HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 5:22 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,806
People also dont like living next to train tracks (skytrain, tramss, LRT, etc...) or factories, or hospitals, or police stations, fire halls, etc... but these are all things we need in a community and IF YOU WOULD ACTUALLY FUCKING READ THE POSTS WERE ADVOCATING PLACING NON RESIDENTIAL AMENATIES BESIDE & UNDER THE DUCTS, SUCH AS OFFICES, STORES, PARKS, ETC...

You are really becoming annoying now biketrouble.

Read our posts, you ask one question, we answer it, you then as another, we answer that, then you ask the first question again neglecting the info we have already answered with.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 5:23 AM
biketrouble biketrouble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
So why not focus your attention on the others
Because this thread is about the viaducts? It's right there in the title.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 5:27 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,806
I don't even now why I am responding to you, you asked why the lands are not developed, we answered, which involves other factors, honestly!

you are great at chasing your tail, you should go into politics, they love dodging around questions and convos with asking questions that were asked long ago and playing little games such as this.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 5:36 AM
biketrouble biketrouble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 188
The problem with just using that space for non-residential uses like you suggest is that they become dead zones at night. To build a livable urban fabric I believe you need a mixture of uses, residential next to commercial etc. That way, you get "eyes on the street". If you just build commercial there, or put in a streetcar OMC or above ground parking or whatever, you're just compounding the original problem.

So this is the problem with the viaducts, basically they are a constraint that makes it harder to build this kind of mixed usage development.

I thought it was pretty obvious that I disagreed with your suggested approach from my response to Deasine's OMC proposal, didn't see any need to repeat myself.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 5:49 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,106
ao all the stuff that exists beside them now is imaginary?
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 5:50 AM
biketrouble biketrouble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 188
Only if "harder" means "impossible" now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 5:54 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by racc View Post
Stop splitting hairs. The bottom line is that more people living near downtown means fewer people commuting from the burbs. Who knows what the exact levels will be but it means less traffic and congestion. Even if they do drive, they will be driving shorter distances and thus using less road space and creating less congestion.
do you work downtown?
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 5:57 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by biketrouble View Post
The problem with just using that space for non-residential uses like you suggest is that they become dead zones at night. To build a livable urban fabric I believe you need a mixture of uses, residential next to commercial etc. That way, you get "eyes on the street". If you just build commercial there, or put in a streetcar OMC or above ground parking or whatever, you're just compounding the original problem.
Talking about reading comprehension, obviously you didn't read the proposal properly: it's residential on top of commercial/retail (at viaduct level), then commercial, and retail surrounding OMC. Going back to reality here, the CoV plans to have a Streetcar OMC below the viaducts, but the OMC it self is self contained and will take up a small portion of the land the CoV owns right now. They can choose to sell off the rest of the land to another developer, integrating the viaduct with the urban fabric, or sell of the land completely to the developer so that the developer can pay for the OMC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 6:07 AM
biketrouble biketrouble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
Talking about reading comprehension, obviously you didn't read the proposal properly
I think I understood it correctly the first time, but just to be sure: at street level, your proposal is all non-residential, right?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 6:07 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,806
And why does every square inch of the city need residents in it? What is wrong with areas that are dominantly office, commercial and/or utilities? Having residents at every coner and along every street is a major factor in the killing of Vancouver night life and having distinct districts. Would it kill the city to have one area 1 block wide not having residential units down it? People living along Hastings sure did not save it! It is more bringing in higher class businesses and institutions such as SFU that is a major part in saving that district.

And as Deasine said, if need be the residential units can be built at height above the road deck level with commercial and office at and below deck level.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 6:08 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,806
Quote:
I think I understood it correctly the first time, but just to be sure: at street level, your proposal is all non-residential, right?
Oh dear Lord, an entire 700m stretch with no residential units along street level, that has never been done anywhere in the world before! Oh no wait, it has, in every city in the world!
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #272  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 6:13 AM
Locked In's Avatar
Locked In Locked In is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,974
I was out today and decided to go for a walk underneath the viaducts. Some thoughts:

- The viaducts are so integrated into the area adjacent to the stadiums. I don't have the eye of an engineer/architect but, for what its worth, I have no idea how they would be functionally removed at this point. In any case, the viaducts really are rather elegant (for high-capacity road infrastructure). They're high enough that they don't 'close in' the space beneath them, and would likely permit some interesting uses. They are nothing like, say, the Gardiner. Dark, foreboding tunnels under the viaducts will never be required. It takes a few seconds to cross under them. I don't really see how they constitute a psychological barrier. They almost certainly don't form a physical barrier in any way.

- In fact, the viaducts create some unique and interesting spaces even today. For instance, the main plaza east of GM place is mostly sheltered from the elements by the viaducts and it is a rather nice, if modest, little public space. I think it would be nice to have more attractive covered public places in Vancouver, not fewer. I found the space outside Costco interesting as well. On a rainy, dreary autumn day, a dozen or so people were sitting and eating at picnic tables next to the exit, in an area totally sheltered by the viaducts. They seemed to be enjoying the chance to sit outside while it's still (barely) warm enough without worrying about getting wet.

- The Dunsmuir viaduct runs adjacent to or above the skytrain track for a great distance, and unless the track is relocated (unlikely), it will be there whether the viaduct is or not. The track is actually more disruptive at ground level than the viaduct is, being either at grade or lower than the viaduct. Removing the viaduct doesn't really address the issue here...

- The area under the Georgia viaduct adjacent to GM place is a bit of a mess, and careful planning and design will be required if the streetscape is to improve as that area develops. But I don't really see how much better the sidewalk beside a stadium can be as a result of removing the viaduct 50 feet above street level. And a good portion of that area at street level is a road flanked by two stadiums' access points, loading bays, etc. I have doubts that block will ever be an urban paradise, regardless of whether or not there is a viaduct above it.

- The City plans to build an entirely new community in NEFC in which ~7000 residents will live and thousands more will work. Tens of thousands more will descend on this area dozens (or hundreds) of times per year for events. Removing the primary existing east-west route into and out of downtown, and feeding the traffic that uses this route into the NEFC neighborhood, would almost certainly be problematic. To deny that is overly optimistic at best and dishonest at worst.

Last edited by Locked In; Oct 26, 2009 at 6:33 AM. Reason: added some additional thoughts...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 6:13 AM
GeeCee's Avatar
GeeCee GeeCee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 2,816
n/a

Last edited by GeeCee; Oct 26, 2009 at 6:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 6:19 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by biketrouble View Post
I think I understood it correctly the first time, but just to be sure: at street level, your proposal is all non-residential, right?
If you look at the diagram, there is a portion of street where there is residential on street level. Not clearly indicated though. But there are many areas in Yaletown where there are no residents living on street-level... I don't see anyone complaining about the livability of those areas. Welcome to downtown living.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Locked In View Post
- The Dunsmuir viaduct runs adjacent to or above the skytrain track for a great distance, and unless the track is relocated (unlikely), it will be there whether the viaduct is or not. The track is actually more disruptive at ground level than the viaduct is, being either at grade or lower than the viaduct. Removing the viaduct doesn't really address the issue here...
Precisely. But they don't consider these factors: they'll just skip over it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 6:30 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,806
Quote:
I was out today and decided to go for a walk underneath the viaducts. Some thoughts:

- The viaducts are so integrated into the area adjacent to the stadiums. I don't have the eye of an engineer/architect but, for what its worth, I have no idea how they would be functionally removed at this point. In any case, the viaducts really are rather elegant (for high-capacity road infrastructure). They're high enough that they don't 'close in' the space beneath them, and would likely permit some interesting uses. They are nothing like, say, the Gardiner. Dark, foreboding tunnels under the viaducts will never be required. It takes a few seconds to cross under them. I don't really see how they constitute a psychological barrier. They almost certainly don't form a physical barrier in any way.

- In fact, the viaducts create some unique and interesting spaces even today. For instance, the main plaza east of GM place is mostly sheltered from the elements by the viaducts and it is a rather nice, if modest, little public space. I think it would be nice to have more attractive covered public places in Vancouver, not fewer. I found the space outside Costco interesting as well. On a rainy, dreary autumn day, a dozen or so people were sitting and eating at picnic tables next to the exit, in an area totally sheltered by the viaducts. They seemed to be enjoying the chance to sit outside while it's still (barely) warm enough without worrying about getting wet.

- The Dunsmuir viaduct runs adjacent to or above the skytrain track for a great distance, and unless the track is relocated (unlikely), it will be there whether the viaduct is or not. The track is actually more disruptive at ground level than the viaduct is, being either at grade or lower than the viaduct. Removing the viaduct doesn't really address the issue here...

- The area under the Georgia viaduct adjacent to GM place is a bit of a mess, and careful planning and design will be required if the streetscape is to improve as that area develops. But I don't really see how much better the sidewalk beside a stadium can be as a result of removing the viaduct 50 feet above street level.

- The City plans to build an entirely new community in NEFC in which ~7000 residents will live and thousands more will work. Tens of thousands more will descend on this area dozens (or hundreds) of times per year for events. Removing the primary existing east-west route into and out of downtown, and feeding the traffic that uses this route into the NEFC neighborhood, would almost certainly be problematic. To deny that is overly optimistic at best and dishonest at worst.
Awesome, this is exactly how I feel and you said it much better then I ever could, thank you!
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #276  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 6:38 AM
biketrouble biketrouble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 188
In Yaletown, people living above commercial are normally only one floor above street level, but in your proposal they would have to be at least two, probably three or four floors up if they were not to be level with the viaducts.

Anyway, the point I was struggling towards is not that there should never ever be a block without residential at street level, but that it is somewhat desirable to have eyes on the street and that the viaducts are a design constraint that makes this harder - and coming back to Joe's point about the economics, potentially more costly to achieve. I think your own design demonstrates that fairly effectively - to make it work you've basically had to put most of the residential way above street level. Would you have arranged the residential this way if you were not designing around the viaducts? I'd be surprised if you said "yes".

Just to be clear: I don't think it is impossible to build a livable neighbourhood around the viaducts. But it I believe it will be harder, and I believe better results could be achieved if the viaducts were not there. This doesn't seem like a very controversial statement to me - I'm somewhat surprised how invested many of you seem to be in arguing that this is not the case.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #277  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 6:39 AM
wrenegade's Avatar
wrenegade wrenegade is offline
ON3P Skis
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lower Lonsdale, North Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,593
Thank you Locked In!

I was getting brain damage reading the last couple pages here. Oh, and to bike trouble, Coal Harbour is a dead zone at night, no viaducts there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #278  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 6:40 AM
GeeCee's Avatar
GeeCee GeeCee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 2,816
Upon further reflection, I might support tearing down the viaducts if we get a ferris wheel out of it..

Transportation aside, like Locked In posted above, the viaducts and the area around them are an interesting place that is unique for the city. I really like the space that they create, even if it doesn't necessarily 'jive' with what most of us consider to be Vancouver from down there. But hell, from up top, it provides for some amazing views of False Creek. When heading home from downtown, I love to look out at False Creek and Science World.

I'll agree that we don't need the full capacity that the viaducts are currently providing, however, without them or with ground level roads in their place, we would have some really nasty congestion issues to deal with. Hastings is pretty congested all day long - it's not just during rush hour. I agree that we need to put more money into non-car infrastructure (rail, cycling paths, SkyTrain), but this should not be at the expense of those that choose to, or need to travel by car! Once access to transit in the region is improved (new ALRT lines/expansions, all day WCE service, streetcar), I can understand considering something like this, but not until we start seeing a natural shift away from private vehicles. Given our geography, this just doesn't make sense right now, especially for the pocket change that the CoV would gain from this endeavour.

I'll also agree that the viaducts provide some disincentive towards development, but it's not the end of the world as shown by deasine's concept. The NEFC can and will be developed eventually, with or without the viaducts in place. All things considered, I think that it would be silly to tear the viaducts down now or in the near future. Once they reach the end of the lifespan, we may not want to replace them, but we need to consider all the facts rather than just get behind the 'cars are evil' mantra.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #279  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 6:41 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,806
And biketrouble, there are lots of eyes on East Hastings street as well... Seeing now that you want residents on every street at every corner, I know realize why you hate the ducts, because you want a mono tone city! Most great cities in the world have districts, and many of those districts will not have street level residents, and some cases, no residents at all!
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #280  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2009, 6:52 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by biketrouble View Post
Just to be clear: I don't think it is impossible to build a livable neighbourhood around the viaducts. But it I believe it will be harder, and I believe better results could be achieved if the viaducts were not there. This doesn't seem like a very controversial statement to me - I'm somewhat surprised how invested many of you seem to be in arguing that this is not the case.
That claim sounds much more sensible to me, but you didn't express yourself clear enough, or else we wouldn't be discussing about this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:27 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.