Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

No that is planning. And world class planning that is being replicated around the globe.

People who live downtown must understand that they chose to live in a urban environment. I haven't heard of any real NIMBYism come from downtowners. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The office buildings are not being eroded. We have lots of jobs, residential is just picking up to create a balance. There's no doubt that we must continue to ensure that office is being developed and that's what the city is doing. But trends like these, by and large, occur due to the economy.



It's not utopian, it's the long term goal. And it is succeeding. Travel to other cities in North America and the urban framework, while generally very much the same (town centres connected by rapid transit) are not nearly as well done as Metrotown, Richmond, Coquitlam, and Surrey. In 20 years time, we will be recognized not only for having the world's most livable downtown in Vancouver, but the world's most livable region. We will basically have replicated mini downtowns across the metro and trust me, the world will turn it's head again with praise.

If you don't like the way the region's residents chose to grow 30 years ago, then perhaps you'd fit in better in a different city.



It's not mythical, it exists. And it is one of the world's best examples of a sustainable city. We cannot continue to use cars as our main mode of transport. That doesn't mean they don't have a role, because they do. But we should not build our cities around them.

It's something that New York, Paris, London, and many cities round the world have learnt from Copenhagen and they are now quickly adopting many of its best practices. Why Vancouver shouldn't do the same is beyond me.

Cycling is one of the best modes of transport. It's low impact exercise, has zero carbon emissions, and is more efficient than walking.

Of course nobody is going to bike from Burnaby to North Van, but for 1-3k trips, the trips that most in the region take, it does make sense. We just need to modify our infrastructure to make it a safer, and smarter option than driving.

Riding a bike does not mean you are poor.

why?

personally i think that is a awfully short sighted opinion.

[LotusLand]

Wow I was a way for two days and this thread is 4 pages deep. Excellent discussion going on. Here are my thoughts.

Downtown Vancouver although might not have built a lot of pure office towers this boom I'll say that we built quite abit with all the mixed use development. For instance Jameson house will have 8 floors of office space, The residence at Georgia will also have some office floors and I'm sure a few other developments will have office space as well. Are they purely office buildings no. Do we need more, yes. They are on there as the economy warrants them they will be built. Bentall 6, the GM place tower and a few others that are just rumours will eventually get built. The COV realizes the need to continue office development and they will do so. The notion that metrotown, richmond or (insert laughs) Surrey will become the choice for business is far fetched. Downtown Vancouver and Vancouver will remain the dominant centre in the region. This may hurt the people who are proud suburbanites on here but its the truth so swallow it.

As for the viaducts, I like them and Raggedy's photos show how they can integrate with the urban fabric. I think the city knows what it is doing and they will leave the viaducts untouched as they develop NEFC as Jlousa said.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by racc

It is funny how some people believe in capitalism and the free market yet when it comes to roads become flaming socialists. I'm not sure why you think it is fine to charge people for housing and food which are essential to life yet think that charging for the use of roads is fascism. The whole idea of the market is to limit free choice and turn it into paid choice. Free use of roads has distorted the market and caused the overuse of roads which has led to congestion and huge environmental damage.

Even worse, the roads in the City of Vancouver are paid for through property taxes, essentially a tax on housing. It would be much better to fund social housing through a tax on roads or at least have congestion pricing pay for the maintenance of roads in the city.

So in the end, by your twisted logic, the free market is a form of fascism.

Socialism is a byproduct of capitalism, and vice versa. It would seem that roads paid for by all is the most efficient way of doing things, thats why you see such a unbreakable force keeping it the way it is, that is capitalism.

[cornholio]

I also want to add that im pretty confident that not one person that supports the strangulation of our road infrastructure has ever lived or even bothered to investigate the road infrastructure in these "european" and "asian" cities they speak of that we should emulate.

Lets see, Copenhagen, the city with the extensive highway ring network that comes within like 5km of the center of the city. hmmm, and its dam efficient. How about Prague, the city that many consider to have the most efficent public transit network in the world, again a extensive highway network, two city ring roads, and billions and billions invested in to it, with dozens of km mostly in tunnels and viaducts under construction as we speak, hmmm. I just dont understand the thinking.

[kylemacmac]

Tear them down. Use the land to develop usable neighborhoods. Land sold = profits. Use the profits to help finance a Skytrain extension East under Hastings out towards Kootenay loop. Commuters using the viaducts will then have a direct, fast and simple transport option into and out of downtown. There is already more than enough road capacity for trucks and commercial vehicles into and out of downtown.

[deasine]

Here's a not-so-quick plan I did up how the viaducts could be integrated with the viaducts.


Hosted on Shaw

Basically, the entire area under the viaducts can be made for the OMC of a Streetcar network. Also notice in this concept that there are streetcar tracks on the viaduct themselves... more on that later in the transit fantasy thread.

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by kylemacmac

There is already more than enough road capacity for trucks and commercial vehicles into and out of downtown.

I disagree. This would leave us with Hastings street as the only street East-West out of the downtown peninsula that has any real capacity, which would quickly be insufficient. Removing one viaduct might work - we do need a few lanes of capacity in that corridor.

[Metro-One]

Fantastic job design. Infact that is a brilliant idea of putting the tram OMC under part of the ducts. The good thing about the ducts is they create a small cheep piece of land in a very expensive area to build such utilities!

And yes, without the ducts driving in and especially out of downtown is terrible if coming from an east/west direction.

Putting the traffic elevated actually gives us more development options at ground level then just building another carbon copy only for the rich Yaletown condos.

[arashi_1987]

Originally Posted by deasine

Here's a not-so-quick plan I did up how the viaducts could be integrated with the viaducts.


Hosted on Shaw

Basically, the entire area under the viaducts can be made for the OMC of a Streetcar network. Also notice in this concept that there are streetcar tracks on the viaduct themselves... more on that later in the transit fantasy thread.

I hate to disagree, but I don't think squeezing in some low-income housing between two viaducts above ground and two boulevards at street level is such a great idea.

[Metro-One]

Well it is not perfect, but it hows he is thinking creatively.

[Canadian Mind]

I like how deasine is thinking creatively, but I don't think the area immediately across the street from the stadiums is best served by residential development. Commercial office and retail yes, residential no. Residents will just bitch about the noise that inadvertently goes with events at the two sports stadiums.

[arashi_1987]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Well it is not perfect, but it hows he is thinking creatively.

The rest of the deasine's plan is awesome I must add. Nice graphics by the way =)

[Metro-One]

I would take deasines plan any day over another Yaletown. This area could become one of the most interesting urban parts of Vancouver. Again, it is nice to have variety in a city!

[deasine]

The point is, you don't have to tear down the viaducts to "improve the quality of life." Residential can work in this plan because the speed of the cars have been reduced with the addition of two traffic lights. Not exactly clear in the plan, but you can see it. When Spectrum was completed, CoV added a new intersection traffic light on the Georgia/Dunsmir Viaduct.

I would add that Concord Pacific should be developing this area along with their lands in the NEFC area so that the two areas can be fully integrated. Moreover, the CoV can set the terms and deals: Concord can develop more land and have more apartments, but Concord must also build the office overhang (think Aberdeen Mall Expansion) in addition to paying for the StreetCar OMC. This is an innovative idea that has worked in other places: when the Hong Kong Gov't built the MTR, they let developers build apartments right on top of the OMC, getting money out of it.

Mmm... forgot to add "Glass Roof" is literally a Glass Roof plaza, replacing our already-gone Plaza of Nations.

Honestly though, the CoV has more important things to do than spend money to tear down two viaducts. I can't imagine why we would be doing this when we have a billion other problems.

[Stingray2004]

Just a few pics down memory (Ghost's?) lane:

Twin Viaducts today:


Source: Flickr - shane_reside


Remaining Original Viaduct Ghosts from Yesteryear:

Original landing at E. Georgia & Main (today):



Original landing at E. Georgia & Main (today) with original piping conduits carried along viaduct:



Remnants of original streetcar tracks heading toward the viaduct (Streetcars never utilized original viaduct due to its shoddy construction):







And Prior St. before/after the construction of the new twin viaducts:


Source: Flickr - SqueakyMarmot

And that last pic is somewhat reminiscent of what removal of thru traffic can do for the liveability of a street. Seems like the proposed Malkin overpass/Malkin connection will do the same for the remainder of Prior/Venables. 1st Ave./Grandview/12th Ave. anyone?

[Zassk]

^ Regarding that last comment... Do we want to maintain the current state of Venables/Prior? I didn't think there was much redeeming about it currently. Surely it can be improved with the commuters moved elsewhere.

[Metro-One]

Nice try, but what about the other streets in metro Vancouver that have deteriorated much more than Prior street since the old days without any viaducts within miles of them? Why dont you use pics of the west end of the ducts where the international village is now growing by leaps and bounds and the stadiums on game night when there are thousands of people in the area or of the skate park packed in a true urban environment?

It is not the ducts, it is the lack of of initiative from the city. Also, maybe there is a reason why that area has the least amount of traffic in the downtown core (because traffic actually flows there without a problem because of adequate infrastructure?)

I think we have shown more than a few good examples of how viaducts can be incorporated into the urban landscape without taking them down.

I guess we should take down the skytrain guideways as well since the land below it will also always be a ghost town and underutilized?

Also someone pointed out the great point of when the new St. Paul's is built the Georgia duct will essentially land at its base, perfect for ambulances rushing from downtown.

I also love how the anti-road people change their tune, in some cases they blame traffic and cars for destroying a street, then when the traffic is removed they claim the removal of the traffic as the destroying factor. With the ducts there, we can build the streetcar without having to worry about dirupting vehicle traffic or adding another rail/road crossing. Also, talk about a perfect spot for a OMC! Cheep land right near downtown in the middle of a new street car network. Think about the layers, road viaducts, ground level roads, skytrain and a tram all sharing the same place due to variety!

But no, we want more overpriced bland Yaletown for the ultra rich while chocking off business from the core!

[Metro-One]

I can't believe i just thought of this now, but isnt the entire Granville Island a thriving shopping and cultural area built under a viaduct????

Is that not the most perfect example of how viaducts can be incorporated into the urban fabric, creating very interesting parts of a city?

Granville Island would suck if they decided simply to tear down the bridge and build another Yaletown for the short sighted short term gains from condo developments!!! (which I am sure it would have been as industry dried up if it were not for the viaduct/bridge above blocking tower construction)

We essentially have the chance here to build a district as unique as Granville Island instead of having more of the same!

[Locked In]

Metro, I appreciate your ideas and your passion, but is it possible for you to fire off a single post on this thread without slagging Yaletown? I get that you seem to have some issues with the area (what they are exactly, I haven't yet figured out) and that you don't want a carbon copy built in NEFC - but I think we probably all agree with that, and that's not the City's plan for the area in any case.

Anyways, I agree that the viaducts should stay (for the foreseeable future) and that there is tons of potential to build a vibrant, exciting neighborhood around them. And I think we can probably discuss that without repeatedly taking cheap shots at the neighborhood next door...

[Metro-One]

Metro, I appreciate your ideas and your passion, but is it possible for you to fire off a single post on this thread without slagging Yaletown? I get that you seem to have some issues with the area (what they are exactly, I haven't yet figured out) and that you don't want a carbon copy built in NEFC - but I think we probably all agree with that, and that's not the City's plan for the area in any case.

A good question that deserves an answer.

I do not have a problem with Yaletown itself, I actually like Yaletown (although I would change a thing or two if i could).

My problem is, as of late, it seems that the entire downtown core is quickly becoming one giant Yaletown, that I do not like.

I like to have districts in a city, such as vibrant entertainment areas (that can differ from each other as well), bustling business districs, shopping districts and residential districts along with mix use around the district edges, each with their own flavour, and I feel we are loosing that to a tide of over priced condos, many of which sit unoccupied for the majority of the year.

And it seems that the majority people who want the ducts taken down (such as the councilor who brought this up in the first place) are the people who simply want to plop a few more Yaletown style developments in their footprint for a quick one time cash grab.

I feel that keeping the ducts gives us an opportunity to build a funky urban district that could differ from anything we have right now, therefore making the city more interesting, while not wasting land and not cutting off road lanes into the city core.

So I guess that is what I mean, I like Yaletown a lot, but I would like Yaletown to remain in Yaletown, for if everywhere downtown becomes more like Yaltown, that will not only kill the distinctness of those regions, but it will also take away from the distinctness of Yaletown itself.

I hope this makes sense.