Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If you'd think a little harder, you'd realize the viaducts take up at least half of all buildable space on the lots, and that erecting a tower in the leftover space between and under two freeways is a logistical headache. Main Street Station is roughly the same height and only managed a single A&W.

Half?

Show me.

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

A site downtown with views of an expansive park and the False Creek waterfront has a lot more potential for financial returns than a site facing Lougheed Highway, a substation and a Home Depot in a poorly serviced secondary urban node.

The view cone is also entirely a creature of the city. If the city wants it gone, it can disappear. The current council is strangely silent on that matter currently.

Yes, without the Viewcones and if developers can go higher, the space occupied by the viaducts won't matter anymore. Toronto's Gardiner goes through the densest and tallest condos and other skyscrapers in the entire country. Yet residents are never afraid of the aging expressway collapsing on them.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Half?

Show me.



Yes, without the Viewcones and if developers can go higher, the space occupied by the viaducts won't matter anymore. Toronto's Gardiner goes through the densest and tallest condos and other skyscrapers in the entire country. Yet residents are never afraid of the aging expressway collapsing on them.

See for yourself in Google Maps. Between Dunsmuir, Georgia and the Expo, the buildable space is significantly less than if a developer had the entire lot to themselves; half is a generous estimate.

Funny you should mention Gardiner:

... By the 1990s, the expressway’s elevated structure had become too expensive to maintain. In 1999, Toronto City Council voted to demolish the elevated section of the Gardiner Expressway East, and replace it with an improved and higher-capacity Lake Shore Boulevard East that would include bicycle lanes, landscaping, and a public art project...
Link

Two ramps that allow drivers access to Toronto’s Gardiner Expressway will be torn down this week, leading to numerous months-long weekend closures along Lake Shore Boulevard East...

“...Once the Lake Shore Bridge is re-engineered, the new space will accommodate bike lanes, pedestrian paths and a new linear park, and allow for the re-design and naturalization of the Don River, which will be a critical element for future flood protection,” officials said in a news release issued last week...

... The project was approved back in 2015, when Toronto city council voted to approve a “hybrid” alternative to tearing the Gardiner Expressway down in its entirety.

The $998-million endeavor will see the city create a more direct link from the Gardiner Expressway to the Don Valley Parkway and address the roadway’s state of disrepair.
Link

Yeah, Toronto doesn't want their viaducts either.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

Half?

Show me.

The viaducts take up about an area of roughly 600k square feet, while the developable area (excluding the highly contaminated area designated as park) is about 300k sq.ft.

[GenWhy?]

The section of the Gardner that they torn down at the Don Lands was a great change and the development around there is looking great.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Half?

Show me.

Toronto's Gardiner goes through the densest and tallest condos and other skyscrapers in the entire country. Yet residents are never afraid of the aging expressway collapsing on them.

Ah yes, Toronto, in that well-known earthquake zone. Seattle is a better example; they replaced their earthquake-damaged elevated road. (And no, we can't copy them because it's a Very Bad Idea to try to dig a tunnel through the most contaminated land in the city, and you want to end up at the top of the escarpment, 10m above the level at Main Street, not in a hole 20m below the other end. That why the viaducts climb from Main Street).

The current viaducts sit on top of land that is planned to have 11 towers and 2 mid-rise buildings in the designs by Concord Pacific and the City (at Main & Quebec). Only seven of the proposed Concord buildings are on land that wouldn't be affected if the viaducts were retained. They might be able to redesign to squeeze a couple of new towers between the viaducts, so half the buildings would still be unable to be developed.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The current viaducts sit on top of land that is planned to have 11 towers and 2 mid-rise buildings in the designs by Concord Pacific and the City (at Main & Quebec). Only seven of the proposed Concord buildings are on land that wouldn't be affected if the viaducts were retained. They might be able to redesign to squeeze a couple of new towers between the viaducts, so half the buildings would still be unable to be developed.

I think that only 3 buildings are impacted if the viaducts were to remain in place and skinnier buildings could be built between the viaducts.
The major loss would be the City lots flanking Main St.



There's actually a sizable lot between the viaducts at Abbott St. with the area east of Carrall quite narrow.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think that only 3 buildings are impacted if the viaducts were to remain in place and skinnier buildings could be built between the viaducts.

The major loss would be the City lots flanking Main St.

There's actually a sizable lot between the viaducts at Abbott St. with the area east of Carrall quite narrow.

Exactly. There are 3 Concord towers, and 8 on the City sites that wouldn't be built, but it's likely that 2 Concord towers could be reconfigured to fit between the viaducts. I'm not sure whether the park would need to be reconfigured to eat into Concord's footprint, or whether it would just end up smaller.

[Migrant_Coconut]

And it's much harder to build between two freeways than on an open site - expect any extra construction costs to be transformed into higher rents.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Ah yes, Toronto, in that well-known earthquake zone...

I'm not sure exactly what the relevance of that is. If anything, seismic risk would give Vancouver even more incentive than Toronto to remove the viaducts.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I'm not sure exactly what the relevance of that is. If anything, seismic risk would give Vancouver even more incentive than Toronto to remove the viaducts.

Yes, that was my point. Mine was in response to Vin's statement "Toronto's Gardiner goes through the densest and tallest condos and other skyscrapers in the entire country. Yet residents are never afraid of the aging expressway collapsing on them."

[the_prof]

Interesting tidbit here:
https://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/n...eek-north.aspx

Matt Meehan, Senior Vice President, Planning, Concord Pacific Developments Inc.
“Concord Pacific was pleased to work with the City on the creation of these non-market housing opportunities. We support the City’s suggestion of funds going towards the removal of the seismically compromised viaducts as it would also unlock even more affordable housing opportunities in the area.”

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by the_prof

Interesting tidbit here:
https://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/n...eek-north.aspx

Matt Meehan, Senior Vice President, Planning, Concord Pacific Developments Inc.
“Concord Pacific was pleased to work with the City on the creation of these non-market housing opportunities. We support the City’s suggestion of funds going towards the removal of the seismically compromised viaducts as it would also unlock even more affordable housing opportunities in the area.”

Yeah the City got $100M as part of this social housing site re-distribution. Concord can now build market condos on some of the other spots.

[idunno]

This is a very good final solution for the years-wasted lands in North False Creek. More non-market housing to be built by the Province is a huge win.

I'll be excited to finally see these lots (condos or social housing wise) filled!

[MIPS]

I'll believe it when I see shovels in the ground.
Concord has been proposing plans for the area for over 30 years and it remains the biggest financial scandal from the Expo 86 legacy. The fact that it took a cash infusion for them to say "We're gonna do it. We really mean it this time!" means absolutely nothing to me until we actually see something come of it.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by MIPS

I'll believe it when I see shovels in the ground.
Concord has been proposing plans for the area for over 30 years and it remains the biggest financial scandal from the Expo 86 legacy. The fact that it took a cash infusion for them to say "We're gonna do it. We really mean it this time!" means absolutely nothing to me until we actually see something come of it.

750 Pacific has their rezoning enacted (applied for in 2019) so they're getting dinged tax-wise on it now more than when it was still industrial. The DP was only applied for in 2021. They are closer than even in the last 5 years than the last 30.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Yeah the City got $100M as part of this social housing site re-distribution. Concord can now build market condos on some of the other spots.

How is this a win for social housing? The city basically sold 3 sites (that were previously slated for social housing) to concord for $120 million and committed to put the money towards tearing down the viaducts.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by scottN

How is this a win for social housing? The city basically sold 3 sites (that were previously slated for social housing) to concord for $120 million and committed to put the money towards tearing down the viaducts.

It just a consolidation. instead of a mix in 6 lots, it's now 3 for all market and 3 for all social

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

It just a consolidation. instead of a mix in 6 lots, it's now 3 for all market and 3 for all social

All 6 were intended to be 100% social housing, but the total unit count was less than the three sites they will now get will have. There were no towers planned.

Originally Posted by scottN

How is this a win for social housing? The city basically sold 3 sites (that were previously slated for social housing) to concord for $120 million and committed to put the money towards tearing down the viaducts.

It's probably more nuanced than that. The City presumably have Concord's agreement to not object to two of the three sites becoming towers. (The residents of the nearby Concord towers won't necessarily be very happy, but that's different from Concord itself objecting, possibly through the courts). There's been stalemate on getting any of these six sites developed for over 20 years. The package with BC Housing, the City and Concord at least breaks that stalemate, and sees slightly more social housing built than the six sites were originally planned to have. The relocation of the firehall (assuming that's what's planned) frees up another City-owned site too. And the money from the Plaza of Nations and Concord should go some way to replacing the viaducts, although whether ABC will see it that way is another matter. If they back off replacing the viaducts they then have the incredibly expensive task of making them seismically sound - and they can't use the CAC from Concord or the Plaza of Nations for that under the current Charter rules.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Changing City

All 6 were intended

Right but the 600+ was scattered amoung them all, and now it's 650+ in just the 3 lots. Right? or am I being hoodwinked too

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Right but the 600+ was scattered amoung them all, and now it's 650+ in just the 3 lots. Right? or am I being hoodwinked too

No, I think that's correct. They were all intended at modest density. Now two of the three are intended as towers, so there are slightly more non-market units.