Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[jollyburger]

Off-topic but Concord Pacific doesn't just sit on properties for no reason. Look at how quickly they are moving on Brentwood and Metrotown. St Pauls, Westin Bayshore, Molsons and their remaining land around False Creek are only slow walked because they are going to develop it when they can build something with zoning/use that makes their numbers work.

The 1990 building height numbers

Buildings must not exceed 91 metres in height, except that a tower located in Sub-area 1B
adjacent to the southwest corner of Pacific Boulevard and Homer Street, or located in Sub-area
7(a) must not exceed 110 metres in height.

https://bylaws.vancouver.ca/odp/odp-...560.1670268633

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Off-topic but Concord Pacific doesn't just sit on properties for no reason. Look at how quickly they are moving on Brentwood and Metrotown. St Pauls, Westin Bayshore, Molsons and their remaining land around False Creek are only slow walked because they are going to develop it when they can build something with zoning/use that makes their numbers work.

The 1990 building height numbers

https://bylaws.vancouver.ca/odp/odp-...560.1670268633

The 2018 Viaducts and NEFC policy allows more height. "To emphasize this framing and establish a hierarchy between the towers that form the gateway, two towers in Sub-area 6C should be at a height of 425 ft. and step down to a third tower at a height of 400 ft. on Sub-area 10C." The 121.9m tower on 10C (777 Pacific Boulevard) was rezoned in 2018. The two 129.5m (425 ft) towers were part of Concords 811 Carrall rezoning, that they've put on hold while. The Studio Gang designed towers shown above were never formally submitted.


[shape your city]

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Because they're more of an obstacle to the city's growth than an asset these days. Ever tried to walk from the seawall or OV to the rest of downtown? It'd be a lot easier (or at least much more pleasant) with direct access to Georgia and no giant vacant lots.

The 2015 cost for replacing the viaducts was $104 million; applying the same cost creep, that means ~$200 million in 2018 and likely even more now. So that's not cheap either.

the article Farmer posted, stated the 2018 cost of 438 million. so probably closer to 600 million now that is is 6yrs later, post pandemic. probably even higher.

the viaducts aren't why the land is vacant around here. that's a straw-mans argument. there is A LOT of land that is well clear of the viaducts. this is nothing but a way to make development easier for a billionaire by using tax payers to subsidize it. period. this isn't a complete list.

• the aquatic centre literally has pieces of the facade falling off
• the aquatic centre has pieces of the ceiling fall off inside.
• kits pool leaks 30,000L/hour of water (an olympic sized pool every 3.5 days) which is undermining its foundations. (all of that is potable water to top it off. and i cant water my grass )
• More than half of the community centre facilities owned by the City of Vancouver are in a poor condition
• the, very much needed, replacement community centre on the east side was put on hold and costs are upwards of $500 million
• Vancouver city hall is old, out dated, doesn't meet the needs as it used to, and the plans to replace it (talked about for decades) doesnt even have a timeline
• Vancouver wants to replace its Manitoba Works Yard, and that certainly wont be cheap

there are SO MANY projects that this city needs. some are very important. do we really want to piss away upwards of $600 million to remove unobtrusive viaducts that are not even at end of life? just so what, we can make more $$$ for a billionaire developer? there is more than enough empty land that can be developed with them right in place.

and imagine what could be done if INTEGRATING into the viaducts. building along the seawall, with a pedestrian & bike path that meanders up along to connect to a pathway that is build at the viaducts elevation. you could walk right from the seawall, up into downtown without ever needing to cross a road, intersection, traffic, etc. there would be stairs and a meandering path as well. plantings with trees, etc.
imagine creating a pedestrian area up there. attached to the buildings, like a upper level lobby. then the ground level becoming a covered space, activated for use by people with storefronts, maybe a market, whatever else, etc. (this is done elsewhere). it would cost the developer more, but i am sure the billionaire could handle it. better than us subsidising him.

but no, we aren't that kind of city. we would rather piss away $$$ so we can subsidize some billionaire developer and end up with something worse. why have imagination when we can copy-paste towers with 0 thought about it. that is "vancouverism," isn't it? unimaginative, generic, same colours, copy-pasted buildings around the city.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

- snip -

Yeah, and the repair option is probably at $300-400m. So still no "cheap" option.

None of the above items can be paid for by NEFC's CACs - they have to go directly to the neighbourhood they come from. I believe we've been over it before in this thread.
And someday the viaducts will be at end-of-life, and at that point, they'll have to be torn down and replaced anyway (either with new viaducts, or with the NEFC plan). I have never said that it needs to happen right this minute, but it does need to happen, and the more we wait, the higher the price tag gets.

Sunk cost fallacy: your proposed bike and pedway ramps aren't going to be cheap either... and will likely limit the developable space (i.e. CACs which can fund this) even further... and then we'll have to demo the viaducts anyway once they're no longer structurally sound, leaving a bunch of entrances and ramps to nowhere. This ain't no High Line.

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

why have imagination when we can copy-paste towers with 0 thought about it. that is "vancouverism," isn't it? unimaginative, generic, same colours, copy-pasted buildings around the city.

As opposed to a bunch of thoughtless copy-pasted towers with random skybridges? YMMV; this looks imaginative enough to me.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by logan5

I know there's a plan in place, but is there some law from preventing the City from maximizing height and density on the lands the viaducts sit on? The City could easily make the land worth well over a billion dollars with the right density allowances.

Better than that, increase the density substantially in all of NE False Creek. You can get more CAC money, and more land value.

[jollyburger]

Are these the same Studio Gang towers proposed back in 2010?



https://inhabitat.com/architect-jean...ancouver-pair/

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

• the aquatic centre literally has pieces of the facade falling off
• the aquatic centre has pieces of the ceiling fall off inside.
• kits pool leaks 30,000L/hour of water (an olympic sized pool every 3.5 days) which is undermining its foundations. (all of that is potable water to top it off. and i cant water my grass )
• More than half of the community centre facilities owned by the City of Vancouver are in a poor condition
• the, very much needed, replacement community centre on the east side was put on hold and costs are upwards of $500 million
• Vancouver city hall is old, out dated, doesn't meet the needs as it used to, and the plans to replace it (talked about for decades) doesnt even have a timeline
• Vancouver wants to replace its Manitoba Works Yard, and that certainly wont be cheap

I think there is a bit of misunderstanding with the general public over what a CAC, DCC, DCL pays for and where it gets allocated.

I understand the the Aquatic Centre is now mostly funded from West End CACs (or at least the design work is fully funded). So is the new library, and rec centre in the West End. Maintenance is through the Park Board via taxes, right? So same goes for Kits Pool. This all sounds like a deep rooted problem that property taxes are not performing as they should. Once the Park Board is removed this might be easier to fund Park related items, as it will likely no longer have to go into a separate body's budget.

CACs, DCLs, and DCCs and density bonusing are paid by new developments to pay for growth. I really don't want Vancouver to end up using these to pay for projects outside of the scope of amenities tied to new residents and growth (upgrades to City Hall). Though I can imagine if community amenities are built within the new complex that those could be funded via CACs

The viaduct removal price tag includes a wide array for utility, roadworks, bike and pedestrian infrastructure and other costs. This is paid by developers so it isn't really a gift from taxpayers to developers at all. The viaducts cannot / will not be removed until Concord enacts their rezoning and pays the CAC, as the structure of the funding current stands.

It may have been stated on here years / months ago but I think renewal of the viaducts has to come from tax money and not CAC? I'm pretty sure using CAC money for renovations would fall under this:

"3 Ineligible Allocation and Use of CACs
3.1 Any contributions toward the following will not be considered as CACs:
(a) Capital renewal and/or capital renovation that does not offer an incremental benefit beyond
what is currently provided to the public;
(b) Capital maintenance unless otherwise allowed under policy 2.5;"

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Off-topic but Concord Pacific doesn't just sit on properties for no reason. Look at how quickly they are moving on Brentwood and Metrotown. St Pauls, Westin Bayshore, Molsons and their remaining land around False Creek are only slow walked because they are going to develop it when they can build something with zoning/use that makes their numbers work.

The 1990 building height numbers



https://bylaws.vancouver.ca/odp/odp-...560.1670268633

IE landbanking. For some reason it's the end of the world when the city takes a while to approve a development but not so much when a developer just sits on it.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

IE landbanking. For some reason it's the end of the world when the city takes a while to approve a development but not so much when a developer just sits on it.

I could be mistaken, I don't think they've applied for anything yet.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i dont understand why the viaducts need to go for development. they take up a minimal amount of land in that area. most of the land is just empty. has been for decades.

the space around/under them could easily be activated if the city wanted to. not like this isnt done in many other places globally.

so the city is supposed to use the CACs from these developments to tear down viaducts, to have to build a new one anyways because of the cliff downtown is on? is that really a good use of, probably now, $600 million? wouldnt it be better to use these CACs on something the city actually needs? like new pools, community centres, repaving some of the roads they already have, finishing the "temporary" nearly decade old arbutus corridor path, or any other countless infrastructure projects?

but nahh, i guess it is better to use the $600 million for making development easier for a billionaire developer. /s

I digress, but I think it would be close to a billion by the time they have enough funding for $600mil.

It is funny how the forum "pros" here were ridiculing the notion that the cost to remove the viaducts and associated works would be at least half a billion just a couple of years ago.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Are these the same Studio Gang towers proposed back in 2010?



https://inhabitat.com/architect-jean...ancouver-pair/

Should have explored this style like 20 years ago.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I could be mistaken, I don't think they've applied for anything yet.

So why appear in the media sounding like they're angling for something?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So why appear in the media sounding like they're angling for something?

They want to twist this to make the City look like the bad guy

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Because they're more of an obstacle to the city's growth than an asset these days. Ever tried to walk from the seawall or OV to the rest of downtown? It'd be a lot easier (or at least much more pleasant) with direct access to Georgia and no giant vacant lots.

There was a plan for the "Georgia Steps" that would have provided a pedestrian friendly route up the escarpment at Georgia St. while retaining the viaducts.
The viaducts do not need to go for such a plan.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Off-topic but Concord Pacific doesn't just sit on properties for no reason. Look at how quickly they are moving on Brentwood and Metrotown. St Pauls, Westin Bayshore, Molsons and their remaining land around False Creek are only slow walked because they are going to develop it when they can build something with zoning/use that makes their numbers work.

Add to that the DTES-adjacent siting of the area.

Concord Pacific dropped their "Greenwich" project on Hastings like a hot potato and donated the land to the City.
The social housing project there recently opened up.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

There was a plan for the "Georgia Steps" that would have provided a pedestrian friendly route up the escarpment at Georgia St. while retaining the viaducts.
The viaducts do not need to go for such a plan.

That was before the seismic analysis of the viaducts. They could be repaired (although several sections have to be replaced), but that's almost as expensive as replacing them completely, which doesn't do anything to improve the urban design of the area, or add any developable land. It also achieves a poorer seismic performance than replacement on the same alignment. And as has been noted, repairing or replacing them will be entirely taxpayer funded, while a new layout and additional development land can be funded (or part funded) by CACs.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

They want to twist this to make the City look like the bad guy

The City were definitely horrible before ABC took over. However, with previous agreements made, at times the current administrators find it hard to disavow the horrible mistakes made from the past, such as the decision to take down the viaducts to stroke Gregor's ego.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

The City were definitely horrible before ABC took over. However, with previous agreements made, at times the current administrators find it hard to disavow the horrible mistakes made from the past, such as the decision to take down the viaducts to stroke Gregor's ego.

I don't think anything is stopping ABC from saying "lets keep the viaducts, repair them, apply to get partial funding from a higher level of government, allocate a bunch of property tax dollars, and we'll revise the Plan any layout of the new roadways underneath".

You just need to pay for it as you can't use CAC money for repairs.