshops and the other terminal structures as are proper and suitable * * * . " 2 1 1 9 . Reserved f o r government o f f i c e s , and l a t e r used f o r the present court house s i t e and the balance given over f o r schools. 2 0 . K i t s i l a n o Indian Reserve No.6, west and north of what are now Chestnut Street and F i r s t Avenue. 2 1 . B.C., Sessional Papers. 1 8 8 9 , p .4 6 . 3 5 The immediate plan was the erection of docks at Coal har-bour, p a r a l l e l to the land, and the eventual development of a port at K i t s i l a n o point. In an e a r l i e r l e t t e r to Premier Smithe, Van Horne had required the i n c l u s i o n of Point Grey lands i n the agreement because the directors of the railway believed "that i n the event of an extension of t h e i r l i n e [west from Port Moody] the terminal c i t y w i l l be b u i l t on the land f r o n t -ing on English bay". 2 2 Besides the Coal harbour waterfront, the Company now owned t i t l e to a l l the foreshore of False Creek west of C a r r a l l on the north side, and a l l west of Cambie on the south s i d e , 2 ^ very nearly half i n each case. T i . I I U M / I M ilnwnl i i p i i i m i i , , u i , mum. Clearing was begun (February, 1886) i n D.,L.5412^ and the land was surveyed and subdivided. A contract was l e t to clear a right of way from Port Moody along Burrard i n l e t to Coal harbour and also across the isthmus at C a r r a l l street to False Creek, 2 2 . 9 Sept., 1 8 8 4 , (B.C., Sessional Papers. 1 8 8 5 , p. 1 3 1 ) 2 3 . The actual grants were executed 1 3 February, 1 8 8 6 , to D.A. Smith ( l a t e r Lord Strathcona) and R.B. Angus (a high Bank of Montreal o f f i c e r ) , who were named as trustees f o r the Company. Crown Grant 9 8 was recorded as " 5 7 9 5 acres i n D.L.526 except f o r any 2 . 5 acres reserved to the Crown," and C.G. 9 1 as "D.L.541 and certain l o t s i n the Township of Granville, 4 8 O acres." These lands were transferred by deed to the C.P.R. by Strathcona and Angus 2 8 November 1 9 0 5 . ("Memorandum of the Surveyor General of B.C.", 2 6 June, 1 9 2 3 , Department of Lands, f i l e 4 8 6 0 2 . # 1 . ) 2 4 . F i r e s from t h i s clearing are blamed f o r s t a r t i n g the disasterous f i r e which v i r t u a l l y wiped out the settlement i n June. along i t s north side to a point just east of where Burrard street i s today (which was the westerly l i n e of the Company's land) and, on the south side, from a point due west of t h i s out past K i t s i l a n o beach (as known today) as f a r as where Trafalgar street i s now located. On 23 May, 1887, the transcontinental t r a i n f i r s t entered the newly incorporated c i t y of Vancouver. At the same time the r i g h t of way clearing through the False Creek area and out to K i t s i l a n o was interrupted by a dispute as to t i t l e . 2 5 The Company's rights were confirmed, and the next year work on the t r e s t l e across False Creek near i t s mouth was begun. The track was l a i d across i t and out to Greer's Beach. No t r a i n s were destined to go even that f a r , however, f o r whatever might have been the plans of the Company f o r terminal development on the south shore of False Creek and English bay, they never bore f r u i t . There appears to be no reason to doubt that the o r i g i n a l proposals of the engineers to put the deep-sea wharves even-t u a l l y at K i t s i l a n o were well and sincerely considered. While les s protected than Burrard i n l e t , there was not the narrow and 2 5 . Sam Greer ( K i t s i l a n o was then known as Greer's Beach) claimed part of the shore (of the land granted to the C.P.R.) by right of a deed purporting to have been - executed by two Indians. This was declared to be a forgery and i n v a l i d by S i r Matthew B a i l l i e Begbie, s i t t i n g as a court of inquiry from March to May, 1 8 8 5 . "Report of Commission", Sessional Papers. 1 8 8 6 , p. 2 1 7 f f . (then) undredged First Narrows to navigate. The original scheme also included building the terminal yards on the level stretch south and west of the Indian reservation. A big factor in preferring this site to the. Granville peninsula was the absence on the latter of any but well water, while several streams came down from the Fairview uplands to False Creek and English bay. Whether Van Horne f i r s t intended to construct an interim quayside and terminal at Coal harbour, and later move on to Kitsilano, l i k e l y w i l l not be known.2^ A l l agreements, how-ever, were made in the name of English bay as well a Coal har-bour and i t is probable that he would not have received the large grant of D.L.526 had there been any indication during the negotiations that Kitsilano was not to be the terminal. It was l i k e l y not a matter of concern to Premier Smithe which ter-minal site was chosen, and the province already had the greater 26. Stuart Cumberland (The Queen's Highway. London, 1887), discussesg the intent of the railway company to establish i t s terminal at Coal harbour. He was in company with "Sir George Stephen, Mr. Van Horne, and other C.P.R. officials"(p.95) during his v i s i t , but he refers only to Vancouver as the terminal. "The Canadian Pacific Railway authorities have decided upon Vancouver [which was then only Burrard i n l e t ] , they propose building extensive carriage works and engine sheds on English bay * * * • " , and may have been referring to the False Creek yards. His remarks (p.83) of how easily the terminal may be de-fended by fortifications at the First Narrows lend con-firmation to the Coal harbour site as being the settled one. 3 8 p a r t o f P o i n t G r e y u n d e r l e a s e t o t h e H a s t i n g s M i l l c o m p a n y , f r o m w h i c h a, s m a l l r e v e n u e was d e r i v e d . The M u n i c i p a l G r a n t . W h a t e v e r t h e C o m p a n y ' s p o l i c y was t o w a r d s F a l s e C r e e k a n d E n g l i s h b a y , i t was s t i l l s u b j e c t t o m o d i f i c a t i o n i n 1 8 8 6 . When t h e new c i t y c o u n c i l made t h e r a i l w a y a n o f f e r o f a 30-y e a r t a x a b a t e m e n t o n t h e w o r k s h o p s , y a r d s a n d r o u n d h o u s e s i f t h e s e w e r e e r e c t e d o n t h e n o r t h s i d e o f F a l s e C r e e k r a t h e r t h a n o n t h e s o u t h s i d e ( a s o r i g i n a l l y a n n o u n c e d ) 2 ^ t h e Company a c c e p -t e d , a l t h o u g h i t m e a n t t h a t w a t e r h a d t o be p i p e d f r o m F a i r v i e w , u n d e r n e a t h F a l s e C r e e k , t o t h e new l o c a t i o n , t h e r e b e i n g o n l y w e l l w a t e r a v a i l a b l e a t t h a t t i m e o n t h e G r a n v i l l e p e n i n s u l a . 2 9 2 7 . B . C . & V a n c o u v e r I s l a n d S p a r , L u m b e r a n d S a w m i l l C o . L t d . T h i s company h a d b e e n g r a n t e d D . L . 1 9 6 i n I 8 6 5 , f o r w h i c h i t p a i d t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f £ 5 0 . 1 3 . 6 d . 2 8 . V a n c o u v e r , B y j - l a w 3 3 . 1 7 t h M a y , I 8 8 7 . A g r e e m e n t s i g n e d 2 3 r d M a y a n d e f f e c t i v e 1 s t J u n e . E x p i r e d 3 1 s t M a y , 1 9 1 7 . I t h a s b e e n e r r o n e o u s l y r e p o r t e d i n o t h e r p l a c e s ( C f . M o r l e y , A l a n , " R o m a n c e o f V a n c o u v e r " ) t h a t t h i s was a 2 0 - y e a r a g r e e -m e n t , a n d t h i s s eems t o be t h e more c o m m o n l y h e l d i d e a . The c o u n c i l a p p a r e n t l y r e g a r d e d t h e a r e a s o u t h o f F a l s e C r e e k a n d E n g l i s h b a y a s r e m o t e a n d o u t s i d e t h e c i t y ' s c o m -m u n i t y o f i n t e r e s t . A t i n c o r p o r a t i o n , h o w e v e r , t h e c i t y l i m i t s i n c l u d e d n o t o n l y t h e G r a n v i l l e p e n i n s u l a a n d H a s t i n g s m i l l , b u t t h e a r e a e a s t a s f a r a s H a s t i n g s t o w n s i t e a n d s o u t h a s f a r a s w h a t i s t o d a y 1 6 t h A v e n u e . The w e s t e r n l i m i t was t h e J e r i c h o r e s e r v e o n P o i n t G r e y . I t m u s t be r e m e m b e r e d , o f c o u r s e , t h a t a t t h a t t i m e t h e r e was o n l y t h e M a i n s t r e e t c r o s s i n g o f F a l s e C r e e k , no s e t t l e m e n t o n t h e S o u t h s i d e , a n d t h e G r a n v i l l e p e n i n s u l a s u r e l y m u s t h a v e a p -p e a r e d l a r g e e n o u g h f o r a n y a m o u n t o f r e a s o n a b l e d e v e l o p e m n t . 2 9 . O b s e r v a t i o n s o f M a j o r M a t t h e w s , c i t y a r c h i v i s t , s e p t . 1953. The construction crew which had been at Yale was moved to the new s i t e with a l l equipment, and established near where Granville street now crosses Drake. This settlement, then some distance from the Burrard i n l e t a c t i v i t i e s , became known as Yaletown .30 Although there was no longer an actual need f o r the r a i l l i n e to English bay, the Company continued to construct the t r e s t l e , 3 1 doubtless because f a i l u r e to do so might have been regarded as non-fulfillment of the agreement with the province, and might have l e d to a p r o v i n c i a l suit to recover D.L.526 on the south shore. The Canadian P a c i f i c and the Foreshore. The pressure of growth was f e l t at t h i s time by the C.P.R., even with i t s 6 , 0 0 0 acres of land. This occurred p a r t i c u l a r l y along the foreshore, the ownership of which was i n some public doubt, although the railway admitted none. The C.P.R. charter provided f o r i t . to "take, use and hold lands below high water mark adjacent to i t s right of way f o r i t s railway and other works" .32 3 0 . The Yale Hotel, at Drake and Gra n v i l l e , was l a t e r b u i l t to serve t h i s l i t t l e settlement, a f t e r Granville was cut through. 3 1 . B.C., Sessional Papers. 1887, p . 3 2 9 . 3 2 . Canada, Statutes. 1 8 8 0 - 8 1 , Sch. A, CI. 1 8 ( a ) . But t h i s was a federal charter, and the extension west from Port Moody to Coal harbour and English bay was a p r o v i n c i a l ag-reement. The question of whether the charter gave the railway t i t l e to the foreshore i n False Creek (as well as Burrard i n l e t ) was not to be conclusively answered f o r another 30 years. Meanwhile the federal government, i n 1894, crown-granted to the railway one mile of foreshore on the north side of False Creek, l y i n g south of the railway's yards and terminals.33 This gave the Company clear t i t l e to foreshore where i t had begun f i l l i n g to increase the area available f o r railway yards. The company required, for i t s immediate development, t i t l e only to the for e -shore which ^ 5 was crown-granted.to i t . Why the railway company did not ask f o r more at rtjfoW time i s d i f f i c u l t to understand, f o r ownership would have been no burden, and would have l a t e r been of great advantage (as things turned out). At any rate, here was an example of the Company's loss and the public gain by either f a u l t y planning or an absence of i t , on the part of the Company. There i s no reason to doubt that a greater area of foreshore would have been granted i f i t had 33« I t was bounded, on the east, by a l i n e drawn south east from a point near where Helmcken and Homer int e r s e c t , and on the west by a l i n e drawn south from the i n t e r s e c t i o n of Seymour and Drake streets. At the same time the railway received a grant to 5,300 f t of Burrard i n l e t frontage between Dunlevy and Burrard. These two grants were immediately adjacent to major under-takings of the railway company. In the l a t t e r case i t gave t i t l e to the foreshore on which stood the Company's docks. Cf. City of Vancouver, Land and Rentals Dept., Map No.20. been requested. However, i t was not asked f o r , nor granted, and now rests i n the public domain and i s s t i l l available i f public development of False Creek should ever require i t s use. 2. Early Municipal Public Works. The growth of the c i t y was so rapid during t h i s time (from an estimated 4500 at incorporation to 13 ,709 at the 1891 census) that i t was soon r e s t r i c t e d by the l i m i t s of the Gran-v i l l e peninsula. Expansion wets possible eastward along Hastings street, over the False Creek bridge (Main s t r e e t ) , or by building a more westerly crossing over False Creek. The c i t y had inherited the Main street bridge from the pro-v i n c i a l government, which had erected the f i r s t crossings. I t was often repaired, but never replaced by the c i t y u n t i l - ^ the f i r s t street railway was b u i l t i n 1890. The car barns for the tram l i n e were set up south of False Creek i n Mount Pleasant, and a bridge was b u i l t strong enough to carry the street cars.35 34. Vancouver, By-law 80. 1889 (Streets and bridges, #125,000) . 35. The f i r s t street car l i n e began at the False Creek end of Granville street, follox^ed t h i s to Hastings, Cordova, Powell, and then out Westminster avenue (Main) to Mt. Pleasant. (Vancouver, "Street railway by-law", 73, 1888. See also Sage, op. c i t . . p .106) So fast was development at that time that the G a r l i n e was planned to be horse-drawn but converted to e l e c t r i c i t y before i t was completed. 4 2 Meanwhile a $150,000 by-law was submitted to the c i t y voters i n 1888,^ part of which was to b u i l d a crossing of False Creek at Granville s t r e e t . 3 7 In January, 1889, t h i s t h i r d crossing (the railway t r e s t l e and the 'False Creek' bridge were the others) was opened to t r a f f i c . Three years l a t e r the Gran-v i l l e bridge was strengthened to carry street cars and the Fairview b e l t - l i n e was completed by way of Broadway.38 j n ] _ e s s than ten years since incorporation, Vancouver had grown around False Creek. The c i r c u i t was often very sparse, but neverthe-less i t was complete. . Nor was i t as yet i n d u s t r i a l , f o r the only substantial enterprises on the waterway, besides the C.P.R. yards, were three sawmills and a cement plant. Meanwhile a fourth crossing was being b u i l t , l a r g e l y by private e f f o r t of the sawmill ( l a t e r Vancouver Lumber Co.) on the south shore. I t was the f i r s t Cambie street bridge and was put into use i n 1 8 8 9 . 3 9 3 6 . Vancouver, By-law 6 4 . (Streets and Bridges). 3 7 . The purpose of the bridge was les s f o r the few residentsooT Fairview (as the area south of False Creek between Gra n v i l l e and Cambie was called) than to give the new c i t y a d i r e c t l i n k with the Marpole area, where much of i t s food was grown. The C.P.R. extended Granville St. from False Creek to Marpole af-ter the bridge was b u i l t . Besides serving the c i t y , t h i s road also opened up the C.P.,R.. lands (through which i t passed) and was therefore a p r a c t i c a l undertaking f o r the railway. 3 8 . The high land east of Granville and north of Broadway, over-looking False Creek from the only high point i n the basin, now became popular and highly regarded for residences. There was then no industry i n the False Creek area at the bottom of the h i l l . (Sage, op. c i t . ) 3 9 . A c c o r d i n g to Major Matthews, city archivist. Ten years after the signing of the agreement bringing the Canadian P a c i f i c from Port Moody to Vancouver, the new c i t y had a street pattern which stretched from Burrard i n l e t to False Creek, Granville street extended from Coal harbour to Yaletown and across False Creek to the Fraser r i v e r , the C.P.R. yards, several saw m i l l s , a cement works, and a handful of other industries had been established round the waterway, three bridges and a railway t r e s t l e spanned the Creek (but the scheme which prompted the l a t t e r had been abandoned). False Creek had been declared a navigable waterway,^ and the new c i t y was not yet ten years o l d . - 3 -During that f i r s t decade the problem of False Creek was primarily as an obstacle - crossings f o r t r a f f i c were b u i l t at three locations, and a railway t r e s t l e was constructed. The 40. In February, 1886, the p r o v i n c i a l government made represen-tations to Ottawa to have False Creek brought under the pro-visions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (B.C., Sessional Papers. 1887, p.329). Besides a desire to have the C.P.R. yards closer to what was then the c i t y , the c i t y ' s tax abatement agreement w i t h the railway (see Note 28) was also prompted by the f e e l i n g that i f the yards were located on the north side of the water way there could be no need for the K i t s i l a n o t r e s t l e . (Vancouver, Council Minutes, v. 1, p.312, 11th A p r i l , 1887) The railway completed the t r e s t l e , however, but l a t e r re-moved a section to permit passage of vessels and thereby comply with the N.W.P. Act. economic importance was hardly apparent, although there was some cognizance of this when the waterway was declared naviga-ble. Industry and commerce had not s e t t l e d there i n any great numbers although the c i t y had expanded across and around i t to a l i m i t e d extent. In so f a r as i t was an administrative con-cern, only the c i t y was affected. False Creek was very l i t t l e problem and as yet no challenge i n those closing years of the nineteenth century. What need there was f o r planned development was s l i g h t indeed. The C.P..R., b u i l t i t s l i n e to Vancouver because i t preferred the c i t y as a terminus, and because i t was paid to do so. I t planned i t s development there because i t foresaw a s o c i a l and eco-nomic development. It accepted payment i n land because i t expec-ted a development which would create a demand for this land. The government of the province gay,e to the Company large parcels of public land i n what, i t may be assumed, was a po l i c y drawn i n the public i n t e r e s t . This p o l i c y was achieved, or to be achieved, not by a program of public control of s o c i a l and economic factors, but through the creation of an economic and p o l i t i c a l environment amicable to the growth of private enterprise. At that time t h i s meant l i t t l e i f anything outside of a l a i s s e z -f a i r e p o l i c y . There was no need expressed f o r public planning as i t i s understood today. Public optimism was high, and i t rested on men's f a i t h i n economic reward through hard work and divine providence. As f a r as False Creek was an obstacle, and required bridg-ing, i t needed, and received, planning; but the planning was not extended onto the shores on e i t h e r side. As f a r as i t was an area of high economic p o t e n t i a l , private enterprise would develop that p o t e n t i a l i t y i n due course. And when t h i s deve-lopment occurred i t would be i n the most advantageous way. Two necessary ingredients were lacking, however, which we today might wish had been present. One was v i s i o n - an a b i l i t y to foresee the economic po s s i -b i l i t i e s of the False Creek area. The other was a willingness to encourage private works, and undertake public works, so as best to take advantage of these p o s s i b i l i t i e s without, however, allowing one to outrun the other and have thereby a strangling ef f e c t on the orderly evolution. False Creek required ( and s t i l l requires) a long-term planned program of development which w i l l permit modification during the period necessary to imple-ment i t , not only to the changing needs of the waterway and basin, but also to those of the c i t y of which i t i s such an eco-nomically important part. VIE?/ OF VANCOUVER AREA PANORAMIC ASPECT Perspective sketch of Vancouver and False Creek area showing i n d u s t r i a l development i n the harbour and waterway up u n t i l 1898. * * * * * Sit™ CITY OF VANCOUVER E ^ a^* —  PANORAMIC VIEW OF THE BRITISH COLUMBIA 18 9 8 . Chapter Four The Turn of the Century I. 1896 - 1916 The period at the turn of the century was an optimistic one for the city of Vancouver. It was a small city - just short of 30,000 in 1901 - but i t s growth rate was amazingly rapid. From an estimated 2,000 in 1886 i t increased to 13,709 in 1891 and by 1911 was 120,847-1 The pressure of both the growth and optimism was consider-able, and i t was f e l t in the False Creek area as much as any-where. An increase in population has two immediate results, both of which affected False Creek and the area around i t . There was an industrial and commercial expansion that increased employment, which, in turn, expanded residential suburbs. For a large number of both old and new residents False Creek lay be-tween their places of work and their homes; for a steadily grow-ing number, False Creek provided the location for the industrial and commercial establishments in which they worked. The result of these two new influences was a strong popular pressure on the city council for more and better crossings of False Creek, and for development of i t s shores to suit the future expansion which a l l confidently believed to be near at hand. 1. Howay and Scholefield, British Columbia from the earliest  times to the present. 1914 , v.2, p.435; Canada Census. 48 4 9 Thus for the f i r s t time the c i t y was seriously confronted with the problem of False Creek i n i t s dual role - the obstacle, and the p o t e n t i a l l y valuable commercial waterway. Whatever p a r t i c u l a r shallenge t h i s might have been, however, was l o s t i n the o v e r a l l challenge of growth and expansion. The general sen-timent of the time was thaife an i n f l u x of people and c a p i t a l i n -vestment would solve any problem. The administrative challenge of the False Creek problem, when considered i n these terms alone, was a small one i n the op t i m i s t i c minds of the people, and i t s answer was not i n regulation and control. I t i s l i t t l e wonder, then, that Vancouver's people and government thought of c a p i t a l developments as necessary only to overcome a d i f f i c u l t y (such as bridging False Creek) or increase the opportunities f o r private e f f o r t (by extending the c i v i c amenities), and never took the next step, which today seems so l o g i c a l , of using t h i s c a p i t a l development to di r e c t and control private e f f o r t s so as to insure that they would be i n the best economic, s o c i a l and physical i n t e r e s t s of the community. There wasa failure, regrettably but understandably enough, to undertake -Uw-U.' development i n accordance with a popularly accepted plan aimed at meeting the physical, economic and s o c i a l needs as they were com-prehended at that time. With t h i s o p timistic growth, a money market where borrowing l a was easy, a and a generally enthusuastic outlook, the c i t y l a . The burgeoning c i t y borrowed quite heavily (see pp53-5$). regarded i t s development, and the public works which this made necessary, as entirely i t s own responsibility. There was no civic demand at that time, as there has often since been, on senior governments for financial help in public undertakings. The activities of the three levels of government during this period are dealt with in this chapter; the development by the railways and private enterprise generally are recounted in the next following. 1. Municipal Undertakings. The bridges built in the nineties soon proved inadequate for the increased t r a f f i c , so great was the growth and expansion of the city. At the election of 1907 the city council put be-fore the voters a by-law,2 which was approved, to authorize the borrowing and spending of $1,120,000 to build two new bridges to replace those at Main and Granville streets.3 The money was borrowed on 40-year debentures with interest at four per cent. and derived considerable benefit from the undertakings so financed. However, the 40-year bonds, some for works of much shorter l i f e than their debentures, became a heavy financial burden in the years ahead. 2. Vancouver, By-law 603. 3. A l l existing bridges were carried on the books of the city at a capital value of $384,500. This was not represented (1908) by any debenture debt, however. The loan was sold i n London i n February, 1908, and construction began at once. Both bridges were f i n i s h e d i n 1909. The Granville crossing (due to be replaced i n 1954) had a central swing span and was designated as "high l e v e l " . I t had a channel width of 369 f t . between pie r s , with the span support i n the middle. The Main street bridge was a "low-level" bascule structure. The former cost approximately $650,000 and the l a t t e r 1350,000.^ No sooner were these bridges completed, than the residen-t i a l growth between Fairview and Mount Pleasant made necessary a new one at Cambie street. In 1909 the c i t y voters approved a by-law5 authorizing the borrowing of |675,000 to replace the Cambie bridge. This was completed i n 1912 and named the Connaught bridge. I t was very s i m i l a r to the Granville cross-ing i n design, although a greater o v e r a l l length required the spending of somewhat more money. Before the Connaught bridge was open to t r a f f i c the c i t y decided on another crossing, t h i s time, between Georgia and Harris (now East Georgia) streets. This was the only bridge 4. O r i g i n a l l y , plans c a l l e d for a f i x e d span crossing at Main street, but owners of the shore property east of Main street prevented t h i s , the whole waterway having been de-clared navigable. The bridge i s reported to have opened f o r the f i r s t day ceremonies and subsequent inspections, but never to permit passage of a vessel. (Roy^Brown, personal observations to author, Feb. 14, 1953) 5. Vancouver, By-law 690. 5 2 of the period which was not a replacement. In 1911 a by-law° to authorize borrowing and spending of $550,000 was approved and construction began the next year. This bridge did not re-quire a draw span, f o r to a l l intents and purposes i t skirted the waterway. (It did, however, pass over the C.P.R. f r e i g h t t e r -minals and False Creek spur, as well as the i n s t a l l a t i o n s of the Vancouver Gas Company.) I t was completed i n 1915 and was then known as the Georgia-Harris Viaduct. Capital Costs In 1908 the c i t y of Vancouver spent $1,770,095 on c a p i t a l account, of which $354,515 was f o r bridges. I t s general de-benture indebtedness was authorized to $7,585,851, of which some $250,000 - including $109,600 for "streets and bridges" (unspe-c i f i e d ) - had not been issued. The figures to 1915 follow''' ( i n thousands): Ca p i t a l Expenditure Debentures authorized t o t a l bridges t o t a l bridges ( y e a r l y ) ( c u m u l a t e d )  1908 $l,770 a $355 $7,586 $110 1909 2,125a 486 8,983 1,230 1910 2,730a 306 11,191 l,795 b 6. Vancouver, By-law 888. 7. Vancouver, F i n a n c i a l and departmental reports. 1908-1916 Capital Expenditure Debentures authorized t o t a l bridges t o t a l b r i d g e s 0 1 9 1 1 13,137 $ 4 3 1 $14,009 $1,795 1912 4 , 9 5 1 75 20,426 2,345 1913 3,327 196 25,539 2,345 1914 3,518 340 25,803 2,345 1915 5 2 0 15 25,743 2,345 a. includes l o c a l improvements, subsequent years do not. b. $ 1 1 0 , 0 0 0 never issued, dropped from l i s t . c. False Creek bridges only. In the period between 1 9 0 7 and 1 9 1 6 , the cost of overcoming False Creek as an obstacle accounted i n some years f o r as high as 2 5 $ of general (as d i s t i n c t from l o c a l improvement) c a p i t a l expenditures and i n only two years ( 1 9 1 2 and 1 9 1 5 ) did i t f a l l below ofo. (During 1 9 1 3 - 1 6 there were heavy expenditures i n False Creek by the federal government, but these are dealt with l a t e r , see page 73) . While False Creek was requiring bridges involving the spen-ding of nearly $ 2 . 5 m i l l i o n i n l e s s than 1 5 years, i t was pro-viding a considerable saving to the c i t y i n another way. Not u n t i l the twenties did the c i t y run i t s sewers other than to the nearest s a l t water, and f o r a l l the new settlement i n Mount 8. The l a s t three years of t h i s period were ones of serious depression, and i n 1 9 1 5 expenditures on poor r e l i e f rose to ten times what was spent i n False Creek. Pleasant, Fairview, and adjacent areas, False Creek was the point of emptying.9 T h i s p r a c t i c e , undesirable as i t was f o r False Creek, allowed the c i t y a substantial saving over what a sewerage system of the type used today would have c o s t . ^ a The problem of False Creek, i n so f a r as i t was an obsta-cl e , was well and quickly met by the c i t y i n those early years. The bridges and t h e i r replacements were not, however, construct-ed according to any plan of development fo r the c i t y , and at that time such a plan would have had l i t t l e e f f e c t . The c i t y ' s southern boundary was only 1 6 blocks south of False Creek. This area was not large enough unduly to influence, or be influenced by, the l o c a t i o n of the crossings. In the downtown area the public t r a n s i t routes served as the framework of a development plan ( i n the absence of any formal one) and the crossings conformed to t h i s i n the absence of any other. The bridge at Granville street was a natural extension of one of the c i t y ' s three major streets, and the Main street crossing another. The Cambie bridge was the most d i r e c t exten-sion, to the south shore, of the Robson and Cambie l i n e s . The 9 . Since that time a l l ordinary sewer o u t f a l l s have been re-moved from False Creek, and only surface water now empties into i t . There are emergency outlets whereby sewage could be emptied there i f the regular interceptor connections were made inoperative. 9 a . The problem became acute enough, and popular pressure strong enough, i n the l a t e twenties to have an interceptor system b u i l t ( 1 9 2 9 - 3 3 ) at a cost of $ 1 . 2 5 m i l l i o n which emptied well out i n English bay o f f Jericho. Georgia viaduct was intended to bring the Harris (now East tar Georgia) s t r e e t , l i n e into the c i t y , r e l i e v i n g Hastings Street, but t l i s never materialized. With conditions as they were i n 1900, i t i s doubtful i f an administrative plan f o r the bridges could have done better, or i f a comprehensive plan for o v e r a l l c i t y development at that time would have placed the bridges other than where they are.10 E a r l y Development Plans The other aspect of the False Creek problem - i t s poten-t i a l as an i n d u s t r i a l basin and commercial waterway - also came under consideration at t h i s time. The e a r l i e s t recognition of th i s challenge was an appeal to have the waterway regulated ac-cording to the Navigable Waters Protection A c t , H but the f i r s t concrete proposal was made just a f t e r the turn of the century. I t urged the development of the large area of False Creek l y i n g east of Main street - an area consisting of great shallow ex-panses, dry at low water 1^ - as a medium-depth shipping basin 10. The expenditure on the Main street crossing i n 190# can-not be excused so e a s i l y . The circumstances concerning the development of the eastern part of False Creek and the influence of t h i s on the bridge, are dealt with i n the next section. 11. B.C.. Sessional Papers. 1887, p.329. 1 2 . There are people 1 1 u 1 t o d a y who r e c a l l being able to walk across large parts of i t at low t i d e . (Roy"'Brown, peri e<i al (int Gjjw*) f o r vessels of the coastal type. The area would have become — according to the proposal —> a horseshoe shaped basin l i n e d with docks. The area between t h i s horseshoe, and the sinuous natural shore, would have been f i l l e d with the material dredged from the dock area. At that time there was no railway develop-ment i n the area and on the shores were only scattered dwellings At the same time Burrard i n l e t was f a r from the developed state i t i s i n today. There were no major docks other than those of the C.P.R. > vand no grain elevators. I t i s d i f f i c u l t to take t h i s proposal seriously today, p a r t i c u l a r l y when the alternative opportunities f o r such develop ment are considered. Yet f o r some twelve or f i f t e e n years the c i t y planned f o r , and from time to time the c i t i z e n s voted on, schemes to dredge the mud f l a t s , make the area navigable, and b u i l d docks and terminals i n the proposed basin. Although the various plans were never approved as by-laws, the ship basin scheme had the backing of the c i t y engineer of the time, Col. 13 T.H. Tracy. J Popular f e e l i n g f o r the idea was strong enough to support the construction of the bascule bridge at Westminster avenue, rather than have the c i t y take the more r e a l i s t i c course of seeking a repeal of the navigable provision beyond that point which could have been attempted and, from the shallow, undevel-oped nature of the area affected, might have been accomplished. 1 3• Vancouver Province. 2 4 t h A p r i l , 1 9 3 9 , p.5 . T i t l e to the Mud F l a t s . The c i t y council early recognized that i t had no authority to develop the tide lands i n False Creek as matters then stood. There seems to have neen no precise d e f i n i t i o n of whether the area of the bed of the Creek was federal or p r o v i n c i a l , but at least i t was soon recognized as not being the property of the c i t y . 1 ^ In 1900, therefore, the c i t y applied to the provin-c i a l government f o r t i t l e to the Creek bed, and the l e g i s l a t u r e passed a b i l l authorizing the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to grant to the c i t y of Vancouver such parts of the False Creek bed as was advisable. The grant was to be conditional upon the area being developed f o r park or i n d u s t r i a l purposes, and i t could not be sold by the city. 1 5 In 1902 the p r o v i n c i a l government turned over to the c i t y that portion of the bed of False Creek l y i n g east of the souther-l y extension of C a r r a l l street, the area which was registered as D.L.2037. The object was to permit the c i t y to developttidar.ea-ac-cording to the plans i t was then considering for a shipping t e r -minal. In the same year a further grant of the bed and 14. Not u n t i l the ownership of the bed was settled (1924) did the c i t y attempt any l e g a l i z i n g action for the presence of i t s bridges on property which was not the c i t y ' s . Before i t was declared a navigable waterway, the whole of the False Creek area, being within the c i t y l i m i t s , l i k e l y was consi-dered as c i t y property. The waterway question removed i t from the c i t y and seemed f o r a while to have put i t with the federal crown. 15. B.C., Statutes. 1900, "Vancouver Harbour Lands Act," c.68. 58 foreshore to the c i t y was authorized by the l e g i s l a t u r e . 1 0 This became D.L.2064 and extends westerly from D.L.2037 along the south shore to an extension of Ash s t r e e t . In 1911 the c i t y obtained grants of t h i s same area from the federal crown - a practice which was generally followed by grantees f o r the next 10 years u n t i l i t was decided which crown was the r i g h t f u l possessor of the False Creek bed and f o r e -shore . 17 Power to Develop the Eastern Area. Even with undisputed t i t l e to the bed at the east end of the Creek, however, the c i t y was not yet i n a p o s i t i o n to under-take development. A l l the shore was p r i v a t e l y held, and to the whole shoreline there were r i p a r i a n r i g h t s . The c i t y therefore again approached the p r o v i n c i a l government and i n 1904 the l e g i s -lature passed the "False Creek Foreshore A c t n x o which gave to the c i t y f u l l authority to expropriate, with just compensation, " a l l lands, r i g h t s , l i t t o r a l , r i p a r i a n i n t e r e s t s , r i g h t s of access to the waters of False Creek, or foreshore ri g h t s i n , on, or c o n t i -guous to the foreshore and waters of a l l that portion of False Greek * * * east of Westminster avenue bridge *• * * ." 16. B.C., Statutes. 1902, "Vancouver City Land Grant Act", c.68. 17. B.C., Dept. of Lands, F i l e 153490. 18. B.C., Statutes. 1904, c.60. This act was conditional upon the p r i o r approval by Vancouver voters of a by-law set t i n g f o r t h the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and financing of a development scheme f o r the D.L.2037, and the approval of the plan by the p r o v i n c i a l executive council. I t further provided that a plan had to be adopted before 1 January, 1907, and expropriations begun before 1 January 1908. No by-law was passed i n the time provided, but i n t e r e s t did not dimin-i s h at the c i v i c l e v e l , and the l e g i s l a t u r e renewed the act f i v e times before the c i t y abandoned i t s scheme f o r a shipping b a s i n . ^ While c i v i c enthusiasm f o r the scheme often ran high, i t was never quite high enough to influence t h r e e - f i f t h s of the property-owning voters to vote the necessary money by-law to finance the project. What i s most surprising, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the l i g h t of tendencies today, i s that no serious or substantial e f f o r t was made to have the project financed by the f e d e r a l or p r o v i n c i a l governments. Nor was the c i t y i n a p o s i t i o n to grant s u f f i c i e n t land, or guarantee bonds, to have the work under-19. In 1906 the c i t y petitioned the l e g i s l a t u r e to extend the expiration date from 1907 to 1910. This was opposed by another p e t i t i o n claiming that "great damage w i l l be done to the property owners, as the uncertainty as to whether or not the Corporation w i l l ever proceed with the work depreciates the value of the property [subject to expropriation] and prevents sales being made and additional i n d u s t r i e s started upon the said lands * * * ". (B.G., L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly, Journal. 1906, p. I i . ) I t was signed by 20 i n d i v i d u a l s and 7 firms. Again i n 1909 much the same group petitioned to prevent a further extension of the time to comply with the provisions of the "False Greek Foreshore Act, 1904", "F.C.F.A. amend-ment Act", 1906, "F.C.F.A. Amendment Act", 1908, but were not heard and the act was amended again i n 1909, 1910, and, f o r the l a s t time, i n 1911. 6 0 taken by a private business firm, as might have been the course of a senior government. The c i t y ' s f i r s t attempt to undertake a planned, long-term development f o r False Creek had f a i l e d , p r i n c i p a l l y f o r lack of money. The property owners would not vote f o r the scheme, and i t never became a project. I t was a proposal f o r public im-provement at public expense, and i t contained no suggestions f o r an ordered development by public guidance and control of p r i -vate action, which might have been done. Plans and zoning were s t i l l a quarter of a century away, however. The questions may well be asked, what sort of plan and zoning would the c i t y have adopted then i f i t had been so i n c l i -ned? Would i t have been as u n r e a l i s t i c i n what i t proposed as was the development advocated f o r the eastern t i d e - f l a t s by the c i t y council and c i t y e ngineer? 2 0 We cannot say, but i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y a long-term c a p i t a l development plan f o r False Creek would have been just as u n r e a l i s t i c as the opti m i s t i c , long-term thinking of the time. 20. The scheme i s l a b e l l e d ' u n r e a l i s t i c ' f o r these reasons: The cost would have been very great, and the prospects, as we can see them now, f o r amortizing t h i s debt, or even just carrying i t , very slow i n developing. S u f f i c i e n t development of commercial water t r a f f i c to make the under-taking worth while would have put a great s t r a i n on the Main, Cambie and Granville street crossings and required them to be made high l e v e l at an early date. There was ample room i n Burrard i n l e t f o r any development needed or foreseeable, and the development of which would not have required the dredging and f i l l i n g which the False Creek project would have required. 2. Provincial A c t i v i t i e s . The independence of the city from appeals to senior govern-ments for developmental assistance was due, i n the case of the provincial government, i n large measure to the well-nigh hopeless state of financial distress into which that government had sunk. Judge Howay describes 2 1 how, u n t i l Richard McBride for the f i r s t time i n provincial p o l i t i c s went to the people i n 1903 as the leader of a party (Conservative), "provincial governments were retained i n power by the personal following of the premier and his cabinet". Between 189# and 1903 the province had five ministries. Such policies as they had were largely concerned with the opening up of new areas of the province by grants of land to railways, and with the recriminations which usually followed such action. Along with weak government there was f i -nancial distress. The absence of the provincial government from False Creek affairs - and for that matter a l l of Vancouver - can be l a i d to the wretched state of provincial finances and po l i t i c s before 1905. Between Union i n 1&71 and the McBride budget of 1904 there was a balanced budget i n only three years; between the incor-(1866) poration of Vancouver, and 1904 the provincial debt climbed from #1 million to #12.5 m i l l i o n . 2 2 21. Howay and Scholefield, op.cit.. v.2, pp.496-541. 22. In the 5-year period 1^98-1902 the per capita provincial These heavy expenditures were not undertaken i n Vancouver, however, nor did the p r o v i n c i a l debt grow as a r e s u l t of public works undertaken to benefit the c i t y (or False Creek). 2 3 Between the time when the p r o v i n c i a l (Smithe) government made the substantial grants of Vancouver - and False Creek -lands to the Canadian P a c i f i c , and the twenties when i t made a strong e f f o r t . 1H tiho mlflclln tiwnntil ni3,> to bring the railway company to an accounting of the False Creek foreshores of these lands, the authorities i n V i c t o r i a had l i t t l e d i r e c t i n t e r e s t i n or concern f o r the development of the waterway. The only major p r o v i n c i a l actions were to give statutory clearance to plans which the c i t y from time to time made f o r the development of the water-way and i t s basin, and an improper and i l l - c o n s i d e r e d $300,000 deal with the Squamish Indians over the K i t s i l a n o Indian reserve ( see pp. 6S-&). While the f i n a n c i a l s t r a i t s i n which the p r o v i n c i a l govern-ment found i t s e l f o f f e r explanation enough f o r the inac t i o n expenditure i n B.C. was $5.18, compared with from 42 to 80 cents i n the other s i x provinces. Of t h i s nearly $3 m i l l i o n was spent on roads. The costs of government operation -apart from public works - were $1 per capita compared with from 5 to 16 cents i n other provinces. \Howay, op. c i t . ) 23. The Fraser River bridge, begun i n 1902 and completed two years l a t e r , at New Westminster, was a public undertaking of l a t e r advantage to Vancouver, f o r across i t came the Great Northern and Canadian Northern railways when they b u i l t l i n e s into Vancouver f i v e and ten years l a t e r . The bridge cost a l i t t l e over $1 m i l l i o n . l i r i n P H , and i t would be absurd to suggest that even more money should have been spent - i n t h i s case on False Creek - the government cannot be excused e n t i r e l y from having defaulted on what must now be regarded as i t s legitimate r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . False Creek was, by that time, i n the heart of the f a s t e s t grow-ing urban center i n the province. In the l i g h t of the provin-c i a l government's self-acknowledged t i t l e to the bed and f o r e -shore, 2^ i t i s only reasonable to assign to'^fc*some of the re-s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r d i r e c t i n g and a s s i s t i n g i n the development of the waterway. The False Creek problem was, at l e a s t i n part, a p r o v i n c i a l one, i f not i n so f a r as the waterway was an obstacle to the c i t y ' s residents, at l e a s t i n so f a r as i t was a waterway warranting economic development. The K i t s i l a n o Indian Reserve. No example of confused governmental i n t e r a c t i o n better i l l u s t rates the complexity of False Creek administrative h i s t o r y than that concerning the K i t s i l a n o Indian reserve (Squamish No.6), located on the south shore just i n s i d e the entrance to the water-way. This was once the s i t e of an Indian v i l l a g e of the Squamish band, and i t s inhabitants fished on the t i d a l mud-flats where 2 4 . This acknowledgement i s i m p l i c i t i n i t s l e g i s l a t i o n and grant i n 1902 of the entire bed and foreshore i n the area east of C a r r a l l and Ash s t r e e t s . 6 4 Granville i s l a n d i s today. With the rapid growth of Vancouver, or even before, t h i s area was l a r g e l y vacated by the Indians, and used only as a camping place by the residents of other re-serves when they came to Vancouver. The existence of Indians there, i f only from time to time, was a source of some i r r i t a t i o n to the people nearby, and the existence of a large area, unoccu-pied and untaxed, was a l i t t l e disturning to the c i t y c o u n c i l . 2 5 However, i t never reached the point of being a public issue. In 1 9 H the whole question of Indian reserves i n B.C. became a matter of some dispute between the federal and B.C. governments. In 1913 a j o i n t Royal Commission was appointed to examine the question of whether the amount of land i n B.C. held i n tr u s t f o r the Indians was equitable to the Indians and the province? 7 One of the properties subject to the Gommission ,s in v e s t i g a t i o n was the K i t s i l a n o reserve. At about the same time that the Commission was set up, the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and P a c i f i c Railway i s reported to have been considering establishing terminal f a c i l i t i e s i n Van-couver, and to have approached both members of the Squamish band and the fed e r a l government with an o f f e r of | 2 m i l l i o n f o r the Ki t s i l a n o property. 0 2 5 . Canada, House of Commons, Debates. 24 Apr. 1 9 1 3 , p.8 4 9 5 . 26. i b i d . A p r i l 2 4 , 1 9 1 3 , pp. 8475 and 8495-2 7 . i b i d . A p r i l 2 4 , p . 8 4 8 0 . 2 8 . i b i d . 26 May 1 9 1 3 , p . 1 0 8 3 0 . From motives which are uncertain as to whether taken i n the public or party interest, Attorney General Bowser, through a Mr. Alexander, made the Indians an offer of $225,000 for the property. 29 This was much below the railway's offer, but the province insisted that i t had a reversionary interest i n the land, and therefore':' r.hi a free t i t l e could not be exchanged be-tween the Indians and the railway.30 Province Claims Reserve. The agreement for sale was concluded between the province and the Indians^ and the province claimed t i t l e to the land as a result. The whole action was very pleasing to the c i t y , for i t meant anoend to the use of the reserve land by the Indians and promised a possible industrial development of the area, which would have been a welcome addition to the city's tax role, i n those depress-ed years. 29. Ibid. 7 A p r i l 1916, p.2682. 30. The propriety of this action i s open to serious question, because the whole matter of the Indian reserves was then before the Royal Commission and i t was contrary to the fede-r a l Indian Act to negotiate with anyone but the Indian Agen-cy i n the matter of Indian land. The province had earlier dealt directly with the Songhees Indians and obtained from them reserved land near Victoria by giving them other equi-valent land i n exchange, but this set no precedent for out-right purchase. (Ibid. 24 A p r i l , p.8477) 31. A commission of $75,000 was received by a former clerk i n the law offices of the Attorney General, which led to open questioning of the p o l i t i c a l propriety of the deal. (Ibid. 7 A p r i l , 1916, p.2682 and p.2685) Payment to the Indians of the 1225,000 ended the p r o v i n c i a l action i n the area, however. No deal was sought between the railway and the government, (possibly because the boom broke i n 1913). A l l i n a l l i t was a hasty and f o o l i s h performance by the p r o v i n c i a l government at best and, had i t been taken to the courts, might very well have been found to be i l l e g a l . I t marks i n a way, the nadir of pr o v i n c i a l - f e d e r a l r e l a t i o n s over False Creek. In th i s case there was a j o i n t l y approved32 a n ( j a p p 0 i n _ ted commission conducting hearings on the very matter i n question yet the p r o v i n c i a l government ignored both the commission and the statutory obligations and d i r e c t l y negotiated an action of very dubious l e g a l i t y . I t i s obvious today, but of course i t may not have been r e a l i z a b l e at the turn of the century, that the development of False Creek according to a comprehensive plan involving dredg-ing and f i l l i n g , with the creation of i n d u s t r i a l land as the ob-jec t , would have been an economically sound public e f f o r t , when compared with some of the railway ventures which won the approval of the l e g i s l a t u r e and governments at that time. There must, even i n the early 1900fs, have been some need f o r a channel dredged deeper and straighter than the natural one.33 The f i r s t decade of the twentieth century saw the establishment of a 32. Ibid. 24 A p r i l 1913, p.£500. 33. Two to eight feet at low water. Canada, Dept. of Marine and F i s h e r i e s , Report on Vancouver Harbour, (by A.D. Swan), Ottawa, 1919, p.33. number of industries there, and i t i s hard to understand why the dredging of a channel of adequate width, the erection of a bulkheaded channel wall, and the f i l l i n g behind t h i s with the dredged material was not even proposed by the p r o v i n c i a l or c i t y governments as a j o i n t undertaking. The p r o v i n c i a l foreshore grants to the c i t y are evidence that the B.C. government ac-cepted authority, and surely therefore r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , f o r the area. The p r o v i n c i a l government can properly be i n d i c t e d f o r f a i l i n g to plan and develop i t s holdings i n False Creek. 3. Federal Government Action After acceding to the demand, of Vancouver c i t y council i n 1&B7 that the False Creek waterway be brought under the pro-v i s i o n s of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, no further federal actions were tah^n a f f e c t i n g False Creek (except a crown grant of foreshore to the C.P.R., i n 1894) i n the n i n e t i e s . At the beginning of May, 1903, rumor of a p o l i t i c a l "deal" involving False Creek and the federal government c i r c u l a t e d and the c i t y council wrote to the federal government that: Whereas i t i s understood that a lease has been applied f o r by certain parties of a portion of the bed of False Creek adjoining Granville Bridge * * *. Be i t resolved that t h i s Council on behalf of the C i t y of Vancouver urgently protest against any portion of False Creek being alienated by lease or otherwise to any private i n d i v i d u a l or company, but urge that the same, being of great value to the commercial i n t e r e s t s of Vancouver, should be retained and used f o r public purposes and be ves ted i n the C i t y of Vancouver . 3 4 Two men - Robert K e l l y , described as "the undisputed L i b e r a l boss", and Frank Burnett "a L i b e r a l stalwart of the period" - had applied to the federal government f o r a crown grant to the foreshore area now l a r g e l y occupied by G r a n v i l l e i s l a n d . 3 5 They announced that they had been given a 9 9 year lease to some 2 9 acres of mud f l a t s , that financing of the pro-j e c t had been arranged with a New York investment house and that The plan i s to have a semi-circular wharf running from about where the swing span of the f i r s t G ranville bridge i s , s k i r t i n g the f l a t and back to the bridge towards the south side. We propose to have nineteen and a h a l f acres [of some 6 0 available] under docks and wharves. We have agreed with the government to spend $ 1 2 5 , 0 0 0 * * * within ten years. The agreement ca l l e d f o r payment of $ 1 0 0 per annum advancing to $ 5 0 0 per annum.36 Popular Opposition There was considerable opposition to the government's action, and the Vancouver Board of Trade went on record as "strongly endorsing the telegram of the C i t y Council protesting 3 4 . Vancouver Province. 4 May, 1 9 0 3 , p.4 . w. 3 5 . RoyABrown, personal interview with author, 1 4 Feb, 1 9 5 3 . See also Brown, Vancouver Sun. 1 8 May, 1 9 5 1 , p.5 . 3 6 . Vancouver Province. 1 9 0 3 , 5 and 1 4 May, p . l . against the a l i e n a t i o n by lease or otherwise of any portion of False Creek".^ The Province newspaper spoke out e d i t o r i -a l l y i n favor of the project saying that I f the people's r i g h t s and i n t e r e s t s are properly pro-tected, and i f a large amount of money i s to be expended * * *- on lands which otherwise would be ugly and i d l e f o r many years to come, the arrangement would seem to be a good one f o r Vancouver.38 But f e e l i n g against the proposal, possibly because of the close connection between the promoters and the p o l i t i c a l party i n power, was strong enough fo r the government to reverse i t s ac-t i o n (which had been announced only by K e l l y and Burnett, never by the Cabinet), i n A l e t t e r to the c i t y council from S i r W i l f r e d Laurier assur&cjg the c i t y administration that no action had been taken to dispose of the bed and foreshore of the False Creek waterway.39 In 1 9 0 4 , i n an apparent reversal of t h i s stand, the federal government embarked upon a p o l i c y of l i b e r a l l y granting False Creek foreshore l o t s to private i n d i v i d u a l s and firms, although t h i s time the land was a l l adjacent to the shore west of West-minster avenue (Main s t r e e t ) . The grants were made to owners of the narrow upland l o t s between Westminster avenue and the water, and allowed the businesses to expand t h e i r gramped s i t e s . In t h i s the action was i n harmony with the " 'mirmriinfl p o l i c y of the c i t y ' s Board of Works which had expressed i t s e l f as favor-3 7 . Ibid. 6 May, p.2 3 9 . Ibid. 20 May, p . l . 3 8 . Ibid. 7 May, p.6 . ing the granting of foreshore property "for the establishment of industrial works."4° Seventeen separate grants were made by the Laurier government between 1904 and i t s defeat in 1911, a l l of them in D.L.2037 which had previously been granted to the city by the provincial government. In 1914 and 1915 an addi-tional four grants were made by the Borden government to p r i -vate firms and two to the city. After that there was no fur-ther alienation of foreshore or bed.41 Two important conditions resulted from this disposal of the foreshore to the private interests. Tn f.hry f 1 vnr. pia»H t r.im Businesses were then able to extend their property by f i l l i n g , and this many of them did. The strip of land between Main street and the high water line was narrow and inadequate for the growth which many of the businesses experienced. The foreshore grant at the same time gave to these property owners a more cer-tain claim to riparian rights which would enable them more firm-ly to resist (than they might perhaps otherwise have done) any development of False Creek l i k e l y to affect their own interests, and to claim financial recompense in the event that such deve-lopment was undertaken. Development Not Aided Had there then been a scheme for developing the False 40. Ibid, 20 May, p . l . 41. B.C.> Dept. of Lands, Fi l e 153490. Creek waterway, or even the east end, these grants could have been made conditional upon observance of the plan. As i t was, the property owners extended t h e i r property or b u i l t wharves into the waterway i n any manner they chose and without concern fo r the o v e r a l l advantages or disadvantages which such might have. As things turned out, however, the projects vwere not so large, or the aims so d i f f e r e n t , that development was seriously impaired or misdirected. The righ t s of the property to water access , ^ 2 a n ( ^ fo r e -shore i n s t a l l a t i o n s did necessitate the retention of the narrow channel which runs north as f a r as Keefer street at the east end. Without private ownership of the waterlots i n front of the Main street properties t h i s might have been f i l l e d i n and occupied, perhaps, by the Great Northern when i t o r i g i n a l l y crossed the Creek to i t s f i r s t s t a t i o n on Pender str e e t . This channel i s a legacy of that early development, and an unfortu-nate one. I t frrffc never had a substantial use and bndl$52.swas only a mooring basin f o r f i s h boats. By i t s actions i n making crown grants of False Creek foreshore, however, the federal government assumed ownership, and hence r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , and that role i t f a i l e d to f u l f i l l . The c r i t i c i s m which can be 4 2 . For comments on r i p a r i a n (and other) rights i n False Creek see: Champion & White v. City of Vancouver ( 1 9 1 6 ) 2 3 B.C.R. 2 2 1 ; Odium et a l . v. C i t y of Vancouver ( 1 9 1 4 ) 8 5 L.J.P.C.. 9 5 ; In re False Creek Reclamation Act ( 1 9 1 5 ) 2 0 B.C.R. 4 5 3 . l e v e l l e d against i t i s that either i t should not have made any foreshore grants at a l l or, i n making them, M, should have acted i n accordance with a plan for foreshore and channel de-velopment, which r e s p o n s i b i l i t y could not properly be separa-the federal eovernrnent ted from the r i g h t to make crown grants. Thus ^ 6 Aadded to the administrative confusion and f a i l e d to undertake desirable development. The defeat of the Laurier government i n 1911 and the f o r -mation of the Vancouver Harbour Commission i n 1913 se t t l e d the matter of private development of the foreshore - at least by the L i b e r a l s . False Creek Survey. The prosperity of the Vancouver harbour a c t i v i t i e s promp-ted the federal government to order a survey of False Creek to determine i t s s u i t a b i l i t y f or development. The report was favorable and indicated that the dredging of the waterway to a depth suitable f o r medium draft vessels such as were used i n the coastal trade was ph y s i c a l l y and f i n a n c i a l l y feasible.43 No action was undertaken, however. In 1912 the new Conservative government sent A.D. Swan, ah engineer, to 43. Canada, Public Works Department, Report of the Minister. 1909, p.185 (IV). 73 * * * examine and report on the general conditions and to make such recommendations f o r the future development of the Port of Vancouver as seemed to him most suitable to promote i t s growth * * *." Among the Swan recommendations was that False Creek * * * should be dredged to a depth of about 20 feet at low water and used f o r coast-wise t r a f f i c , and that the upper end of False Creek, extending to about 300 acres, which was then dry at low water and covered with a few feet of water at high t i d e , should be en t i r e l y f i l l e d with the material dredged from False Creek and the land so reclaimed used as a great central railway terminal to which a l l the railways entering Vancouver should have access; * •* * .44 In 1913 the government began implementation of the Swan recommendations. A Vancouver Harbour Commission, which he had urged, was appointed, and the Public Works Department began a major undertaking i n False Creek with "* * * f o r i t s object the u t i l i z i n g , as an additional harbour to that of Burrard i n l e t , \_the False Creek] basin of t i d a l water running from English bay to the centre of the c i t y . This work necessitate d the deepening of a channel, some 13,500 feet long, 350 feet wide and 20 feet deep at low water , from English bay to the Great Northern Railway bridge crossing False Creek, together with a dredged cut, some 2,400 feet long and having an average width of 18o feet * * * running northerly from the inner end of the main channel and having a depth of 12 feet below low water .45 This work was completed i n 1916 at a cost of,$595,000.46 The dredging operation removed 4.3 m i l l i o n cubic yards and 44. Swan, JUD.g. VV&n.Q<5uy?riga$>bo-tt^ «J|-$elected . . . papers, ICE, 11925, pp. 4-6. 45. Canada, Report of the Minister of Public Works. 1 9 1 6 , p.340. 4 6 . I b i d . . 1916, p.714; 1917 , p . 1 4 1 . t h i s material was deposited on the east end mud f l a t s to provide a major part of the reclamation of the area. In addition, a 32-acre area was bulkheaded oh the f l a t s just inside the entrance of the waterway, beneath the newly-built Granville bridge, and t h i s was also f i l l e d to create G r a n v i l l e (Industrial) i s l a n d . Similar Administrative Actions. Here was a plan f o r development and the implementation of i t ; i t affected an area already planned (although not too precisely) by another l e v e l of government, and by good fortune, rather than negotiation and agreement, the two ideas coincided. The c i t y had given up i t s idea of a shipping basin at the head of the waterway and turned to T=te development of a railway t e r -minal; at the same time the federal government determined to f i l l i n the area with the same purpose i n mind. For once plan-ning at the administrative l e v e l preceded private enterprise, at least i n so f a r as the t o t a l area was concerned (the Great Northern had already begun developing the property ringing the shore which i t had obtained from the c i t y ) . Despite t h i s coincidence of projects, and undertakings to implement them, there was no j o i n t e f f o r t made to plan the use to be made of the area created, other than to encourage i t s development by the r a i l r o a d s . The channel was dredged, but no provision was made f o r control or regulation of i t s shores. distance Granville i s l a n d was created only because therp was too great fi ill tttwifcfcttfc! to pump the dredged material a l l the way back to Main street, because there were useless mud f l a t s handy, and i t seemed a good idea. Granville i s l a n d was not a part of the o r i g i n a l Swan proposal, and i t s north shore distorted the channel he had proposed. Thus the f i r s t substantial public undertaking was done i n an unplanned way and with l i t t l e consideration given to the development, at the same time, of the False Creek shores. The opportunity existed, the war had not yet begun, and there seemed to be, f o r the f i r s t time, a v a l i d comprehension of what role the False Creek waterway might play i n the port of Vancouver and i n the general c i v i c economy. 4. Summary of Administrative and P o l i t i c a l Developments. The land boom, the rapid increase i n population, and the commercial and i n d u s t r i a l growth i n the two decades at the turn of the century produced an optimism which influenced administra-t i v e and p o l i t i c a l thinking. The c i t y council e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y rode the crest of the prosperity wave associated with the land boom and rapid growth. The p r o v i n c i a l government by t h i s time had passed from a slough of f i n a n c i a l despond to the s t a b i l i t y 7 6 and prosperity which came with the McBride government, and at the federal level the Laurier administration had a prosperous buoyancy which was f e l t by local Liberals. These three influences were reflected in the False Creek waterway. While the city council's ideas for the over-ambi-tious shipping basin east of Main could not gain enough sup-port from the property owners in the form of a money by-law to implement the scheme, the ownership which the city had of the bed and foreshore allowed i t to negotiate profitably with the two railways seeking entrance into the booming city. Thus, financial while the province gave i t no/help, either in works undertaken or grants-in-aid of False Creek development, the willingness of the Legislature to turn over to the city areas of the bed and foreshore must not be minimized.47 The matter of paramountcy, as between the federal and provincial crowns, was confused at that time, i f not to the two senior governments, at least to anyone else who had to deal with the question. While the city had been granted D.L.2037 ( a l l the bed and foreshore of False Creek lying easterly of the 47. The city's hopes for substantial development of the False Creek waterway may again depend, in part, on the provincial willingness to make further crown grants of bed and foreshore. There i s this difference, however, between the present and half a century ago. From the provincial crown holdings in False Creek the government in Victoria now derives revenue from rents, at no cost or administrative trouble to i t s e l f . In 1902 the bed and foreshore were entirely unproductive of revenue. projection south of the west boundary of C a r r a l l s t r e e t * ) , the federal government between 1 9 0 4 and 1 9 1 5 crown-granted foreshore parcels to owners of the upland l o t s on the Main street l i n e , and these foreshore l o t s were registered with the p r o v i n c i a l Land Registry O f f i c e as parcels of D.L. 2 0 3 7 . ^ The change i n party brought a change i n the type of a c t i -v i t y by the federal government, and while the dredging was of greater public benefit than the granting of foreshore, neither action was made a part of any developmental scheme or undertaken i n agreement with the c i t y a u t h o r i t i e s . 4 8 . Among these federal grants were two to the City of Vancouver - parcels 1 4 and 3 3 of D.L „ 2 0 3 7 . Parcel 1 4 and the upland l o t adjacent i s the c i t y ' s Union street yard; parcel 33 the s i t e of t h 4 c i t y ' s Main street docks (opposite F i r s t Avenue). Chapter Five The Turn of the Century I I . 1896-1916 Consult the annals of Canada f o r the past 50 years at random and, whatever party may be i n power, what do we find? The government i s building a railway, buying a railway, s e l l i n g a railway, or blocking a railway. Transportation, indeed, possessed great c o n s t i t u t i o n a l significance * * * . l No party took national o f f i c e without a f i r m railway plank and some f e l l from power because of public indignation over the methods chosen to implement i t . But t h i s ' r a i l r o a d nationalism' was not exclusive to Ottawa. In the preceding sections i t was shown that the B.C. government could p a r t i -cipate i n i t too, and a municipality such as Vancouver was not free from the influence. The f i r s t c i t y council of Vancouver, before i t had been i n o f f i c e a f u l l term, had offered the Canadian P a c i f i c a 30-year tax abatement i n return f o r l o c a t i n g the terminal yards closer to the c i t y center than was o r i g i n a l l y planned. As the c i t y grew, so did i t s interests i n transportation, for at that time railways and steamship l i n e s were believed to carry the seed of business prosperity and i n d u s t r i a l growth. Railroads 1. Lamarche, Paul, writing i n 1917, quoted by Thompson and Edgar, Canadian railway development, 1933, p. i x . 78 were the embodiment of sought-for economic well-being, and when railways were combined with ocean shipping, ideas (which sometimes l a t e r became delusions) of grandeur made the c i t i z e n of every seaport imagine his town to be on the threshhold of becoming a great ocean terminal. Such was the idea of Vancou-ver, and i t s c i t y council, i n the decades immediately before and a f t e r the turn of the century. 1. The Second Railway Development. The Great Northern Railway was much attracted by the growth that was taking place i n Canada, and i t became the company's p o l i c y to push branch l i n e s north into Canada where-ever they were f e a s i b l e . Vancouver's rapid development made the c i t y a desirable area of expansion f o r the Great Northern, and i n 1903 the Great Northern approached the c i t y council f o r ri g h t s which would allow i t to enter Vancouver. The desire of the Great Northern was strong and i t pressed the council f o r an agreement. The railway wanted a downtown 2. Competition was another factor, f o r i n 1890, with the con-st r u c t i o n by the C.P.R. of a railway bridge across the Fraser at Mission and a branch l i n e to the American town of Sumas, a j o i n t service into Vancouver was inaugurated with the Northern P a c i f i c . Cars of the l a t t e r company from the east and Seattle were operated to and from Vancouver over the C.P.R. l i n e . (Thompson and Edgar, i b i d . . p.180) This j o i n t service was discontinued i n 1917 ( i b i d . , p.343). terminal and proposed to reach i t by way of False Creek. For t h i s p ortion of i t s right-of-way i t would need a grant from the c i t y of land which the l a t t e r had received from the p r o v i n c i a l government (D.L.2037). Negotiations were protracted, with proposals and counter* proposals made by each side. The railway offered, among other things, to b u i l d a spur l i n e westward to Cambie street from where i t intended to cross the Creek. This wasVltd give railway access to the section of the south shore recently received by the c i t y from the p r o v i n c i a l government. The Great Northern Enters the C i t y . In 1908 the railway and the c i t y reached agreement, and i n the same year the Great Northern acquired, through the New West-minster Southern Railway (which i t owned) the o r i g i n a l charter of the Vancouver, V i c t o r i a and Eastern Railway and Navigation Co., i n whose name i t s Vancouver properties are held. The r a i l way was extended from New Westminster, a swing-span bridge was b u i l t 700 feet west of Main street, and a terminal was b u i l t on Pender s t r e e t . The f i r s t t r a i n from Seattle entered the c i t y i n 1909. the 3. It proposed to enter Vancouver by way of ABrunette, Burnaby lake, and S t i l l Creek v a l l e y a f t e r crossing the newly-erec-ted (1904) Fraser River bridge at New Westminster. This would mean crossing the Grandview ridge, s k i r t i n g the south shore of the Creek to a point a short distance west of West-minster avenue (Main s t r e e t ) , where i t would cross by a bridge to i t s terminal on Pender street (then Dupont) just east of C a r r a l l . In the same year there occurred an event which was soon to heighten f o r a while the c i v i c ideas f o r large-scale devel-opment at the east end of False Creek, not as a dredged and deepened ship basin, but rather as a large railway terminal and i n d u s t r i a l area, either with or without dock f a c i l i t i e s . The Great Northern was i n a period of expansion, and saw a bright future f o r the eastern t i d a l area of False Greek. 4 I t began to acquire t i t l e to a l l False Creek shore property i t could purchase. I t s a c t i v i t i e s were kept well concealed i n the beginning, 5 but word eventually leaked out and prices climbed to a reported $100 per foot of shore frontage for the l a s t few parcels. By 1910 the Great Northern owned v i r t u a l l y a l l the False Creek shore east of Main street. Whatever i t s value f o r future reclamation and development, i t now had a great immediate value to the company i n bargaining with the c i t y . The waterway was l e g a l l y navigable and the property had r i p a r i a n r i g h t s which were ce r t a i n to be affected by any development of the east end which the c i t y might undertake. The c i t y c o uncil, i t w i l l be 4. In Seattle, meanwhile, the railways there were scrambling f o r ownership of the harbour tidelands. Control meant ample room f o r expansionc_and development, which could bring p r o f i t a b l e t r a f f i c to the r a i l l i n e s . In these dealings the Great Northern became a " t i d e - f l a t s p e c i a l i s t " , and i t saw much to be gained by control of the False Creek f l a t s . (Roy^Brown, personal interview with author, 14 Feb. 1953) 5. The company acted through William Holden, a Vancouver r e a l estate man, whose business prospered along with that of the railway l i n e . (^y^Brown, ibid.) 6. Brown, i b i d . remembered, was s t i l l thinking i n terms of a shipping basin i n the area. East End Development. In May, 1910, the council and the Great Northern entered into an agreement whereby the c i t y gave the railway a s t r i p of foreshore around the whole east end of the Creek, ret a i n i n g for i t s e l f a horseshoe-shaped central portion about 160 acres i n area. In return the railway company's claims to r i p a r i a n r i g h t s i n the area were extinguished, and i t agreed to build a new s t a t i o n (the one i t occupies today) on the new land i t acquired. 7 This arrangement cannot be considered as a part of any plan of the c i t y f o r development. I t was a modification of, but did not o b l i t e r a t e , the li n g e r i n g scheme fo r a shipping basin i n the area. The c i t y had to surrender a s t r i p of land of great p o t e n t i a l value, whether or not the ship basin materia-l i z e d , as a quid pro quo f o r being permitted to extinguish the r i p a r i a n r i g h t s to the shore property. These the property en-joyed "through e a r l i e r action of the c i t y which had not been well thought out or c a r e f u l l y taken. Again i t Was a case of wli/i, L planning hln.i"i. m being done on an unsound premise and not being well, i f at a l l , r e l a t e d to the c i t y ' s r e a l needs or the problems 7. The s t a t i o n and terminal at Pender street were already overtaxed by passenger and f r e i g h t t r a f f i c , and could not be expanded on the property available to the railway. of the time. If the actions were modified at a l l by glances into the future, these were quick and careless, the objects mis-shapen or obscured by the easy optimism and confidence i n the growth panacea. Nor was i t a matter of squarely facing the challenge a r i s -ing from the False Creek problem. The area was valuable, yet the c i t y was concerning i t s e l f only with the part l e a s t valua-ble and most d i f f i c u l t to develop. True, i t was meeting the challenge i n a way, but i n the least straightforward way. The action did not r e a l l y help at a l l that part of the dual problem which required that economic development of the waterway be un-dertaken or encouraged. While aware of the problem, the c i t y met the challenge i n an obscure and (eventually) f r u i t l e s s way. The Canadian Northern Negotiates. A l l through i t s dealings with the Great Northern the c i t y council cherished the idea of the False Creek shipping basin, and f o r that purpose retained the center part of the area. Enthusiasm f o r the scheme was waning, however, and when the c i t y was approached by the Canadian Northern with a proposal to deve-lop the center portion of the horseshoe area as a terminal f o r that r a i l r o a d , the c i t y was w i l l i n g to negotiate and eventually to sign an agreement. 8. The Canadian Northern had f i r s t planned i t s terminus at Port Mann on the Fraser, south of New Westminster. The focus of a c t i v i t y on the Burrard peninsula influenced i t to attempt a loc a t i o n nearer the port c i t y . This agreement between the c i t y and the railway, sigined one i n 1913 — less than 30 years a f t e r thej; between the p r o v i n c i a l government and the Canadian P a c i f i c , which brought the l a t t e r into Vancouver,—indicates better than any ^single thing the differences which growth had made to the Vancouver area. The l a t e r agreement i s the very a n t i t h e s i s of the e a r l y one. In 1913 the c i t y asked a l l and gave a very minimum (113 acres) i n exchange; i n 1885 the railway made the demands and had them ac-ceded to i n considerable measure (6,000 acres, a 30-year tax exemp-tio n , among others). Of the many conditions to which the Canadian Northern agreed, the following d i r e c t l y affedted False Creek: - keep the s i t e as the railway's p r i n c i p a l western terminus f o r a l l time, - pay cost of extinguishing r i p a r i a n r i g h t s on nineteen Main street l o t s , - f i l l i n the bed of the Creek east of Main street, s t a r t i n g i n ninety days, - b u i l d a $4 m i l l i o n union passenger terminal, - b u i l d a tunnel where the Grandview cut now i s , - b u i l d a retaining wall on the new easternmost shore of the Creek, - "make, grade, pave and maintain" c e r t a i n c i t y streets on the property conveyed to the railway, - allow the c i t y to erect c e r t a i n roadway bridges across the terminal area, and to bear c e r t a i n costs of the F i r s t Avenue viaduct approaches, - lease f o r manufacturing purposes such of the conveyed pro-. pertjpas was not used f o r railway purposes. 9 It was estimated at the time that the cost of f i l l i n g would be $1,408,000 f o r the part east of Main street, and-$239,000 f o r the channel beneath the Main street bridge and the small area immedi-ate l y west of i t . 1 0 9. B r i t i s h Columbia Magazine. v*9, A p r i l 1913, pp.238-9. 10. Ibid., p.239. The c i t y ' s two agreements with the railways were confirmed by the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e , i n 1911 and 1913. 1 1 The Canadian P a c i f i c and Lulu Island Railways. Cnce %he Canadian P a c i f i c had i t s t r e s t l e b u i l t , i t s track l a i d to K i t s i l a n o , and i t s yards and shops located on the north by 18%, after w h i c h shore of False Creek^ i t s e t t l e d down to a period of steady but gradual expansion, tontiil i S f i r g . As t r a f f i c increased, the yards and the f r e i g h t terminal at the foot of Abbott street were gradu-a l l y enlarged. To allow for some of t h i s growth, and as a general long-term p o l i c y , this shore was slowly extended, f i r s t by f i l l i n g the indentations, and l a t e r by pushing i t xl ninfl out over the shallow f l a t s . Growth of the port and the c i t y continu-a l l y increased the demand f o r f r e i g h t and passenger services, and f a c i l i t i e s were kept growing to meet t h i s . Only one major c a p i t a l expansion was undertaken by the railway during t h i s time. In 1902 the Vancouver and Lulu Island Railway - a wholly-owned C.P.R. subsidiary - was b u i l t from the K i t s i l a n o t r e s t l e to Steveston, 1 2 with a branch l i n e 11. B.C., Statutes. "False Creek Confirmatory Act", 1911, c.55; "False Creek Terminals Act", 1913, c.76. 12. Because the Great Northern got a right-of-way from Ladner to near Chilliwack (as well as from Blaine to New Westmin-ster) when i t bought the chartered but never operated New Westminster Southern and Vancouver, V i c t o r i a and Eastern Railway Companies, and because i t operated a l i n e to Ladner long enough f o r i t to appear as i f a major terminal might develop at the mouth of the Fraser, the C.P.R. b u i l t i t s l i n e to meet a competitive threat which never materialized. The G.N. Ladner l i n e has been abandoned f o r a good many years now. running along the south shore of False Creek as f a r as Cambie street - the eastern boundary of the company-owned D.L.526. In 1905 the V. & L.I. was leased by the C.P.R. to the B.C. E l e c t r i c Railway, which e l e c t r i f i e d i t and ran both fr e i g h t and interurban passenger trains over i t . I t has been operated by the B.C. E l e c t r i c ever since. The r e s i d e n t i a l development i n the K i t s i l a n o area also caused the street railway company to run a street car l i n e over the t r e s t l e to that area. Thus the t r e s t -l e , o r i g i n a l l y intended to take C.P.R. f r e i g h t and passenger trains to a stat i o n , terminals and docks on the K i t s i l a n o point, was f i n a l l y put int o use as a street car and interurban l i n e , of which the l a t t e r did some f r e i g h t s w i t c h i n g . 1 3 The spur along the south shore served the Hanbury m i l l at the foot of Granville and the Vancouver Lumber m i l l at the foot of Cambie. R a i l service was now an inducement for other busi-nesses to enter the area, and they soon did. The C.P.R. leased i t s shore property, but did not s e l l any, and was thus able to maintain a control over the tenants and, i n d i r e c t l y , over the fr e i g h t p o t e n t i a l of such occupants. When the Great Northern b u i l t i t s spur l i n e west from i t s IS. Previous to building the V. & L.I., the C.P.R. had l e f t the t r e s t l e with an unspanned opening i n i t , to comply with the requirements of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. With the construction of the Lulu Island l i n e the t r e s t l e was r e b u i l t of Australian gumwood (to r e s i s t the teredos) with a swing and a f i x e d span. I t stands today as i t was re-b u i l t . False Creek crossing, an interchange was arranged and b u i l t be-tween the two l i n e s , just east of Cambie bridge. This comple-ted the r a i l r i n g around the waterway, and gave south shore property access to two (and l a t e r a t h i r d , the C.N.R.) railways f o r movement of f r e i g h t . The i n d u s t r i a l growth of the south shore which then began has continued i n a steady development ever since. False Creek Railway Ring Completed. The completion of the r a i l r o a d r i n g , a non-administrative achievement, was a major step towards meeting the problem of economic development of the False Creek basin. But i t was not without creating some problems of i t s own. The C.P.R. l i n e to i t s yards (and o r i g i n a l l y on to K i t s i l a n o ) crossed the narrow neck of the Granville peninsula, and a l l street t r a f f i c from the east into the area (which soon became Vancouver's down town and grew rapidly) had to cross i t . This meant a l e v e l crossing at Powell, Cordova, Hastings and Pender streets, and no alt e r n a t i v e way around. As t r a i n t r a f f i c to the yards and the f r e i g h t t e r -minal increased, and as the c i t y grew i n size and a c t i v i t y , t h i s was an ever-increasing problem, to which no thought had been given i n laying out the down-town street plan or i n developing the down-town area. 1^ ^ s i m i l a r crossing existed at Main street 14. This t r a f f i c problem eventually became so i n t o l e r a b l e • that the c i t y and the railway came to an agreement whereby the l e v e l crossing was replaced by a tunnel under the c i t y center, providing an alternate connection between the Burrard i n l e t l i n e s and the False Creek yards. near F i r s t avenue, by the Great Northern, and a l l passenger and fr e i g h t t r a f f i c crossed there.15 The Vancouver and Lulu Island l i n e also was b u i l t across Fourth avenue, at grade. ( T r a f f i c on both the r a i l l i n e and the road have never been great enough to bother each other. More of a problem, but s t i l l not acute, i s that of the crossing of what i s now Burrard, where t r a f f i c became s i g n i f i c a n t only a f t e r the opening of the Burrard street bridge.) The residents of the Fairview heights above False Creek and east of Granville were distressed by the south shore indus-t r i a l development. This area had attracted, a f t e r the opening of the Granville bridge and the Broadway b e l t - l i n e t r o l l e y - c a r , a very high grade of r e s i d e n t i a l home, and gave promise of be-coming a well-to-do neighbourhood. The i n d u s t r i a l development of False Creek brought that to an end, however. Perhaps a development plan of the c i t y , had there been one, would have indicated the intention of i n d u s t r i a l development i n False Creek, or perhaps even have prevented i t i n that section. At any rate a land use plan f o r the area could have cautioned those fa m i l i e s who s e t t l e d there i n substantial homes, soon to f i n d the area made undesirable. 15. This t r a f f i c was much reduced when the new Great Northern station was b u i l t at i t s present s i t e . There i s s t i l l crossing by f r e i g h t t r a i n s , but these are switched only i n the l a t e and early hours. 8 9 Railways as 'Development Pla n s 1 . The False Creek railways point up the very important fact that the building of a r a i l l i n e - even a branch or spur - and the location chosen for i t , can and does have a substantial i n -fluence on subsequent land use and development, often f a r beyond the plans and hopes of the people putting down the track. The two major i n d u s t r i a l and development influences i n the False Creek basin have been water and r a i l access. By f a r the majority of enterprises i n the area are there because of one or both of these f a c i l i t i e s . So i t was that the presence of the r a i l l i n e brought development to certain locations, while an ab-sence hindered i t i n others. Between C.ambie and Main streets the r a i l l i n e s were located on what was, when they were b u i l t , the shore ( i t has since been extended by f i l l i n g ) , without pro-v i s i o n f o r extended spur trackage. This meant that the area between the waterfront and Sixth avenue Has, on the one hand, been blighted by the industry on the shore without, on the other, being able to share to any great extent i n the i n d u s t r i a l growth which would have been possible i f there had been fewer streets and more spur tracks. The same b l i g h t and sloitf development i s also found i n the area bounded by G r a n v i l l e , Sixth and Burrard. While c a p i t a l investment i n a r a i l l i n e branch i s not small, the permanence of the l i n e i s out of a l l proportion to i t s phy-s i c a l substance. I t compares, i n i t s permanent incluence on development, with a bridge or a land f i l l . The absence of any planned association between street pattern and r a i l f a c i l i t i e s which would allow for the expansion of the latter with industrial growth, has given the False Creek area two small sections of blighted residential use which, with r a i l f a c i l i t i e s and a less r i g i d street grid, would be of high industrial v a l u e . H a d there been a realization then of the future needs bf industry of r a i l and road f a c i l i t i e s , or even a less severe application of the road pattern in the vi c i n i t y of industrial sidings,1? there would have been possible a more orderly industrial development, and a better over-all industrial area, than has occurred. A deliberate administrative planning of railway development in the False Greek (and other) areas, coupled with a correlated street pattern, could have produced an industrial development wider than what has occurred, and avoided two areas of blighted undevelopment. 2. Industrial Development In 1885, when the C.P.R. was granted D.L.526, the Hastings M i l l timber lease of the area south of False Creek and English bay was permitted to expire, and most logging activity on False 16. The fact that they are also subdivided into very small parcels, many of which are individually held and occupied, has been a serious hinderance to development of the areas. 17. It i s the policy of the city government to resist any railway spur construction which uses or crosses existing city streets. The constricting nature of this, and the Creek ceased f o r the time being. But the demand f o r lumber continued to increase, and the most suitable and available s i t e s f o r saw m i l l s on Burrard i n l e t were f i l l e d . False Creek, by t h i s time, because of i t s protected waterway, i t s large mud f l a t suitable f o r booming grounds, and i t s increased r a i l f a c i -l i t i e s a f t e r 1905, became increasingly desirable f o r m i l l s i t e s . Following the construction of the railway t r e s t l e across the mouth of the waterway i n 1387, i t was at f i r s t impossible fo r water c r a f t to enter False Creek, but with the bringing of the creek under provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, a gap was opened i n the t r e s t l e (which was not then being used by the railway) and i t once more became possible to operate m i l l s with timber cut outside of the immediate False Creek area. Lumber M i l l s and Other Early Industries. The Royal City Planing M i l l , b u i l t the year before the t r e s t l e , was the largest of the f i r s t m i l l s on False Creek. I t occupied about 1,000 feet of shore where Abbott and C a r r a l l streets then reached i t (the B.C. E l e c t r i c f r e i g h t yards now occupy the s i t e , which was subseqnently extended by f i l l i n g ) . At t h i s l o c a t i o n i t had access to the C.P.R. where the l a t t e r crossed the isthmus from the harbour shore to False Creek. This operation was consolidated i n 19°3 with the Hastings M i l l , and became known as the B.C. M i l l , Timber and Trading Co. The Hanbury's were interested i n the new enterprise, and when the C..-P.R. extended i t s yard location on the False Creek North Shore, the B.C.M.T.& T. Co. m i l l was moved to the south shore just east of Granville street, where i t was known as the Hanbury mill.18 Other early mills which were already established at the time the city was incorporated were MacKay* s m i l l at the oonth end of what i s now Granville bfcidgfe - this became the Robertson and Hackett m i l l i n 1899 and has been i n continuous operation u n t i l recent months - and Learay & Kyles m i l l at the south end of what i s now Cambie br^dgfe - this became the Van-couver Lumber Company.19 The Rat Portage Lumber Company began operations i n 1890 on the south shore at the foot of Granville, immediately east of the bridge. I t i s at the same site today, under the name of Giroday Sawmills.^ Diversification Begins. Three years after the city's incorporation the forerunner of another class of industry, which has since become important i n False Creek, was established. The sand, gravel and building supply firm of Champion and White was set up near the Royal City 18. I t should be borne i n mind that Granville island was not i n existence at that time. The mud f l a t s , which were f i l l e d to create i t , provided excellent booming grounds. 19. Map, City of Vancouver - Canadian Pacific townsite. pub-lished by Ross & Ceperly, real estate agents, dated Vancouver, 24 February, 1887. m i l l . In 1910 i t purchased from Armstrong and Morrison, a construction firm, the s i t e i t occupies today, which was then the southernmost holding and dock on the s p i t which formed the central narrows and which carried Westminster avenue (now Main) to the bridge. In 1S90 the McDonald construction firm located across the bridge on the south shore ( i t i s there today as the firm of J.A. & CH. McDonald, suppliers of building stone). I n d u s t r i a l d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n had already begun, f o r i n the same year there opened the Wallace shipyard at the foot of Granville, west of the new bridge. From i t s ways came c h i e f l y f i s h boats f o r the new and expanding industry. This e s t a b l i s h -ment was the forerunner of the large Burrard shipyard located t o -day i n North Vancouver. Development continued and scattered a l l around the shore of False Creek. By 1900 there were, i n addition to the firms already mentioned, the Vancouver Engineering Works, just s t a r -ted near the Vancouver Lumber M i l l , and the Cambie bridge, and the McKenzie Brothers wharf on the south s p i t of the center narrows (now Main s t r e e t ) . On Westminster avenue (Main street) there were, besides those mentioned above, a machine shop, two wharves doing a general shipping and transfer business, the gas and the steam e l e c t r i c plant (not then joined as the B.C. E l e c t r i c Company), and several small businesses and shops. Between Main street and the Royal C i t y M i l l there were, besides Champion and White, several more small businesses and stores. Along the north shore there was a large cement plant on land now f i l l e d i n and under the Georgia viaduct. At the Cambie bridge there was a cooperage and a shingle m i l l . The C.P.R. yards took up most of the area between Cambie and Granville bridge (as i s the case today), but at the foot of Granville there were the firms already mentioned. The Land Boom. The f i r s t r e a l land boom of Vancouver as a c i t y (there had, of course, been the boom of the railway's coming) began about f i v e or s i x years a f t e r the turn of the century, and by that time the c i t y was large enough f o r False Creek to f e e l the f u l l impact. Hastings and C a r r a l l streets had long been the heart of the c i t y , but the growth spread out from Hastings along Westminster avenue, across the False Creek bridge, and i n t o Mount P l e a s a n t , 2 0 along Granville again over False Creek, and into Fairview. Meanwhile the r a i l spurs along the south shore of False Creek had been completed by the Canadian P a c i f i c and Great Northern, which meant the adding to shore properties of a l l the advantages of access to markets by r a i l . 20. The H a l l building at Main and Broadway i s the, high water mark of that wave i n that d i r e c t i o n , from which point there was a considerable ebb. Because a land boom i s associated with a l o c a l prosperity, the f i r s t e f f e c t s on the False Creek area were f e l t on Westmin-ster avenue - which became Main street as a r e s u l t of the new a c t i v i t y there. The developments that occurred were c h i e f l y commercial, and therefore could take advantage of the one sec-t i o n of the shore without trackage, which was more than o f f s e t by a combination of frontage on the water and on Main s t r e e t . As has been mentioned, the building supply f i r m of Champion and White was among the f i r s t to e s t a b l i s h there. Between 1900 and 1914 seventeen other firms, including the Vancouver Gas Company ( l a t e r taken over by the B.C.. E l e c t r i c ) , the B.C. E l e c -t r i c , Marpole and MacDonald Coal ( s t i l l there as part of Evans Coleman), Armstrong and Morrison, contractors, and others whose businesses c h e i f l y supplied b u i l d i n g equipment and materials, established on Main str e e t . The land boom of the early 1 9 0 0 's collapsed i n 1 9 1 3 , but i t s e f f e c t s on the c i t y and False Creek were substantial, and recession or deflated land prices could not wipe them out. The population had reached 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 , and there had been a commen-surate business and commercial expansion. In False Creek the south shore between Cambie and G r a n v i l l e gained three more lumber and shingle m i l l s , as well as a °% machinery depot and one or two other small undertakings using the r a i l and water access. Agreements had been reached and confirmed closing o f f a l l the water area east of Main street, and the f l a t s at C a r r a l l and Abbott street were f i l l e d out to a l i n e approximate with the projection of Georgia street (except f o r the harrow channel west of Main s t r e e t ) . FALSE CREEK MAP Period of IfSO Map showing False Creek area, with reclaimed areas, crossings, and railway and i n d u s t r i a l development up u n t i l the year 1920. 97 FALSE CREEK 1920 VANCOUVER HARBOUR E N G L I S H BAY J,A trjsfi>Jr* J/J- (jo -ia«*.v Chapter Six. The War Years, 1912 - 1922. There i s no one point of time, during t h i s period before and during the f i r s t World War, which provides a sharp and convenient break i n the a f f a i r s of False Creek (as there was i n those of the c i t y , the country and the world). Both the change i n federal government i n 1911 and the depression of 1913 had perceptible but not substantial immediate e f f e c t s on the waterway of itS:; a f f a i r s . Much the same can be said about the war, which had an impact on False Creek, but not u n t i l 1917 was i t an immediate one. The c i t y i t s e l f came very d e f i n i t e l y to the end of an era i n the years immediately before the war, but the e v i -dence of t h i s i s not found i n False Creek. Taking one's stand at 1911 and looking back over the f i r s t 25 years i t i s possible to see a certain pattern in Vancouver's development. The c i t y amid the stumps of 1886 has already become the metropolis of B r i t i s h Columbia. It was i n 1911 an over-grown boom town, f u l l of r e a l estate speculators and company promoters but i t had now struck itSo roots deep into the s o i i i It was a time when men might have taken stock of what had gone before, and planned f o r what l ay ahead. If 1. Sage, W.N., "Vancouver: 60 Years of Progress," 1946 Year  B°ok t B.C.Journal of Commerce,Vancouver, B.C., p.112. they did so, i t was not through any agency of government, and t h e i r ideas were not recorded i n public action. The rapid pace of growth and expansion had slowed; there was time to consider the benefits as well as the e v i l s of unregulated development, but i t was not done. Perhaps there were s t i l l too many of what Professor Sage refers to as the " speculators and promoters " f o r plans to be made for anything but i n d i v i d u a l advantage and what, in more recent times, has come to be c a l l e d the " fa s t buck ".' At the same time, insofar as men were concerned with False Creek, they could c e r t a i n l y f e e l that they had met head-on the challenge of itSs two-fold problem. Had not one t h i r d of the area of. the waterway been reclaimed? Were not the tid e f l a t s eliminated as a useless and unpleasant obstacle and re-placed with an area of great p o t e n t i a l value for i n d u s t r i a l development? Was there not a straight, deep channel where be-fore there had been one of uncertain depth and course? Any c r i t i c i s m must be less of what was achieved than of how i t was done and what i t might have been i n a more favorable p o l i t i c a l and administrative climate. For the f i r s t time the three l e v e l s of government had come to grips with the same problem at roughly the same time. But they did not do so together. It was coincidence or accident t h a t , a l l in the same period, the c i t y abandoned i t s a plan f o r a shipping basin, the Canadian Northern Railway was able to make an agreement with the c i t y to acquire the area for'railway and general development, and the federal government decided to make the navigable water-way more navigable through dredging. It was at t h i s time that the federal government set g up a statutory body which f o r a time gave promise of playing a coordinating r o l e i n the administrative confusion a f f e c t i n g False Creek. That t h i s body f a i l e d to f u l f i l l such a promise — a promise not i m p l i c i t i n its;; creation, i t must be said — was less the f a u l t of it$h own good intentions than of the ebb and flow of party fortunes i n federal p o l i t i c s . 1. The Vancouver Harbour Commission. The construction of the Panama Canal brought increased attention to the port of Vancouver, with the r e s u l t that i n 1913 a three-man body was appointed by the federal govern-ment to conduct the business and a f f a i r s of the Vancouver harbour in a manner s i m i l a r to that already established for Montreal and Quebec. The area of its.3 authority was set as east of a l i n e drawn between Points Atkinson and Grey, and i t was therefore considered, i n the beginning, to be respon-s i b l e f o r the harbour and associated functions i n English Bay, 3 Burrard i n l e t , and False Creek. 2. Canada, Statutes, 1913, "The Vancouver Harbour Commisseners Act", c.54. 3. Ibid., ss. 4 and 11. This body at once undertook a p o s i t i v e development po l i c y , i n l i n e with the 191£ report of A.D.Swan, which rec-ommended for the False Greek area, besides the dredging oper-ation already described^ that: A l i n e of wharves should be constructed to a harbour headline at the dredged channel; The area between these wharves and the o r i g i n a l shore should be f i l l e d i n and reclaimed with the dredged material; thereby creating " very valuable *** s i t e s f o r new industries [and;improving] the ex i s t i n g industries, and "Large areas [should] be provided f o r railway terminals and other transportation f a c i l i t i e s r i g ht i n the centre of the c i t y . " 6 F i r s t Action. The dredging of False Creek i n 1913 was the action of the federal Public Works Department. It was the intention of the harbour commission to complete the work of bulk-heading and b a c k - f i l l i n g according to the Swan plan. In t h i s propos-a l the commission had the support of H.H.Stevens, M.P. f o r Vancouver, who i n 1916 sought (but did not gain u n t i l 1919) parliamentary approval for a f e d e r a l l y guaranteed $5 m i l l i o n harbour commission bond issue for undertakings i n Vamcouver harbour, (which then included False Creek). These included a c q u i s i t i o n of the K i t s i l a n o Indian reserve and a right-of-way f o r a terminal railway from Glen drive to the reserve; 4. Contained i n : Canada,Dept., of Marine and Fisheries, Report  on Vancouver harbour'*'pp. 29-37. 5. See page 73. 6. Canada, Dept., of Marine and Fisheries, i b i d . , p.33 7. "Memorandum" from the chief engineer, Dept., of Marine and Fisheries, reprinted i n Canada, Dept., of Marine, o p . c i t . . p.40. During t h i s same period the negotiations begun i n 1915 by the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and P a c i f i c Railroad (see page 63) were p r i v a t e l y continued with the Indian A f f a i r s branch and the harbour commission, H.H.Stevens acting f o r the Q l a t t e r as well as informally for the federal government? An agreement was signed between the three p a r t i e s i n 1917, but before i t was announced operation of the United States H a i l -roads was taken over by the U.S. government (26 December, 1 9 1 7 ) . This put the railway's plan i n abeyance for the time being, the company . and when iv was returned to private operation i t was not i n a g strong enough f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n to undertake the expansion. Post War Proposals. In 1918 the federal government commissioned A.D.Swan, Montreal engineer, again to carry out a survey of Vancouver harnour, and his report was made to the Minister of Marine 9 and Fis h e r i e s in January, 1919. Although the mud f l a t s east of Main had been re-claimed and the False Creek channel dredged i n accordance with his e a r l i e r recommendations, no action had been taken on the foreshore development. This l a s t was not again included i n h i s recommendations, however, probably because private development was achieving much the same ends. Instead, Swan took up the 8. Hon.H.H.Stevens, M.P. 1911-1939, personal interview with writer, 20 Sept., 1953. 9. Canada, Dept., of Marine and Fisheries, op. c i t . 1 0 h Milwaukee Road's scheme and recommended that the K i t s i l a n o peninsula be considered as an alternative s i t e to Burrard i n l e t for development of ."deep-sea docks. He estimated a t o t a l cost for t h i s of $18.75 m i l l i o n , considerably less than his estimate f o r sim i l a r f a c i l i t i e s i n Burrard i n l e t ^ - 0 The area needed f o r the docks and terminals would have been about 140 acres, half of which would have' heen provided by the Indian reserve. The development, he f e l t , should be a progressive one: I show on the plans at K i t s i l a n o accommodation for 21 •steamers, but I do not suggest f o r a moment that a l l t h i s accommodation should be provided now, as the general scheme permits of construction i n units, and i f t h i s s i t e i s f i n -a l l y approved I suggest that the shore quay which i s 2,700 feet long and the f i r s t small p i e r *** would be ample to commence with. Taking the proportionate rate f o r the whole scheme t h i s would provide s i x berths at an approximate cost of $4,5000,000 complete, including land ***. The shore quay at the mouth of False Creek i s , without doubt, much the cheapest s i t e where deep water accommodation can be provided, with the least possible delay. [The C.N.Rjj suggest False Creek as being the most advan-tageous l o c a t i o n f o r *** docking f a c i l i t i e s *** f o r passen-gers and other t r a f f i c ***••' I have therefore, shown berth-age accommodation on Granville island ***. As an alternative to t h i s s i t e I suggest good accommadation could be provided at the head of False Creek, adjoining Main street ***. I[recommend] the removal of present Canadian P a c i f i c R a i l -way bridge across False Creek.H Five M i l l i o n f o r Development. In the spring of 1919 the federal government, affeer consulting with the harbour commissioners, announced itSs i n -10. Canada, Dept., of Marine, i b i d . , p.25 11. Canada, Dept., of Marine.^, l o c . c i t . 1 0 5 t e n t i o n to a i d the development along the general l i n e s set out by the Swan r e p o r t . Response i n Vancouver, wh i l e favourable to the expansion of port f a c i l i t i e s , was d i v i d e d between sup-port f o r Burrard i n l e t or F a l s e Creek f o r the s i t e of the new p i e r s . Harbour and ship p i n g , a trade j o u r n a l devoted to P a c i f -i c coast marine a f f a i r s , i n i t ' s May, 1919 issue (p.203) r e p o r t -ed : The *** i n t e n t i o n of the Government [ i s ] to proceed immediately w i t h a Money B i l l , a p p r o p r i a t i n g $5 m i l l i o n as a l o a n to the Vancouver Harbour Commission f o r the pur-pose of i n i t i a t i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n of the development schemes advocated by Mr. [A.D.] Swan.*** The determination, t h e r e f o r e , has been taken t o favour the K i t s i l a n o scheme i n preference to Burrard i n l e t , which i s , i n the o p i n i o n of most shipping men i n the port [of Vancouver], the l o g i c a l s i t e f o r harhour development. A b i l l to authorize the f e d e r a l government to loan the Vancouver Harbour Commission $5 m i l l i o n was approved by I B the Commons i n June, 1919. There was no s t i p u l a t i o n of how the money'wa's to be spent but p r i o r approval by the Gover-n o r - i n - C o u n c i l was r e q u i r e d before any work was to be under-taken. The.uimain purpose of t h i s l o an was to provide f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of deep-sea wharves. The M i n i s t e r of Marine and F i s h e r i e s (C.C.Ballantyne) gave some i n d i c a t i o n of the l a c k of agreement on where these should be b u i l t when he s a i d , i n committee: *** there i s considerable d i f f e r e n c e of o p i n i o n as to whether the new deep water p i e r s ought to be erected i n what i s known as Burrard's i n l e t — t h a t i s , the harbour proper -- or i n 12. Canada, H. of C. Debates, 1919, pp. 3742-54, 4017-21* what i s known as False Creek, or the K i t s i l a n o Indian reserve. Hon.members who represent the c i t y of Vancouver rather favour False Creek, but other gentlemen do not. So the matter w i l l stand i n abeyance u n t i l I can myself v i s i t Vancouver *** taking the best engineering advice and ascertaining the views of the harbour commissioners.*** (p. 4017. ibid) Commission Reorganized. In the f a l l of 1919 the harbour commission was reorganized, with two of the members replaced. The r e s i g -nation of Prime Minister Borden had a further unsettling ef f e c t on l o c a l a f f a i r s , as also did the imminence of a general e l e c t i o n . As a r e s u l t , the o v e r - a l l development program was set aside and work was begun on construction of 13 the Ballantyne P i e r i n Burrard i n l e t . This can f a i r l y be 14 said to have been an e l e c t i o n year expedient. It would have taken several years to acquire the land f o r the K i t s i l a n o dev-elopment and the railway right-of-way to i t , whereas plans were ready f o r the Ballantyne work. It was also equally accept-able to many people i n Vancouver. The Conservative defeat was followed by the f i n a l shelving of the False Creek schemes of the harbour commission. The Harbour Commissioners who f i r s t held o f f i c e rather favoured proceeding with the K i t s i l a n o scheme, but before i t was d e f i n i t e l y decided, a change i n Government, with a corresponding change i n the personnel of the Commission, 13. Land for t h i s was bought at a cost of $67£,900, and the contract was l e t at between | 3 and $4 m i l l i o n . 14. While the Meighen (who had succeeded Borden) government was defeated, Vancouver returned itSo Conservative members. took place, with the r e s u l t that the majority of the new Commission decided to proceed with the f i r s t large p i e r -development at Burrard i n l e t . Besides, the construction of Ballantyne pier more than con-sumed the o r i g i n a l $5 m i l l i o n loan, and there was nothing l e f t from i t f o r work in False Creek. The only reminder of the o r i g i n a l plans of 1919 i s a two-block-long s t r i p of land owned by the harbour board, on the north side of F i r s t avenue between Main and Ontario streets, the f i r s t and only property acquired by the harbour commission for i t 5 3 right-of-way to the K i t s i l a n o development. The f e d e r a l government, when i t set up the harbour commission, vested i n i t a l l property held in right of the crown federal i n the harbour area l ^ This included a Burrard i n l e t dock and, more important, a l l the foreshore to which the Ottawa government believed i t held t i t l e . Included i n t h i s was, i t was then believed, the foreshore of False Creek. With these r i g h t s , a strong desire to undertake large-scale development, and the backing of the federal cabinet, the har-bour commission might well have advanced the coordination of False Creek undertakings. The f a c t that i t was composed of Vancouver men, a l b e i t p o l i t i c a l l y appointed and perhaps be-holden to the party i n power, could have meant a sympathetic f e e l i n g f o r the o v e r - a l l challenge of the False Creek area i n 15. A.D.Swan, "Vancouver Harbour, B.C.", No.27, Selected  engineering papers. Institute of C i v i l Engineers, London, 1925, p.7 16. Canada, Statutes,1913, C.54.S.14. the larger matter of comprehensive i n d u s t r i a l and commercial development of the c i t y . The actual scheme proposed f o r the development of the K i t s i l a n o peninsula seems, i n retrospect, a dubious one. Itsa only commendation seems to have been that the land there was s u b s t a n t i a l l y lower i n pri c e than anynavaliable on Bur-rard inlet-1-7 There are certa i n advantages to having a l l the deep-sea harbour a c t i v i t i e s i n Burrard i n l e t , not alone of which i s the subsequent use of part of the proposed K i t s i l a n o dock s i t e f or park and beach use. It was not i t s s actual proposals for development, which commend the action of the harbour commission, but rather the attempt of that body to undertake o v e r - a l l development. 2. Absence of Coordination. There is one instance of jo i n t consultation between the three l e v e l s of governafflnt and the harbour commission and i t i s remarkable only for i t s a f a i l u r e . The question to be se t t l e d concerned the Indian reserve (Kitsilano No.6) on the south shore near the mouth of the waterway. 17. The harbour commission paid some $673,000 for property on which to b u i l d a four-berth p i e r . It was estimated that enough land for a 20-berth i n s t a l l a t i o n could be obtained on the K i t s i l a n o peninsula f o r about | l m i l l i o n . The land* * * was expropriated by the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners on 7 September, 1916. The a r b i t r a t o r s appointed to f i x the p r i c e f o r th i s land decided that the * x * * Commissioners should pay $662 ,000 for same. The p r i c e was appealed against on behalf of the Government, whereon the Harbour Commissioners, to avoid fur ther expense, offered the sum of $ 7 5 0 , 0 0 0 * * *. In May, 1918, a conference was held at Ottawa between the representatives of the Dominion Government, P r o v i n c i a l Government, and the Vancouver Har-bour Commissioners, with a view to a r r i v i n g at a settlement, i n connection with the trans fer to the Commissioners of the sa id lands , but nothing d e f i n i t e was s e t t l e s . The matter never was s e t t l ed between these p a r t i c -ipants . An agreement had been reached between the province and the Indians without the concurrence of the Indian A f f a i r s department. The province gave the Indians $300,000, paid 19 d i r e c t l y to them. No further p r o v i n c i a l ac t ion was ever taken, however, and the money was never refunded or the -P O province 'g iven t i t l e to the land . Another example of lack of coordinat ion occurred a f t er the c i t y b u i l t a new "high- level" (as i t was then ca l l ed) cross ing of the waterway at G r a n v i l l e s t ree t , In 1 9 0 8 . This bridge had a swing span which opened (on a center p i e r ) to an o v e r - a l l channel width of 369 f ee t . When the f edera l government created G r a n v i l l e i s l and s ix years l a t e r , no cons iderat ion was given to the o r i g i n a l plans and recommendations upon which the dredging was undertaken,or to the e f fect of narrowing or r e s t r i c t i n T5T Canada, D e p t . , o f Marine, o p . c i t . . p . 2 5 . 1 9 . See page 6 5 20 Federal o r d e r - i n - c o u n c i l P . C . 3 1 8 , 27 February, 1 9 2 8 , recognized a p r o v i n c i a l l i e n against the reserve to the amount of $ 3 5 0 , 0 0 0 , as representing the payment and the reversionary i n t e r e s t . the channel width i n the v i c i n i t y of the "bridge. The f a i l u r e between l e v e l s of government to coor-dinate i s not d i r e c t l y due to False Creek or i t s problems. It can be attributed rather to the absence of any es t a b l i s h -ed means of easy and continuing communication between the l e v e l s . There i s nothing to prevent communication, but there i s , at the same time, nothing e x i s t i n g to provide i t . Each negotiation requires a new ad hoc arrangement. The creation of j o i n t or special machinery had never occurred, except i n the case 'of the harbour commission, u n t i l the circumstances have become so strained as to in t e r f e r e with easy s o l u t i o n . 3. Developments Due to the War. The war did not have an e f f e c t on the False Creek development i n the early years, nor did i t i n t e r f e r e with the public works then being carried out there. 21. Most unfortunately, t h i s Granville isl a n d has been car-r i e d much too f a r into the middle of the channel. * * *,there-by r e s t r i c t i n g the future width of the channel at the lower end to about H-00 feet instead of 600 feet as o r i g i n a l l y designed, i n addition to which the l i n e of the main front wharfage i s not p a r a l l e l to the centre p i e r abutment of the new 1909 Granville bridge. Consequently i t w i l l not be possible to moor vessels.at the island wharfage on the lower side of the bridge, otherwise there would be every tendency f o r a vessel passing through the bridge p i e r opening to c o l -l i d e with a vessel moored at the i s l a n d . (Swan, A.D., Report on Vancouver Harbour, 1919, p.8.) and i t s s c u r r e n t and f u t u r e e f f e c t , on the c i t y was o n l y s l i g h t . With the c r e a t i o n of two new areas of i n d u s t r i a l land, one 500 acres and the other 32, the e f f e c t on l a t e r years should have been f o r e s e e n to some extent at l e a s t . A c t i o n by the c i t y during t h i s p e r i o d was l i m i t e d (by d e p r e s s i o n f o l l o w i n g c o l l a p s e of the l a n d boom) to com-p l e t i o n of the work i n pr o g r e s s on the F a l s e Creek c r o s s i n g s and the completion o f the agreement w i t h the Canadian North-ern f o r the development of t h a t p a r t of the east end f l a t s r e t a i n e d a f t e r the 'horseshoe' grant t o the Great Northern. I t was a l e n g t h y and d e t a i l e d arrangement, with p r o v i s i o n s f o r many t h i n g s , i n c l u d i n g f u t u r e s t r e e t s and over-passes, but i t was not accompanied by any p l a n o f the c i t y t o r e l a t e the contiguous areas to the new f u n c t i o n . S u r e l y t h a t was the time, when th e r e was g r e a t e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r the i n d u s t r i a l f u t u r e o f the f l a t s , to have some e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r the ne i g h -b o r i n g lands too, and to a s s i s t them by some development and land-use p l a n n i n g . Instead, the contiguous l a n d , o r i g i n a l l y the shore of the mud f l a t s , gained nothing, and i n some cases l o s t , by the new development. The p r o v i n c i a l government had g i v e n to the c i t y the mud f l a t a rea so t h a t i t c o u l d be developed, and now confirmed the agreements w i t h the r a i l w a y s , by l e g i s l a t i v e enactments. S u r e l y t h a t government c o u l d have been expected t o loo k at the remaining f o r e s h o r e and bed of the waterway and t h i n k i n terms of i t $ s development t o o . There i s no evidence t h a t t h i s was done. The f e d e r a l government's dredging o p e r a t i o n s r e s u l -t e d i n a g r e a t improvement which might r e a s o n a b l y have been expected to be f o l l o w e d by a much g r e a t e r commercial and i n -d u s t r i a l use of the waterway and its-.-, shores. No a t t e n t i o n was g i v e n to the space behind t h i s channel, however, and i n a number of i n s t a n c e s i t was.not a c c e s s i b l e from the shore p r o p e r t y . A few years eafli-erU'=~=B the f e d e r a l government had pic. made e x t e n s i v e crown grants of f o r e s h o r e • l a n d s , which im-p l i e d a b e l i e f t h a t t i t l e and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h i s f o r e -shore was w i t h the crown f e d e r a l . Tet t h e r e was no attempt to c a r r y t h i s channel development onto the f o r e s h o r e or up-l a n d p r o p e r t y , where i t might w e l l have been extended. A not too commendable e x c e p t i o n i s G r a n v i l l e i s l a n d which was c r e a t e d near the mouth ( i n l a r g e p a r t because t h e r e was no-where e l s e to put the dredged m a t e r i a l ) f o r t h e r e , too, the i s l a n d ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the shore and access to i t were l e f t w h o l l y t o chance. T h i s p e r i o d was c e r t a i n l y a time when c o o r d i n a t i o n of a c t i o n by the t h r e e l e v e l s of government was p o s s i b l e of achievement and c o u l d have y i e l d e d s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s . For the f i r s t time a l l t h r e e l e v e l s shared a s i m i l a r i n t e r e s t i n 23. See pages 69-70. the waterway and were involved i n the development i n some measure. Had there been conceived a False Creek agency with statutory authority over the interests of the three l e v e l s , the re s u l t s would almost c e r t a i n l y have been b e n e f i c i a l . Such planning as was being done by the Vancouver Harbour Commission could scarcely have been a handicap today and l i k e l y would have been an aid, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f i t had i n -cluded representation from the c i t y h a l l . A l l that was necessary was a willingness to negotiate, and a desire to accomplish reasonable purposes, either through direct means or the o f f i c e s of a j o i n t l y appointed commission. KITSILANO PENINSULA MAP Wharfage Scheme Map showing general area of K i t s i l a n o peninsula and False Creek entrance, with proposed deepsea wharfage and terminal development. 1 1 5 K I T S I L A N O W H A R F A G E S C H E M E P L A N O F A . D . S W A N , 1919 | T o m \ Hsrbout and5htppm<p Vo).l,No.7, May.W9, P.2(H Chapter Seven: Prosperity, P r o v i n c i a l Supremacy, and a C i t y Plan, 1922 - 1950. Administrative action during the twenties was concerned with a great deal of negotiation at the senior government l e v e l s and a substantial amount of planning at the municipal l e v e l , none of which resulted i n any public works f o r False Creek at any l e v e l . The p r o v i n c i a l govern-ment asserted i t 5 ^ claim to the bed of the remaining waterway, and had these claims acknowledged both by the federal govern-ment and the Canadian P a c i f i c Railway. The s e t t l i n g of t h i s question modified but did not remove the interests and res-p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the three p a r t i e s i n the waterway. Never-theless i t ended f o r the time being a l l j o i n t consideration of False Creek problems. During t h i s same time the c i t y embarked upon town planning, and the proposed work included a comprehensive development of the waterway as part of the o v e r - a l l plan f o r the c i t y . But reception of the plan was mixed, i t paid no attention to the administrative complexities standing i n the way of i t s ; . i implementation, and i t never got farther — i n so f a r as itSs proposals affected False Creek — than the drafting board. The waterway proposals were beyond the f i n a n c i a l and administrative a b i l i t y of the c i t y , but the 117 assistance of the senior governments was not offered. No evidence was found of t h e i r being approached at the time the plan was put forward. Even i f they had been, however, i t cannot be assumed that they would have p a r t i c i p a t e d . S t i l l , as thi s was the only way implementation might have been achieved, i t surely deserved consideration. The period of the twenties, while depressed i n the beginning, ultimately achieved the highest l e v e l of prosperity the country had ever experienced. 1 It was a time when men had abundant reason to look to the future with r e a l i s t i c optimism, and might have been expected to undertake o v e r - a l l planning of the economic, physical and s o c i a l development of the port and c i t y . The Vancouver Harbour Commission, during t h i s time, b u i l t wharves and grain elevators i n a large-scale port develop ment of Burrard i n l e t , but theEalse Creek area, which i s of interes t here, was not made a part of t h i s development. The same prosperity, on the other hand, was the occasion f o r undertakings by private enterprise i n the water-way and basin. As has been stressed before, however, these undertakings were made without d i r e c t i o n or aid from public works or public planning. 1. The opening of the Panama canal i n 1914-15 gave the West Coast a di r e c t and competitive sea route to Europe and made Vancouver the sea port for a l l Western Canada. Grain shipments alone increased,,itss. a c t i v i t y to a l e v e l hardly forseen by the most optimistic expectations. 1 . T h e H a r b o u r C o m m i s s i o n W i t h d r a w s . I n 1 9 1 6 t h e V a n c o u v e r H a r b o u r C o m m i s s i o n h a d s o u g h t t o e x p r o p r i a t e t h e K i t s i l a n o I n d i a n r e s e r v e f r o m t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t i n o r d e r t o u n d e r t a k e s u b s t a n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t — o n i t a n d a d j o i n i n g l a n d s o f t h e K i t s i l a n o p e n i n s u l a — o f 2 r a i l w a y t e r m i n a l s a n d deep s e a d o c k s . L i k e s o m u c h e l s e t h a t h a s h a p p e n e d i n F a l s e C r e e k , t h i s a f f a i r was c o m p l i c a t e d b e c a u s e i t t o u c h e d u p o n t h e i n t e r e s t s . o f m o r e t h a n one a g e n c y a n d m o r e t h a n one l e v e l o f g o v e r n m e n t . The p r o v i n c i a l g o v e r n m e n t c l a i m -e d a r e v e r s i o n a r y r i g h t i n t h e r e s e r v e l a n d ( a s i t d i d i n a l l o t h e r r e s e r v e s w h i c h i t h a d t u r n e d o v e r t o t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t a t t h e t i m e o f u n i o n ) b u t i t S s c l a i m was a m a t t e r o f some u n -c e r t a i n t y , n e v e r h a v i n g b e e n a p a r t o f a n y a g r e e m e n t o r t e s t e d i n t h e c o u r t s . A t f i r s t t h e C o m m i s s i o n made s u b s t a n t i a l e f f o r t s t o b r i n g i t s s n e g o t i a t i o n s f o r t h e r e s e r v e t o a s a t i s f a c t o r y c o n e l u s i o n . The m a t t e r w e n t t o a r b i t r a t i o n a n d t h e A r b i t r a t i o n A w a r d was a p p e a l e d b y t h e D o m i n i o n A u t h o r i t i e s t o t h e S u p r e m e - C o u r t o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . The e x p r o p r i a t i o n p r o p o s a l d r a g g e d a l o n g u n t i l 1 9 2 6 w h e n t h e H a r b o u r Com-m i s s i o n f i n a l l y d e c i d e d t o a b a n d o n a n y i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y a s a s i t e f o r d o c k s a n d t e r m i n a l s . 2 . W h i l e t h e a c t i o n was n o m i n a l l y t h a t o f one g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c y a g a i n s t a n o t h e r , a n u n u s u a l c i r c u m s t a n c e , i t was a c t u a l l y a n a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e I n d i a n s f o r w h o s e l a n d t h e . I n d i a n A f f a i r s b r a n c h was t r u s t e e . 3 . H . M . J o n e s , d i r e c t o r , I n d i a n A f f a i r s B r a n c h , d e p a r t m e n t o f C i t i z e n s h i p a n d I m m i g r a t i o n , O t t a w a , 18 S e p t e m b e r , 1 9 5 3 , f i l e N o . 1 6 7 / 3 0 - 7 - 6 ( R . T . ) , l e t t e r t o w r i t e r . 1 2 0 Failure to s e t t l e the d i f f i c u l t i e s that arose i n connection with the claims to the Indian reserve of the two senior governments, prevented any action at K i t s i l a n o by the harbour commission i n the early twenties. Before ownership to the reserve was resolved, the province raised the larger ques-t i o n of ownership of a l l foreshore property on the waterways of B r i t i s h Columbia. Action i n False Creek by the commission, possiblg only i f the waterway was within the f e d e r a l sphere of interest, was deferred while the question was being s e t t l e d , and abandoned a f t e r i t was decided i n favour of the province. 2. The False Creek Foreshore and the Crown. Before the colony of B r i t i s h Columbia entered the Canadian confederation, a l l the lands below highwater mark were the property of the crown, unless they had been granted, quit-claimed or pre-emptiled. Under the terms of confederation those p r o v i n c i a l (colonial) properties which were public har-4 bours became the property of the crown i n r i g h t of Canada^ and a l l others of the crown i n r i g h t of the province. Straight-forward as t h i s appeared to be, i t was l a t e r to lead to uncer-t a i n t i e s as to what was a "public harbour" i n the terms of the act. The B.C. government adopted the p o l i c y that "public har-bours" was a very l i m i t e d category, whereas the federal govern-4. B.N.A. Act. 1867, Schedule 3, S. 2. ment from i t ' s actions appears to have held the view that any waterway or shore used or usable by the public was a "public harbour" as included i n the B.N.A.Act. The Judical Committee of the P r i v y Council, i n so f a r as i t dealt with the matter, held that the question depended s o l e l y upon the f a c t of whether or not the waterway and shore was i n use as a public harbour at the time of confederation (or union)f noted. The r e s u l t of t h i s uncertainty has already been Ain the action,by both the p r o v i n c i a l and federal crowns, of making grants of foreshore l o t s i n False Creek. It became the p r a c t i c e of persons occupying or seeking foreshore l o t s to attempt to secure a crown grant or quit-claim from both governments. As development along the shore increased, and with the completion of dredging of the channel i n 4-916, the uncertainty as to which crown was paramount became an increasing obstacle to private development. The question of which crown owned the foreshore i n the waters of B r i t i s h Columbia was not l i m i t e d to False Creek, and by the twenties had become compelling enough to require settlement. The p r o v i n c i a l Minister of Lands opened negotia-5. Canada, Order i n Council. P.C. 941, 7 June, 1924. 6. One of i t s s aspects — which did not occur i n False Creek — was the matter of leases rather than grants. The federal government charged much lower rates for iJbSs, leases than the province, so that leasees preferred a federal to a p r o v i n c i a l lease. (Hon.T.D.Pattullo, Minister of Lands 1917-28, Premier 1934-41, l e t t e r to writer, 17 September, 1953.) 1 2 2 tions with the federal Department of Marine and Fish e r i e s i n 1922. Six Federal Harbours. The province conceded that there were s i x harbours i n B.C. which were "public harbours" at the time of union and in which i t was, therefore, ready to recognize the authority of the federal government. The Minister of Lands (at that time) states that the province gave a wider interpretation to the 7 c l a s s i f i c a t i o n that had ever been made by the courts. The feder-a l government, for i t $ y part, withdrew from " a l l other ungranted foreshore of t i d a l or non-tidal waters and lands covered with water i n B.C.", except those i n the "railway b e l t , " those trans-ferred by other agreements, and ce r t a i n properties necessary to perform or continue to perform the duties and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s 8 of the fed e r a l government. 6a. To s e t t l e t h i s difference of opinion *** the l a t e Honour-able Ernest Lapointe, then Minister of Marine and Fi s h e r i e s , and the Honourable T.D.Pattullo, Minister of Lands of B r i t i s h Columbia [began] negotiations [which] were followed through by s t a f f members of the Department[s] u n t i l an agreement was reached i n 1924 set t i n g out p r e c i s e l y the l i m i t s of s i x (6) harbours i n B r i t i s h Columbia that would be under federal j u r i s d i c t i o n ; the remaining waterlot property within the province would be p r o v i n c i a l land. (Canada, Dept. of Trans-port j M l ^ j e O O ^ J , quoted by o f f i c e of Minister of Fi s h e r i e s , i n reply to the writer's inquiry. 7. "To define the harbours we would cut a wide swath much wider than the court declared as to what constituted a public harbour." (Pattullo,lett^£) 8. Canada, Order i n Council, o"p Tc i t . . ss. 5-8. N e g o t i a t i o n s were concluded i n the s p r i n g of 1924 and each government i s s u e d an o r d e r - i n - c o u n c i l embodying the Q same terms of agreement. The f e d e r a l government's p r o p r i e t a r y i n t e r e s t i n the f o r e s h o r e and bed of waterways i n B.C. was he n c e f o r t h c o n f i n e d to the s i x n a t i o n a l harbours, and d i d not extend to F a l s e Creek^" 0 As a r e s u l t the bed and f o r e s h o r e o f F a l s e Creek was re c o g n i z e d as b e i n g p r o v i n c i a l p r o p e r t y , except t h a t which had a l r e a d y been "granted, q u i t - c l a i m e d , l e a s e d , o r otherwise d e a l t w i t h " ^ by e i t h e r government. Included i n t h a t which had a l r e a d y been disposed of were D.L. 2037 and 2064 granted t o the c i t y o f Vancouver, w i t h i n which were f o r e s h o r e l o t s crown granted or q u i t - c l a i m e d to the upland l o t owners, and a c r o s s i n g granted to the Great Northern Railway (V.V.& E.R. & N. Co) by the c i t y and D.L. 5605 crown granted by the f e d e r a l government to the C.P.R. G r a n v i l l e I s l a n d . No s p e c i f i c mention was made i n the agreement of G r a n v i l l e i s l a n d , a l t h o u g h i t i s apparent now t h a t the i s l a n d d i d not r e a d i l y f a l l under any of the c o n d i t i o n s . I t was r e -claimed from the bed of the waterway and, t h e r e f o r e , would appear to be p r o v i n c i a l p r o p e r t y . I t was, however, q u i t -claimed by the f e d e r a l government to the Vancouver Harbour 9^ I b i d . The p r o v i n c i a l order, P.C.507. i s dated 6 May, 1924. 10. By the agreement, the p o r t o f Vancouver, and t h e r e f o r e the area of j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Vancouver Harbour Commission, d i d not extend p a s t the F i r s t Narrows. 11. I b i d . . s. 11. Commission, but the charter of the Commission retained for the. Crown i n ri g h t of Canada a reversionary interest i n a l l fore-13 shore property turned over to the commission. As a res u l t there i s some uncertainty as to whether the agreement acknow-ledged a l l grants or only those which were without r e s t r i c t i o n , and i f the l a t t e r whether the province now has a reversionary interest i n Granville island. In the opinion of Honourable T. D.Pattullo, p r o v i n c i a l Minister of Lands at the time the agree-ment was made, "Granville Island was b u i l t and maintained, and rent collected by the Dominion [the Vancouver Harbour Commission and (after 1936) the National Harbours Board] but the province 14 owns the s i t e upon which i t i s built*? The agreement would seem only to commit with certainty both governments to the leases of the property on Granville Island. I t leaves a doubt as to the ownership, and hence the r i g h t f u l recipient of the rentals from those leases. With the establishment of itf i s paramountcy over the unalienated portions of the bed of False Creek, the p r o v i n c i a l government was i n a p o s i t i o n to examine the conditions and uses being made of th i s bed and foreshore, and i t proceeded to do so. 12. 13 A p r i l , 1915. Vancouver Harbour Commission, Report, 1932, p. 32. The actual reclamation of the island was undertaken by the commission after i t gained t i t l e . Cost was borne by the commission. 13. Canada, Statutes, 1913, c.54, s. 14. 14. P a t t u l l o , *«tt6;g. 1 2 5 3 . The Crown, the Foreshore, and the C.P.R. The 1885 agreement between the Canadian P a c i f i c F.ail-15 way and the province of B.C., whereby the railway extended i t s l i n e from Port Moody to Coal Harbour and English Bay, was sep-arate and d i s t i n c t from the railway's agreement^with the feder--1 £ a l government, and the terms were not the same7 Nevertheless, the railway made no d i s t i n c t i o n between what were i t s f e d e r a l l y granted and i t s p r o v i n c i a l l y granted r i g h t s . In False Creek, where only the l a t t e r applied, the company from time to time 15! acted as i f the former were applicable. The p r o v i n c i a l government had granted to the railway D i s t r i c t Lots 526 and 5^1. The northern boundary of the former was (and i s ) the shoreline of False Creek between Trafalgar and Cambie streets, and the southern boundary of the l a t t e r the shore-l i n e between Burrard and (approximately) C a r r a l l streets. The 1 5 . See page 3 2 . 16. The statutory terminus was Port Moody by the terms of the federal agreement. The l i n e to Vancouver was a branch only, and governed by the p r o v i n c i a l agreement. The former gave the railway complete rights to use any foreshore adjacent, to i t s right-of-way, the l a t t e r made no such provision. 1 7 . "The railway company claims i n addition to i t s rights as r i p a r i a n owner certa i n rights under Clasue 18" of i t s charter to take use and hold the lands below high water mark i n False Creek for i t s railway and other works, and that i t has under the said power occupied portions of the land below high water mark i n False Creek." (B.C., Dept. of Lands, F i l e 8^-126, unsigned resume of arrangements respecting False Creek lands [ 1 9 2 7 ] . " ) This was borne out by a responsible o f f i c i a l of the -company, i n an interview described as being f o r u n o f f i c i a l and informal purposes only. t i t l e held by the company was, therefore, only to the upland 18 l o t s and did not include the foreshore. In the only area of the False Creek shore where the company developed the property and foreshore f o r i t s c own uses, 19 i t obtained.a federal crown grant to the foreshore property. Along the remainder of the shore which i t owned, i t did, however, lay trackage, and leased the land along i t s c right-of-way to i n d u s t r i a l users. By 1924, when the p r o v i n c i a l and federal governments agreed that the bed and foreshore of False Creek was held by the crown i n r i g h t of the province, the shore l o t s of False Creek, owned by the railway, were l a r g e l y occupied by i n d u s t r i a l and commercial establishments, many of which used the waterway in t h e i r business. Foreshore Encroachments. Use of the waterway, i n a number of instances where operations were some distance from the dredged channel, had re-quired the construction of wharves and the f i l l i n g of t i d a l shore. This work had been undertaken from time to time by the 18. Generally speaking, but c e r t a i n only by decision of the courts, upland l o t s touching the r i p a are possessed with r i p a r i a n r i g h t s . There has never been any question that the C.P.R. has r i p a r i a n r i g h t s i n False Creek, although Iii In ilui.bi mill MM,y DIM I, i t might ss± be questioned. 19. §ee page $0. occupants as necessary. It was not done, however, by the r a i l way, but by i t ^ s tenants. It i s evident from [aerial] photographs that the C.P.R. are i n occupation of large areas of foreshore and that other concerns and industries are also occupying various portions of t h i s foreshore, possibly by arrangement with the C.P.R. I understand [C.P.R.] have a quit-claim from the Dominion government covering a portion of t h i s foreshore, although same i s not on f i l e i n the Land Registry Office at Vancouver. Although the question of crown r i g h t s i n False Creek was s t i l l before the two governments, the province moved i n August 1923, to c l a r i f y i t s a p o s i t i o n v i s - a - v i s private owners. Notices were posted throughout the water-way area, and advertised i n the d a i l y papers, over the name of the Minister of Lands, that a l l persons occupying p r o v i n c i a l property i n False Creek *** are hereby n o t i f i e d that application to continue such occupancy must be made to the undersigned within 60 days, f a i l i n g which i t w i l l be assumed that such occupants are not desirous of acquiring any rights i n the premises and disp o s i t i o n w i l l thereafter bg-jmade of the property, i r r e s -pective of present occupancy. The f i l e s of the Lands Department do not reveal any wide compliance with t h i s order, nor any p o l i c e action taken i n default of i t . The people l i k e l y to be affected were nearly a l l tenants of the C.P.R. and appear to have 20. B.C.Dept. of Lands, F i l e 048602. "Memorandum of Surveyor General, 13 July, 1923." 21. B.C.Dept. of Lands, F i l e 048602. 2 August, 1923. dealt through the company. ^ The company took Its stand be-hind i t s charter and c e r t a i n federal grants. The province was not i n a p o s i t i o n to deal d i r e c t l y with the matter then, as the agreement with the federal government had not yet been concluded, and d i r e c t negotiations between the C.P.P. and the government were deferred f o r the time being. The p r o v i n c i a l government eventually pressed the matter strongly to i t s conclusion, with a f e e l i n g that i t had strong claims to, and i n t e r e s t i n , the False Creek area which required speedy resolution. This urgency, which had never before affected administrative action i n respect of False Creek (and has not since), arose from a f e e l i n g that revenues r i g h t f u l l y belonging to the province were not being received. In t h i s regard the Premier explained the p o s i t i o n I take i n regard to the foreshores of False Creek, acquired by the Railway Company f o r i t s works, i s that the l a t t e r should pay compensation to the Province f o r such foreshores either by way of rentals or purchase moneys, and that as f a r as rights over any portion of tie foreshore not i n use f o r the railway or i t s works are concerned, the Railway Company has no rights whatsoever * * * . 2 3 22. F i l e 92B of the C.P.P. Law Department contains a very complete record of the correspondence between the railway and the p r o v i n c i a l govemnment, as well as other pertinent material. It i s regarded by the company as a private matter, however, and was not made available f o r tie pur-pose of t h i s study. 2 3 . B.C. Dept. of Lands, F i l e ^8602. "Memorandum from the premier to the Deputy Minister of Lands, re: False Creek foreshore," 1 0 Jan., 1 9 2 * + . 12.9 ' The C.P.R. Negotiates. Following the settlement between the province and the 24 federal government, and the e l e c t i o n that year, the p r o v i n c i a l government and the C.P.R. began negotiations. The federal government's relinquishments of a l l r i g h t s to False Creek l e f t the railway with no claim to anything but the up-land l o t s and r i p a r i a n r i g h t s , together with the one grant of fore-shore by the federal government. This l a t t e r the province recog-nized under the terms of the f e d e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l agreement. The question l e f t to be s e t t l e d was: Where did the r a i l -way's land end, and the.provincial foreshore begin? This, i t was recognized by both parties, was less a matter of negotiation than of a comprehensive land survey to determine the l i n e of the high water mark when D i s t r i c t Lots 526 and 541 were granted to the railway by the province i n 1885. With the C.P.R. concurring, W.G.McElhanney, B.C.L.S., was appointed by the p r o v i n c i a l govern-ment to set t l e t h i s question. The survey took two years to complete, and itSs f i n d 24. The John Oliver L i b e r a l government went to the people i n the summer of 1924, and was returned without a majority (Lib. 23, Con.17, Lab.3, Prov.3, Ind.2). In the previous l e g i s l a -ture Vancouver had Liberals i n four of itSs s i x seats at d i s -solution (one was vacant). In 1924 Liberals were elected to f i v e of the seven seats (Vancouver's representation had been increased). The firm p o l i c y of the p r o v i n c i a l government towards the federal government and the C.P.R. i n False Creek either was approved by the Vancouver voters or else did not matter enough. The fact that the government l o s t support elsewhere would suggest the l a t t e r . n o 25 ings were presented i n 1927. I t r a i s e d the problem of whether the l i n e d i v i d i n g p r o v i n c i a l from the r a i l w a y p r o p e r t y should run i n exact c o n f o r m i t y with the o r i g i n a l shore l i n e , o r should i n some cases be a r b i t r a r i l y drawn to al l o w an e a s i e r a p p o r t i o n -ment of va l u e s than would be p o s s i b l e on the b a s i s o f the o r i g i n -a l and v e r y sinuous s h o r e l i n e . On the n o r t h shore t h e r e was not s u f f i c i e n t development t o be of concern, but on the south shore, t h e r e were b u i l d i n g s and improvements enough to f a v o r the a r b i t -r a r y l i n e , which was adopted. F o l l o w i n g t h i s d i v i s i o n of the land , i t became nec e s s a r y to a p p o r t i o n the t o t a l v a l u e of the im-proved areas between the two owners so t h a t the r e n t s r e c e i v e d <26 c o u l d be e q u i t a b l y d i v i d e d between them.' Values Assessed. 2? To t h i s end the p r o v i n c e appointed the Hon.John Hart, to a c t f o r i t i n n e g o t i a t i n g the value o f the land, and the r a i l w a y company appointed D.W.Reeve, of the f i r m of Johnson,Reeve,and 28 Watson, v a l u a t o r s , to act f o r i t . The two p a r t i e s reached agreement i n 1928. The pro-v i n c i a l government made c e r t a i n o u t r i g h t g r a n t s o f f o r e s h o r e J.o 25. W.G.McElhanney, p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w with w r i t e r June,1953. 26. McElhanney, i b i d . 27. P r i o r to h i s defeat i n the 1924 e l e c t i o n , Mr. Hart had h e l d the p o r t f o l i o of Finance and I n d u s t r i e s i n the John O l i v e r government. He was l a t e r (1941 ) to be premier of the C o a l i t i o n government. Mr. Hart was a p a r t n e r of the r e a l e s t a t e f i r m of G i l l e s p i e , Hart and Todd. 28. Reeve,D.W., p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w w i t h w r i t e r , J u l y 10,1953. (Mr. Reeve i s a person of long experience i n a p p r a i s i n g and v a l u a t i o n , and h i g h l y regarded i n h i s p r o f e s s i o n ) . 1 3 1 p r o p e r t y to the r a i l w a y and t h e r a i l w a y company, f o r i t S s p a r t , abandoned a l l claims which i t had t h e r e t o f o r e made a g a i n s t the balance of the p r o v i n c i a l crown l a n d s . In a d d i t i o n , the p r o v i n c e demised^to~^fehe r a i l w a y a l l the crown-owned f o r e s h o r e l o t s f o r a 21-year-period, with a r i g h t to renewal f o r a f u r t h e r 21 y e a r s . In r e t u r n f o r t h i s the r a i l w a y agreed to t u r n over to the pro-v i n c e a l l r e n t a l s c o l l e c t e d from the p r o p e r t y so demised. In a d d i t i o n the company agreed to s u b l e t the p r o p e r t y "with due B i i l i g e n c e " , to "endeavour to have the same at a l l times occu-p i e d " , and to o b t a i n f o r the p r o v i n c e "as f a v o u r a b l e a revenue as p o s s i b l e . " 2 9 From t h i s agreement the p r o v i n c e gained: a. revenue which i t had not p r e v i o u s l y had, b. management and s u p e r v i s i o n of i t S c F a l s e Creek lands at no cost to i t s e l f , c. acknowledgement by the r a i l w a y of it&o r i g h t s i n F a l s e Creek. and the Canadian P a c i f i c Railway gained: a. t i t l e to c e r t a i n f o r e s h o r e l o t s p r e v i o u s l y c o n t e s t e d by the p r o v i n c i a l government, b. the p r i v i l e g e of s e l e c t i n g , c o n t r o l l i n g and removing tenants of the lands a d j o i n i n g i t ' s spur t r a c k s on the n o r t h and south shores of F a l s e Creek. T h i s meant t h a t the company c o u l d s e l e c t t e n a n t s on the b a s i s of f r e i g h t p o t e n t i a l to the r a i l w a y . 29. Indenture, 31 December, 1928, between H i s Majesty the King, f o r the P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia, and the Can-adian P a c i f i c Railway Company. 30. D i s t r i c t Lots 4672, 4673, 4678, 5603, 5606, Gr. 1, N.W.; r o u g h l y some 25 to 30 a c r e s , o r something over three q u a r t e r s the area of G r a n v i l l e I s l a n d . PROVINCE — C. P. R. Foreshore Agreement 1928 Areas outlined red o r i g i n -a l crown-held foreshore but f i l l e d by railway. Ceded to C.P.R. bj* B.C. government. E f f e c t s of the Agreement. While i t i s not necessary to decide here which party gave more in reaching the agreement, i t _is desirable to ex-amine the terms, and the effects these terms have had (and are l i k e l y to have i n future) on False Creek development, to deter-mine whether the public interest was best served. The p r o v i n c i a l government yielded a considerable c area of foreshore to the railway, and i n return the railway gave up c e r t a i n claims to the foreshore which i t had made s o l e l y (as far as could be learned i n t h i s study,) on the basis of -its.-; federal charter. The question of whether or not the charter provisions apply west of Port Moody can only be decided f i n a l l y by the courts. The company, however, did not'establish any reasons why they should apply. The counter argument that the arrangement f o r the 12-mile branch l i n e from Port Moody to Coal Harbour and English Bay was wholly a p r o v i n c i a l arrangement, and subject only to the terms of the 1885 agreement.between the pro-vince and the railway, appears the more substantial (from the ^information disclosed by t h i s study). By the 1928 agreement the r i p a r i a n r i g h t s of the railway's upland l o t s were established. P r i o r to the agree-ment, however, foreshore development by the railway's tenants (of those lots) had s u b s t a n t i a l l y impaired such r i g h t s . Improve-ments and f i l l s , whereby the property was extended towards the channel had, i n many cases, reduced or eliminated access, ingress, 1 3 4 and regress to the upland property by water. This might well have been regarded as either extinguishing the r i p a r i a n r i g h t s , or diminishing them, ao as to affect the amount of any compensa-t i o n which mightlhave to be paid the railway should public devel-opment affe c t i n g i t s ^ r i p a r i a n rights ever be necessary. This of course i s a question which would, i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d , u l t i m a t e l y depend upon a court decision f o r it$.-j resolution. At the time the agreement was being negotiated the c i t y ' s Town Planning Commission was drawing a city-wide develop-ment plan which included False Creek, L i t t l e or no consideration appears to have been given to t h i s plan i n formulating the agree-ment, despite the fact that p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n, or compliance with, the Commission's proposala might, and properly ought to, have 31 been made a condition of the agreement. As i t was made, the agreement had rather the other e f f e c t , establishing the po s i t i o n of the railway f i r m l y where i t was previously i n doubt, and pro-viding i t with the opportunity, which i t did not have as c e r t a i n -l y before, of p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n any future development wholly on it & s own terms. It must be pointed out, however, that the Deputy 31. It must be added, i n fairness, that the Town Planning Commission was no more than an advisory body, and i t ' s proposals were not necessarily those of the c i t y c o u n c il. The cost of preparing the plan f o r the c i t y was, however, voted by the c i t y council, which might have been expected, i n consequence, to have sought recognition i n the provin-c i a l agreement of the development problems and proposals contained in the c i t y plan. M i n i s t e r of Lands was of the o p i n i o n t h a t As the C.P.R. are the r i p a r i a n owners of the g r e a t e r p a r t o f F a l s e Creek i t was necessary to come to some agree-ment w i t h them. Otherwise the government co u l d o n l y i s s u e a l e a s e s u b j e c t t o such r i p a r i a n r i g h t s as might by law be e s t a b l i s h e d . As r i p a r i a n r i g h t s are understood as g i v i n g the r i g h t of i n g r e s s , egress and r e g r e s s i t c o u l d r e a d i l y be seen t h a t a l e a s e s u b j e c t t o r i p a r i a n r i g h t s would be p r a c t i c a l l y v a l u e l e s s . The agreement w i t h the C.P.R. would appear to be v e r y f a v o u r a b l e to the government, and i t was a r r i v e d at o n l y a f t e r frequent c o n s u l t a t i o n s w i t h the tenants a f f e c t e d , the C i t y C o u n c i l of Vancouver, the B.C. E l e c t r i c Railway, and anyone whom [sic] i t was c o n s i d e r e d would be a f f e c t e d by the agreement. ***32 Before the agreement with the C.P.R. was concluded there was a p r o v i n c i a l g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n i n which the L i b e r a l Government went to the people under the l e a d e r s h i p of J.D. MacLean (John O l i v e r had died the year b e f o r e ) . The Conserva-t i v e s were r e t u r n e d w i t h a s u b s t a n t i a l m a j o r i t y (Con.35, L i b . 12, L a b . l ) and i t was the government of Premier S.E.Tolmie ( e l e c t e d under the slog a n "a businessman's government1'') which concluded and sig n e d the agreement. The terms o f the indenture f a l l c o n s i d e r a b l y short of those which Premier O l i v e r had sought i n 1923 (see page 128). Whether because of the change of government, o r simply because the p r o v i n c e ' s n e g o t i a t i o n s over F a l s e Creek had been concluded, the i n t e r e s t o f the p r o v i n c i a l government i n F a l s e Creek came v i r t u a l l y t o an end at t h a t time. One e f f o r t was 32. B.C.Dept. of Lands, F i l e 48602. "Memorandum to the M i n i s t e r of Lands," 15 Jan., 1929. . made to maintain i t , but i t was not successful. G.A.Walkem, one of the six p r o v i n c i a l Conservative members f o r Vancouver, wrote to Premier Tolmie that * * * j u s t at the time i t i s exceedingly v i t a l that some de f i n i t e plan be adopted, or at least enquired into, f o r the ultimate development of False Creek, the Crown are going to agree to t i e t h i s property up f o r p r a c t i c -a l l y forty-two years. I am going to have considerable to say i n the House in regard to the False Creek area when the Session i s on**,*. I again suggest to you that a f u l l investigation *** should be made into t h i s question before any of t h i s prop-erty i s alienated from the Crown ***. 3 S Mr. Walkem, who was at that time, managing director of the Vancouver Machinery Depot and Vancouver Iron Works, two business firms on the False Creek south shore.(the former a f f e c t -ed by the arrangement i n so f a r as its? buildings and improve-ments occupied both C.P.R. and p r o v i n c i a l land), introduced a motion to the l e g i s l a t u r e , and then withdrew i t , urging the government to defer its?; agreement with the railway and appoint a commission "to investigate the proposed plans f o r the improve-ment of False Creek." This was desirable, his motion pointed out, because the Town Planning Commission of the c i t y of Van-couver, under the guidance of experienced consulting engineers, has "prepared plans f o r the ultimate development of such I*alse Creek area ***"^* 33. G.A.Walkem, l e t t e r to Premier, 7 Jan. 1929 (B.C.,Dept. of Lands, F i l e 48602). 34. B.C..Journals, 29 Jan., 1929; pp. 18-19. 137 h. The City's Plans f o r False Creek. During 192k- and 1925 the l a s t i n the series of dock and terminal development plans f o r the K i t s i l a n o peninsula was proposed by the c i t y ' s engineering department, and was a much modified version of the Swan proposal ( p . l l 5 ) . Less berthing space was envisaged, and shore development was li m i t e d to the Indian reserve property. Its one novel feature, however, was the i n c l u s i o n of a bridge south from Burrard Street which, by combining t r a f f i c and r a i l crossings on two d i f f e r e n t decks, 3 5 would have permitted the removal of the K i t s i l a n o t r e s t l e . The scheme was put i n abeyance, however, when the form of Harland Bartholomew and Associates, town planning consultants, was appointed to d r a f t a c i t y plan. The f i r s t Vancouver administrative agency with town planning as i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y — a sub-committee of the C i t y Council, augmented by out-side- members , was functioning during the year 1925) and through i t s e f f o r t s a p r o v i n c i a l Town Planning Act was passed i n December of that year. A Commission was appointed i n the following March, and the fir m of Harland Bartholomew and Associates retained as i t s consultants by August. The work of Town Planning then proceeded apace 3T! B.C.Dept. of Lands, f i l e 81+126, sketch plan and cor-respondence. 36. The planning firm subsequently proposed a c i v i c center development on the north side of False Creek west of Bur-rard, and recommended that the shore opposite (the K i t s i -lano peninsula) be developed as park so as to provide a pleasing prospect from the proposed center. (Vancouver Town Planning Commission, A plan f o r the c i t y of Vancou-ver, 1928, pp 236ff. under the l o c a l d i r e c t i o n of Mr. Horace L. Seymour who f i l l e d the p o s i t i o n of resident engineer f o r the technical advisers of the Commissions In December, 1 9 2 8 , the Bartholomew firm submitted to the Town Planning Commission an o v e r - a l l plan f o r the c i t y . of Vancouver, which i n turn was published and i n that way Sub-'s O mitted to the public. The plan was.never formally adopted by the c i t y council, but many subsequent c i t y developments were i n keeping with i t s proposals. Hudson Report. Included i n i t was a proposal f o r a comprehensive development of the False Creek waterway and basin, both as an i n d u s t r i a l and commercial e n t i t y and as an i n t e g r a l part of 39 the community. A special report by W.D.Hudson, recommended that railway a c t i v i t i e s i n the C.P.R. centre yards on the north side of the' Creek, being "detrimental to c i v i c develop-ment, should be transferred to other l o c a l i t i e s . " leaving only such r a i l f a c i l i t i e s as were needed to serve the i n -d u s t r i a l developemtn which could then replace the yards. The committee concurred generally with t h i s and i t was made a part of the c i t y plan (Plan p. l * f l & lU -8). Hudson further re-3 7 . Ibid.'. p.2h 3 8 . Ibid. 3 9 . Ibid.,pp.1V7-53. This was based on the recommend-ations of the commission's Transportation and Harbour Com-mittee (Appx. VI, pp. 2 9 0 - 2 ) . ^0. H.Bartholomew & Asso., by Wm.D. Hudson, asso. eng., to the Vancouver Town Planning Comm.,Sept. 1927.(mimeo)Railway  and Harbour report.) pp. 6 & 7 9 . 1 3 9 commended that a f r e i g h t terminal yard be established at the east end of the False Creek reclaimed area, . (report,p.6). The Cdmmittee reported that t h i s was already under construction (plan, appx.VI, p.290) and i t was not, therefore, msade a part of the development plan. About the o v e r - a l l development of False Creek, Hud-son had t h i s to recommend (p.44): A twenty foot channel, of maximum width probably not exceeding 500 feet, turning basins, v e r t i c a l concrete quay walls to prevent the exposure of t i d a l f l a t s , i n t e r -ceptor sewers to eliminate the sewage inflow, back f i l l i n g , and eventually the closure of the easterly arm that pro-jects to Georgia Street [on the l i n e of Columbia S t r e e t ] . By way of observation he remarked that the devel-opment could be achieved only through co-operation of the author-i t i e s affected. He added: The Canadian P a c i f i c Railway and the B.C.Electric Railway, i f sympathetic to t h i s or any other plan fpr the improvement of the d i s t r i c t , can immensely f a c i l i t a t e the work as t h e i r interests are l a r g e l y predominant. This one project o f f e r s a most splendid opportunity f o r a co-operative and construc-t i v e e f f o r t that w i l l , with absolute certainty, r e s u l t i n g r a t i f y i n g benefits to tjtje e ntire community. area In respect the Granville island^ Hudson recoil mended that the "back channel" between the island and the mainland be f i l l e d i n " i f the proper arrangements can be made" (p.54). In the matter of these "arrangements", and possible d i f f i c u l t i e s i n making them, he obserged that The p o l i c y of creating such an isla n d i n the f i r s t place may seem questionable, as i t would appear that a more e f f i c i e n t channel would have been possible i f the f i l l i n g i n had been along both shore l i n e s . * * * However, as the shore property i s p r a c t i c a l l y a l l p r i v a t e l y owned [by the C.P.R.] i t i s probable that the t i t l e to the f i l l e d lands would have had to remain with the private owners, whereas by creating the island, r i -arian ownership was not disturbed and the Harbour Board retained control of the newly created land. (p.52) This raises a point, but does not otherwise v e r i f y or amplify i t , which must touch upon most of the development proposed fo r the waterway, namely the administrative and l e g a l pro-blems of creating a bulkheaded channel with b a c k - f i l l i n g of the area between i t and the existing shore. If a l l the land between any proposed channel and the exi s t i n g shore l i n e coule be r i g h t f u l l y claimed by the owners of the upland l o t s on the e x i s t i n g shore, by virtue of t h e i r r i p a r i a n r i g h t s , then a major j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r proposing such development — that i t would be f i n a n c i a l l y s e l f - l i q u i d a t i n g , by making i t possible to recover the cose of development through sale or lease of the reclaimed land, (see page 1 3 1 ) — would not obtain. At the same time there would be raised, as an argu-ment against such development, the p o s s i b i l i t y that the present owners would be s u b s t a n t i a l l y and gratuitously benefited by the work. The resolution of such a question may have to come, i n 41 the f i n a l analysis, from the courts, as matters now stand. P r o v i n c i a l Neglect. The Hudson recommendations were made to the Trans-4 1 . A means of implementing plans f o r developemtn of False Creek which might not have to face t h i s d i f f i c u l t y , i f i t i s i n fa c t a v a l i d one, w i l l be discussed i n the f i n a l chapter. portation and Harbour Committee i n September, 1927, and had been preceded, a few months e a r l i e r , by a preliminary report on the False Creek waterway to the planning commission by i t ' s engineer, Major A.R.Mackenzief 2 Both recommended the b a c k - f i l l i n g of the shore to a bulk-headed channel. These recommendations were en-dorsed by the committee and the commission , i n 1928, and were published as part of the Vancouver plan. A basic requirement of the proposals was the a b i l i t y to o b l i t e r a t e the ex i s t i n g shore and make a new one. Without t h i s , the whole development plan f o r False Creek, as then envisaged, could not have even been started. For these reasons i t would seem to have been very desirable to have resolved t h i s question i n the agreement signed 31 December, 1928, between the p r o v i n c i a l government and the C.P.R., i n as much as the former owned a l l the fore-shore, but the l a t t e r owned the upland l o t s which possessed, i t was generally conceded, r i p a r i a n r i g h t s . The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r f a i l i n g to do t h i s , and f o r not including i n the agreement provisions which would have allowed the planned development, must rest f i r s t with the pro-v i n c i a l government. I f , i n f a c t , as was stated (see p. ) representatives of the c i t y were consulted before the agreement recognition or the plan was concluded, then the c i t y ought to have soughtA4r)+4+i or, al t e r n a t i v e l y , brought the Town Planning Commission into the conversations with the province. The certa i n r e s u l t of this 42. See Hudson report, op.cit• appx. 3. f a i l u r e is" that whenever development i s undertaken, negotia-tions with the C.P.R. w i l l not only be required, but the r a i l -way's position, because of the agreement with the province, w i l l be much stronger than i t was during the L i m n it—ww-n negotiations for the agreement. A possible secondary r e s u l t may be a high compensation payment to the railway i n return f o r its.-, r e l i n q u i s h i n g rights which were only made ce r t a i n by the actions of the province. Total F i l l . There have always been suggestions that False Creek should be f i l l e d e n t i r e l y . These generally are made with the argument that the need for bridge crossings would thereby be eliminated, the untidy appearance of the waterway would disappear and valuable i n d u s t r i a l land would be created. These same pro-posals were advanced as a counter measure to the commission's development proposals for the waterway. In answer the Bartholo-mew fir m declared The investigation establishes the f a c t that the False Creek channel i s too valuable an asset to [sic) the c i t y to consider itSs complete f i l l i n g and o b l i t e r a t i o n . Rather, i t should be encouraged.as an i n d u s t r i a l e n t i t y of extreme • usefulness to Vancouver. *** To e n t i r e l y f i l l False Creek would be extremely expen-sive and would involve an enormous s a c r i f i c e of values now established. Its.'-; d e s i r a b i l i t y [ t o t a l f i l l ] i s doub-f u l either from a standpoint of economics or a standpoint of p r a c t i c a b i l i t y 4 3 It i s not always r e a l i z e d , when t o t a l f i l l i n g 43. garul6wn.Plan.fowy, A plan ***, op. c i t . . pp.147 & 241 i s suggested, t h a t the need f o r b r i d g e s would not be e l i m i n a t e d . Unless l e v e l c r o s s i n g s were to be t o l e r a t e d , the e x i s t i n g r a i l l i n e s on both s i d e s of the waterway (and the a d d i t i o n a l t r a c k s n e c e s s a r y to serve the i n d u s t r i a l lands created) would r e q u i r e t h a t the area s t i l l be c r o s s e d on b r i d g e s or v i a d u c t s (which would not, of course, have to be as h i g h as i s now r e q u i r e d by the presence of the n a v i g a b l e waterway). In 1928', at the r e q u e s t of the T r a n s p o r t a t i o n and Harbour Committee of the Town P l a n n i n g Commission, W.H.Hud-son, Maj. A.R.Mackenzie, and H.R.Seymour made a supplemen-t a r y r e p o r t i n which i t was s t a t e d t h a t development>of the east end of the waterway c o u l d be undertaken (along the l i n e s s e t out i n the Vancouver plan) which would e s t a b l i s h the proposed- channel and t u r n i n g b a s i n s and c r e a t new l a n d by b a c k - f i l l i n g at a cost of $2 m i l l i o n f o r quays and whar-fage, $4.5 m i l l i o n f o r f i l l , and $3 m i l l i o n t o compensate the a f f e c t e d i n t e r e s t s , f o r a t o t a l o f $10 m i l l i o n . Of the new l a n d , 180 acres would be w e l l s u i t e d f o r i n d u s t r i a l d e v e l -opment and would have (they estimated) a market v a l u e of $75, 000 an acre, y i e l d i n g $13,5 m i l l i o n or a break-even p r i c e of $55,000 per a c r e 4 4 Compared wit h p r e s e n t day p r i c e s f o r i n d u s t r i a l l a n d i n the c i t y , t h i s f i g u r e i s extremely h i g h . Land s u p p l i e d w i t h 44. Vancouver Sun, 17 Nov., 1928, p.4. 1 4 4 r o a d a n d u t i l i t i e s , b u t o t h e r w i s e u n d e v e l o p e d , i s g e n e r a l l y r e g a r d e d a s h a v i n g a m a r k e t p r i c e o f $20-35 t h o u s a n d p e r a c r e , d e p e n d i n g u p o n l o c a t i o n . T h e e s t i m a t e d c o s t f i g u r e s , a s g i v e n i n t h e news r e p o r t , do n o t i n c l u d e s t r e e t s a n d u t i l i t i e s . W h a t e v e r may h a v e b e e n t h e c o n d i t i o n o f t h e l a n d m a r k e t i n 1928 ( a n d t h e r e was more u n d e v e l o p e d l a n d a v a i l a b l e i n V a n c o u v e r a n d B u r n a b y t h a n t h e r e i s t o d a y ) s u c h a s c h e m e w o u l d n o t be s e l f -l i q u i d a t i n g a t t o d a y ' s p r i c e s . F e d e r a l W o r k s . A l t h o u g h t h e 192^ a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e p r o v i n c i a l a n d f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t s h a d r e l i e v e d O t t a w a o f a n y f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e F a l s e C r e e k f o r e s h o r e a n d b e d , t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t d i d r e t a i n c e r t a i n r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s u n d e r t h e N a v i g a b l e W a t e r s P r o t e c t i o n A c t . I n l i n e w i t h t h e s e a $72,000 a p p r o p r i a -t i o n was made b y t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t , I n 1928 t o p a y f o r d r e d g i n g , t o a d e p t h o f s i x f e e t a t l o w w a t e r , t h e a r e a b e t w e e n t h e m a i n c h a n n e l a n d i n s t a l l a t i o n o n t h e s h o r e . P r i o r t o t h i s u n d e r t a k i n g , i t was e s t i m a t e d , h a l f t h e s h o r e p r o p e r t y h a d n o a c c e s s i n d e p t h t o t h e c h a n n e l . ^ T h e n e e d f o r t h i s i m p r o v e d a c c e s s h a d become a p p a r -e n t i n 1927, w h e n t h e c i t y p u r c h a s e d a f i r e b o a t f o r t h e p r o -t e c t i o n o f F a l s e C r e e k , a n d i t was f o u n d t h a t some p r o p e r t i e s c o u l d n o t be r e a c h e d . f+T. H a r b o u r & S h i p p i n g . V a n c o u v e r , S e p t . , 1 9 2 8 , p . * f 6 1 . 1 h 5 / The f i r e b o a t , l o n g i n demand b y F a l s e C r e e k i n d u s -t r i e s — p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e saw m i l l s — was p r o v i d e d b y t h e c i t y i n a n a g r e e m e n t w i t h 23 F a l s e C r e e k b u s i n e s s f i r m s w h e r e b y t h e y a c c e p t e d a n a n n u a l i n c r e a s e i n t a x r a t e s t o c o v e r t h e c o s t . I n r e t u r n , t h e s e f i r m s r e c e i v e d a 1 0 p e r c e n t S e d u c t i o n i n t h e i r f i r e i n s u r a n c e p r e m i u m s f r o m t h e B . C . F i r e U n d e r w r i t e r s A s s o c i a t i o n . A l s o i n 1928 t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t , t h r o u g h t h e V a n c o u v e r H a r b o u r C o m m i s s i o n , u n d e r t o o k one o f t h e p r o p o s a l s o r i g i n a l l y made i n t h e H u d s o n r e p o r t . • R a i l w a y s i d i n g s a l o n g t h e s o u t h s h o r e o f B u r r a r d i n l e t w e r e p r o v i n g i n a d e q u a t e f o r t h e r i n c r e a s e d g r a i n s h i p m e n t s m o v i n g t h r o u g h t h e p o r t , a n d a d d i t i o n a l y a r d s w e r e n e e d e d . T h e s e w e r e b u i l t a t t h e e a s t e r n e n d o f t h e F a l s e C r e e k r e c l a i m e d a r e a , o n l a n d o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e G r e a t N o r t h e r n a n d C a n a d i a n N a t i o n a l r a i l w a y s . T h e y w e r e a p a r t o f a s m a l l s y s t e m k n o w n a s t h e H a r b o u r B o a r d T e r m i n a l R a i l w a y , a n d c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e B u r r a r d i n l e t l i n e s t h r o u g h t h e C a m p b e l l a v e n u e d e p r e s s i o n n o r t h o f t h e e a s t e n d o f t h e F a l s e C r e e k b a s i n . 5 . I n s d u s t r i a l D e v e l o p m e n t . T h e t w e n t i e s w e r e a p e r i o d o f c o n t i n u i n g u n d e r - y W. B T C , D e p t . o f L a n d s , F i l e >+8602 ( # 3 ) V 7 . V a n c o u v e r H a r b o u r C o m m i s s i o n , R e p o r t , 1 9 2 8 , p . lU-T h i s was named t h e G l e n Y a r d s , a n d h a d a c a p a c i t y o f . ^ 5 0 c a r s . I t d i d much t o r e l i e v e t h e t e r m i n a l c o n g e s t i o n . Ikb t a i n t y f o r p r i v a t e e n t e r p r i s e s i n t h e F a l s e C r e e k a r e a . U n t i l t h e f e d e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l a g r e e m e n t i n l$2hi w h i c h c o n -f i r m e d a l l g r a n t s a n d q u i t - c l a i m s b y e i t h e r c r o w n , g r e a t d o u b t e x i s t e d a s t o t h e v a l i d i t y o f f o r e s h o r e o c c u p a n c y . F o l l o w i n g t h a t , t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e p r o v i n c e a n d t h e C . P . R . c a u s e d m u c h u n e a s i n e s s u n t i l , a t t h e e n d o f 1 9 2 8 , a g r e e m e n t was r e a c h e d a s t o w h e t h e r a d d i t i o n a l r e n t a l s a n d l e v i e s m i g h t bemade b y t h e p r o v i n c e a g a i n s t o c c u p a n t s o f t h e f o r e s h o r e . D e s p i t e t h e s e u n c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s , t h e d e v e l o p -m e n t o f t h e F a l s e C r e e k b a s i n c o n t i n u e d . I n 1923 t h e H a r -b o u r C o m m i s s i o n r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e r e was no m o r e i a n d a v a i l a b l e o n G r a n v i l l e i s l a n d . A l l t h e s o u t h s h o r e p r o p e r t y o f t h e C . P . R . b e t w e e n G r a n v i l l e a n d C a m b i e b r i d g e s was f i l l e d u p d u r i n g t h e t w e n t i e s a n d many f i r m s e n l a r g e d a n d i m p r o v e d t h e i r p l a n t s . T h e c i t y -owned u p l a n d a n d f o r e s h o r e , b e t w e e n C a m b i e a n d M a i n s t r e e t s , was f u l l y o c c u p i e d , m o s t o f i t a t l e a s e h o l d , b u t s a l e s w e r e made i n t w o i n s t a n c e s . Wo d e v e l o p m e n t was u n d e r t a k e n o n t h e C . P . R . - o w n e d s h o r e o n t h e n o r t h s i d e o f t h e w a t e r w a y , b u t t h e B . C . E l e c t r i c r e p l a c e d t h e R o y a l C i t y M i l l a t t h e f o o t o f C a r r a l l s t r e e t a n d e s t a b l i s h e d i t s y a r d s ( a n d l a t e r a new g a s p l a n t ) t h e r e , m u c h *+o\ V a n c o u v e r H a r b o u r C o m m i s s i o n , R e p o r t , 1 9 2 3 , p . 10 of i t on f i l l e d l a n d . Immediately east of t h i s p r o p e r t y , the Great Northern Railway abandoned i t s s e a r l y s t a t i o n and f r e i g h t t e r m i n a l and removed i t s . . , swing b r i d g e from the channel. Perhaps the most ambitious scheme f o r the F a l s e Creek area, which was never r e a l i z e d , was the p r o p o s a l of Robert Sharp, i n the name of the Canadian D i s t r i c t Steam Co., to c o n s t r u c t on the s i t e of the Sweeney cooperage, immediately east o f Cambie b r i d g e , a steam p l a n t to p r o v i d e c e n t r a l heat-i n g f o r the downtown area 6'B Vancouver. During the e a r l y p a r t of 1929 n e g o t i a t i o n s were conducted w i t h the p r o v i n c i a l government and the C.P.R. f o r the p r o p e r t y , but e v e n t u a l l y t h e y were d i s c o n t i n u e d , perhaps w i t h the onset o f the 1929 • 4 9 d e p r e s s i o n . — 6 — The twenties, then, was a p e r i o d devoted t o much a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i v i t y , a l l of which had a s u b s t a n t i a l bear-i n g upon F a l s e Creek, but of a l a r g e l y n e g a t i v e s o r t . The p r o v i n c i a l government gained c o n t r o l o f the f o r e s h o r e and bed from the f e d e r a l government and the C.P.R., but i n doing so f a i l e d to c o n s i d e r the development problems o f the area and may, i n f a c t , n e e d l e s s l y have made them more d i f f i c u l t . 49. B.C., Dept.. of Lands, F i l e 48602 ( 2 ) . The federal government and the Harbour Commission, relieved i n 1924 of a l l the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of ownership i n the area (except for Granville island), ceased playing an ac-t i v e role when t h i s status was established and, after that, did one dredging job and b u i l t a railway yard (to serve Bur-rad i n l e t ) i n the False Creek area. The c i t y aided some of the False Creek businesses to get the protection of a f i r e boat (and a reduction i n insurance premiums) and had elaborate plans drawn for the development of the whole basin, but did not carry out any of the proposals. No new undertakings were made to over-come the waterway as an obstacle, but two new bridges were recommended i n the plan for the c i t y . I n d u s t r i a l development progressed, l a r g e l y through the expansion of ex i s t i n g industries and the f i l l i n g iXpt of vacant property on the south and east shores by new estab-lishments. The B.C. E l e c t r i c was the only business to under-take any substantial development, but i n a l l other areas ex-pansion generally kept pace with the prosperity of the times. The time had not yet arrived, however, when the administrative agencies could act i n concert to provide the meeins of implementing the o v e r - a l l development urged i n the new plan for the c i t y , generally desired by the residents of the c i t y , and necessary for the f u l l economic u t i l i z a t i o n of the waterway and basin. 14 9 During the twe n t i e s the t h r e e l e v e l s o f govern-ment came no nearer to s o l v i n g the problems of F a l s e Creek. There was f o r the f i r s t time, however, a c o n s i d e r a b l e aware-ness of the c h a l l e n g e t h a t these problems p r e s e n t e d . The p r o v i n c i a l government, b y a s s e r t i n g its a ownership, seemed f o r a w h i l e both i n a p o s i t i o n , and ready, to undertake the t a s k of developing the waterway so as to i n c r e a s e its?- i n -herent u t i l i t y . A change of government and a d e p r e s s i o n i n t e r v e n e d , however, and no t h i n g was done. The c i t y a l s o f a c e d up t o the c h a l l e n g e i n so f a r as i t commissioned a developmental p l a n f o r the community but i t too f a i l e d to e f f e c t any implementation of the p l a n which sought both to l e s s e n F a l s e Creek as an o b s t a c l e and i n c r e a s e i t as a d e s i r a b l e and necessary area f o r i n d u s t r i a l and com-m e r c i a l a c t i v i t y . The c i t y ' s p l a n , i n s o : f a r as i t proposed the develop-ment of F a l s e Creek, was beyond i t S s r each f i n a n c i a l l y and admin-i s t r a t i v e l y . The p r o v i n c e and the c i t y t o g e t h e r c o u l d have under-taken the proposed developments, but no such e f f o r t was made. The p l a n n e r s (both the c o n s u l t a n t s and t h e commis-sion) d i d not r e a l i z e t h a t f o r the F a l s e Creek segment of the community, the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i f f i c u l t i e s prevented any imple-mentation of an e n g i n e e r i n g p l a n , however a t t r a c t i v e and f e a s -i b l e i t might otherwise have been. FALSE CREEK MAP Development Plan, 1928 Proposed foreshore and crossing developments for False Creek recommended in the Town Planning Com-mission's 1928 plan for the City of Vancouver. •* * * * * 1 5 0 i PLAN . SHEWING SUGGESTED SCHEMC- COR DEVELOPMENT F A L S E ^ C R E E I C HARIAHD CARTHOLOMtW 6- ASSOCIATES lOWN P.A1HIN& COIKUliAHIS Chapter E i g h t : The E f f e c t s of Depression and War, 1930 - 45. The o p t i m i s t i c twenties, with t h e i r economic buoy-ancy, were f o l l o w e d by a p e r i o d of de p r e s s i o n and world war. Whereas i n p r i o r times o n l y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o m p l e z i t i e s , p a r t i c u l a r to the F a l s e Creek area, had b l o c k e d a s o l u t i o n of i t S s problem; the g e n e r a l and widespread c o n d i t i o n s of . the t h i r t i e s and the e a r l y f o r t i e s a l s o stood i n the way of the governmental a c t i o n needed f o r the e f f e c t i v e development of the F a l s e Creek b a s i n . The s i x t e e n year p e r i o d was one of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e i n a c t i v i t y . The p r o v i n c i a l government r e t i r e d to the r o l e o f absentee l a n d l o r d . In the f i r s t t e n years no f e d e r a l works were undertaken, a f t e r which there ensued a p e r i o d o f l i m i t e d war measures. The c i t y d i d no more to implement the F a l s e Creek aspects of the 1928 p l a n than to make s e v e r a l u n s u c c e s s f u l attempts t o g a i n p r o v i n c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n . De-velopment of the waterway remained almost e n t i r e l y i n the hands of p r i v a t e e n t e r p r i s e s which were a l l but immobilized d u r i n g the t h i r t i e s and abl e to make o n l y war measure expansions i n the f i r s t h a l f of the f o r t i e s . As i n the p a s t , the F a l s e Creek problems not o n l y pers i s t ed but were i n t e n s i f i e d as the c i t y and surrounding areas kept up t h e i r steady growth. The waterway and basin continued to separate, f o r more and more people, the res iden-t i a l from the business and i n d u s t r i a l area. 1. Federal Government A c t i o n . Federa l ac t ion i n Fa l se Creek during t h i s period was s l i g h t . To a s s i s t i n carry ing out the provis ions of the Navigable Waters Protec t ion A c t , harbour headlines were estab-l i s h e d on the south shore between Cambie and Main i n 1931 and on the north shore i n the v i c i n i t y of C a r r a l l s treet i n 1932"!: These a l so served as maximum l i m i t s to which, but not beyond, development could take p lace . As a r e s u l t of the depression which began th i s per -i o d , the Vancouver Harbour Commission found i t s e l f i n f i n a n -c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s , along with s i m i l a r agencies f o r other Canadian por t s . The f edera l government had the n a t i o n a l o harbour question examined by S i r Alexander Gibb, whose report recommended the replacement of the several harbour commissions by a nat iona l harbours board, which was done. S i r Alexander, i n h i s recommendation for the port of Vancouver, observed that 1. Canada, O r d e r s - i n - C o u n c i l . P . C . 1^93 ( 1 9 3 D & 23^+5 ( 1 9 3 2 ) . 2. Canada, Nat ional ports survey 1931-32. Ottawa, 1932. I t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y d e s i r a b l e t h a t a d e f i n i t e s cheme s h o u l d b e d r a w n up f o r t h e p r o p e r d e v e l o p m e n t a n d c o n -t r o l o f F a l s e C r e e k , t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f w h i c h a s a p a r t o f t h e p o r t i s s h o w n b y t h e f a c t t h a t i t d e a l s w i t h a t o n -n a g e o f e x p o r t s a n d i m p o r t s s a i d t o b e a s much a s t h r e e q u a r t e r s o f a m i l l i o n t o n s i n a y e a r , e x c l u d i n g l u m b e r , a n d t h e e n t r y a n d d e p a r t u r e o f u p t o 18,000 v e s s e l s i n a y e a r v T h i s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n , h o w e v e r , was n o t h e e d e d . I t i s d o u b t -f u l , i n f a c t , i f t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t c o u l d h a v e d o n e m u c h t o i m p l e m e n t i t , e x c e p t p e r h a p s b y means o f a g r a n t - i n - a i d t o t h e p r o v i n c e o r t h e c i t y . I n t h i s p e r i o d t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t b e g a n t o d i v e s t i t s e l f o f t h e I n d i a n r e s e r v e l a n d , a p r o c e s s w h i c h w e n t o n i n t e r m i t t e n t l y o v e r t h e n e x t 20 y e a r s . T h e f i r s t s a l e o f l a n d f o r d e v e l o p m e n t p u r p o s e s was a n i n t e r - d e p a r t -m e n t a l a r r a n g e m e n t , w h e r e b y 1+.28 a c r e s w e r e t r a n s f e r r e d t o h t h e . D e p a r t m e n t o f N a t i o n a l D e f e n c e , f o r t h e S e a f o r t h A r m o r i e s . D u r i n g t h e s e c o n d W o r l d War w a t e r f r o n t a g e w as r e q u i r e d b y t h e R . C . A . F . a n d t h e s e c t i o n n o r t h o f t h e C . P . R . a n d B u r r a r d b r i d g e r i g h t s - o f - w a y was r e q u i s i t i o n e d b y t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f N a t i o n a l D e f e n c e f o r t h i s p u r p o s e , t h e l a n d b e i n g h e l d u n d e r 3. i b i d . , p.180 *+. C a n a d a , O r d e r s - i n - C o u n c i l P . C . 1913, 23 A u g . 193*+; P . C . 316*+, 7 J a n . 1935. P r e v i o u s l y e a s e m e n t s h a d b e e n g r a n t e d t o t h e C . P . R . f o r i t s r i g h t - o f - w a y t o K i t s i l a n o ( P . C . 5*+9, 13 A p r i l , 1928, 3.6 a c r e s ) t h e V a n c o u v e r a n d L u l u I s . R . R . ( P . C . 1201, 8 J u n e , 1901, 7 a c r e s ) , a n d c i t y o f V a n c o u v e r f o r B u r r a r d b r i d g e a p p r o a c h e s ( P . C . 526, 2 M a y , 1928, 6.2 a c r e s ) a n d p a r k ( i b i d . , 1.6 a c r e s ) . S e e a l s o ' , C a n a d a , D e p t . o f C i t i z e n s h i p & I m m i g r a t i o n , S c h e d u l e o f I n d i a n r e s e r v e s i n t h e D o m i n i o n o f C a n a d a , p a r t 2, 31 M a r c h , 19*+3 ( a s a m e n d e d ) . lease from the Indian A f f a i r s branch. This was sold outright i n I 9 V 7 and became a permanent m i l i t a r y establishment? Immediately a f t e r the war a *+.28 acre section adjacent to the armouries, which had been used f o r m i l i t a r y barracks, was surrendered by the National Defence Department to Rec.on-st r u c t i o n and Supply, to be used f o r veterans housing. The piecemeal d i s p o s i t i o n of the Indian reserve f o r a wide range of unrelated uses, and with no apparent thought to the best interests of the c i t y , was another regrettable example of federal indifference. The advantages which might have been gained from i t s f u l l development, i n r e l a t i o n to the surrounding property and the plans f o r the c i t y , were considerable. The c i t y made known i t s desires, but was generally unable, and always unwilling, to make the payment f o r the land which the Indian A f f a i r s branch of the f e d e r a l govern-ment was committed to obtain f o r the Indians. There seems l i t t l e reason to doubt that i f the c i t y , the province, and the federal government had undertaken a large development project east of Burrard bridge embracing the reserve, Granville i s l a n d , the foreshore between these two and the depressed area south of them, the end r e s u l t T Canada, Order-in-Council, P.C. 1707, 2 9 A p r i l , I 9 V 7 . 6 . Ibid. P.C. 1006, 9 March, 19^8. This was disposed of subsequently to Sicks Brewing Co. f o r a brewery s i t e . 15 b might w e l l have been an i n d u s t r i a l area o f c o n s i d e r a b l e value and i n c o n s i d e r a b l e demand, from which, e i t h e r by s a l e or l e a s e , compensation f o r the Indians c o u l d have been o b t a i n e d . 2. M u n i c i p a l Undertakings. With the d e p r e s s i o n there came a need, or a b e l i e v e d need, f o r f i n a n c i a l retrenchment. Popular o p i n i o n and a de-c l i n i n g m u n i c i p a l revenue r e q u i r e d t h a t c o s t s be cut to the bare n e c e s s i t i e s . C a p i t a l e xpenditures were not brought t o an abso-l u t e h a l t , however, f o r there was, as t h e r e had been when depres-s i o n came i n 1913, a c a r r y over of monies voted, bonds i s s u e d , and c o n t r a c t s l e t . Of major importance among these was the proposed $2.8 m i l l i o n h i g h - l e v e l b r i d g e t o j o i n the G r a n v i l l e p e n i n s u l a w i t h P o i n t Grey by l i n k i n g B u r r a r d and Cedar ( l a t e r changed to Burrard) s t r e e t s ? ffork began on the b r i d g e i n 1930 and i t was com-p l e t e d i n 1933 (opened 1932). I t was the f i r s t major under-t a k i n g i n c o n f o r m i t y with the Vancouver p l a n , and the f i r s t p u b l i c work i n the F a l s e Creek b a s i n which was done w i t h the o v e r a l l needs of the c i t y as governing f a c t o r s . I t was de-signed to have two decks -- the upper f o r v e h i c u l a r , the lower f o r r a i l r o a d t r a f f i c — so as to e l i m a t e the need f o r the 7. Vancouver, By-law 2040. The c i t y was a u t h o r i z e d to borrow $2.8 m i l l i o n , but c o s t s came t o j u s t under $2.5 m i l l i o n . I t was f i n a n c e d byua 40-year debenture. K i t s i l a n o t r e s t l e . I t was estimated t h a t the lower r a i l r o a d deck would add $700,000 t o the c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t . The C.P.R., f o r i t S s p a r t , o f f e r e d t o e l i m i n a t e the t r e s t l e i f the lower deck were b u i l t , and pay $200,000 towards i t S s c o s t i n r e t u r n f o r running r i g h t s on i t . The c i t y was not disposed to spend the e x t r a $500,000 w i t h the r e s u l t t h a t the t r e s t l e remains g i n p o s i t i o n . The r a i l w a y company i s p o p u l a r l y condemned f o r f a i l i n g to remove the t r e s t l e , but evidence was not obt a i n e d , i n t h i s study, by which the case might be judged and respon-s i b i l i t y a s s i g n e d f o r the f a i l u r e to c l o s e , by n e g o t i a t i o n o r otherwise, the $500,000 gap. I t i s q u i t e p o s s i b l e that the $200,000 o f f e r r e p r e s e n t e d a s u b s t a n t i a l compromise from the p o s i t i o n i n which the agreement j u s t - c o n c l u d e d w i t h the p r o -v i n c e l e f t the r a i l w a y . On the other hand, the t r e s t l e had always been i n marg i n a l compliance w i t h the Navigable Waters P r o t e c t i o n Act, and there may have r e s t e d on the r a i l w a y a moral, i f not an a c t u a l , o b l i g a t i o n f o r a f u l l e r compliance. 8. The r a i l r o a d t r e s t l e was an e v e r - i n c r e a s i n g hazard to n a v i g a t i o n . I t was not i n l i n e w i t h the channel and its.s s h allow f o o t i n g s prevented dredging to a f u l l 20 f e e t at low'water. 9. Vancouver Town Pl a n n i n g Commission, A p l a n f o r Vancou-v e r . 1929, pp 245 & 289. N e i t h e r the c o n s u l t a n t s nor the commission e n t i r e l y favoured having the r a i l w a y c r o s s the western end of the waterway a t a a l l . P r e f e r e n c e was expressed f o r a f i l l a t the east end (to about 500 f e e t west of Main s t r e e t ) which would c a r r y a l l r a i l t r a f f i c from the no r t h to the south s i d e s of. the waterway. ( I b i d . , pp. 145 & 148.) 1 58 T h e C . P . R . T u n n e l . E v e r s i n c e t h e c i t y o f V a n c o u v e r o u t g r e w t h e o r i g -i n a l G r a n v i l l e t o w n s i t e , t h e C . P . R . l e v e l c r o s s i n g f r o m B u r r a r d i n l e t t o F a l s e C r e e k ( i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f C a r r a l l s t r e e t ) h a d i n c r e a s i n g l y h a m p e r e d t r a f f i c o n C o r d o v a , H a s t i n g s , a n d P e n -d e r s t r e e t s . I n 1 9 1 3 t h e c i t y h a d v o t e d t o s p e n d $ V 7 , 0 0 0 t o -w a r d s t h e c o s t o f a s u b w a y } ^ b u t t h e r a i l w a y h a d n e v e r b e e n w i l l i n g t o u n d e r t a k e t h e p r o j e c t . I n t h e e a r l y t h i r t i e s , b a c k e d b y t h e f i r m r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f t h e V a n c o u v e r p l a n , t h e c i t y a g a i n a t t e m p t e d t o h a v e t h e l e v e l c r o s s i n g r e m o v e d . T h i s t i m e t h e n e g o t i a t i o n w e r e s u c c e s s f u l , a n d t h e t u n n e l came i n t o o p e r a t i o n i n 1 9 3 3 > f u l f i l l i n g a n o t h e r r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f t h e 1 9 2 9 p l a n . ( T h e r a i l w a y now g a i n e d a c c e s s t o i t s F a l s e C r e e k y a r d s n e a r t h e w e s t e n d o f G e o r g i a v i a d u c t . ) T h e c i t y h a d a g r e e d t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e c o s t , a n d i n 1 9 3 6 a p p r o v a l was g i v e n f o r p a y m e n t o f ' $ h 3 9 , 0 0 0 t o t h e C . P . R T 1 G e r a l d G . M c G e e r , M . L . A . f o r V a n c o u v e r B u r r a r d , r a n f o r m a y o r o f V a n c o u v e r i n 1 9 3 ^ a n d was e l e c t e d o n a p l a t f o r m o f c a p i t a l e x p e n d i t u r e s . He g a i n e d a p p r o v a l f o r a t h r e e p e r 1 2 c e n t 1 0 - y e a r " b a b y b o n d " i s s u e t o f i n a n c e p r o j e c t s w h i c h i n c l u d e d a new c i t y h a l l a n d a v i a d u c t ( t o c o s t $ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) j o i n -i n g T e r m i n a l a v e n u e o n t h e r e c l a i m e d e a s t e r n a r e a , o v e r t h e G r e a t 1 0 . V a n c o u v e r , B y - l a w 1 0 0 8 . 1 1 . V a n c o u v e r , B y - l a w 2 ^ 6 3 . T w e n t y - y e a r d e b e n t u r e s i s s u e d M a y , 1 9 3 7 . 1 2 . V a n c o u v e r , B y - l a w 2 3 7 8 . B o n d s i s s u e d J u l y , 1 9 3 5 . 1 5. 9 Northern tracks to F i r s t Avenue and Clark Drive, Work was begun i n 1 9 3 7 as recommended by the Vancouver plan and l a r g e l y completed within the estimated cost, leaving $ 1 8 , 0 0 0 to be spent i n the next two years to complete the approaches. had In 1 9 1 3 , when depression^brought a halt to the c i v i c borrowing and large c a p i t a l expenditures of that time, the cross-ings of False Creek had represented 1 0 per cent of the general indebtedness. No further works were done i n the waterway basin i n the twenties but the addition i n the t h i r t i e s to the gener-a l debt of $ 2 . 5 m i l l i o n f or Burrard bridge, $ 0 . 4 m i l l i o n for the C . P . R . tunnel, and $ 0 . 2 m i l l i o n for the F i r s t avenue v i a -duct — a t o t a l of $ 3 . 1 m i l l i o n — again increased the False Creek share ( # 5 . 8 m i l l i o n ) of the c i t y ' s general debt (appros-imately $ 6 0 m i l l i o n , 1 9 3 0 - 4 5 ) to 1 0 per cent. This proportion remained through the low-spending depression and war years. These figures are a measure not only of the extent to which False Creek as an obstacle i s a problem to the c i t y , but of the reasons why the c i t y alone cannot undertake addit-ional large expenditures for developing the economic poten-t i a l of the waterway. A concentration of more than 1 0 per cent of the c i t y ' s c a p i t a l expenditures i n False Creek, re-gardless of what might be obtained subsequently i n the lease or sale of i n d u s t r i a l s i t e s , would l i k e l y be unattractive to the voters and p o l i t i c a l l y damaging to anyone advocating i t . Further, the c i t y has never had a s u f f i c i e n t reserve of bor-rowing power to recommend a greater proportion of i t ' s c a p i t a l debt f o r False Creek works, and might not receive the approval of the p r o v i n c i a l government. 3. Fate of the Vancouver Plan. For the c i t y as a whole the Vancouver plan of 1929 had a two-fold purpose, It set a pattermvwithin which the ce r t a i n growth of the c i t y should be directed and c o n t r o l l e d . It.also proposed a number of c a p i t a l public works of varying magnitudes to increase the amenities of the c i t y . Growth made p a r t i c u l a r works mandatory, depression or not, but the rest were optional and depression set them aside. With the l a t t e r was the False Creek problem. It i s d i f f i c u l t to see what other course was open to the c i t y . False Creek development might well have qual-i f i e d as a depression "pump-priming" project, but the d e f i c i t financing which pump-priming generally requires i s not r e a d i l y available to a municipality. The senior governments were at that time responding to the wishes of economy-minded voters, and had not yet come around to the idea of c y c l i c a l budgeting. As a r e s u l t , there was no money available at any l e v e l of government for the False Creek part of the Vancouver plan. In 1929 the Vancouver Town Planning Commission, with 1 fal the a u t h o r i z a t i o n of t h e c i t y c o u n c i l , o rganized a committee to study F a l s e Creek development. The f i r s t meeting was c a l l e d f o r June and, i n a l e t t e r to the p r o v i n c i a l M i n i s t e r of Lands, the commission chairman e x p l a i n e d t h a t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s had been i n v i t e d from the harbour commission, the B . C . E l e c t r i c , the C.P.R., to g e t h e r with r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from the commiss-i o n , the c i t y c o u n c i l , and t h e p r o v i n c i a l government^ T h i s committee met twice i n June, the f o l l o w i n g Ik December, and a g a i n i n October and December of 1930, and on 15 January, 1931? i s s u e d a memorial t o the p r o v i n c i a l gov-ernment, p r a y i n g t h a t the government should e s t a b l i s h a " F a l s e Creek Commission" and t h a t 1. The Commission should be composed of from one to t h r e e members 2. The Commission should * * * be empowered to employ ad-equate t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e * * *. 3. The f i r s t duty of the Commission s h o u l d be t o i n v e s -t i g a t e [ t h e 1928] p r o p o s a l s of t h e Vancouver Town Pla n n i n g Commission. The g u i d i n g p r i n c i p l e should be the exchange of [ e x i s t i n g ] p r o p e r t i e s f o r new ones [with com-p e n s a t i o n f o r any v a l u e d i f f e r e n c e s ] , a c c o r d i n g t o a r e -p l o t t i n g scheme to be drawn up by the Commission. k. Approval of the r e p l o t t i n g scheme [should be submit-ted f o r ] the a p p r o v a l of the M u n i c i p a l C o u n c i l and f o l -lowing t h i s , the assent of t h e owners * * *. I t observed t h a t * * * The c r e a t i o n of 22o acres of new i n d u s t r i a l l a n d * * * served by r a i l w a y s and a 2 0-foot c a n a l , • 600 f e e t i n width, w i l l produce handsome r e t u r n s , As the 175 the 175 acres a l r e a d y f i l l e d i n w i l l be i n c l u d e d i n the p r o p o s a l s and a l s o , no doubt, other s m a l l areas s k i r t i n g the Creek, there w i l l be at l e a s t ^00 acres 13. B.C. Dept. of. Lands, F i l e i+8602. (3) , 9 May, 1929 l * f . I b i d . involved. Allowing say 25 per cent reduction f o r streets, lanes and railways, there he a net revenue-producing area.of 300 acres. An undated memorandum i n the Vancouver Sun L i b r a r y ^ 0 says that this memorial together with the Commission's plan was presented to the p r o v i n c i a l government at the end of January and that the government "stated i t would be given 'prompt consideration'," but that "nothing further has been heard from the government." This Sun memorandum also says that the committee of the planning commission which drafted the memorial also included representatives of the C.N; P., the Vancouver Merchants Exchange, and the Shipping Federation of B.C The Sun memorandum concludes that the Chief opponents of any scheme involving False Creek, have always been the CP.P., which owns K i t s i l a n o T r e s t l e , now uses by the B.C.E.P. Any scheme of improvement w i l l involve removal of the t r e s t l e . Another stumbling block has been the abandoned G.N.trestle at the head of False heard from the government" i s , at l e a s t , borne out by sub-sequent inaction. The p r o v i n c i a l government appears to have 1 fi l e t the matter of False Creek die. Further action on the 15. Vancouver Town Planning Commission, Memorial (respecting) the Development of False Creek (by a j o i n t committee), Vancouver, 15 January, 1931) (mimeo. ) p.3 & 16. See "False Creek" f i l e . 17. Ibid. 18. The Lands Department f i l e s reveal no correspondence or action i n d i c a t i v e of the sort of moves sought by the planning commission. "No Progress Made." The statement that "nothing further has been waterway by the c i t y appears also to have been dropped, short of routine matters. An example (unimportant i n i t s e l f ) of the r e l a t ive indifference to the whole question of False Creek at the ad-ministrative l e v e l s , i s given by the following extracts from an : 19 . exchange of l e t t e r s (in which the time i n t e r v a l should be noted) Letter to the Surveyor General, Dept., bf Lands, 15 Jan., 1934, from Vancouver C i t y Engineer, re Crown Grant to bed of False Creek Under Connaught Bridge: "Our Surveyor *** has t h i s work (a survey of the area i n question) i n hand, and returns w i l l be made to you at an early date." Letter to C i t y Engineer, 14 May, 1945, from- Surveyor General, re Bed of False Creek, Connaught Bridge: "In reference to your l e t t e r dated 15 January, 1934, I s h a l l be glad to be advised i f the survey of the above described area has yet been completed." Letter to Surveyor General, Dept., of Lands, 17 May, 1945, from C i t y Engineer, re Bed of False Creek under Connaught Bridge: "Relative to your enquiry of the 14th instant on the above noted subject, I have to advise you that no prog-ress has been made on the survey *** for possibly the l a s t ten years. "Our surveyor, *** ran into d i f f i c u l t i e s *** necess-i t a t i n g f a r more extensive f i e l d work than had been an t i c -ipated. Before t h i s had been completed our s t a f f was re-duced [and] most of the survey work then i n progress had to be abandoned for the time being." Excuse f o r this extraordinary delay i s made be-cause of the war, which can only account for the l a s t four years. The engineer omits what i s l i k e l y the chief reason f o r inaction i n t h i s connection -- the overwhelming burden 19. B.C., Lands Dept., F i l e 60988. 16 4 o n c i v i c e m p l o y e e s o f t h e o r d i n a r y , d a y - t o - d a y " h o u s e k e e p i n g " d u t i e s a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . P l a n n i n g m a t t e r s w e r e a l l t o o f r e q u e n t l y r e l e g a t e d o f n e c e s s i t y t o s p a r e t i m e , o f w h i c h t h e r e was n e v e r e n o u g h f o r t h i s i m p o r t a n t t a s k . I n S e p t e m b e r , 1937, t h e p l a n n i n g c o m m i s s i o n f o r w a r d e d t o t h e c i t y c o u n c i l a memorandum i n w h i c h i t was p o i n t e d o u t t h a t S i n c e t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h e 1929 T o w n P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n R e p o r t , c o n d i t i o n s i n F a l s e C r e e k h a v e p r o b -a b l y become w o r s e . I t i s u n s i g h t l y , o f f e n s i v e , a n d a m e n a c e t o t h e c o m m u n i t y ' s h e a l t h . I t ' s p r e s e n t s t a t u s p n c o n s t i t u t e s a n e x t r e m e l y u n e c o n o m i c a l c o n d i t i o n * * * . T h e S q u a t t e r P r o b l e m . T h e q u e s t i o n o f h e a l t h , r e f e r r e d t o b y t h e c o m -m i s s i o n , c o n c e r n e d i n t e r a l i a t h e m a t t e r o f " s q u a t t e r s " who o c c u p i e d f l o a t i n g a n d f i x e d a b o d e s a l o n g t h e s h o r e o f t h e w a t e r w a y . W h i l e n o t i n a p o s i t i o n t o g i v e c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o t h e o v e r - a l l F a l s e C r e e k p r o b l e m o r p l a n , t h e c o u n c i l d i d r e f e r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r q u e s t i o n t o i t s S o c i a l S e r v i c e s C o m -m i t t e e . T h e r e p o r t made t o t h e l a t t e r b y a s p e c i a l c o m m i t t e e i n d i c a t e d t h a t e c o n o m i c d e p r e s s i o n a n d d i s u s e d s h o r e p r o p e r t y h a d c o m b i n e d t o c r e a t e y e t a n o t h e r w a y i n w h i c h F a l s e C r e e k was a p r o b l e m t o t h e c i t y . 20. V . T . P . C . , Memorandum t o t h e M a y o r a n d C o u n c i l , V a n -c o u v e r , 2 S e p t . , 1937, ( m i n e o ) . The m a j o r i t y of the occupants [of f o r e s h o r e shacks] are not there by c h o i c e . *** A c t i o n might be t a k e n to ord e r v a c a t i o n and c l e a r the worst l o c a t i o n s at an e a r l y date, and g r a d u a l l y e l i m i n a t e t h i s c l a s s of housing ***. The l a c k of s u i t a b l e housing at a r e n t a l which the oc-cupants c o u l d a f f o r d t o pay seems to be the main reason f o r the i n c r e a s i n g number u s i n g t h i s c l a s s of s h e l t e r . The number of house boats and gas boats *** t o some extent has been i n c r e a s e d by the v a c a t i n g of t h e Indian r e s e r v e *** and w i t h the c o o p e r a t i o n of the Harbour Board t h i s c o n d i t i o n might be e l i m i n a t e d by s e t t i n g a s i d e a more s u i t a b l e l o c a t i o n . A l l disused p i l i n g and wharves [should] be removed i g -an e f f o r t t o improve the appearance of F a l s e Creek.***. The problem of the F a l s e Creek s q u a t t e r s seems to have overshadowed the b i g g e r problem of F a l s e Creek d e v e l -opment at t h i s time, perhaps because of t h e f r u s t r a t i o n a r i s i n g out of an i n a b i l i t y to do anything about the l a t t e r and t h e chance to focus a t t e n t i o n on a more emotional and much s m a l l e r problem. The p u b l i c sentiment, o r a t l e a s t the newspaper a t t e n t i o n g i v e n the problem, was s u f f i c i e n t to prompt the N a t i o n a l Harbours Board p o r t manager t o w r i t e to the Vancouver C i t y Engineer, the C.P.R. c h i e f engineer, and the Deputy M i n i s t e r of Lands thus "You have p r o b a b l y n o t i c e d from r e c e n t newspaper a r t i c l e s t h a t C o n s i d e r a b l e a g i t a t i o n has taken p l a c e l a t e l y i n con-n e c t i o n w i t h the s i t u a t i o n i n F a l s e Creek, and suggestions g i v e n as to what should be done to remedy same. In order t h a t we might have proper data b e f o r e us, I have prepared [a mgpj showing *** under whose j u r i s d i c t i o n the f o r e s h o r e i s . 21. Vancouver, S o c i a l S e r v i c e s Committee, Report by a spec-ial-committee to c o n s i d e r the s a n i t a r y c o n d i t i o n s of F a l s e Creek, Vancouver, 22 January, 1938, (mimeo.) p.6 22. B.C., Dept., of Lands, F i l e 60988. What p r e s s u r e there was to have the s q u a t t e r s removed was g e n e r a l l y d i r e c t e d towards the c i t y c o u n c i l , which i n t u r n r e f e r r e d i t to the p r o v i n c i a l government which owned the f o r e s h o r e , the C.P.E. which l e a s e d the f o r e s h o r e from the government, o r the Harbours Board because of itSt. r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the n a v i g a b l e waterway. The " s q u a t t e r problem" has come t o be regarded as something of an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e run-around, and so i t has been. Because F a l s e Creek i s w h o l l y w i t h i n the c i t y , the p r e s e r v a t i o n of law and order i n the waterway area i s l a r g e l y the r e s p n n s i -b i l i t y of c i t y p o l i c e . S q u a t t e r s g e n e r a l l y have been o r d e r l y , and t h e i r unlawfulness has a r i s e n because they occupied l a n d not t h e i r own, d i d not comply adequately with p r o v i n c i a l and c i t y h e a l t h and s a n i t a t i o n codes, and p a i d no r e n t or taxes — t h i s l a s t the most u p s e t t i n g to many of the c r i t i c s . To remove the s q u a t t e r s the o n l y requirement has been an order o f e v i c t i o n from the owner of the t r e s p a s s e d land — the p r o v i n c e or, i n the case of t h e Indian r e s e r v e , the f e d e r a l government; a condemna-t i o n by the p r o v i n c i a l h e a l t h o f f i c e r ; or an o r d e r under the Navigable Waters P r o t e c t i o n Act by the Harbours Board ( i f the o f f e n d e r was not w i t h i n the harbour h e a d l i n e ) . With t h i s , c i t y p o l i c e c o u l d then f o r c e the withdrawal or l a y charges i n the c o u r t s . Despite the popular f e e l i n g r e f e r r e d to (above) the p o r t manager, the two or three l e v e l s of government concerned never acted together at the same time i n t h i s matter. In 167 r e a l i t y the so-called squatter problem was (mm in liinlrij, niii, pn^n ) a very minor one. For one thing i t would disappear i f there were development of the waterway along the l i n e s of the 1929 plan, for another i t was depression born and continue^, at l e a s t i n part, because of a general accommodation shortage — neither cause d i r e c t l y associated with False Creek. The squatter problem i s important only as i t i l l u s t r a t e s the d i f f i c u l t i e s of inter-government cooperation. It i s a prime example of the p o l i t -i c a l and administrative stumbling block which has stopped False Creek action before i t got t r u l y started or tripped i t before i t was i n e f f e c t i v e motion. Development Plans -- Once Again. As the t h i r t i e s drew to a close and the business depression appeared d e f i n i t e l y on the wane, the c i t y council once more turned to the problem of False Creek development. The recent public expression of concern and i r r i t a t i o n over the i l l - k e p t appearance of the waterway and the "squatter problem" brought the matter to a head. At i t S s meeting on the 17 A p r i l , 1939, the c i t y council authorized it S 3 engineer to undertake a complete engin-eering survey of the False Creek sector of the c i t y with a view to aiding itSs development as a shipping channel. The council agreed to 1. Appoint immediately a j o i n t committee of the council and town planning commission. 2. Request the p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l governments, and t h e Canadian P a c i f i c , Canadian N a t i o n a l and B . C . E l e c t r i c R a i l -ways to support the development program and c o n t r i b u t e t o -wards the e n g i n e e r i n g survey. 3. Request the town p l a n n i n g commission t o b r i n g up to date i t $ b recommendations on F a l s e Creek development made o r i g i n a l l y i n the 1929 Vancouver p l a n 2 , 5 But the season was too busy and too tense f o r the move to g a i n headway. The c i t y ' s b u s i n e s s hung suspended duri n g the v i s i t of t h e i r m a j e s t i e s , George V and E l i z a b e t h , and then the war clou d s were too heavy on the h o r i z o n . Once ag a i n events d e f e r r e d a c t i o n , and n o t h i n g was accomplished. 4. P r i v a t e E n t e r p r i s e development. Because t h i s p e r i o d was one of economic d e p r e s s i o n and of world war, there was much to handicap the i n c r e a s e of i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t y . Business f a i l u r e s about balanced new a c t i v i t i e s during the f i r s t phase, whereas the second was marked by the s p e c i a l developments of war booms. In 1932 the B . C . E l e c t r i c put i n t o o p e r a t i o n a new gas manufacturing p l a n t at i t s s C a r r a l l s t r e e t yards, l a r g e l y r e p l a c i n g the o r i g i n a l works, l o c a t e d o p p o s i t e i t on the east new plant s i d e of the Columbia-Keefer s t r e e t channel. T h i s ^ r e p r e s e n t e d a $1.5 m i l l i o n investment by the company and was capable of a 24 d a i l y output of 3 m i l l i o n c u b i c f e e t . To accommodate the new 23. Vancouver P r o v i n c e , 18 A p r i l , 1939, p . l . 24. Vancouver Harbour Commissioners, Report, 1932, p.38. 1 b 9 plant the company had f i l l e d out from i t s o r i g i n a l shore l i n e l o t s onto i t s foreshore property . The harbour headline was es tabl i shed i n th i s area (see p. 152) to mark the extent of the permiss ible development. On the debit side of the development record must be put the f a i l u r e of the Vancouver Lumber Co. , and the Hanbury saw m i l l , two of the oldest indus tr i e s i n the Fa l se Creek area. The former was located at the south end of Cambie bridge and the l a t t e r at the south end of g r a n v i l l e br idge . The War Boom. The economic uncer ta int i e s of the t h i i t i e s were slowly brought to an end by the second World War. The old World War I yards of the Cougl in s h i p - b u i l d i n g f i r m were r e -act ivated and enlarged, the machinery works found t h e i r order books f i l l e d , and the market for . lumber outdistanced the sapply. While the only major c a p i t a l development was the growth of the shipyards east of Cambie br idge , there were very few firms i n the area which did not f e e l the war-time p r o s p e r i t y . Largely because of the shipyard development, a harbour headline was establ ished f o r the whole Fa l se Creek waterway. This was done by the Nat ional Harbour Board i n 1 9 ^ 2 a f t er consul tat ion with the c i t y counc i l and- the B . C . Lands 25 department. The ways of the shipyard and i t s f i t t i n g - o u t 2T. B . C . , Lands Dept . , F i l e 153^90. d o c k w e r e e x t e n d e d "beyond t h e h e a d l i n e d u r i n g t h e w a r , a n d n o a t t e n t i o n was p i a d t o t h e m a t t e r . I n 1 9 ^ 7 , h o w e v e r , t h e h e a d l i n e was r e v i s e d t o a c k n o w l e d g e a n a l r e a d y a c c o m p l i s h e d f a c t . On t h i s o c c a s i o n , t h e c i t y was n o t c o n c u l t e d , h o w e v e r , d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t i t h a d a v e s t e d i n t e r e s t i n t h e m a t t e r n o t o n l y b e c a u s e o f i t s c o n c e r n f o r g e n e r a l F a l s e C r e e k d e v -e l o p m e n t , b u t b e c a u s e t h e p r o p e r t y a f f e c t e d was owned b y t h e c i t y a n d l e a s e d b y i t t o t h e s h i p y a r d . The p r o t e s t was made f i r m l y b u t i n f o r m a l l y t o t h e p o r t m a n a g e r a n d a n i n f o r m a l p r o -26 m i s e e x t r a c t e d t h a t a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n w o u l d n o t r e c u r . The f i f t e e n y e a r s o f d e p r e s s i o n a n d w a r w e r e o n e s d u r i n g w h i c h F a l s e C r e e k a r e a c o n t i n u e d d e v e l o p m e n t a t a m u c h r e d u c e d r a t e a n d s t i l l w i t h o u t a n y d i r e c t i o n o r a s s i s t -a n c e f r o m a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i o n . T h e r e was a c o m p r e h e n s i v e p l a n o n t h e b o o k s , b u t t h e r e w e r e n o t t h e means a t h a n d t o u n d e r t a k e i t s i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . T h i s was a r e s u l t o f t h e p l a n h a v i n g b e e n d r a w n f o r t h e c i t y w h i c h h a d n e i t h e r t h e money n o r f u l l e n o u g h a u t h o r i t y t o d o w h a t t h e p r o j e c t c a l l e d f o r , a n d t h e r e l u c t a n c e o f t h e s e n i o r g o v e r n m e n t s t o a s s i s t i n i m p l e m e n t i n g i t , e v e n i n s o f a r a s t h e i r own i n t e r e s t s i n t h e w a t e r w a y ' w e r e c o n c e r n e d . 2 6 . V a n c o u v e r , i n f o r m a t i o n i m p a r t e d t o w r i t e r w h i l e i n t h e e m p l o y o f t h e c i t y , J u l y 1 9 5 2 . FALSE CREEK MAP Land Use of Shore Property Map showing location and use of shore property and waterway by types of industry; together with con-tour l i n e s * and physical features. * ' # * # * #Contour elevations based on City Datum -100 feet below high water mark. approximately L E G E N D Industrial Classification* MANUFACTURING wood products transportation equipment iron and steel products non-metallic mineral products ~3 CONSTRUCTION general contractors TRANSPORTATION, STORAGE and PUBLIC UTILITIES TRADE wholesale r e t a i l ~ ~ | 1 SERVICE government •Bureau of Statistics classifications (inter a l i a ) . English Beach Chapter Nine: Post War Developments, 1946 - 1952. Vancouver experienced a marked growth i n both i n -d u s t r i a l capacity and population during and a f t e r the Second World Warl False Creek shared i n the former and was influenc-ed by the l a t t e r . Growth of the c i t y meant that the problem of False Creek as an obstacle grew too. As in the past, more people meant an increased need f o r more and bigger.crossings of the waterway and basin, for i t continued in large part to divide commercial and i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t i e s from r e s i d e n t i a l areas. During the war, however, l i t t l e attention could be given to the problem. No action was possible u n t i l building r e s t r i c t -ions were removed after the war and the c i t y was able to make s u f f i c i e n t estimate of i t s s f i n a n c i a l p o t e n t i a l i t i e s to em-bark upon c a p i t a l budget planning. Between 1943 and 1947 the town planning commission undertook the r e v i s i o n of the proposals o r i g i n a l l y made in the 1928 Vancouver plan. Of the recommendations fo r lessening 1. Population: Vancouver c i t y Greater Vancouver 1941 275,353 377.447 1951 344,833 Canada, Census 530,728 17.3 False Creek as an obstacle — which included bridges for Oak street, the diagonal extension of Kingsway, and an over-pass (between Main and Clarke) of the railway yards — only a replacement f o r the e x i s t i n g Granville bridge was approved by the c i t y c o u n c i l . Following the end of h o s t i l i t i e s , and for the f i r s t time i n the c i t y ' s history, i n d u s t r i a l land was not r e a d i l y available i n Vancouver. While there was s t i l l vacant land which would ultimately become available, there was a very r e a l absence of cleared and serviced property i n sizes and l o -cations suited to the needs of post-war business a c t i v i t i e s . The increased, and often unmet, demand f o r indus-t r i a l s i t e s , a r i s i n g f i r s t from the war-stimulated industries and continuing, i n the post-war period, from an o v e r - a l l buoy-ant demand, once more made obvious the neglect of comprehen-sive development of the False Creek waterway and basin. 1. I n d u s t r i a l Development,, 1952. Immediately ringing the waterway, and either on the shore or inside the c i r c u i t of r a i l l i n e s , there were, in 1952, some 80 business firms. In the balance of the False Creek area (considered here as including a l l the i n -t 7 5 d u s t r i a l l y zoned i n the False Creek basin) there were approximately 375 more. The 81 firms within the f i r s t i n d u s t r i a l ring employed, on the average during 1952, some 5,*+00 people. The 375 businesses i n the remainder of the area approximately 5,000. Half of the jobs were i n manufacturing i n d u s t r i e s , the rest i n construction, wholesale trade, transporatation and storage. Wages fo r the 81 firms, i n 1951> were $17 m i l l i o n , while the second group i s estimated to have received between h $12 and $13 m i l l i o n , providing a t o t a l p a y r o l l from the water-way and basin of $30 m i l l i o n . 2. For the purposes of the c i t y ' s "False Creek Development Survey" - (authorized 1950, begun 1951) the c i t y engineer set as the l i m i t s of the area to be studied the 110 foot ( c i t y datum, high water mark approx. 100) contour l i n e or the roadway nearest to the shore, which ever was closer. The i n d u s t r i a l survey done 1952 by the author was li m i t e d • fo firms within t h i s area — 81. (Because of a shortage of time, only 3 of the Granville island firms could be i n -cluded with those personally surveyed.) The count of a l l those not surveyed was obtained from B.C. Directories,,Van-couver & N.W. c i t y directory, 1952. 3. Data f o r the 81 firms were obtained from the businesses by a personal survey done by the writer on behalf of the c i t y between 23 October and 31 December, 1952. The data f o r the 375 firms are only an approximation, based on the experience of the c i t y ' s I n d u s t r i a l Development Of f i c e , and a rough telephone sample of about f i v e per cent. On the basis of 50 weeks employment at $50 per week, approximately the average wage f o r Vancouver i n 1951 (Canada, Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Employment and payrolls.1951) 1 7 b Important Part of City's Economy. The t o t a l business and i n d u s t r i a l p a y r o l l f o r a l l of Vancouver was something less than $250 m i l l i o n i n the same 5, year, ? of which False Creek provided approximately 12 per cent. In 1951 i n Vancouver, 125,000 people over the age of 1*+ years 6 had jobs or were a c t i v e l y seeking them. Thus False Creek busi-nesses provided 8 per cent of the t o t a l employment i n Vancouver. The importance of False Creek industries to the economy of Vancouver, i s , i n a l l l i k l i h o o d , greater than these percentages indicate. The t o t a l employment figure f o r Van-couver includes every type of work, whereas the False Creek industries include l i t t l e or no r e t a i l trade, and few of the service occupations. Thus the False Creek area i s proportion-ately heavier, both i n the production of goods and providing services which extend beyond the l i m i t s of the community. It can be assumed, therefore, that there i s an i n d i r e c t de-pendence upon t h i s False Creek employment which i s not r e f l e c t -ed i n unadjusted t o t a l s ? IT B.C., Dept. of Trade and Industry, I n d u s t r i a l index, 1952, reports that the 19^9 Vancouver l a y r o l l ( l a t e s t figure available) was $232.9 m i l l i o n . A 7 per cent i n -crease i n two years would bring i t to the estimated $250 m i l l i o n . 6. Canada, Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , IX Census. 1951. Not a l l of these worked i n Vancouver, bu the number of employed out-side of the c i t y must be assumed, i n the absence of other data, to balance approxiamtely the number l i v i n g outside and employ-ed i n Vancouver. 7. The determination of what t h i s f a c t o r i s cannot be derived from the information at hand. It must s u f f i c e here to say that there i s a greater degree of "urban growth" employment — as contrasted with "urban serving" — i n the False Creek area than i n the c i t y generally, (For a discussion of "urban 1 7 7 The Waterway's Share. Because of the special nature of the waterway, and the recurring proposals to f i l l i n , mention must be made that, of the 81 firms making up the i n i t i a l i n d u s t r i a l ring around the waterway i n 1952, 30 depended on water access f o r part or a l l of t h e i r business. These gave employment to 3^00 and accounted f o r $ 1 1 m i l l i o n , or more than one t h i r d , of the t o t a l p a y r o l l within the basin. Just over half of the 5.5 mile False Creek shore l i n e was occupied i n 1952 by firms which ie quired the waterway f o r some or a l l of t h e i r business..These represented a c a p i t a l investment of #32 m i l l i o n , out of a t o t a l of #*+5 m i l l i o n f o r the 81 firms i n the " f i r s t r i n g " . Of that t o t a l , $18 m i l l i o n was i n manufacturing industries, $10 m i l l i o n of which was accounted f o r by firms depending on water access. The remaining half of the shore was almost equally divided between unoccupied land and businesses not depending on water commerce. In some instances thes.e l a t t e r had wharf Q or j e t t y i n s t a l l a t i o n s , but did not use them f o r water access. growth" and "urban serving" employment and the r e l a t i v e impor-tance to the community, see C i t y Planning Commission, The  economy of the Cincinnati metropolitan area, C i n c i n n a t i , 19*+6, pp.22-2.) In the Cincinnati area i t i s estimated that one "urban growth" job w i l l produce and support as many as 8 "urban serving"jobs. This would be an extremely high f a c t o r f o r the False Creek industries, but even i f the factor were only 2, i t would indicate an economic significance of the area to the community sub s t a n t i a l l y more than the raw figures reveal. 8. Some firms o r i g i n a l l y lmcated on False Creek because water transportation was the most economical means of transporting t h e i r supplies or f i n i s h e d products. This ' The 81 firms i n 1952 did a gross business of #90 m i l l i o n , of which $65 m i l l i o n was accounted f o r by those using the waterway. Manufacturing represented $32 m i l l i o n of the t o t a l , and of thi s $21 m i l l i o n was done by water shippers. 2. A Shortage of In d u s t r i a l Land. The pressure of expanding and new industries was strongly f e l t i n Vancouver, and p a r t i c u l a r l y i n False Creek, during and af t e r the second World War. Except f o r the Indian reserve land on the south shore (immediately east of Burrard bridge) and the shore adjacent to the C.P.R. yards, the l i t t l e land vacant before the war was rapidl y occupied i n the years immediately a f t e r , so that i n 1952 the greater part of the waterway perimeter was i n productive use. Land u t i l i z a t i o n , however, was more extensive than intensive, e i t h e r on a basis of area covered by building, or c a p i t a l investment measured i n 9 d o l l a r s per given unit of area. p a r t i c u l a r l y was the case where goods had to be transr-shipped between Burrard i n l e t and the Creek. By 1952 towing and lighterage charges had reached a point where t h i s was no longer so, and i n many instances shipping practices changed so that products were brought a l l the way by r a i l , or were carried by trucks i f s t i l l moved by deep-sea vessels. 9. Exceptions to this were Granville i s l a n d and the areas i n the immediate v i c i n i t y of Taylor and Pender streets and Glen drive and Venables, where the use was more i n -tensive than extensive. 1 7 9 .The s e c t i o n s of t h e b a s i n l y i n g b e h i n d t h e w a t e r f r o n t and r a i l - s i d e i n d u s t r i a l p r o p e r t i e s were a l s o l a r g e l y o c c u p i e d , but o n l y i n p a r t by b u s i n e s s a c t i v i t i e s . N o r t h of the waterway t h e c i t y ' s doxmtown b u s i n e s s d i s t r i c t l a y w i t h i n a few b l o c k s of t h e I n d u s t r i a l a r e a and the two were growing towards one a n o t h e r as f a s t as the p r o p e r t y i n between c o u l d be a c q u i r e d and adapted by p r i v a t e b u s i n e s s e s . E a s t and s o u t h of t h e waterway, much of t h e b a s i n l a n d s was r e s i d e n t i a l p r o p e r -t y w h i c h , s i n c e b e i n g zoned f o r i n d u s t r i a l uses i n 1928, had emerged as a t r a n s i t i o n zone. I n t h e s e s e c t i o n s r e s i d e n t i a l u se was waning and bmsiness u s e , waxing. But n e i t h e r p r e d o m i n a t -i n g because t h e l a n d was not c o m p l e t e l y s u i t a b l e f o r e i t h e r use. The e f f e c t on t h e - F a l s e Creek b a s i n of t h i s s h o r t a g e of r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e and s u i t a b l e l a n d , a t a p r i c e w h i c h a new or expanding i n d u s t r y might r e a s o n a b l y pay, was t h r e e f o l d . E x p a n s i o n c o n t i n u e d i n t h r e e ways. New l a n d was r e c l a i m e d f r o m th e f o r e s h o r e by i n d u s t r i e s on t h e w a t e r f r o n t , e x i s t i n g i n d u s -t r i e s were d i s p l a c e d o r r e p l a c e d n e i g h b o r s , and r e s i d e n t i a l p r o p e r t y was c o n s o l o d a t e d t o form i n d u s t r i a l s i t e s . Such a c t i v i t y d i d n o t , however, s u f f i c e t o meet the o v e r - a l l dev-elopment problem. D i f f i c u l t i e s i n New Uses. The t r a n s i t i o n zone i n t o w h i c h i n d u s t r i a l e x p a n s i o n was l a r g e l y f o r c e d by a g e n e r a l absence of o t h e r a v a i l a b l e space had o r i g i n a l l y been g i v e n a s t r e e t and s u b d i v i s i o n 1 80 pattern to meet r e s i d e n t i a l needs. This pattern proved unsuit-able f o r post World War II commercial and i n d u s t r i a l needs. The best that private enterprises were able to do with such land was to attempt the purchase of several adjacent parcels to provide the space required. This i s an unsatisfactory procedure. On the one hand i t requires the purchaser to negotiate with several owners, any one of whom may prevent the whole undertaking by an unreasonable pr i c e demand. On the other, i t leaves the e x i s t i n g street pattern, l a i d down i n the f i r s t instance to serve r e s i d e n t i a l property, i n t a c t and l i k e l y to be a r e s t r i c t i o n on size and a f i n a n c i a l burden because of a property assessment based l a r g e l y on foot-frontage. The only way out of t h i s d i f f i c u l t y is' through con-demnation and redevelopment of sizeable areas by the action of a public agency. Federal assistance to municipal redevelopment "for public purposes" i s provided i n the National Housing Act, but i t i s not presently clear whether redevelopment f o r indus-t r i a l use i s a public purposed Large scale public redevelop-ment offers the only alternative to the present slow and waste-f u l method of piecemeal development which leaves the land divided i n a haphazard way between r e s i d e n t i a l and business use and with an unsatisfactory street pattern. 10. Canada, Statutes, "National Housing Act Amendment Act," 1935, c.J+2. 1 p 1 E x i s t i n g Businesses Squeezed. While new industries, i n some cases, were able to locate i n the former r e s i d e n t i a l sections, already established industries were hard presses by the problem or expanding t h e i r e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s . In many instances they could so so, i f at a l l , only by the displacement of others, or the extension of the property out towards the harbour headline i n areas where the shore was s u f f i c i e n t l y shallow. Private Development Inadequate. The same pressure which brought about, the opening of r e s i d e n t i a l and foreshore properties, a l s o meant that previously unoccupied areas, such as that between Connaught bridge and Georgia viaduct, on .the north shore, and the portions east of Main street not occupied by the railway yards, -were i n greater demand by industry. The l a t t e r area experienced, i n 1 9 ^ 6 , the develop-ment which had been forecast f o r i t i n 1 9 1 6 . T h i r t y years elapsed between the st a r t of i t s reclamation and the f i n a l development f o r productive use. Much the same inaction marked the record of the Canadian P a c i f i c lands on the north side of False Creek. By lykk t'he demand fo r i n d u s t r i a l s i t e s became s u f f i c i e n t l y strong to open the area between Connaught bridge and Georgia viaduct. This was the f i r s t occassion, in the 60 years that the railway held the land, that i t undertook any large scale developments, outside of it£s own needs f o r shops and yards. The south side of the waterway, on the other hand, was leaseable as i t stood, and there were always tenants available who would undertake i n d i v i d u a l l y such development as they required. Thus, while a considerable amount of reclamation and development of the waterway was done, i n the main, by private enterprises, the greater part was undertaken by i n d i -vidual businesses concerned only with t h e i r own p a r t i c u l a r operations. No p r i v a t e l y held land was developed i n an over-a l l manner fo r lease or sale, although large segments were (and s t i l l are) owned by the railways. A Successful Public Venture. In development and use Granville island stands i n marked contrast to the railway lands. The island, reclama-tion...of which began i n 1916, was wholly under lease by 19231"1" The work of reclaiming i t was taken d i r e c t l y to completion through the expenditure of public funds. The island was then 12 put i n the hands of a semi-public agency (the harbour board 11. Vancouver Harbour Commission, Report, 1926, p.10 12. See page 102. 18 3 was i n c o r p o r a t e d b y f e d e r a l s t a t u t e , b u t i t S s members w e r e a p p o i n t e d b y t h e g o v e r n o r - g e n e r a l - i n - c o u n c i l ) f o r l e a s e t o o c c u p a n t s . I n t h e i n s t a n c e o f t h e e a s t - e n d r e c l a m a t i o n t h e i n i t i a t i v e f o r m a k i n g t h e l a n d a v a i l a b l e f o r p r i v a t e d e -v e l o p m e n t was l e f t t o t h e r a i l w a y s a n d b e f o r e t h e y c o u l d a t -t r a c t b u s i n e s s e s a g o o d d e a l o f c o s t l y f i l l i n g a n d u t i l i t y p r o v i s i o n w e r e n e e d e d . W h i l e t h e r e w e r e no d e t e r r e n t s t o t h e h a r b o u r b o a r d , t h e r a i l w a y f a c e d a d d i t i o n a l e x p e n s e w h i c h w o u l d o n l y h a v e b e e n w a r r a n t e d i f t h e l a n d c o u l d h a v e b e e n s o l d o r l e a s e d t o b u s i n e s s e s r e q u i r i n g r a i l w a y s e r v i c e s . I n t h e c a s e o f G r a n v i l l e i s l a n d t h e p u b l i c p u r p o s e was t o c r e a t e a n a r e a s u i t a b l e f o r i n d u s t r i a l d e v e l o p m e n t . The e n d was i n v i e w when t h e p r o j e c t was b e g u n . T h e r e was p l a n n i n g i n v o l v e d , a l b e i t o n l y f o r t h e i m m e d i a t e a r e a ( r a t h e r t h a n a s p a r t o f t h e o v e r - a l l w a t e r w a y o r c i t y d e v e l o p m e n t ) . The e a s t - e n d r e c l a m a t i o n was a m i x e d u n d e r t a k i n g w h e r e t h e p u b l i c p o l i c y was m e r e l y c o n v e n i e n t l y t o d i s p o s e o f t h e m a t e r -i a l d r e d g e d f r o m t h e c h a n n e l . T h e r e h a d n o t e v e n b e e n a n e s -t i m a t e o f w h e t h e r t h e w h o l e a r e a c o u l d t h e r e b y b e f i l l e d ( a s m a t t e r s t u r n e d o u t , i t was n o t c o m p l e t e l y f i l l e d a n d t h e p r o b l e m o f f i n i s h i n g i t was one o f c o n t r o v e r s y a n d c o n t e n t i o n b e t w e e n t h e c i t y and t h e r a i l w a y s f o r a n u m b e r o f y e a r s ) . M o r was t h e a r e a i n t e g r a t e d w i t h , o r r e l a t e d i n a n y way t o , t h e i m m e d i a t e l y s u r r o u n d i n g l a n d s , a s m i g h t h a v e b e e n done u n d e r a d e v e l o p m e n t p l a n . The scheme was a n a d h o c a r r a n g e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e c i t y , t h e C a n a d i a n N o r t h e r n , a n d t h e d r e d g e r s . I t S ; 3 c o m p l e t i o n was s u b s e q u e n t l y i m p e d e d b y t h e u n f o r t u n a t e f i n a n c i a l v i c i s s i t u d e s w h i c h t h e r a i l w a y e x p e r i e n c e d s o o n a f t e r t h e a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e 1 3 c i t y was c o m p l e t e d . T h e d i f f e r e n t c o u r s e s f o l l o w e d i n t h e s e two a r e a s c a n s e r v e a s a g u i d e f o r a n y f u t u r e p r o p o s a l s o r p l a n s t o i m p r o v e t h e w a t e r w a y a n d i t S 3 b a s i n . To b e e f f e c t i v e a n d ' t o m a x i m i z e t h e e c o n o m i c o p p o r t u n i t i e s o f f e r e d b y t h e w a t e r w a y , t h e r a i l w a y s , a n d t h e h i g h l y d e s i r a b l e i n d u s t r i a l l o c a t i o n , c o m p r e h e n s i v e l y p l a n n e d p u b l i c w o r k s a r e a l m o s t a n e c e s s i t y , p a r t i c u l a r l y i f t h e s cheme i s t o b e b o t h l a r g e a n d s e l f - l i q u i d a t i n g . W i t h o u t p l a n -n i n g , s m a l l d e v e l o p m e n t s w i l l s t i l l o c c u r a n d w i l l a c h i e v e a m e a s u r e o f e c o n o m i c u s e . D e v e l o p m e n t b y t h i s m e t h o d , h o w e v e r , w i l l b e s l o w e r , l e s s c e r t a i n , a n d c a r r y w i t h i t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t p r o j e c t s may b e u n d e r t a k e n i n l i n e w i t h s h o r t - t e r m , i n d i v i d -u a l i n t e r e s t s c o n t r a r y t o l o n g - t e r m o v e r - a l l d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e r e c o r d o f i n d i v i d u a l e n t e r p r i s e i n F a l s e G r e e k h a s b e e n l a r g e l y f r e e f r o m d e t r i m e n t a l d e v e l o p m e n t s i n c e t h e b e g i n n i n g , b u t t h e r e i s no a s s u r a n c e t h a t t h i s r e c o r d w i l l c o n t i n u e . E v e n a f t e r t h e s e c o n d W o r l d W a r , w h e n t h e n e e d f o r l a n d was so g r e a t a n d t h e s u p p l y so s c a r c e , d e v e l o p m e n t u n d e r -t a k e n i n t h e F a l s e C r e e k a r e a was n e v e r s u c h a s w o u l d p e r m a n e n t l y i m p a i r a n y r e a s o n a b l e s cheme f o r t h e o r d e r i n g o f t h e c h a n n e l a n d i m p r o v e m e n t o f t h e ' s h o r e . D e v e l o p m e n t b y i n d i v i d u a l e n t e r p r i s e s c o u l d no l o n g e r 1 3 . See p a g e 83- f o r a r r a n g e m e n t s b e t w e e n c i t y and r a i l w a y . 185 s a f e l y be r e l i e d upon ( i n 1952) f o r the improvement and en-largement of the i n d u s t r i a l and commercial opportunities i n ; the False Creek basin, either on the foreshore or in the t r a n s i t i o n a l r e s i d e n t i a l - i n d u s t r i a l zone behind the present developed area. This was so because developments of s u f f i c i e n t size to benefit the economy of the area were o r d i n a r i l y beyond the scope of private enterprise. I n d u s t r i a l i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n had reached the point where competition f o r existing space might severely have altered the growth which already had occurred. 3. Administrative Uncertainty. In the seven years between 1946 and 1952 there was a good deal of talk, -some planning, and v i r t u a l l y no action in respect to public development of False Creek. As f a r as the waterway was an obstacle, i t required a bridge b u i l t at a price l i k e l y to approach $20 m i l l i o n before completion i n 1954. As an area of high p o t e n t i a l for i n d u s t r i a l use, False Creek brought f o r t h a reaffirmation of the p r i n c i p l e s embodied i n the 1928 Vancouver plan (never implemented), a "False Creek Development Survey," and a scheme f o r a fish-boat mooring basin. The period began auspiciously with an agreement, between the p r o v i n c i a l departments of Public Works, and Lands and Forests, the c i t y ' s Board of Works, and the C.P.R., to cooperate i n opening the unused land on the north shore of the Creek between Connaught bridge and Georgia viaduct, A l l that came out of t h i s agreement, however, was a rough road, which ran northeast-southwest from Connaught bridge to the B.C. E l e c t r i c ' s C a r r a l l street yards, thence almost due north to Pender street. I t followed approximately the o r i g i n a l shore l i n e and divided p r o v i n c i a l and railway owned properties. For t h i s reason the railway and the p r o v i n c i a l Lands department contributed the necessary right-of-way to the c i t y for the road. The r p o v i n c i a l Public Works depart-ment contributed $ 2 8 0 9 towards the cost of building the road, and t h i s was met by the c i t y , which did the work. Some f i l l -ing had to be done where the roadway ran adjacent to the B.C. E l e c t r i c property, and this was done by the p r o v i n c i a l govern ment. The C.P.R. permitted a l e v e l c r o ssing of i t ' s tracks at the extension of Smithe street, but retained t i t l e to t h i s portion. The new thoroughfare was named Taylor street (see 1*+ diagrams, p. 1 3 D From the r e v i s i o n of the Vancouver plan i n 1 9 ^ 8 u n t i l early 1 9 5 0 no action was taken to revise the o r i g i n a l plans f o r False Creek or undertake the sp e c i a l study v/hich would be required to transform the general suggestions to concrete proposals. V+. B.C., Dept., of Lands, F i l e 153*4-90. The absence of action was due, i n part, to a lack of agreement within the Vancouver Town Planning Commission as to what the future role of the waterway and basin should be. Engineering reports had at a l l times favoured retention of the waterway as a shipping channel, but these were not i n l i n e with the general consensus of popular opinion. This difference was r e f l e c t e d i n the membership of the commission, and the r e s u l t was inaction, even i n the face of the ever mounting demand of new i n d u s t r i a l areas i n the c i t y . New Plans Necessary. By 1950 action i n False Creek, f o r bridges or f i l l i n g , could no longer be delayed. Expert outside advice was sought, and Edward L. Cousins, P. Eng., engineer-consultant to the Toronto harbour baord, was retained. He made a report to the c i t y council 26, June, 1950 (following an inspection of the 15 waterway/) i n which he recommended: 1. A thorough study of False Creek be undertaken. 2. Proposals f o r t o t a l f i l l be rejected. 3 . Railway and terminal f a c i l i t i e s of Vancouver and p a r t i c u l a r l y False Creek be studied. V. Present and future sawmill use of the waterway and basin be given careful study. 5. The problem of relocating K i t s i l a n o t r e s t l e be considered. 6. The provision of a mooring area f o r f i s h boats be considered 7. Following these studies and reports, that a compre-hensive development plan be drawn for the area with a grogram f o r i t s implementation, based on f i n a n c i a l resources and other l i m i t i n g f a c t o rs. 1!?. The Couains preliminary report has not been published ( 1 9 5 3 ) . This information i s from a report to the Board of Works, 1 0 , Feb.1953, hy the c i t y engineer. On the basis of t h i s preliminary report, the c i t y council authorized an in v e s t i g a t i o n of the False Creek development project. The c i t y engineer was instructed to set up, within his department, an organization to carry t h i s out, and Mr. Cousins was retained as consultant to the survey. A study of railway and terminal f a c i l i t i e s was undertaken almost immediately by D.G.Kilburn, r e t i r e d chief engineer, federal Department of T r a n s p o r t ^ The f o r e s t r y consulting f i r m of CD.Schultz & Co., was engaged sometime l a t e r to 17 make a study of the wood-converting industries of False Creek. An engineering-assistant-in-charge and an experienced d r a f t -man were assigned the problem (one year and f i v e months l a t e r ) under tn"e d i r e c t i o n of the senior assistant c i t y engineer. Survey work and complete mapping of the waterway and i t s fac-i l i t i e s and development were undertaken and preliminary pro-posals f o r development were drawn. A P o l i t i c a l Issue. In the meantime, the development of False Creek became an e l e c t i o n issue i n l o c a l p o l i t i c s . In the mayoralty race of 1950 Fred Hume included i n his platform a plank which 16". Made to the c i t y engineer November, 1951? not released (1953) f o r publication. 17. Made to c i t y engineer, October, 1952, not released (1953) f o r publication. 1 8 9 advocated the f i l l i n g - i n of the False Creek waterway. He com-bined this with opposition to the spending of $ 1 0 m i l l i o n (as was then estimated, the cost subsequently nearly doubling) f o r a new bridge at Granville street. He was elected and took o f f i c e i n January, 1951. As mayor he sought to prevent the awarding of the Granville bridge contract, but was prevailed upon to abandon th i s stand, and urged to withhold his f i l l i n g - i n proposals u n t i l the False Creek Development Survey could be started. In the summer of 1952 the writer was engaged to estmate the non-engineering costs of implementing prelim-inary development proposals drawn by the survey, and to es-timate the value of land reclaimed i n implementing these schmese. A l l involved some measure of reclamation, and were' more or less a stage-by-stage progression towards a completed project very much l i k e the 1929 proposals. These schemes, however, were rejected, i n the summer of 1952, by Mr. Kilburn, the c i t y ' s Lands Department, and the assistant engineer, as being incomplete and inaccurate. The writer was also given the task of extending, i n a general way, the Schultz survey of the wood-converting industries to the remainder of the l P survey-area. However, the Schultz report, due i n June, was not received u n t i l October. As a r e s u l t neither of these tasks could be performed, and i t was decided instead that a business-by business survey of the industries i n the ares should be under-let See note 3, p. 171*-. taken j o i n t l y by the writer and a member of the o f f i c e of the In d u s t r i a l Commissioner. This was completed i n December, 1953. A Time-Coneuming E f f o r t . The False Creek Development Survey, t h i r t y months a f t e r i t was authorized by the c i t y council and almost three years a f t e r i t s consultant, E.L.Cousins, had begun his f i r s t i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the area, was remarkable f o r two reasons. In the f i r s t place a great deal of time elapsed without any proposals being made. Secondly, no e f f o r t had been made during t h i s time, either formally or informally, to associate the pro-v i n c i a l government, the C.P.R., or the federal government with whatever program of development was l i k e l y to emerge. Informal contact was maintained with both the C.P.R. and the National Harbours Board Vancouver o f f i c e , but only to obtain information from them. They were not kept informed of the proposals emerging, nor was th e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n sought i n the formulation of these proposals. At the beginning of his second term of o f f i c e Mayor Hume, i n his inaugural, message, announced that he was sending the c i t y engineer (together with the assistant engineer-responsible f o r the False Creek Development Survey) to Toronto to consult with Mr. Cousins (who had, because of i l l health, been unable to report to the council during the two and a half years since he was retained to bring about a development plam)V 19. The c i t y engineer brought back, from Mr.Cousins, the recommendation that the studies be continued, that the Federal Government Action. Orice again, during t h i s period, the vacant Indian reserve land near the entrance to False Creek, provbked devel-opment proposals. This time they came from an alderman, 1950-52 chairman of the council's Committee on Harbours, Industries, Of) and Parks, who proposed the area as a s i r e f o r the f i s h -boat mooring accommodation demanded by the fish-boat owners, and suggested by Mr. H. L. Cousins. He undertook informal negotiations, f i r s t with the p r o v i n c i a l Department of Lands and Forests, and then with the federal government, through f i r s t the member f o r Vancouver 21 Centre, (the B.C. member of the cabiney responsible f o r main-land a f f a i r s ) and l a t e r the Minister of F i s h e r i e s , member f o r 22 Vancouver Capilano. The federal government had adopted the p o l i c y , since the war, of being w i l l i n g to dispose of the re-maining reserve land, provided i t could obtain the price re-quired to meet i t s obligations to the Indians and the rever-sionary claims of the province. The only purchaser able and w i l l i n g to meet th i s price was i t s e l f , and the land was trans-ferred from the trusteeship of the Indian A f f a i r s Branch to economic and i n d u s t r i a l study be extended, that the channel between Granville island and the south shore be f i l l e d i n , and that discussions be commenced at once with the provin-c i a l and federal governments (the National Harbours Board acting f o r the l a t t e r ) , and the C.p.R. (Vancouver, Board of Works, Report by the City Engineer, op.cit.) 20. H.D.Wilson, alderman 19^8-53. 21. Hon. Ralph 0. Campney. 22. Hon. James S i n c l a i r . 1 9 2 the ownership of the Department of F i s h e r i e s . This l a t e s t action by the federal government i n (the matter of) False Creek deserved the same c r i t i c i s m as has been directed against many of i t s actions i n the past. The c i t y had i n progress, a l b e i t extremely slowly and uncer-t a i n l y , a development survey of tie False Creek waterway. The consultant to t h i s survey had recommended consideration be given to the f e a s i b i l i t y of l o c a t i n g a fish-boat mooring basin i n the False Creek area. The proper course of action by the senior government was to approach the fish-boat dock question through, or at least i n company with, the c i t y ' s survey group. No evidence was found, i n t h i s study, of any approach to either the development survey s t a f f or the c i t y ' s planning department as to the s u i t a b i l i t y or a d v i s a b i l i t y of the proposed development. Once more, the record f o r t h i s period shows con-siderable inaction or indifference on the part of administra-t i v e agencies i n the matter of False Creek development. The c i t y was too slow i n i t s a c t i v i t y , the federal government too f a s t , and action by the l a t t e r possibly hampering or impairing action by the former. No means appears i n 1953 to integrate these two administrative approaches to what i s e s s e n t i a l l y one problem. 23. As a r e s u l t of the e f f o r t s of Alderman Wilson, pressure from the Fish-Boat Owners Association, and the imminence of a federal general e l e c t i o n , the Minister of F i s h e r i e s announced i n July, 1953, that a basin f o r fish-boats would be b u i l t at the s i t e of the Indian reserve, and that, upon completion, i t would be turned over to the c i t y to operate. FALSE CREEK M P Ownership of Land 1953 Map showing areas of False Creek where t i t l e i s held by the Crown, the C i t y , or the r a i l r o a d s . * * * * * 1 Q •? L E G E N T i t l e held by: Federal Crown Pr o v i n c i a l Crown Leased to C.P.R. fo r sub-lease C i t y of Vancouver Canadian P a c i f i c Railway B.C. E l e c t r i c (Railway) Co. Canadian National Railway Great Northern Railway FALSE CREEK L A N D O W N E R S H I P AND Z O N I N G (952 V A N C O U V E R H A R B O U R Chapter Ten: Conclusion What Lies Ahead. In the preceding chapters an account has been given of the history of the False Creek problem, and of the actions taken at the several l e v e l s of government to make False Creek l e s s of an obstacle and increase i t s u t i l i t y as an i n d u s t r i a l area. This two-fold problem has always been a challenge, and from time to time men have sought i t s solution i n plans f o r both large and small scale public and private developments. But the challenge was never e f f e c t i v e l y met at the administra-t i v e l e v e l , and the plans r a r e l y became working projects. Much has been done by the fe d e r a l , p r o v i n c i a l and c i t y governments to solve the False Creek problem, but r a r e l y as the outcome of w e l l -considered planning. As a r e s u l t , undertakings were i n d i v i -dually carried out at one administrative l e v e l which might better have been cooperative e f f o r t s of a l l l e v e l s , and the e f f e c t was piecemeal where i t should have been comprehensive. Because of the rapid growth of Vancouver, and the slower development of i t s central waterway and basin, False Creek i s more of a problem i n 1953 than i t ever has been. To the extent that the False Creek problem i s that of over-1 9 * 1 9 h coming an obstacle, r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i t s solution has un-questionably been a public one. There has never been any sub-s t a n t i a l or certain opinion, however, as to whether the problem of developing the waterway and basin, so as to maximize i t s i n d u s t r i a l use, i s primarily a public or private r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Ever since the F i r s t World War interrupted the implementa-t i o n of the Swan plan (for dredging a 600-foot channel, cribbing i t s sides, and b a c k - f i l l i n g ) a body of opinion has favoured public development. The only step achieved i n that d i r e c t i o n , however, was the reclamation of Granville i s l a n d . On the other hand, r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r developing the area east of Main street was assigned to, and accepted by, private enterprises, although they received substantial and gratuitous help from the public dredging then being done. This achieve-ment has furthered the opinion that private enterprise, with a small measure of public assistance and a large measure of public e o n t r o l l (through navigation, headline, zoning, building and use regulations), would best achieve the ends sought. Meanwhile, a l l development has, since 191$, been l e f t wholly to private enterprises, l e s s through p o s i t i v e p o l i c y , however, than by mere default r e s u l t i n g from administrative uncertainty and inaction. 1. The r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the railways, i n developing the east end f l a t s , were c a r e f u l l y set out i n the agreements by which they obtained the land. 1 . F i f t y Years of Surveys and Reports. The f i r s t survey of the False Creek area was that of the C.P.R., and i t recommended the deepsea terminal and yards be located on the K i t s i l a n o peninsula. The plan f o r t h i s was never published, however, nor was i t ever a basis f o r proposed public action. The f i r s t proposal recommending government works appeared i n the early years of the twentieth century, and was one of many boom-provoked schemes. I t s o r i g i n could not be learned i n the course of t h i s study, but i t did appear to have the support of the c i t y engineer of the time, Col. T.H. Tracy.^ The idea was to dredge the area east of Main street, which was then l a r g e l y t i d a l f l a t s , and construct there a shipping basin for shallow and medium draught vessels. The scheme never gained s u f f i c i e n t popular support and was dropped when the area i n question was granted to the Canadian Northern Railway f o r terminal development. At about the same time, there appears to have been a p r i -vate plan f o r dock and terminal development on the mud f l a t s where Granville i s l a n d i s now located. A lease or grant of the area was sought by a group of l o c a l men, but the scheme was discredited as being a p o l i t i c a l "deal", and came to an end with 2 . Roy W. Brown, interview with the author, 1 4 Feb., 1 9 5 3 1 9 8 the change of federal governments i n 1 9 1 1 . 3 The federal government, i n the same period, had soundings made of the chan-nel and shore by i t s engineers and t h i s work was followed, i n 1 9 1 2 , by the report of the Montreal c i v i l engineer, A.D. Swan, on Vancouver harbour, i n which i t was recommended that the False Creek channel be narrowed and deepened and the residual area reclaimed. Action to implement t h i s scheme was begun i n 1 9 1 3 with the dredging of the channel. The federal government intended to complete the project but war conditions prevented t h i s . Private Scheme Halted. The F i r s t World War also halted a proposal of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and P a c i f i c Railway to acquire the Indian reserve land on the K i t s i l a n o peninsula f o r terminal purposes. Government seizure of U.S. railways n u l l i f i e d the agreement which had been entered into by the railway, the harbour commis-sion, and the Indian A f f a i r s branch of the federal government. In 1 9 1 9 A.D. Swan once more reported on Vancouver's har-bour needs. He ^ agalya'* re commended reclamation of the False Creek foreshore and also proposed a deep-sea ship and r a i l t e r -minal for the K i t s i l a n o peninsula much l i k e that planned by the Milwaukee Road. The harbour commission favoured the idea, but 3 . Brown, i b i d . ; Stevens, Hon. H.H., interview with the author, 2 0 September, 1 9 5 3 . 1 9 9 the 1921 election of a new federal government changed the commission and i t s plans. In 1927 the whole False Creek area was given careful con-sideration i n reports on Vancouver's harbour and transporta-t i o n by A.R. Mackenzie^- and W.D. Hudson5 ) a n c i t h e i r recommen-dations for developing the waterway were made a part of the Vancouver c i t y plan of 1923. The proposal followed closely Swan's basic idea - a bulkheaded channel (4-00-600 feet wide) with reclamation of the foreshore. Unlike the Swan plan, how-ever, the 192& proposal was c a r e f u l l y integrated with the c i t y ' s street and bridge pattern. I t also proposed the j o i n i n g of Granville i s l a n d to the mainland on the west and south, and the elimination of the K i t s i l a n o t r e s t l e and the C.P.R. yards on the north shore. Included were proposals f o r several new crossings of the waterway, one of which, at Burrard street , was the only proposal to become a r e a l i t y i n the course of the following 25 years. No new o v e r - a l l plan f o r the area has been presented undertaken which have touched upon the False Creek problem i n one way or another. In 1932 S i r Alexander Gibb, an English harbour engineer and administrator, made his National Ports 4. Engineer f o r the Vancouver Town Planning Commission. 5. Associate engineer, Harland Bartholomew and Associates, town planning consultants. since. There have been, however, a number of surveys 2 0 0 Survey. He mentioned False Creek only i n passing, refering to i t s high degree of i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n and great importance to the port of Vancouver. His observations lent weight to the contention that a complete f i l l of False Creek would not be i n the best commercial and i n d u s t r i a l i n t e r e s t s of the c i t y . False Creek Development Survey. 1950 No new surveys were undertaken, or reports or recommenda-7 tions made during the depression and war periods. In 1950, after some wrangles between the c i t y council and the town plan-ning commission over the a d v i s a b i l i t y of re-proposing the o r i g i -nal 1928" plan f o r False Creek development, the c i t y council asked E.L. Cousins, Toronto harbour engineer, to advise the c i t y on a course of action regarding False Creek. May 12, 1950, Mr. Cousins suggested that a f u l l survey of the waterway be made by a s t a f f from the c i t y h a l l . This recommendation was accep-ted, and Mr. Cousins retained as consultant to the "False Creek Development Survey", as i t was named. In addition, he advised 6. S i r Alexander was primarily concerned with the national harbour problem and the f i n a n c i a l d i s t r e ss i n which a l l harbour boards then found themselves. Out of his recommen-dations came the National Harbours Board i n 1936, replacing i n t e r a l i a the Vancouver Harbour Commission. 7. What was described as "a complete engineering survey of the False Creek sector" (Vancouver Province. 18 A p r i l , 1939, p.2) was authorized i n A p r i l , 1939. Attempts to have the senior governments p a r t i c i p a t e delayed i t s s t a r t u n t i l h o s t i l i t i e s f i n a l l y prevented i t . special reports on the railway s i t u a t i o n , the sawmill s i t u a t i o n , and the economic condition of False Creek industry. A good deal of basic survey work was performed and mapped by the sur-vey s t a f f , and reports were submitted on railways,** the saw m i l l s , 9 a n d the economic and i n d u s t r i a l condition of the water-way and i t s i n d u s t r i e s . - ^ Three years a f t e r i t was authorized by the c i t y council, and 20 months af t e r i t began i t s work, the False Creek Develop-ment Survey was discontinued. I t had amassed a l l possible data but found i t s e l f with nothing to recommend. The horns of the dilemma which caught i t were, f i r s t , an i n a b i l i t y to make any substantial improvements i n the development plans long since proposed, and, second, an unwillingness to propose again what had i n the past proven unachievable. The aim of the survey appears to have been the detailed planning of waterway development - f o r which the time was not r i p e . The most that any engineering plan could hope to do was a general r e v i s i o n of the already proposed scheme f o r develop-ment, i n terms of the changes i n the o v e r - a l l needs of the c i t y f o r both new i n d u s t r i a l land and more adequate crossings. 8. D.J. Kilburn, Interim Report. 19 June 1951, (unpublished). 9. CD. Schultz Co., Preliminary appreciation of the develop-ment of the wood converting industries i n False Creek. August [?] , 1952 (unpublished). 10. Author's report, submitted 15 January 1953 (unpublished). The survey seems to have f a l l e n over the stumbling block which had tripped a l l previous attempts to obtain a fea s i b l e development program. A plan, no matter how r e a l i s -t i c i n an engineering way, can have small chance of m a t e r i a l i z -ing i f i t i s administratively u n r e a l i s t i c . Because a l l the False Creek planning up to 1 9 5 3 was directed s o l e l y at solving engineering problems, to the v i r t u a l exclusion of any con-sideration of the administrative problems, the well-engineered cart was always i n front of the p o l i t i c a l h o r s e . ^ U n t i l a solution to the administrative d i f f i c u l t i e s i s found, there ap-pears to be but s l i g h t chance of any comprehensive development plan being implemented. Meanwhile the undertakings open to the c i t y w i l l be l i m i t e d to piecemeal projects with hardly more than accidental relationships to the o v e r - a l l needs of the waterway. 2 . Land Scarcity and Development In the post-World War II period Vancouver faced, f o r the 1 1 . In an e f f o r t to keep away from problems of a non-engi-neering sort, the l i m i t s of the 1 9 5 0 - 5 3 survey were set at the f i r s t property l i n e behind the shore of the 1 1 0-foot ( c i t y datum) contour l i n e . (see note p. ). This narrow l i m i t made almost impossible any relationship be-tween proposed developments and e x i s t i n g c i t y development, and only one proposal emerged from the survey - to f i l l - i n the channel between Granville i s l a n d and the south shore. (Vancouver Province. 1 1 Feb., 1 9 5 3 , p.2 1 ) Even t h i s small project appears (Oct. 1 9 5 3 ) to have been abandoned. 2 0 3 f i r s t time, a s c a r c i t y of land suitedle to i n d u s t r i a l use. The Swan plan of 1 9 1 2 and the Bartholemew plan of 1928 (both of which proposed narrowing the ex i s t i n g waterway by reclaiming the undredged foreshore) i f implemented, would have made a v a i l -able between 150 and 200 acres. I f the areas i n the False Creek basin, zoned since 1928 f o r industry but la r g e l y occupied by residences, were replotted, an additional 50 acres could be made available. I f the Bartholomew proposal that C.B.R. yard a c t i v i t i e s on the north shore between Granville and Connaught bridges be discontinued, 1 2 then an additional 2 5 acres would become available from exi s t i n g land. i The resubdivision of the areas presently zoned, but not well subdivided, f o r industry could be undertaken by the c i t y administration i f the area redevelopment provisions of the National Housing Act apply to t h i s sort of project. 1 3 Other-wise such action would l i k e l y be beyond the f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y of the c i t y on i t s own resources. A change i n use of the C.P.R. yard area on the north shore could be undertaken by the railway. Whether the company would do so can only be surmised, 12. "Intensive railway a c t i v i t y along the north shore of False Creek, between Pender and Granville streets, i s not conducive to c i v i c development, and much work performed here may to advantage be transferred to other l o c a l i t i e s . "Railroad operations should be li m i t e d to service to the industries and warehouses i n the False Creek d i s t r i c t . " (Vancouver Town Planning Commission, A Plan for Vancouver, 1928, p.141.) 1 3 . Canada, Statutes. 1953, c 42 s.3b but i t can cer t a i n l y be said that the railway would not make the move v o l u n t a r i l y unless i t s need f o r yard area decreased and i t saw i n d u s t r i a l development as a pr o f i t a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e to the present use.14 The construction of a bulk-headed channel, the back-f i l l i n g of the foreshore behind i t , and the ac q u i s i t i o n or re-location of the shore establishments detrimentally affected by such work, i s probably well outside the f i n a n c i a l competence of the c i t y and might even be beyond i t s statutory powers. Such an undertaking would necessitate either j o i n t administra-t i v e action by the three l e v e l s of government; or surrender to the c i t y of the False Creek int e r e s t s of the two senior governments along with statutory powers to undertake the work; or the formation of a statutory corporation representative of the three public l e v e l s , together with private i n t e r e s t s ( p r i n -c i p a l l y the railways) and empowered to expropriate lands and borrow money against i t s c r e d i t . 3. A Proposed Course of Action I f further development of the False Creek waterway and 1 4 . Formation of a terminal railway company to perform a l l switching i n the Vancouver area has been proposed, along with removal of the major yard a c t i v i t i e s to Coquitlam. The immediate need f o r t h i s was seriously questioned by D.J. Kilburn i n a 1 9 5 1 Interim Report (unpublished) to the City Engineer. basin i s to take place, there must be a strong public desire for i t , a plan of what i s to be done there, s u f f i c i e n t autho-r i t y to carry out the development, and f i n a l l y there must be money (or credit) to pay f o r the development. In 1952 there was among Vancouver residents a wide-spread and l o n g - f e l t idea that the waterway could and should be clean-ed up. Some of t h i s f e e l i n g extended to the b e l i e f that the waterway should be f i l l e d i n . This l a t t e r idea (the writer believes) was erroneous and uninformed. I t s prevalence arose from the fact that information about False Creek had been pur-posely kept from publication by the fear that development of the waterway might have become a " p o l i t i c a l f o o t b a l l " . The public ignorance about False Creek that resulted from t h i s p o l i c y made False Creek f a r more l i k e l y to be an unreasoned p o l i t i c a l issue than i f the needs and potentials of the water-way had been given c a r e f u l , f a c t u a l and wide p u b l i c i t y . The people of Vancouver have been l a r g e l y ignorant of the meaning and importance of the waterway to t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l and c i v i c with welfare. The f i r s t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of any agency charged^im-proving the basin w i l l be to inform the public of what the water-way and i t s i n d u s t r i a l land mean to them. Next, the public must be t o l d , i n general terms, what can and should be done i n the False Creek basin. As t h i s depends la r g e l y on what administrative arrangements can be concluded, any proposal w i l l be tentative, and expressed as several a l t e r -natives. Properly i t should follow settlement of the admini-strative side, but popular support can only be mustered for a proposal which can be concretely dealt with. The need, then, w i l l be to revise the Swan and Bartholemew (1928) proposals, with alternative developments for such d i f f i c u l t i e s as may elude solution, such as the location of the railway crossing, future use of the C.P.R. yards, ownership of Granville island, and inclusion of the area east of Main street. There i s i n -formation enough at hand with the False Creek Development Survey to do this. Authority to develop comprehensively the False Creek area has never been clearly defined or established. Without autho-r i t y there has also been an absence of power - in terms of money or credit - to undertake any large scale new works or redevelop-ment. ' In the same sense that parliament "can do anything except make a man a woman", authority exists to f i l l or dredge False Creek, expropriate and redevelop i t s land, and direct i t into uses necessary for the community. Because of the federal nature of the Canadian state, that authority resides with either the central or provincial governments (but not both!5). The recognition by both the federal and B.C. governments in 1924 that False Creek i s not a "public harbour" i n the meaning of the Third Schedule to the British North America Act, and hence not 15. In matters such as agriculture and immigration there are concurrent powers. the property of Canada, relegates the area to the class of "Local Works and Undertakings" and "Property and C i v i l Rights" which are, by Section 92 of the same Act, the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the province. Such being the case the L e g i s l a t i v e Assem-bly of B.C. can make statutory provisions f o r False Creek de-velopment of any magnitude, with implementation l i m i t e d only by the funds or credit available. P r o v i n c i a l Authority. Accepting the authority f o r development as being with the p r o v i n c i a l government, the next question i s the means by which t h i s power should be exercised. The practice of the government has been to r e f r a i n from major works or undertakings located within a municipality, unless such are necessary f o r the general well-being of the province and by t h e i r nature unsuited to c i v i c development. I t i s u n l i k e l y that False Creek could be so cate-gorized. Alternatives to development by the province through i t s departmental machinery are the vesting, by statute, of the p r o v i n c i a l powers i n a municipal corporation ( i n t h i s case Vancouver) or the l e g i s l a t i v e creation of a statutory authority endowed with the necessary powers. In as much as the agency undertaking the development work would almost c e r t a i n l y have to borrow money f o r i t s proposed works, a problem would arise i f i t were a municipal corporation. C i v i c borrowing generally f a l l s short of the money the council would l i k e to have f o r c a p i t a l expenditures, and hence there i s competition among projects, on the basis of public need and popular desire. In the case of Vancouver, i t i s highly unlike-l y that, even with the authority to undertake comprehensive de-velopment of False Creek, the council would be w i l l i n g to add s u f f i c i e n t l y to the c i t y ' s debt to rais e enough c a p i t a l to do the work necessary. On the other hand, a special authority which could assume ownership of the r e a l property i n False Creek and contiguous areas, would have sizeable assets against which mortgage deben-tures could be issued. The a c c e p t a b i l i t y of such s e c u r i t i e s , and the rate of in t e r e s t they would have to bear, would depend upon conditions which cannot be f u l l y discussed here. I t w i l l be assumed here, however, that such an authority would be under competent d i r e c t i o n and control and that i t s capacity to meet int e r e s t and p r i n c i p a l would not be speculative beyond that of comparable semi-public agencies. In the event that the c i t y and province were w i l l i n g to guarantee i t s borrowings, i t s p o s i -t i o n would be correspondingly improved. A Mixed Undertaking. I t would be well i f the authority came into possession of the False Creek assets of both the province and the c i t y at the beginning, and that these governments hald common stock i n the corporation on the basis of the value of the assets surrendered. The remaining properties could be acquired i n at lea s t two ways. The conventional method would be through expropriation, payments f o r the lands acquired being made from borrowed c a p i t a l . Another course suggests i t s e l f , however, although i t i s less conventional. I f the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e were w i l l i n g to do so, i t could empower the False Creek authority to o f f e r stock of the corporation, rather than cash, f o r expropriated properties. I f such were done the former property owners would own the corporation's stock i n the same proportion as the value of t h e i r o r i g i n a l holdings bore to the o v e r - a l l value of the corporation's holdings. Such an authority would be i n the nature of a "mixed undertaking", and i t s control would be divided be-tween public and private owners. Management of the authority might be vested i n a board of direc t o r s , elected by the stock holders. I t would almost cer-t a i n l y be desirable f o r the members elected by public bodies -that i s the c i t y and the province - to have a voting control i n decisions as to proposed undertakings of the authority. At the same time the private owners would deserve to have t h e i r equity protected, and a reasonable guarantee of a return on that equity. These two conditions could possibly be achieved by having, say, 6C$ of the voting strength controlled by the c i t y and the pro-vince (divided between them on the basis of t h e i r property values). Decisions as to the nature of works to be undertaken by the autho-r i t y could be carried by a simple majority, but decisions l i k e l y 2 1 0 to a f f e c t the assets or earning powers of the corporation could require a two-thirds majority. In t h i s way the public control of the o v e r - a l l development of the area would be pre-served, while the private owners would be protected from a d i s -sipation of t h e i r equity. There should also be provision f o r the authority to pay a reasonable and f a i r i n t e r e s t on the value of the land taken. Such a "mixed undertaking" 1 0 would have several advantages. In the f i r s t place there would be, perhaps, l e s s displacement of present False Creek business owners than might happen i f pur-chase were outright. Secondly, some of the control of the cor-poration, at lea s t , would be representative of private i n t e r e s t s , which might r e l i e v e i t of c r i t i c i s m s often directed against purely governmental agencies, and might also be a r e s t r a i n t 1 6 . For a desription of "mixed undertakings" which have been t r i e d elsewhere, see: Goodman, Edward. Forms of  public control and ownership. London, 195/2/; Hart, S i r William, "Mixed Undertakings", Public Administration. London, A p r i l 1 9 3 2 (V . 1 0 ) p.138 f f . For a proposal of expropriation with common stock as the quid pro quo, see: Sert. J.L.. Can our c i t i e s  survive? Cambridge, 1 9 4 7 , p p . 7 4 - 7 o . The "mixed undertaking" i s also dealt with b r i e f l y i n the following accounts of public corporations: Dimock, M.E., "The government Corporations", Harpers  Magazine. New York, May 1 9 4 5 , ( V . 1 9 0 ) p.5 6 9 f f , and Public Administration. Jan. 1 9 5 3 (V . 1 3 ) p.51 f f ; Bland, F.A., "Some implications of the statutory cor-poration", Public Administration. Oct. 1 9 3 7 (V . 1 5 ) p.3 9 3 f f ; and Street, S i r Arthur, The public corporation i n B r i t i s h  experience. London, 1 9 4 7 . Additional references w i l l be found i n the bibliography of Public authorities i n the states. Council of State Governments, Chicago, 1 9 5 3 . against any e f f o r t to introduce p o l i t i c s or patronage into the agency. Thirdly, such a mixed undertaking would remove the necessity of heavy borrowings to finance expropriations, and would permit the o f f e r i n g of debentures f o r development expenditures i n a market not already surfeited with the autho-r i t y ' s paper. F i n a l l y , i f the common stock was permitted to be traded i n the s e c u r i t i e s market, i t s trading price would be a constant r e f l e c t i o n of the success of the authority. Private Owners There i s no way to f o r e t e l l what would be the reaction of the large private holders - the C.P.R. and the B.C. E l e c t r i c , i f the authority extended only to Main street; the C.N.R. and G.N.R. as well i f i t included the whole basin - to such a pro-posal. They would be surrendering absolute control of large segments of the i n d u s t r i a l basin i n return f o r a much more l i m i -ted control of the authority owning the entire basin. On the one hand they might p r o f i t s u b s t a n t i a l l y from the o v e r - a l l de-velopment not possible before. On the other they might f e e l that they were surrendering something of substantial market value - the r e a l property - i n return f o r , f i r s t , stock of uncer-t a i n future value and, second, public control of t h e i r property which might eventually be contrary to t h e i r best i n t e r e s t s . From the information at hand i t appears safe to say that a rea-sonable case could be made for both sides of t h i s unconventional 2 1 2 proposal. I t does not seem l i k e l y that the B.C. E l e c t r i c and the one (or three) railway(s) would enter the arrangement without substantial reservations. On the other hand, i t also appears, from t h i s study, that Vancouver i s i n very r e a l need of compre-hensive development of False Creek. Le g i s l a t i v e action of the kind suggested here might be lab e l l e d confiscatory, but there i s a very r e a l public need f o r something closely akin to the foregoing proposal. I t s j u s t i f i -cation would have to be i n provisions, mandatory on the authority:,, to insure that neither would the expropriated equity of the p r i -vate owners depreciate i n value when converted into the common stock of the authority, nor would t h e i r normal business processes be impaired. A sincere e f f o r t to protect the i n t e r e s t s of p r i -vate owners would be a f i r s t necessity and might succeed i n making the proposal acceptable. The Federal Government. No mention has yet been made of the two holdings of the federal government i n False Creek. In the f i r s t place, the federal crown could not be l e g i s l a t e d into the corporation, i n the same way that private holders could. Secondly, the pre-sence of two senior governments on the corporation's c o n t r o l l i n g board would be less advantageous than just one. Organization and operation of the authority would be much easier i f some means 2 1 3 were found whereby the federal government might give up i t s holdings i n False Creek, either by sale or by other arrangement .17 I f the c i t y were to come into possession of the reserve land and Granville i s l a n d i n any way, these areas would be i n c l u -ded i n the assets surrendered by the c i t y to the development authority. Also, such a transfer of ownership would leave the federal government with only an i n t e r e s t i n the nayigable pro-visions of the waterway and without any r e a l property there. 4 . Stalemate. The c i t y abandoned, i n 1 9 5 3 , the "False Creek Development Survey" which was authorized i n 1950 and begun i n 1 9 5 1 . The survey was unable to present any plan f o r development which would have been economically and p o l i t i c a l l y a t t r a c t i v e to the c i t y council. The l i k e l i h o o d of p r o v i n c i a l action i n False Creek, other than a possible p a r t i c u l a r development of some area of the bed or foreshore owned by i t , i s s l i g h t . The federal govern-ment i s about to undertake (1953) the construction of a fishboat mooring basin i n a part of the waterway, but which i s unrelated 1 7 . Such a p o s s i b i l i t y exists i n 1 9 5 3 - 5 4 , but i t w i l l not long remain. See Appendix B. to any o v e r - a l l development f o r the waterway or i t s contiguous i n d u s t r i a l a r e a s . At the same time as p u b l i c a c t i o n seems to be o u t s i d e the competence or i n t e r e s t o f any one l e v e l of government, t h e r e i s a growing need f o r the s o r t of i n d u s t r i a l l a n d which development of the F a l s e Creek b a s i n would produce. The development of such i n d u s t r i a l l a n d by p r i v a t e e n t e r p r i s e s can o n l y be done i n a very piece-meal way, i f at a l l . The waterway and b a s i n are i n g r e a t e r need of comprehensive development than ever b e f o r e . No a c t i o n seems l i k e l y or p e r -haps even p o s s i b l e through the methods which i n the past have produced u n c e r t a i n , unplanned, but n e v e r t h e l e s s reasonably e f f e c -t i v e changes. The a l t e r n a t i v e t o no development seems o n l y to be the c r e a t i o n of an e f f e c t i v e and competent s t a t u t o r y agency by the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e , w i t h both power and a u t h o r i t y to undertake and c a r r y out the needed development of t h i s i n d u s t r i a l area so important to the c i t y o f Vancouver. 1 A P P E N D I X A: An Act to Incorporate the Vancouver Harbour Commission (1913)J selected sections pertaining to False Creek. B: Order i n Council 941, Ottawa, 1924j settling the question of ownership of crown foreshore properties i n British Columbia. C: Indenture between the British Columbia government and the Canadian Pacific Railway, 1928, respecting False Creek lands. D: The Need for a Helicopter Landing Area Close to Downtown Vancouverj and the Possible Advantages that a False Creek Location Might Have. i E: Proposed Course of Action for Vancouver i n Respect to Federally-Owned Land i n the False Creek Area; with an Outline of Recommended Development Which Would Then Be Possible. Maps: The Indian reserve area, and proposed developments. 2 1 5 APPENDIX A 3 - 4 George V. Chap. 54 An Act to Incorporate the Vancouver Harbour Commission. (1913) Sec. 4 For the purposes of this Act the harbour shall include Burrard Inlet with * * * False Creek and a l l other t i d a l waters lying east of a line drawn from Point Atkinson Lighthouse southerly to the most west-erly point of Point Orey. Sec. 11 The Corporation shall, for the purposes of this Act, have j u r i s -diction within the limits of the harbour. Sec. 12 The Corporation may acquire, expropriate, hold, s e l l , or lease and otherwise dispose of such real estate * * * as i t deems necessary or desirable for the development, improvement * * * of the harbour. Sec. 14 A l l lands and interests i n lands within the limits of the harbour, and heretofore vested i n His Majesty i n the right of Canada, shall * *'* be vested i n and held by the Corporation for the purposes of this Act; * * * provided that * * * every five years * * * His Majesty i n the right of Canada may become repossessed of the said lands and interests i n lands * * *. 2. The Corporation may * * * convey any portion of the said lands or interest i n lands, but no conveyance shall be for a longer term than twenty-one years. Sec. 19 The Corporation may make by-laws for the following purposes: # # # (q) The expropriation and acquisition of such real property as the Corpor-ation deems necessary for the construction of wet and dry docks, warehouses, elevators, and railways, or otherwise for the general purposes of the Cor-poration. Ottawa 2 1 fe APPENDIX B P.C. 941 At the Government House at Ottawa Saturday the 7th day of June, 1924 Present: His Excellency the G O Vernor General i n Council. Whereas there has been l a i d before His Excellency the O o vernor General in Council a report, dated 27th May, 1924, from the Minister of ^arine and Fisheries, submitting: 1. That by virtue of section 108, schedule 3 , of the British North America Act, and of the order of Her late Majexty i n Council dated 1 6 t h May, 1871, public harbours i n British Columbia became the property of Canada as of the 20th day of July, A.D. 1871. 2. That some doubt has existed as to what i s comprised i n the expression •public harbours 1 i n schedule 3 cf the British N 0rth America Act, and i t has been held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that the ques-tion whether any harbour or any particular part thereof i s included i s a question of fact dependent upon the circumstances of each case, but that a natural harbour not actually used for harbour purposes at the date of the Union i s not included. 3 . That i t i s desirable i n the public interest that the property which be-longs to Canada under the designation 'public harbours' should be defin-i t e l y ascertained, and negotiations have accordingly been carried on be-tween the Dominion and Provincial Governments with a view to reaching a settlement of a l l outstanding questions between the two governments i n this connection, and agreeing upon certain defined areas as being the property of Canada under said designation. 4 . That as the result of conferences between the representatives of the two governments i t has been mutually agreed that the harbours of Victoria, Esquimalt, Nanaimo, Alberni, Burrard Inlet, and New Westminster * * * were and are public harbours within the meaning of schedule 3 of the British North America Act and became and are the property of Canada thereunder. 5. That i t has been further agreed between the two governments that the ownership of a l l other ungranted foreshore of t i d a l or non-tidal waters and lands covered with water i n British Columbia, except any foreshore and lands covered with water within the Railway B e l t , beling to and are vested in the Province. 6 . That i t has been further agreed that any grants or transfers by one government to the other shall not be affected by this Order, and a l l such grants and transfers which may have been made prior to the date hereof shall be r a t i f i e d and confirmed by this Order, and moreover, that nothing herein contained shall affect the t i t l e of the Dominion to. any lands or properties 2 17 acquired under any other provision of the British North America Act, or otherwise than by virtue of the designation 'public harbours' i n the said Act. 7. That i t has been furthereagreed that where the Dominion Government has prior to the date of this Order treated as a public harbour a harbour other , than the six harbours specified the Government of the Province of British Columbia w i l l consider the trnasfer of such part or parts of such harbours as may reasonably be required by the Dominion Government for public purposes. 8. That the Province w i l l set aside certain sites which have already been occupied by the Dominion Government for the purpose of marine administra-tion, and w i l l set aside from time to time such further sites as may reason-ably by required by the Dominion for such purposes. * * * 11. That * * * where the Dominion Government has heretofore granted, quit-claimed, leased, or otherwise dealt with any foreshore or lands covered with water located outside the boundaries of the six harbours aforesaid * * * the same shall be confirmed by the Province, subject to such terms and con-ditions as the Province may prescribe. THEREFORE His Excellency the Governor General, on the recommendation of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, i s pleased to order as follows: (a) The agreement above recited i s hereby r a t i f i e d and confirmed. (b) A l l the right, t i t l e and interest, i f any, of the Dominion i n any un-granted foreshore of t i d a l or non-tidal waters and lands covered with water in British Columbia outside the boundaries of the six harbours above mentioned * * * shall be and the same i s hereby transferred to the Pro-vince of British Columbia. (c) A c e r t i f i e d copy of this O rd er shall be transmitted to the Provincial Government and a copy shall be f i l e d * * E.J. Lemieux, Clerk of the Privy Council From Schedule 'A' to P.C. 941 Burrard Inlet: A l l the foreshore and bed of Burrard Inlet and the area adjacent to the entrance thereto lying east of a line drawn south astronomically from the south-west corner of the Capilano Indian Reserve Number Five to high water mark of Stanley Park. APPENDIX C THIS INDENTURE made the thirty firs t day of December, 1928, BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY THE KING, herein represented by the Minister of Lands, for the Province of British Columbia (hereinafter called the 'Province') OF THE FIRST PART AND CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY (hereinafter called the 'Railway Company') OF THE SECOND PART Whereas the Railway is by virtue of a certain Grant from the Crown in the interest of the Province of British Columbia, the owner of the land (except streets) along the north and south shores of False Creek in the City of Vancouver above high wa&er mark (see plan attatched to original). And Whereas the lands (as represented on the attatched plan) represent street ends which i t is intended shall not be affected by the present demise. And Whereas the Province claims that the bed of False Creek below high water mark is vested in the Crown in the interest of the Province. And Whereas the Railway Company claims in addition to its right as rip-arian owner certain rights under clause 18(a) of its charter to take use and hold the land below high water mark in False Creek for its railway and other works, and that i t has under the said power occupied portions of the land below high water mark in False Creek. And Whereas the Crown in the interest of the Dominion of Canada by Let-ters Patent dated the 17th of March, 1894, granted unto the Railway Company lands (as represented on the plan attatched to original). And Whereas i t is expedient for the Province and the Railway Company to enter into an arrangement which will induce industrial settlement and give to the Province compensation for the occupation of the lands (as marked). And Whereas i t has with the object of bringing about the speedy develop-ment of the said lands been agreed as hereinafter set forth: NOW THEREFORE THIS INDENTURE WITNESSETH THAT THE PROVINCE AND THE RAIL* WAY COMPANY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Province agrees that the lands designated as Lots 5603, 5605, 4672, 4673, 4678, and 5606, Group 1, New Westminster D i s t r i c t , in so far • as they are vested in the Crown in the interest of the Province, be con-veyed to the Railway Company in consideration of the release mentioned in the next following clause, subject to certain leases and tennancies par-ticulars of which are contained in Schedule 'B' hereto. 2. The Railway Company in consideration of the grant mentioned in Clause one hereby quitclaims, abandons, releases and relinquishes to the Province 2 1 9 2 2 0 any and a l l rights, which i t may have or has had under clause 18(a) of i t s charter (Chapter One of the Statutes of 1881) to take use and hold land i n False Creek below high water mark within the easterly and westerly limits of the lands herein demised, except the lands mentioned i n clause one (hereof and the lands granted to the Railway Company by the Crown i n the interest of the Dominion °^ Canada by Letters Patent dated the 17th day of March, 1894, but without prejudice to any right of expropriation under the Railway Act of Canada.) 3. The Province under and by virtue of a l l the powers thereto enabling agrees to demise and lease and doth hereby demise and lease unto the R a i l -way Company, i t s successors and assigns, a l l those pieces or parcels of land designated on the attatched p i i n as lots 3661, 3662, 3663, 3664, 3665, 3666, 4664, 4666, 5604, 4667, 4668, 4669, 4671, 5607, 5318, 3640, 3642, 3644, 3660, 3646, 3648, 3650, 3652, 3654, 4675, and 3656, Group 1, New Westminster D i s t r i c t . TO HOLD the said premises unto the Railway Company, i t s successors and assigns for the term of twenty-one years from the date hereof, with a right of renewal for a further period of twenty-one years, subject to the tenan-cies mentioned i n the schedule hereto and the conditions and restrictions hereinafter contained and expressed, YIELDING AND PAYING THEREFOR unto His Majesty yearly and every year the rent of one dollar payable on the 31 day of December in each year * * * and also paying by way of further or addit-ional rent from time to time a sum equal to the amount received by the Railway Company form i t s sub-leases under the provisions hereinafter stated. 4. The lands above described shall be sublet by the Railway Company with due dilligence and the Railway Company w i l l endeavour to have the same at a l l times occupied so that the Province w i l l procure from the said lands as favourable a revenue as possible. 5. In order to ensure that i n renting lands of the Railway Company and sub-letting to the same tenants part or parts of the lands herein demised, f a i r comparative rentals shall be charged i n respect of the lands of the Railway Company and of the premises herein demised, a comparative ..valuation of the same has been made. Schedule 'A' sets forth the basis of value mutually arrived at and the basis of rentals to be followed as far as pos-sible. 6. & 7. Contain details of leasing proceedure. 8. The Railway Company shall pay to the Province a l l rents actually c o l -lected by the Railway Company from i t s sub-leases i n respect of the said lands. 9. <* 1$. Contain provisions to reimburse the Company for costs, provide the Province only with the net revenue, permit the 6ompany to surrender part or a l l of the demised parts, and other details of agreement. 16. In order to avoid uncertainty owing to the sinuosity of the shore line as to the boundary between the property of the Province and the property of the Railway Company on the south side of False Creek, i t i s agreed that the surveyed line shown on the plans referred to i n the third r e c i t a l (?) shall be deemed to be the said boundary (in l i e u of the shore line) between the east side of Lot 3654 and the south boundary of the Indian Reserve as shown in the said plans. It i s further agreed that the surveyed line on the north side of False Creek westerly from the westerly angle of l o t 5606 shall for the pur-poseesof the leases to be made of the railway property and of the sub-leases to be made of the premises herein demised be deemed to be the boun-dary between the property of the Railway Company and of the rrovince as far west as the west boundary of Lot 3661. 17. The Railway Company shall as sub-leases are made forward to the Minister a copy of such sub-leases cert i f i e d by an officer of the Railway Company having authority to do so. 18. The Railway Company shall every three months remit to the Province a l l moneys i n its hands due to the Province hereunder on the * * day of the months of * * * in each year. Deputy Minister of Lands Canadian Pacific Railway Company Schedule 'A': Contains values and rental schedules, largely put aside with the onset of the business depression of the t h i r t i e s . True copies of this indenture can be found deposited i n the Land Department of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's Vancouver office, and the Department of Lands and Forests, Lands Division, Victoria, B.C. „ APPENDIX D The Need for a Helicopter Landing Area Close to Downtown Vancouver; and the Possible Advantages that a False Creek Location Might Have, The u t i l i t y of helicopters for public passenger travel i s , i n 1953, an accepted fafit. Growing numbers of people and goods are being moved by helicopters i n scheduled operation.1 Rotary wing aircra f t are s t i l l small in size, but prototypes of larger craft have already been produced. In December, 1953, a prediction was made by E.B. Schaefer, chief en-gineer for Canadair, Ltd., that scheduled a i r l i n e operation of helicopters might reasonably be expected i n Canada within 10 years.2 This was i n lin e with what i s being forecast generally. Present expectations are that the helicopter w i l l not replqce the conventional airplane as a speedy means of long distance transportation but " w i l l eventually find a definite place i n short trips of 200 miles or less."3 One third of the t r a f f i c from the Vancouver International Airport i n 1953 was destined to, or arrived from, points within 200 miles distance.V It i s reasonable to predict that i f the same proportions persist, one third of Vancouver's a i r t r a f f i c may eventually be by helicopters which could, i n a l l probability, use a landing area close to the downtown area. The exis-tence of such a 'heliport' would l i k e l y mean that a large part of the re-mainder, which now requires bus or taxi transportation between the ci t y and the airport could be carried the same distance by shuttle helicopter.* 1. New York Airways, Inc., completed i n October, 1953, i t s f i r s t year of "helicopter mail, cargo and passenger service operations i n metro-politan New York having flown 281,000 miles and gained 4,700*. hours of a i r experience * * *." (New York Times. 15 Nov. 1953, p. X31.) Sabena Airlines (Belgium) instituted i n 1953 scheduled helicopter service between Brussels and c i t i e s i n Belgium, The Netherlands, and We3t Germany. Fares were competative with third-class r a i l service. 2. Vancouver Province. 10 December, 1953, p. 1. 3. New York Times, loc. c i t . 4. Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board of B.C., Airports. 1953. 5. This l i k e l y outcome of helicopter service — the transportation of ai r passengers from downtown to airport by a i r with the v i r t u a l elim-ination of the city's need for a bridge across the north arm of the Fraser river at Marpole — w i l l remove or substantially diminish the city's responsibility for assuming a share of the cost of a new bridge. 222 The helicopters of 1953, and those being planned for operational use I i n the immediate future, can operate successfully from the same amount of space required for a bus depot or, more precisely, an area not any larger than a cit y block" and i n certain special instances from building roofs. While space i s not therefore a seriously limiting factor on helicopter operations into the downtown area, noise i s . Until such time as rotary wing aircraft become much quieter, heavy t r a f f i c i n the v i c i n i t y of res-idential or affice areas.will not be possible.? False fereek, then, deserves consideration and close survey with a view to determining the su i t a b i l i t y of i t s shores for helicopter landing-f i e l d sites. For one thing, approaches to i t can be made over water or industrial areas and there are sections where "heliport" developments would be remote from residential or business d i s t r i c t s . For another, there are sections of both shore and foreshore not at present occupied and where future development might be made for heliports or i n keeping with what their needs w i l l be. It i s not the purpose here to propose any site or sites, or even to pass on the over-all s u i t a b i l i t y of the False Creek basin, for landing areas for rotary-wing air c r a f t . There are other factors, such as weather, which could weigh against i t and which cannot be considered here. Never-theless, the time i s imminent for the city to consider the setting aside of one or more landing areas close to the downtown section of the cit y . The undeveloped nature of certain parts of False Srdek places i t high on any l i s t of areas worth considering. In the absence of any technical evaluation, the north shore area west of Connaught bridge suggests i t s e l f . There i s no development of the shore or foreshore and i t i s almost the same distance from the business d i s t r i c t as the bus depot. Access to i t might be possible from Connaught bridge by ramps. On the south and west i t i s bordered by water and by r a i l yards, and on the north and east by industrial land. The upland part i s owned by the C.P.R. and i s entirely undeveloped. The foreshore i s owned by the provincial government and i s also undeveloped. 6. New York Times, loc. c i t . 7. A helicopter landing f i e l d , opened i n London i n 1952, had to be aban-doned because of the noise problem. Rooftop landings are restricted, not only by the noise factor, but also because of the f i r e hazard i n refueling. APPENDIX E A Proposed Course of Action for Vancouver i n Respect to Federally-Owned L and in the False Creek Area; with an Outline of Recommended Development Which Would Then Be Possible. In the False Creek basin the federal crown owns 34-acre Granville i s - ' land and 49 acres of former Indian reserve land on the south shore of the False Creek entrance. Branville island i s developed with roads and track-age, and is entirely under 21-year leases to industries. It i s managed by the Vancouver office of the National ^arbours Board for the federal crown. The 35 acres of former Indian land, north and werst of ^urrard bridge, are held by the ^ational Defense department as an a i r force depot. Most of this parcel i s developed with roads, trackage, warehouses, offices and personnel quarters. At the end of 1953 active use was limited to reserve force training and livinfe quarters.1 Fish Boat Basin Scheme East and north of the B.C. Electric (V. & L.I.) R.R. track are 11 un-developed acres, portions of which are heavily covered with sawdust and mill waste. In 1953 this area was transferred from the Indian Affairs Branch to the Fisheries department,2 with the announced intention by the federal government of the construction of docks and a mooring basin on the foreshore (some 15 or 20 acres) and the necessary shore appurtenances 1. The depot land i s i n a residentially-zoned part of the city. Use as a depot i s possible only because of the immunity of the crown from local ordinances. If the government ever disposes of i t to private enterprise, a not unlikely event, continued commercial or industrial use may be forbidden by the city, or restricted to the ppovisions of non-conforming uses. At the same time pressure might be put on the city to re-zone the area, or r e l i e f might be sought i n the courts. 2. The 13 acres south of the track, originally part of the reserve, were f i r s t alie^nated to the National Defense department before and during the second World War. In 1947 a l l except the site of the Sea-forth armories were sold to a brewery. A 2.2.acre triaftfele between Burrard bridge, Chestnut street, and the C.P.R. right-of-way i s a l l that remains with the ^ndian Affairs iranch. on the upland area. The former belongs to the province whose consent, i f not already given, would be necessary before any such development could be undertaken. The f i s h boat basin proposals have never been submitted by the fed-eral government to the city council or i t s planning department for joint consultation. The evidence so far made public suggests that the federal action, announced just prior to the 1953 federal election and perhaps prompted by that event, was v i r t u a l l y unilateral. Primary stimulus for the f i s h boat basin scheme came, inter alios, from the Fishing ^essel Owners Association and H.D. Wilson, at that time an alderman of Vancouver.3 Best Economic Use Utilization of the 11 acres of upland and 20-odd acres of foreshore as a f i s h boat basin would be highly uneconomic not only i n i t s e l f , but when compared with alternative possible uses. The land i n question i s skirted on two sides by railway trackage, recommending i t for industrial uses. If the foreshore were reclaimed to the channel lin e (more or less formed by the main piers of Burrard and Granville bridges) the result would be most sqlutary i n both improved appearance and industrial potential. Some 20 to 25 acres of industrially desirable land could be reclaimed in this area. With the undeveloped reserve land one would then have a 35-40 acre tract, and a 75-acre tract i f the ai r force depot were also made a part of i t . A l l of i t would be level and easily served by r a i l sidings and roads. It would have 1200 feet of channel-line shore which could be i n -creased by slips and mooring quays. The reclaimed area would adjoin Gran-v i l l e island and could relieve the serious t r a f f i c problem on the island. To the south of the proposed development area i s the badly blighted section east of Burrard street. This eight-block, run-down area, although long zoned for industry, has a record of general deterioration. Its pos-i t i o n would permit i t s development as part of the larger scheme ( i t i s one of the sections which the city planning department recommended i n 1953 for redevelopment). With i t s present pattern of streets and subdivision aban-doned, and made a part of a large scale redevelopment, i t would have high promise of valuable industrial development. 3. Alderman Wilson did not represent the vancouver city council o f f i c -i a l l y i n his approaches to the senior governments in this matter. It i s not a matter of record whether the council ever formally endorsed the scheme or, for that matter, ever disapproved of i t . If such prop6sals as the foregoing merit consideration, their f u l f i l l -ment will depend on two important steps being taken. First and most urgent would be aggressive and forthright action by the city to acquire control of the land in this area, otherwise i t likely will be disposed of haphazardly and its high industrial potential dissipated. The record of federal action in False Creek does not encourage confidence that development or disposit-ion of crown land there will be in the over-all interest of either the waterway or the city generally. Secondly, any comprehensive development of the waterway will need organization and capital. In a l l probability a statutory agency, a corporate body with borrowing powers as is a crown cor-poration, as outlined in chapter 10, would be best suited to handle such a program of financing and development. The city's need for industrial land with r a i l and water access is ur-gent enough, however, that alternative opportunities should not be turned down i f some form of development authority or "mixed undertaking" does not seem feasible. Because the administration of the City of Vancouver is not at present organized to handle large scale real estate developments, and because an elected body is not always the most satisfactory agent itself to undertake a program of the scope recommended here, a special authority re-sponsible to the city, or to the city and the province, but with the status and autonomy of a crown corporation, might be more preferable. Acquisition of the fcand The writer is of the opinion that a way lies open in 1954 for the city of Vancouver to acquire, by a reasonable exchange, the federally-owned properties in the False Creek basin. The federal government, through the Transport department, has offered the city $1 million for the city-owned airport.4 It is suggested here that the city should accept, in payment for the airport, the t i t l e to Granville island, the 35-acre inactive air force depot, the 11 undeveloped acres proposed for the fish boat basin scheme. The city should also ask that the federal government undertake, in lieu of the fish boat basin in False Creek, the development of Coal Harbour jointly with the Vancouver Parks Board, to provide mooring facilities for a l l types of small craft, including fish boats. Granville island is under the management of the National Harbours Board which is in turn under the jurisdiction of the Transport department. The assessed value of Granville island land (without improvements) was $431 thousand (1952). The assessed value of the air force depot land was #248 thousand (1953). The undeveloped area is of nominal value. 4. Vancouver Province. 20 October, 1953, p. 4. 227 The evidence gathered i n both this study and the writer's previous industrial survey demonstrated a) the advantages Vancouver c i t y would de-rive from developing False Creek according to a comprehensive plan, and b) the d i f f i c u l t y or impossibility of achieving this under the present ad-ministrative arrangement of False Creek. The objective here has been to show how False Creek administration might f i r s t be simplified and then unified and, following this, how development on an over-all basis might be started ~ either by the ci t y or, preferably, by a statutory corporation perhaps on the order of the English 'mixed undertaking.' Widening the Area of Development The south shore property east of Granville bridge as far as Alder street has been only l i g h t l y developed i n the years up to 1953. It would be both possible and feasible to extend the area already recommended for development so as to include the land between Granville and Alder streets and the railway track and Granville island, eliminating the eastern half , of the heavily s i l t e d south channel. This would enlarge the area of the suggested industrial "estate 1 to about one quarter of a square mile. The assessed value of the land i n such a development (but not of improvements) would be over $1.5 million at today's valuations, and the market value might well exceed $2.5 million.5 A development of this scope and magnitude offers the only practical way to refurbish an area which i s now a hodge-podge of undeveloped public land and poorly subdivided private land and which i s constantly the object of public criticism for i t s run-down appearance. Additional advantages of such an over-all development would be the creation of much-needed industrial land inside the ci t y and, at the same time, i t s complete separation from the existing c i t y street and t r a f f i c pattern. If these proposals were undertaken as part of a move to establish a statutory development authority for the whole of the False Creek basin, such development would be i n keeping with the objects of such a body, they would remove one senior government from the administration of False Creek thereby making i t easier for the c i t y to negotiate with the other, and they would increase the city's equity (over what i t would otherwise be) i n what-ever authority was established. 5. The average assessment of the 26 acres occupied on Granville Is. i s $16,500. If the popular but arbitrary assumption that market value i s twice assessed i s allowed, the former then exceeds $25,000 per acre. If the proposed 'industrial estate 1 i s between 150 and 200 acres, some 100 are l i k e l y to bear taxes and have an assessed value (without im-provements) of more than $1.6 million and market value of over $2.5 million. INDIAN RESERVE : GRANVILLE ISLAND MAPS I. 1955 Development I I . Proposed Development Maps showing general area with location of proposed f i s h boat mooring basin; and area recommended f o r reclama-t i o n and development as i n d u s t r i a l s i t e s . 22 8 L E G E N D Existing railway lines Existing railway lines, suggested removal Suggested railway lines (location and direction diagrammatic only) Suggested south shore channel line Fish boat mooring basin, proposed location Area industrially developed, 1953 Area zoned for industry, 50 per cent or more i n residential use, subdivision not well suited for industrial development Area unoccupied, suited for reclamation and/or development for industrial use 1 inch = 600 feet Maps from C i t y of Vancou ver, Lands Department. B I B L I O G R A P H Y o f Works and Sources Consulted 2 3 1 232 General Works Bartholomew, Harland, & Associates - see Vancouver, Town Planning Commission Cousins, E.L., Preliminary report-false Creek, (to the Vancouver City Engin-eer), Toronto, 12 May 1950, (typescript), unpublished. Cumberland, Stuart C, The Queen's highway. London, Low, Marston, Searle, & Rivington, 1887. Draper, W.N., 'Roads and trails,' B.C. Historical Quarterly, Victoria, B.C., v. , pp. - , January 1945. Gibb, Sir Alexander - see Canada, National ports survey. Green, George, History of Burnaby and vicinity, Shoemaker, McLean & Veitch, North Vancouver, B.C., 1927. Howay, F.W., British Columbia, the making of a province, Toronto, Ryerson Press, 1928. , "Early settlement on Burrard inlet," B.C. Historical Quarterly, v. , pp. 101-114, & Scholefield, E.O.S., British Columbia from the earliest times to the present, Vancouver, B.C., S.J. Clarke Co., 1914, v. 2. Hudson, William D. - see Vancouver, Aown Planning Commission. Kelley, C.C. & Spilsbury, R.H., Soil survey of the lower Eraser valley, Can-ada, Dep't of Agriculture, Publication650, Ottawa, 1939. Kilburn, D.G., Interim report on railway services, (to the Vancouver City Engineer), Vancouver, B.C., 19 June, 1951, (typescript), unpublished. Morley, Alan, "The romance of Vancouver," Vancouver Sun, 8 April - 7 Sept. 1940 Nelson, Denys, Place names of the lower Eraser Valley, Vancouver, B.C., Vancouver Public Library, 1927 (typescript). sage, Walter N., "Vancouver: 60 years of progress," Vancouver, B.C., B.C. Journal of Commerce Yearbook, 1946. Schultz, C.D. Ltd., Preliminary appreciation of the wood converting indus- tries in False Creek, (for the Corporation of the City of Vancouver, B.C.), Vancouver, B.C., 1952, (typescript) unpublished. siwan, A.D., "Vancouver Harbour, B.C.," Selected engineering papers, London, Institute of Civil Engineers, 1925. see also Canada, Vancouver harbour. 2 3 3 Swan, W.G., gown planning aspects of Vancouver and Eraser river harbours, "paper to be presented at the Western Professional Meeting of the En-gineering Institute of Canada," Vancouver, B.C., 11-14 July, 1934, (marked "advance proof—confidential"). Thompson, Norman, & Edgar, J.H., Canadian railway development. Toronto, Macmillan, 1933. Government Documents & Publications British Columbia Dept. of Lands [and Forests], Files 48602, 153490, 84126, 60988. Commissioner of Lands & Works, Reports, 1872 - 1886. Legislative Assembly, Journals. 1906 and 1929. , Sessional papers, 1885, 1886, 1887, 1889. Dept. of Finance, Public accounts, 1872 - 76. Statutes. 1886, 1900, 1902, 1904, 1906, 1908, 1910, 1911, 1913. Revised statutes, "terms of union," 1936 Publisher of the foregoing i s the Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C. Canada Dept. of Citizenship & Immigration, Schedule of Indian reserves i n the  Dominion of Canada, 31 March, 1943 (as amended), part 2. House of Commons, O f f i c i a l report of debates. 1913, 1916, 1919. Dept. of Marine & Fisheries, Report on Vancouver harbour, 1919. Dept. of Public Works, Report of the minister. 1909, 1916, 1917. National ports survey, 1931 - 32, 1932. Statutes, 1880-81, 1913, 1953. Publisher of the foregoing i s the Queen's Printer, Ottawa, Ont. City of V a n c o u v e r Board of Works, Report, 10 February, 1953. Social Service Committee, Report, (by a special committee to consider the sanitary condition of False Creek), 22 January, 1938 (mimeo.). Financial and Departmental reports, 1908 - 1916. Council minutes, 1886, v o l . 1. By-laws. 33 (1887), 64 (1888), 80 (1889), 603 (1907), 690 (1909), 888 C1911), 2040 (1928), 2378 (1934), 2463 (1936). Town Planning Commission, Railway & harbour report [by Wm. D. Hudson], September, 1927. T , A plan for the City of Vancouver. 1928. , Memorial respecting the development of False Creek, 15 January, 1931 (mimeo.). V a n c o u v e r Harbour Commission, S e p o r t s , 1923, 1926, 1928, 1932. Serials (no author) British Columbia Magazine, Vancouver, B.C., v. 9, April, 1913. Harbour and shipping, Vancouver, B.C., v. 1, May, 1919; v. 10, Sept. 1928. Vancouver Province, 4-7, 14, 24 May, 1903j 24 April, 1939. Vancouver Sun, 17 Nov., 1928; 18 May, 1951. Personal Interviews Brown, Roy W., executive editor, Vancouver Sun, 14. February, 1953. McElhanney, W.G., B.C. Land Surveyor, i n charge False Creek Survey, 1926-27, June, 1953. McMaster, A.E., Vancouver Port ^anager, National Harbours B 0ard, Aug., 1952. Reeve, D.W., valuator for C.P.R. re False Creek properties, 1927, June, 1953. Stevens, Hon. H.H., M.P., 20 September, 1953. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0106692/manifest

Comment

Related Items