Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Architype]

I think any major artery from downtown should ideally connect with Terminal Ave, but, um, there are a few things in the way now.


(my photo)

[GeeCee]

Nice pic. (I have a weakness for any shot with Science World in it..)

[biketrouble]

Originally Posted by Architype

I think any major artery from downtown should ideally connect with Terminal Ave

You mean like Pacific Boulevard/Expo Boulevard + Quebec Street do, already?

[junius]

Originally Posted by kylemacmac

Just because one looney tune municipal party in another Canadian city is promoting the idea of increased city freeways doesn't mean it'll be any good for Vancouver. In Monteal there's also a lady running for mayor who plans to make downtown more livable by building more parking garages and expanding the freeways leading into the city. Make no mistake, this lady is BAT SH!T crazy and has no chance at all of being elected. Montreal has absolutely no lack of freeways going downtown and within the city, and has an excellent metro system. The plan is absolutely denounced by all who actually have a shot of being elected mayor. So being crazy might get you heard, but doesn't make you anywhere near having good ideas.

The viaducts in Vancouver were part of a plan to build freeways to the east. For better or worse, those freeways never got built. Now, all they do is encourage people to drive between downtown and the East side and points beyond, dumping traffic on surface streets. The traffic on the viaducts will only increase when the Gateway Project allows more people to commute by car to the city.

I suspect most who support keeping the viaducts do so because:
a) They give Vancouver a 'big city urban feel'
b) They enjoy driving fast

Now don't get me wrong, I love to drive fast, and have done so countless times along the viaducts. There's no question about it, seeing how fast you can get a car to travel on the viaducts is one of the best things ever. But, while this is fun and all, it still doesn't change the fact that the viaducts contribute greatly to the gaping void between Expo Blvd and Main street. The speed limit has nothing to do with this. It's all in the design speed.

Roadways that encourage speed-induced vehicular adrenaline do not make a city better or more livable.

Vancouver made the decision to not build freeways in the 1950s and 60s, focusing instead on improving public transit and not widening roads. The idea was good and all, but with no freeway system, and only a semi-complete grade-separated transit system across the city, it's still not fast or easy to get around with or without a car. Unless you intend to travel down a skytrain line, or drive from Commercial to downtown on the viaducts, mediocrity is the word. Ripping out the viaducts and expanding skytrain down Hastings to the PNE and down Broadway to UBC would send a clear message about the direction the city wants to take, and force the issue of higher transit use. This would bring the city closer to the ideals envisioned in the 1950s when they protested freeway construction in the first place. Also, it would give Vancouverites some actual clout when as they are awarded things like "most greenest city in the world ever" status by fawning American planners. Of course the viaducts could be incorporated into this transit vision, but without their removal or a vast overhaul, the message sent would be vastly less clear.

Well said.

[Canadian Mind]

Reading this thread I have to wonder if the goal of many of those who advocate removal of the viaducts is to punish car users and force transit use rather than encourage transit use by transit expansion and availability.

It doesn't seem to me to be the idea most concerned about promoting livability of the region, which I thought was the overall goal.

[biketrouble]

I believe that's called an "appeal to motive".

The use of the word "punish" is telling though. If one mode of transport has historically been oversubsidized at the expense of others, and it's decided to change that, is that "punishment" or have we simply decided to *stop rewarding* the use of that form of transport?

[junius]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Reading this thread I have to wonder if the goal of many of those who advocate removal of the viaducts is to punish car users and force transit use rather than encourage transit use by transit expansion and availability.

It doesn't seem to me to be the idea most concerned about promoting livability of the region, which I thought was the overall goal.

I agree with the other commenter. It is not about punishing cars. I am a car owner myself but I also walk alot and use public transit (primarily the Canada line).

I believe it is about balance. For decades we prioritized the car ahead of all other forms of transportation. Now we are more aware of these consequences and are better at evaluating the trade-offs.

[Canadian Mind]

True enough, but for the last couple decades we've put transit ahead of car-related development. An in order to create transit infrastructure and a transit-friendly environment it is not necessary to destroy what is already there for cars.

People will ultimately always take what is most convenient and efficient for them. And if one must force people to abandon cars by destroying car related infrastructure, then by taking away the most efficient and convenient mode of transit for certain users you are effectively lowering their efficiency and standard of living.

[biketrouble]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

An in order to create transit infrastructure and a transit-friendly environment it is not necessary to destroy what is already there for cars.

True, but I don't believe anyone was suggesting demolishing the viaducts to create transit infrastructure. It is being suggested to improve the "urban fabric" - to turn the area into a place that people are happy to live, work and play in. For that, it might be necessary.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

True, but I don't believe anyone was suggesting demolishing the viaducts to create transit infrastructure. I believe it is being suggested to improve the "urban fabric" - to turn the area into a place that people are happy to live, work and play in. For that, it might be necessary.

Of course there's no happiness there right now. BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING THERE. We've discussed this earlier in the thread already.

[Metro-One]

Exactly! Look under the Granville Street Bridge, that one day could be the same as under the ducts.

Also, the western part of the ducts several years ago were also void of life, but now with GM place, spectrum and International Village that portion under the ducts is often full of pedestrian activity and life. Same with the skate patk, is that area not often full of life and happy people?

Development along False Creek has been moving west to east and just now it has made it to the ducts, so possibly the ducts are not the problem. The same way that if the Olympic Village had not been built along SEFC would still be devoid of life, and yet no viaducts there! (funny thing is it took a government planned

The viaducts present a challenge for us to build some more interesting urban and unique urban developments and settings (again, look at how Granville Island is unique in the Vancouver fabric) instead of more carbon copy condos!

[biketrouble]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

for the last couple decades we've put transit ahead of car-related development

BTW, while I don't think the argument about the viaducts is a cars versus transit argument, I did want to take this one on.

It might be a true statement, but a simple look around anywhere in the Lower Mainland will show you that car infrastructure is utterly ubiquitous - it is literally everywhere. And transit infrastructure very much is not.

So this should give you a sense of the historical imbalance that was created in the decades prior to the 1990s. Vancouver's growth pattern is a product of the mid-20th century - the car let it expand cheaply and quickly, like many North American cities. My belief is that model has been shown to be a failure, and that the reason Vancouver is so uniquely a nice place to live is that this was recognized early enough to stop it.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

...So this should give you a sense of the historical imbalance that was created in the decades prior to the 1990s. Vancouver's growth pattern is a product of the mid-20th century - the car let it expand cheaply and quickly, like many North American cities. My belief is that model has been shown to be a failure, and that the reason Vancouver is so uniquely a nice place to live is that this was recognized early enough to stop it.

What car-bashers conveniently ignore are the great strides in standard of living in the 20th century that were made possible by the car.

[biketrouble]

Originally Posted by deasine

Of course there's no happiness there right now. BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING THERE. We've discussed this earlier in the thread already.

What a great catalyst for urban regeneration the viaducts have turned out to be - only twenty three years since Expo and already we have a skatepark. Great things are just around the corner!

[Metro-One]

Also I am tired of the "Vancouver high horse" mentality. There are many other cities in the world with far better car infrastructure than Vancouver that are equal to or better then life in Vancouver, look at any Australian or New Zealand city for such an example, or even other Canadian cities that would be placed just as high as Vancouver on international lists if it were not for their long cold winters.

[Metro-One]

What a great catalyst for urban regeneration the viaducts have turned out to be - only twenty three years since Expo and already we have a skatepark. Great things are just around the corner!

I see you failed to read my reply on how development has been going west to east along False Creek and has just now reached the viaduct area with such developments as Spectrum and International Village!

SEFC would still be nothing if the government did not build the Olympic Village there.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

What a great catalyst for urban regeneration the viaducts have turned out to be - only twenty three years since Expo and already we have a skatepark. Great things are just around the corner!

As a matter of fact, they are. Go look at the CoV plans for NEFC, go look for development threads in and around the viaducts in the Downtown forum. Information is all over SSP, use it.

[biketrouble]

Of course there are plans, I'm well aware of them, thanks.

But why is it, do you think, that NEFC is the *last* part of False Creek to be built out? Are you really suggesting that the viaducts have not been a disincentive to development here?

[Metro-One]

First of all it is not the last parcel, there are plenty of parcels along the SEFC to be built out, and it is very common for developers to pick the low fruit first!

Such as is it not strange that lowlands tend to be built out first before development heads to the hills???

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Also I am tired of the "Vancouver high horse" mentality. There are many other cities in the world with far better car infrastructure than Vancouver that are equal to or better then life in Vancouver, look at any Australian or New Zealand city for such an example, or even other Canadian cities that would be placed just as high as Vancouver on international lists if it were not for their long cold winters.

This I agree with... Wellington has a freeway that terminates in their downtown, and that city is just as constrained by hills as the GVRD.