On the waterfront

Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

Stephen Ross raised a very important issue in his Oct. 25 letter about missing an opportunity for the development of the St. John’s waterfront.

The decision to erect a permanent barrier to satisfy the needs of a short cruise ship season is not justifiable. Such a permanent barrier would not be appropriate in this historic city and port. It would not provide total security for the cruise ships and passengers.

Perhaps a temporary barrier could be set up for the cruise ship season or when cruise ships are in the harbour. The harbourfront should be developed with pedestrian walkways, plazas and the  like.

Excluding the harbourfront from the overall beautification plan for the downtown core is a mistake. Other major cities in Canada and the U.S. are looking to beautify their ports for pedestrian use and we should be doing the same.

Certainly we have imaginative professional designers and an abundance of talent with ideas to transform a glorified parking area into something that citizens and visitors alike will enjoy. As Mr. Ross asked, “do we really want an eight-foot-high barrier the entire length of the waterfront?” Definitely not, we don’t need such an eyesore.

Kevin Flynn

St. John’s

Geographic location: Canada, U.S.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • Christopher Chafe
    October 31, 2012 - 07:59

    We missed the boat (pardon the pun) on beautifying the Harbor Front years ago. A prime example of beautification of a dreary dull waterfront would be www.kingswarf.ca. That is what we need here in St. John's. Though first before we start to beautify our harbor front, we should beautify our Council when the next election rolls around.

  • Sean
    October 31, 2012 - 07:37

    Totally agree.

  • Ron Tizzard
    October 31, 2012 - 07:32

    Kevin, I agree absolutely. A temporry fence for the purposes of a few Cruise ships a year makes sense, from a security perspective....but a permanent fence would be both an insult and an 'eye-sore' for the city's livyers, not to mention other travellers to the beautiful Capital. The fense as a temporary security necessity is rational tolerance....otherwise, a decision to leave the fence permanently left in place...would be a decision approximating hanging a cloth over the 'Mona Lisa'. Counsellors wake up...where's the 'even adequate' justification' for making such an intellectually vacant decision. The wharf area, as is, has been there for...how many decades? Why is it necessary to have it fenced now? Don't spoil the openness of the harbour, for the 'in context' a few sheckles a year you receive from tourists, as welcomed as they are. The fence's permanent positioning would serve what purpose...really, other than a necessary temporary security zone....to control curiosity seekers a few handful of days each year.