Should we tear down the Vancouver seawall?

I hate to break it to you but Vancouver's seawall is not all that great. In fact, it's kind of terrible.

Yes, it draws millions of visitors each year and it has a nearly perfect rating on TripAdvisor. Yes, it's part of a national historic site and epitomizes Stanley Park. Yes, Vancouverites love it.

But we need to think a bit more critically about how the seawall is designed and built.

Walls are great at protecting the things behind them — which is why it was originally built in 1917, to protect Stanley Park's delicate sandstone from water erosion — but not so good at protecting what is in front of them.

From an environmental perspective, this is bad news.

Picture waves gently washing onto a beach. Now, picture waves hitting a wall.

The seawall actually makes the waves worse because they are crashing onto a hard surface.

Those waves are washing away the sand outside the wall around Stanley Park faster than it otherwise would and, because of the wall, the sand is not being replaced from the shore.

This sandy area, called the intertidal zone, is home to starfish, crabs and other marine life. They can't survive if their environment is washed away, which is why seawalls tend to damage the land and marine life in front of them over time.

That being said, we do live in a city and not a national park. We can't expect to have pristine wilderness next to high rises.

But it turns out the seawall also comes at a cost to us — and I mean serious money for repairs.  

The city is planning to repair parts of the Stanley Park section this summer, which is expected to cost $1.9 million.

That's without considering the effects of climate change.

With rising sea levels and more powerful storms, it's not enough to just keep fixing the walls: it needs to be rebuilt higher. 

A report to the city in 2013 recommended that the existing wall be "demolished and removed." And the estimated cost for that? $130 million, just for the Stanley Park section.  

Raising the seawall in False Creek by an average of 2.3 metres would cost between $500 million to $850 million.

So, getting rid of the wall all together might seem like the easiest solution — but I'm not convinced.

The seawall has shaped how we think about Vancouver's waterfront and made it accessible to everyone.

It's not just a path, it's part of the city's values and identity.

That doesn't mean it has to be a wall, though.

I came across a thesis by University of British Columbia student Ali Canning that proposes a new design with a network of trails and boardwalks, which would be less intrusive and limit erosion.

Reading it gave me hope that maybe we can strike a balance between nature and human activity, after all. 

To learn more about the cost of the seawall and whether it's worth it, watch the video below:

About Here: Should we tear down the Seawall?

6 years ago

Duration 6:43

Is the seawall as great as it seems? Uytae Lee talks about the troubled future of the world's longest uninterrupted waterfront path.

This column is part of CBC's Opinion section. For more information about this section, please read this editor's blog and our FAQ.