Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by Lee_Haber8

You're forgetting the increase in property values of surrounding properties that will result from no longer having two, ugly, noisy elevated roadways nearby.

Why would property values increase after you create two ugly, noisy non-elevated roadways in their place? What do you honestly think will be the state of traffic on Pacific, Expo, Hastings after this change? Do you think these streets will be even remotely safe for cyclists or convenient for pedestrians afterward?

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Why would property values increase after you create two ugly, noisy non-elevated roadways in their place? What do you honestly think will be the state of traffic on Pacific, Expo, Hastings after this change? Do you think these streets will be even remotely safe for cyclists or convenient for pedestrians afterward?

I think the idea behind removing the viaducts is not that all of the traffic will simply be re-routed onto local roads, but rather that this infrastructural change will promote a modal shift from the SOV onto transit.

Granted, although there are precedents where this has happened in other cities (Seoul, San Francisco), there is no way to scientifically prove that this will indeed happen in Vancouver. It's quite possible, to be sure, that metro Vancouverites are more attached to their automobiles than other cities in the world that have seen a successful shift away from the SOV, and that removing the viaducts will indeed "eviscerate" the downtown, because consumers previously drawn by car to the amenities downtown will simply switch to big-box store providers in the burbs. This is a scary thought, and wouldn't exactly signal much of a victory for "hippie" types like myself.

However, although the viaducts have been around for half a century or more, it's equally unproven that they represent the best way forward into what is in many respects a very different world - economically, ecologically, demographically, culturally - from that which produced them in the first place. Bing, paradigm4 and others are certainly justified in suggesting that we revisit this issue.

While there's no way to know for sure one way or the other, I look forward to seeing the results of the upcoming study. I agree, btw, that there are more urgent priorities in the city, but the Olympics and the attending road closures represent a fantastic opportunity with regard to the viaducts (and one we likely won't have for a long time afterward) to gain some insight into how best to plan for the future.

My hunch is that the people involved will be coming at the issue from a diversity of standpoints very much mirroring the various ideological perspectives on this forum. Let's see what they come up with.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Lee_Haber8

You're forgetting the increase in property values of surrounding properties that will result from no longer having two, ugly, noisy elevated roadways nearby.

This isn't ugly:

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

I think the idea behind removing the viaducts is not that all of the traffic will simply be re-routed onto local roads, but rather that this infrastructural change will promote a modal shift from the SOV onto transit.

Granted, although there are precedents where this has happened in other cities (Seoul, San Francisco), there is no way to scientifically prove that this will indeed happen in Vancouver.

...

But there is an opportunity to see changes in traffic movements coming soon. The Olympics will be closing downtown streets & the viaducts, and removing on-street parking &tc.

The City should be using all their traffic counting machines and traffic-cams to capture 'normal' traffic in December while the roads are open, in January when some roads are closed, in February when the full road closures are in effect during the Olys, and March-April when all the roads are open again and traffic goes back to normal.

Then they can do their number crunching and create some nifty traffic simulations to see what happened before, during and after the road closures. More important, they can see if the real-world results match their computer models of the closures.

An unexpected benefit of the Olys.

[racc]

Originally Posted by jlousa

How do you figure? using even Bings best case scenario we are talking about 700,000sqft so a gain to the city of $35Million. That wouldn't even come close to covering knocking it down and building new shorter onramps. We're talking closer to 3 times that price. Hence while no private developer has made a play at this. I've said it before, there are reasons to get rid of the viaducts, economics is not one of them.

You are forgetting that there is a significant cost to maintaining the Viaducts. I suspect they will reach the end of their design life sooner or later at which time they will require expensive rehabilitation. I suspect in the long run, it is less expensive to tear them down.

The study the city is doing I suspect will consider this.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by racc

You are forgetting that there is a significant cost to maintaining the Viaducts. I suspect they will reach the end of their design life sooner or later at which time they will require expensive rehabilitation. I suspect in the long run, it is less expensive to tear them down.

The study the city is doing I suspect will consider this.

I read somewhere on here that the viaducts are halfway through there intended lifespan.

And no matter what, infrastructure costs money to maintain. I think something to look at would be the costs of constructing and maintaining the new roads that replace the viaducts, as well as the costs of maintaining the local roads that see increased traffic because of viaduct removal, vs the costs of maintaining the viaducts for the rest of their current lifespan & potential construction of new viaducts and their maintenance costs.

Outside of that, how would the city be effected economically due to downtown becoming more inaccessable for all vehicle traffic & other factors? should that be weighted against the costs of maintaining the viaducts?

[racc]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Why would property values increase after you create two ugly, noisy non-elevated roadways in their place?

Three reasons. View, View and view. Without the viaducts, the lower three or four floors will have much better views of the North Shore mountains and people will pay a lot more for them.

Originally Posted by Zassk

What do you honestly think will be the state of traffic on Pacific, Expo, Hastings after this change? Do you think these streets will be even remotely safe for cyclists or convenient for pedestrians afterward?

I'm not sure how they could be worse than they are now. Pacific and Expo are already really ugly. This section of Pacific and Expo is really not that great for cyclists or peds either. Right now it is a speedway and hardly anyone walks along these roads. A bit more traffic might actually slow down the traffic and make it more ped and bike friendly.

[Metro-One]

People, please, I think we are forgetting that the city of Vancouver does not want to be a strong commercial centre.

Vancouver's so called "livable" and "mixed use" is one of the worst i have seen in my life, simply because it is almost entirely catered to the mid high class and above.

Anything that is bright, noisy, industrial, etc... has to go because everything is about being quiet, views, and full filling a misguided agenda.

If people on this forum want to see true mix use urban life, come to Japan. In one city block you will have loud, bright casino like commercial strips, an industrial work yard, a school, an elevated freeway, 2 or more elevated JR or Hankyu heavy rail commuter trains, and countless condo high-rises built between all this. And these condos are right against these elevated guide-ways (train, car, pedestrian, etc..).

In Vancouver, if a condo is built beside a pre-existing guideway they have to slow down the train because of the noise! (Science World anyone).

Vancouver is not big city living no matter how much people here try to pretend it is. It is one big suburb.

So the fact that Vancouver hates layers, want to place all east/west car, bike, tram and pedestrian traffic in and out of the downtown core into a 2km wide wedge comes to o surprise for me.

Vancouver is not about building a true urban centre, it is about building a playground for the wealthy.

Anything that is seen as "ugly" will be gone, whether it is these viaducts, pedestrian overpasses or an industrial work yard.

And I have been to Europe as well, and another thing I noticed there was.....layers!!!!! Highways, byways, over passes and tunnels, subways, at grade rail, elevated commuter rails, pedestrian walkways etc....

Oh, and nearly every European city has a freeway that comes within only a few km of the downtown core (if not directly in and through).

The guide-ways are not ugly, they are URBAN. They are easy to build around and under, offer the opportunity to make a distinct neighbourhood (instead of a carbon copy Yaletown.....again).

How about this! Why don't we build a true urban alley way, with small hole in the wall pubs, shops and restaurants, with neon lights and true character, akin to the alleys in Japan or Europe, under the viaducts!!!! That way we will create a new urban dynamic in Vancouver (perfect spot for such an entertainment alley near the stadiums, and covered from the rain) and it will also be an attraction. Not to mention the ducts themselves would stop the lights from such an alley bugging the local residents, and it would also shield much of the noise if implemented properly!!!

Also, while Seoul and San Fran did teardown some viaducts, people always forget that these ducts were replaced with equal or greater capacity freeways elsewhere. (San Fran actually increased their replacement highways capacity, as did the Boston Big Dig viaduct removal, and Seoul is currently building new expressways).

And dont think I am dissing Vancouver, I love it, hence why I don't want to see it slowly strangle itself off from the rest of the metro area. (delivery trucks, utility vehicles, maintenance trucks, emergency vehicles, tradesmen, etc... all can not take public transit as well).

Last note, in downtown Osaka there is amazingly low amounts of surface car traffic for a metro area near 20 million. The surface streets are very welcoming for pedestrians and bikes, yet there are big office towers, commercial complexes, parks and stadiums everywhere. And i think, where are all the cars and trucks?! then i look up, "oh yeah, they have elevated freeways and expressways every 5 blocks here, thats where all the traffic has gone, making the surface streets so much more welcoming!"

[SpongeG]

what happens when we have cars that are envioronmentally friendly

I assume the anti-traffic anti-car people are anti them because of the enviornmental impact? or??

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

what happens when we have cars that are envioronmentally friendly

I assume the anti-traffic anti-car people are anti them because of the enviornmental impact? or??

No! But that's an easy scapegoat for now.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

This isn't ugly:

.... in the eye of the beholder ....

[jlousa]

Trust me the numbers have been crunched more then once, and if the city wants to do their own report they are welcome to waste their money maybe they can close a waterpark to fund this study. Every developer that has looked at it has backed off early on. Why should we be surprised that an architect would like to see it proceed, he isn't the one using his money to make it happen, he would get paid to design the buildings.

I am not arguing against knocking them down or modifying them, I am just adamant that there is no financial gain to be had, this would only cost the city millions and millions. Mind you the $500Million BC place roof makes no economic sense over just replacing the roof but it's going ahead.

The viaducts have a good 50yrs left in them as they stand. I don't even like them but find myself arguing in favour of them.

[biketrouble]

Since I've been called out by name as someone who won't listen to the results of any study, I think I should quote my earlier statement on this subject.

Originally Posted by biketrouble

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.

Pretty heady stuff, hey - am I some kind of molotov throwing anarchist or what?

Now it looks like a study is going ahead, so yes I am glad. After all, the area is set for development over the next few years, so why not study all of the options before those plans are set in stone - so that any planning that is done can take the possibility into account. As many have pointed out the Olympics also provides a perfect opportunity to study the traffic flows.

Some of you have suggested that this isn't at the top of your list of things you'd like to see done, and you think other things should take priority. I have to respectfully suggest that no-one has put you in charge of the City's to-do list. If this situation upsets you, consider getting elected.

PS: What keeps me participating in this thread is not my dedication to demolishing the viaducts but my annoyance at attempts to shout down the idea of even studying the possibility, by people who are completely and utterly confident of their opinions of why it won't work, but appear to have few relevant qualifications in the matter.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by racc

Three reasons. View, View and view. Without the viaducts, the lower three or four floors will have much better views of the North Shore mountains and people will pay a lot more for them.

...

Here's the view from the ground floor:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...2,12.97,,0,2.6

You have all the new developments around International Village blocking most of the of the North Shore Mountains view (except for a little view-notch), and all those pesky view-blocking trees.
Oh yeah, and the pesky SkyTrain tracks too, which aren't going anywhere soon.


For those of you saying that removing the SkyTrain tracks would open the view here's the view 20 feet further up Carrall:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...97253&t=h&z=19

A bit more sky, but not much more of the North Shore Mountains.


And the view from above:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...,21.48,,0,1.28

you can see through another view-notch between buildings, and because you're above the trees a lot more of the North Shore Mountains.

Tear Down The View-Blocking Trees!
Oops, there's chinatown blocking the views. Level Chinatown.
Dammit, now the container cranes are blocking the views. You Just Can't Win!

So there isn't much of a view in the first few floors anyhow because of the SkyTrain tracks. Perhaps that's why a developer would build a mall or offices on the first three to five stories (to get above the viaducts), then stack condos above.

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Here's the view from the ground floor:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...2,12.97,,0,2.6

Oh my God! The horror! If there were to be anything built there people would have to come to terms with the fact they live in a city, near stadiums that could seat a combined nearly 100,000 people.

And not a sleepy little suburb where everything ends at 5PM.

[jsbertram]

Let me think about this ...

We're closing the Children's Zoo and the QE Park Conservatory because the City has told the parks board to trim their budget by a few million.

And the City is still trying to find $60 Million in other budget savings.

And now someone wants the city to spend millions to knock over useful and functioning viaducts because they're ugly & make land development harder.

Am I missing something here?

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by racc

Three reasons. View, View and view. Without the viaducts, the lower three or four floors will have much better views of the North Shore mountains and people will pay a lot more for them.

So you are suggesting tearing down the viaducts to improve people's view?

Lets say we consider all of the potential Viaduct facing condos on the 4th floor or lower in NEFC, who's view would be obstructed by the Viaducts. We are talking about, what, 20 units at the most? You want the city to destroy infrastructure used by tens of thousands of commuters every day so that 50 people can see the tops of the mountains over the DTES when it's sunny?

And is that the point? Lets make living downtown as expensive as possible, making it so that more and more people need to commute downtown on insufficient infrastructure? Downtown as a paradise for the rich and fortunate?

[geoff's two cents]

It's good to see the name-calling on this forum has been toned down a bit.

One more request though: For whatever reason, the notion of referring to Vancouver as a "suburb" has seemingly caught on. I can't relate to the Japanese example, as I've never been, but it's downright silly in a North American context to refer to this city as suburban. Compared to many other large North American cities, and especially compared to the metro Van suburbs (in which some of you live), Vancouver's a great place to be with a lot going for it (definitely in North America's top 10, by most people's standards). Tearing down the viaducts won't make the city a suburb any more than leaving them up, and thereby maintaining SOV/suburban-friendly infrastructure, would.

[racc]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

So you are suggesting tearing down the viaducts to improve people's view?
You want the city to destroy infrastructure used by tens of thousands of commuters every day so that 50 people can see the tops of the mountains over the DTES when it's sunny?

Read the post that I was responding to before misinterpreting my comments. I was merely saying what one of the economic reasons for tearing down the viaducts might be, not why I would like to see them go. Nothing more, so don't you dare try and read anything more into them.

Originally Posted by BCPhil

And is that the point? Lets make living downtown as expensive as possible, making it so that more and more people need to commute downtown on insufficient infrastructure? Downtown as a paradise for the rich and fortunate?

The money the city earns from developing the land under the viaducts could go to social housing. The land could go to more park space for everyone in Vancouver. One lane has already been closed on the Viaducts for the construction of Spectrum and no one noticed at all. During Canada Line construction, 10 east-west lanes were closed downtown and no one seem to care that much.

The new SkyTrain cars add more than enough capacity to make up for the total loss of the Viaduct. Trades and deliveries can easily use other roads downtown. No big deal.

Your tired rhetoric is, well, rather tiresome. How about waiting for the results of the study at least before over reacting?

[Millennium2002]

is it just me or do others get the feeling that the debate here has now been heavily polarized?