Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[dreambrother808]

There were some interesting and thankfully creative proposals. Perhaps Vancouverites re-elected Vision because the majority approves of what they have done? Maybe the pro-viaduct circle jerk on this site isn't quite representative of that opinion? Just something to think about.

I'm open to new ideas about the viaducts. The proposals were a form of brainstorming as opposed to late-stage shovel-ready blueprints. The final decisions would naturally be transformed by further discussion and refinement. No need for hysterical proclamations about the impending downfall of the city, IMO.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

...Maybe the pro-viaduct circle jerk on this site isn't quite representative of that opinion? Just something to think about...

Another thing to think about: why do downtown dwellers always make the erroneous assumption their lifestyle is one shared by more than just a small fraction of Metro-Vancouverites?

[BCPhil]

Vission was reelected because of the present day policies. Not many parties win or lose elections that happen every 3 years based on something that might happen 5 years from now. Even if they pledged before this last elections to remove the viaducts in 5 years, the issue is not on enough people's radar to be a concern. In this election the pledge over casinos was far more pertinent.

Most people today are probably barely aware of plans about the Viaducts. And half of the city lives to the West of them and probably haven't driven on them in 10 years anyway. The viaducts are really a regional issue that the city council is using to make sure their strong left wing supporters don't go back to COPE.

The thing that will test people's patience is when the city implements its Granville Loops plan. I don't think it will be a nightmare, but I do think it will cause problems for Pacific and the new buildings going up inside the loops. Cars will be turning off Pacific and using the new roads like the loops, but instead of a nice quick move onto the bridge it will be a slow, stop and go affair. It will at least make people think: "hmmm, maybe special road infrastructure has it's place in the urban fabric to keep city streets more pedestrian friendly."

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Perhaps Vancouverites re-elected Vision because the majority approves of what they have done? Maybe the pro-viaduct circle jerk on this site isn't quite representative of that opinion?

Firstly, many federal Liberal/provincial Liberal operatives worked on behalf of the VV campaign. If looney left COPE was the primary candidate that wouldn't have been the case and a 6% switch would have seen the NPA in control of Van City council. Incumbancy is also a huge factor in muni elections.

In any event, previous public opinion polling that I have seen oppose the 'ducts demolition. And the 'ducts weren't on the radar screen as a civic campaign issue.

Scratching my head, you apparently approve the ~50,000 AADT removal from the 'ducts to be rerouted through Pacific/Expo Blvd, which will "enhance" the liveability of the future NEFC neighbourhood?

Kinda doesn't make sense, don't ya think?

BTW, I don't know anyone that takes transit (except one on the WCE) and that will never change. With another million folk anticipated to reside in Metro Vancouver over the next ~30 years, that will also invade the downtown peninsula, don't ya think things will get worse over the decades?

Regional strategic transportation planning seems to be absent in this discussion. And the CoV seems to live in another world.

Again, the Georgia viaduct is part of Translink's MRN and that Metro Vancouver body will NEVER permit the removal of the Georgia viaduct, in the minimum, whatever government is in control in Victoria. Back in 1999, the CoV cautioned residents about the implications of having any COV arterial designated as Translink "MRN". And many municipalities have already attempted to have the removal of that designation on some routes to no avail. Any interference by another provincial gov't in that regard would result in a major scandal! Dems the fact man.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Wow, just wow. The one with the head furthest up its ass wins! Sorry, but this is just a nightmare for traffic and any chance of creating a UNIQUE urban environment that the viaducts could give us and area.

But no, lets make the most plain, condo tower in the park design we can do with a ridiculously small road network given the choke point in geography.

I cant believe they even take away the entire route around the stadiums, possibly the coolest urban drive in Vancouver.

no face palm emoticon can do my feeling justice.

Ugh....

I cant wait to go back to Japan, a place where they actually embrace the urban style, instead of always trying to cover it up in pathetic attempts such as this.

Sorry, but towers snug between and straddling over the ducts with restaurants and skate parks under them and lighting effects, etc... is far more interesting than this more of the same

There we go, that is the logo for this proposal, MORE OF THE SAME IN VANCOUVER!

Perfectly put, Metro! And yeah, I remember in my youth, me and my buddy riding mountain bikes on that road under the stadium, pedalling hard,sweating like a pig, trying to maintain speed with the vehicular traffic..... ah youth!!!

Please don't take that away !!

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

The thing that will test people's patience is when the city implements its Granville Loops plan. I don't think it will be a nightmare, but I do think it will cause problems for Pacific and the new buildings going up inside the loops. Cars will be turning off Pacific and using the new roads like the loops, but instead of a nice quick move onto the bridge it will be a slow, stop and go affair. It will at least make people think: "hmmm, maybe special road infrastructure has it's place in the urban fabric to keep city streets more pedestrian friendly."

You got it ! I've often thought of exactly that scenario.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Another thing to think about: why do downtown dwellers always make the erroneous assumption their lifestyle is one shared by more than just a small fraction of Metro-Vancouverites?

I don't really see how that relates to what I wrote. You like to bring up the fact that I live downtown as some kind of negation of my point of view, even though I have lived outside of downtown for most of my time here in Vancouver. This clear divide in opinion between downtown and the rest of Vancouver is not apparent to me anyways.

Furthermore, Metro Vancouverites will not be making this decision.

I am not even strongly for the removal of the viaducts. I am just open to considering other options.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

I don't really see how that relates to what I wrote. You like to bring up the fact that I live downtown as some kind of negation of my point of view, even though I have lived outside of downtown for most of my time here in Vancouver. This clear divide in opinion between downtown and the rest of Vancouver is not apparent to me anyways.

Furthermore, Metro Vancouverites will not be making this decision.

I am not even strongly for the removal of the viaducts. I am just open to considering other options.

I believe you, but why then do you use such derogatory terms as "the pro-viaduct circle jerk?" From that, it would appear that ostensibly your stance is very much anti-viaduct, which you claim it is not.

[dreambrother808]

I use that term because I think that people here can get a little out of hand when it comes to this issue and they tend to freak out over any contrary opinions.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

I use that term because I think that people here can get a little out of hand when it comes to this issue and they tend to freak out over any contrary opinions.

I will give you that as long as you agree the same can be said for Meggs and his group, the "anti-viaduct Circle jerk"

[dreambrother808]

I just don't see the same vitriol and negativity from that side to be honest. They seem to be presenting suggestions and ideas. If you could point me to some source material where Meggs angrily attacks a contrary point of view on this matter then I would reconsider.

[Metro-One]

Have we not been displaying ideas throughout this entire thread, do I really have to go over every point i have displayed again? (get ready for an essay of a post then).

so now to me your point is not valid, i think members such a racc and bike trouble were very vitriol and negative towards our suggestions in how to keep them and integrate them, both big Meggs supporters.

And i think Meggs desired outcome is pretty clear, and his entire campaign has been very biased, as one poster on here said, it may eve be true that to keep the viaducts was the winning suggestion, but they don't publicize that!

[racc]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Have we not been displaying ideas throughout this entire thread, do I really have to go over every point i have displayed again? (get ready for an essay of a post then).

so now to me your point is not valid, i think members such a racc and bike trouble were very vitriol and negative towards our suggestions in how to keep them and integrate them, both big Meggs supporters.

And i think Meggs desired outcome is pretty clear, and his entire campaign has been very biased, as one poster on here said, it may eve be true that to keep the viaducts was the winning suggestion, but they don't publicize that!

Please don't confuse disagreeing with ideas rationally and respectfully with vitriol.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Have we not been displaying ideas throughout this entire thread, do I really have to go over every point i have displayed again? (get ready for an essay of a post then).

I never said that you were without ideas.

As for the assertion that the voting was rigged, let's not present hearsay as fact.

My only point was that there should be room for a variety of opinions. That's all.

[officedweller]

The proposed transportation system through the area is awful as it doesn't provide for redundancy - any blockage on Pacific Boulevard will stifle traffic as far away as Georgia Street and over to Main Street.

That said there are a couple of interesting elements - like the tower built over the SkyTrain tracks north of Rogers Arena - perhaps forshadowing a future Aquilini project?

A big negative though - if the intent was to remove the "barrier" of the viaducts, the proposed funky curving condo towers present a far far bigger barrier between Chinatown and False Creek than the viaducts and these tower look really wide (esp. if Concord is going with a point tower scheme.) Strangely, these condo towers look a whole lot more "resort-like" than point towers do.

Renders cut from the entry at the City's website:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[idunno]

If those 'resort-like' towers were done really well, we could have our own Marina Bay Sands on our hands - right in the middle of the 'Entertainment District' too. It would be pretty cool.

That being said, I see your point about how it splits up the whole property. I guess the skytrain was always going to do that anyway.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

I never said that you were without ideas.

As for the assertion that the voting was rigged, let's not present hearsay as fact.

My only point was that there should be room for a variety of opinions. That's all.

And there is room for a variety of opinions, and my opinion is that this "winner" is a terrible choice. There were many great submissions made though, and this is not one of them.

The water acts as a barrier, as do these towers, it will be terrible for traffic flow (especially for East Hastings, Water street, etc...), there is an extreme overkill in plain open grassy fields (a lot of more of the same for Vancouver), etc...

That is my opinion, if you like this proposal thats great, but I am telling you why i don't. No circle jerk, just what I feel.

Again much oft his proposal could even be built with the viaducts still in place, that is the funny point. They seem to be removed just because here.

And yes, i would miss the road winding through the back side of the stadiums, a very cool urban part of Vancouver. Taken away for more repetitive development.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by idunno

If those 'resort-like' towers were done really well, we could have our own Marina Bay Sands on our hands - right in the middle of the 'Entertainment District' too. It would be pretty cool.

That being said, I see your point about how it splits up the whole property. I guess the skytrain was always going to do that anyway.

I agree that the towers do look cool - but plopping them down in what is essentially DTES is a bit of a disconnect (i.e. the park seems to sterilize teh area - getting rid of the elements some people don't like, after all, who's going to object to a park?)

What would be cool is for the historic grid of Chinatown and Gastown to extend right to the water in a downtown urban form (i.e. maybe with mid-rises and few highrises - without the waterfront park - like a more built up Granville Island).

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by idunno

If those 'resort-like' towers were done really well, we could have our own Marina Bay Sands on our hands - right in the middle of the 'Entertainment District' too. It would be pretty cool.

That being said, I see your point about how it splits up the whole property. I guess the skytrain was always going to do that anyway.

It's funny you mention that, because really, Singapore and Marina Bay reminded me a lot of what Vancouver "could" be if it wasn't limited to being, well... Vancouver. And with all the people that come with it. Clearly that would be a good place to do something truly iconic like Marina Bay, however, it'll likely be mid-20 to high-30 storey blue / green glass square condo towers with a sprinkling of Starbucks.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

It's funny you mention that, because really, Singapore and Marina Bay reminded me a lot of what Vancouver "could" be if it wasn't limited to being, well... Vancouver. And with all the people that come with it. Clearly that would be a good place to do something truly iconic like Marina Bay, however, it'll likely be mid-20 to high-30 storey blue / green glass square condo towers with a sprinkling of Starbucks.

I haven't been around here since summer, but news articles about the viaducts competition over the last few days caught my attention.


Couldn't agree more... it's a location screaming for something significant and iconic, and there isn't enough *facepalm* in the world for the whole ridiculous idea of plotting a huge green lawn there. Creekside Park is sufficient as is, and if not there are other parks within a short walks away both in NEFC and SEFC.

I do not believe for a moment that there is any "need" for more grass parks. Cries that the existing parks in the area are "full and crowded" are absurd...they never are, and if they are they should be learning to share space -- it's what Downtown living is all about. And even then, parks become the pathetic Vancouver definition of "crowded" only during summer.

Beating a dead horse, the same can be said for SEFC/Olympic Village...given the location, it's extremely underwhelming. Some tall (and iconic) towers right up to the water would have given it a much stronger presence worthy of its location.

The waterway idea would work well, without the absurd green spaces. Having canals right up to buildings or a pedestrian-only street next to these buildings could build a really interesting urban vibe, you could even have boats moored to the edges of canals. Imagine turning Carrall Street into such.

I don't have much faith in this city, that it will start thinking outside of its limited box for its future. It's a painful case of tunnel vision.