Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[logan5]

I thought that the land around Main - between Quebec and Gore - was a former neighborhood called Hogan's Alley? And the rest was industrial, where, for now, it is being depicted as park land. (according to conceptual renders).

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

More how? Only because of inflation. Plenty of buildings will have to come down in 40 years from now, why don't we warm up the wrecking balls and smash them now!

Car traffic will probably continue to decrease. Maybe we split the difference and the viaducts are underused and it makes sense to tear them down in 20 years... but immediately? Why? Has the city solved the rest of the problems we face? Why not a $100M investment in ending homelessness?

It is possible that the depreciate usage value of the viaducts is coming to a time when it would be more cost effective to get rid of them now than to wait another 20-40 years. Sort of like owning a car and seeing that each year more and more repairs are being made. At some point there comes a time when it would be cheaper to just get that new car or in this case a new road network in the area.

As for homelessness. I don't think it ever will be solved no matter how much money we spend on the problem. So while spending the $100M on homelessness might be good. There will still be homelessness requiring more money even after the fact.

[jlousa]

Contary to what the city has hinted at in the presentation boards, the viaducts aren't at a stage where they will start costing lots of money to maintain. Here are the actual numbers provided by the city.

A summary of the anticipated costs to maintain the structure are provided below:

Yearly maintenance costs ~$25,000 per year
Short Term retrofits ~$200,000
Maintenance required in next 5+ years ~$1 million (barrier rehabilitation)
Maintenance required in the next 15+ years – $3 million (deck and joint rehabilitation)
Seismic upgrades ~$5 million

If the viaducts were retained it is estimated with the above maintenance they would have a remaining service life of 40+ years.

Source: http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...ents/ttra2.pdf

[Sir Conga]

I read in an article a claim that the area between Quebec and Gore, and Prior and Union could be sold for upwards of eighty million.

[jlousa]

Sure, it depends on how much density the city allows to be placed there. That equates to ~640K sqft if the city sells it at $125 per buildable sqft. I have no doubt the city will advertise such a number, but it's misleading. In theory they can zone the land for even more density and claim it's profitable (see a conflict of interest here?) They could also land that same density with the viaducts in place and just pocket the money for another project if they chose to.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by logan5

I thought that the land around Main - between Quebec and Gore - was a former neighborhood called Hogan's Alley? And the rest was industrial, where, for now, it is being depicted as park land. (according to conceptual renders).

Hogans Alley should be fine, the other block adjacent to the skateboard park is likely contaminated though. I think that was where the Coal gas plant was. I've got city drawings of what contaminants are where somewhere around here.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Contary to what the city has hinted at in the presentation boards, the viaducts aren't at a stage where they will start costing lots of money to maintain. Here are the actual numbers provided by the city.



Source: http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...ents/ttra2.pdf

I realize that presentation boards will always be made up to look good in a certain way. We all know how graphs can be manipulated to make the data seem a certain way.

And to be honest I haven't even read any of the reports and have no desire to. I just feel that in the long term the viaducts will be gone.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by jlousa

They could also land that same density with the viaducts in place and just pocket the money for another project if they chose to.

The goal is a particular urban form, not quick money.

[CrazyCommute]

One of the funniest aspects of this entire PC-driven "proposed" project is the COV labeling a new 4-lane street a "Super Road." LOL. Only in this city is a 4-lane street a SUPER ROAD!!!

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by CrazyCommute

One of the funniest aspects of this entire PC-driven "proposed" project is the COV labeling a new 4-lane street a "Super Road." LOL. Only in this city is a 4-lane street a SUPER ROAD!!!

In Vancouver's case, you still often can't take the "Hick" out of the "town."

[CrazyCommute]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

In Vancouver's case, you still often can't take the "Hick" out of the "town."

So true.
And will it ever change? Doubtful.

[Track]

Is there a reason why there can only be one road built in place of the two viaducts? Considering that they plan on replacing it with a massive field, couldn't they just build another 4 lane road cutting through the middle of it? It would alleviate congestion, provide a safer path through the area at night (as others pointed out earlier in the thread, a giant park at night is not a great place to be), and its arguable that the current plan contains far more green space than is necessary.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Track

Is there a reason why there can only be one road built in place of the two viaducts? Considering that they plan on replacing it with a massive field, couldn't they just build another 4 lane road cutting through the middle of it? It would alleviate congestion, provide a safer path through the area at night (as others pointed out earlier in the thread, a giant park at night is not a great place to be), and its arguable that the current plan contains far more green space than is necessary.

Better yet, just axe the whole project. This whole thing is beyond insane. And you're right, the amount of green space going in the area is complete overkill.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Better yet, just axe the whole project. This whole thing is beyond insane. And you're right, the amount of green space going in the area is complete overkill.

Total agreement (if that counts for anything)

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by CrazyCommute

One of the funniest aspects of this entire PC-driven "proposed" project is the COV labeling a new 4-lane street a "Super Road." LOL. Only in this city is a 4-lane street a SUPER ROAD!!!

Haha. Good point. Ya wanna know likely why?

I've repeated same ad nauseum in this thread... but Translink will be the ultimate authority over whether the viaducts will be demolished. The Georgia viaduct is part of the MRN (Translink's Major Roads Network) and any new MRN replacement must be superior to its predecessor.

That's certainly not the case here. Perhaps that's why the CoV is attempting to call it a "Super Road"?!

In any event, while the Georgia viaduct is part of Translink's MRN, both the Georgia viaduct as well as the Dunsmuir viaduct are also part of Translink's MTN - Major Truck Network.

Again, Translink declined the removal of the MTN designation of a portion of Ladner Trunk Road in Delta and a portion of 32nd Ave. in Surrey after major public support of same as well as municipal support.

Does anyone here think that Translink will ignore those precedents and believe that the CoV is something special?!

In that vein, why has no one, in either the media or the CoV, discussed the aforesaid legal role of Translink in this discussion to date?!

Enquiring minds still wanna know. At the end of the day, this matter might actually be quite entertaining on these points.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Does anyone here think that Translink will ignore those precedents and believe that the CoV is something special?!

In that vein, why has no one, in either the media or the CoV, discussed the aforesaid legal role of Translink in this discussion to date?!

Enquiring minds still wanna know. At the end of the day, this matter might actually be quite entertaining on these points.

Well did anyone ask at the open houses the city had?

This has been brought up a lot here, but this is just an internet forum that is only worth the electrons it's displaying.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Better yet, just axe the whole project. This whole thing is beyond insane. And you're right, the amount of green space going in the area is complete overkill.

I'm surprised there hasn't been more outcry from other parts of the city about this. The area around False Creek is hardly underserved with park and public space, compared to other areas of Vancouver. Why Vision thinks its necessary to create yet another large park here is baffling.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I'm surprised there hasn't been more outcry from other parts of the city about this. The area around False Creek is hardly underserved with park and public space, compared to other areas of Vancouver. Why Vision thinks its necessary to create yet another large park here is baffling.

Even the existing plans to expand Creekside are overkill...surely, the area could use something much more than another oversized green lawn on the waterfront.

[Sir Conga]

What kind of out-cry do you expect from people against additional park space? It's not really something that traditionally gets people riled up.

I personally agree that there will be a surplus of park-space, but I think I can live with it.

[p78hub]

Because adding a gigantic park is hardly a great addition to a city that already has a lot of park space. You probably would never hear people say, "you know what would make Vancouver great? Another park along False Creek!" It's more likely you would hear something about more affordable housing, better transit, better community services, etc.