Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts? - Page 24

dleung · #**461** Posted **Nov 23, 2009, 3:18 AM**

my two cents:

-1km of elevated roadway won't kill anyone
-there are so many other planning problems more worthy of fixing, with our next-to-zero budget anyway
-nearby concord pacific has so much of the same nice sterile townhouse podium on a happy park typology that if the viaducts offer a different kind of environment/atmosphere, develop that character, build around it, keep it by all means!!!

trofirhen · #**462** Posted **Nov 23, 2009, 3:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

My thoughts exactly!

When one sees the dual Main St. overpasses, after turning down Main from Terminal, they also provide a certain 'big city' feel, IMHO.

Yes! I like that "big city" feeling, too. The energy, the 'speed', the excitement, the feeling that this is someplace important and busy.

Oddly, some people take that as a negative thing.

Me, I love it.

racc · #**463** Posted **Nov 23, 2009, 6:17 AM**

I get it that some people like the viaducts, that is fine but to claim there is a lack of creativity in the city because because the city is studying the possible tearing down of the viaducts is ridiculous.

It is even worse to claim there is a lack of creativity and then dismiss the idea of tearing down the viaducts before even seeing what the results of the study are. That, quite frankly, is being very closed minded, which, to be honest, is the opposite of creativity.

SpongeG · #**464** Posted **Nov 23, 2009, 7:09 AM**

whatever happens they and the traffic they handle will have to be dealt with - either a new option or straining on the existing ones

Zassk · #**465** Posted **Nov 23, 2009, 6:12 PM**

^ Is the city actually studying this, or is it just journalists and activists blowing hot air?

If a Hastings rapid transit line was built to compensate, then the proposal would earn my support.

Stingray2004 · #**466** Posted **Nov 23, 2009, 7:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zassk

If a Hastings rapid transit line was built to compensate, then the proposal would earn my support.

The regional traffic flow for the viaducts heads mostly eastward along 1st Ave. to Hwy 1 and eastward from there.

The Millennium Line already generally follows in relative close proximity to that corridor.

I have no idea how any Skytrain/lrt down Hastings St. (much further west) could impact the viaducts/ 1 St. Ave. eastbound regional traffic.

deasine · #**467** Posted **Nov 23, 2009, 7:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zassk

^ Is the city actually studying this, or is it just journalists and activists blowing hot air?

Not studied nor do I think it's considered at this point of time.

Lee_Haber8 · #**468** Posted **Nov 23, 2009, 8:11 PM**

I'm completely for this. I think there is a lot of misinformation on these boards, so I would like to address each point:

1) The Skytrain Guideway is the most obstrusive and would still remain. Yes it would still, but to call it the most obtrusive is ridiculous. The Skytrain guideway has a width of around 6 metres while the viaducts have a combined structural width of around 26 metres. If you include the unusable space between the viaducts, you are looking at 50-100 metres. You tell me which one is the bigger barrier. Even though the Skytrain viaduct would remain, it could easily be built over, like the Van City building.

2) They would need to be build a tunnel or widen roads, otherwise where will the traffic go? While I do think that some roads may need to be realigned, I do not think that any capacity will need to be added or replaced. In cities where actual freeways have been removed, it has been anything but a disaster. Take a look at New York's West Side Highway or the Embarcadero Expressway in San Francisco. In both cases when highways were removed, traffic on neighbouring streets stayed level or went down. (There's a whole site with great examples)Why is that? Enough people found that driving that way was no longer worth it and chose alternatives. The same will happen for these 1 km long viaducts, with either Skytrain, bus or cycling.

The important thing is that people get around, not that people get around by car. This project will make that whole area nicer and more pedestrian friendly.

twoNeurons · #**469** Posted **Nov 23, 2009, 8:45 PM**

Speaking of obtrusive... I was just in England for a short trip and while visiting a place called South-end on Sea, I saw something really cool. The High Street, which is the main shopping street, was pedestrian only and had a rail viaduct crossing the street. It was done, however, in a very non-obstrusive way. I took a few shots which I'll upload when I get home.

red-paladin · #**470** Posted **Nov 23, 2009, 9:15 PM**

I like the viaducts and think they should stay. They are pretty small compared to real freeway viaducts like the hideous ones in Seattle and Toronto. Besides, I like how GM Place and Costco have been built to connect to them; they have two street levels. I think it would be cool to have more buildings built around them. As it was said, they aren't right on the waterfront, and won't stick out if NEFC was built out. Besides. I would hate to drive down Georgia and have to go down a steep hill.

paradigm4 · #**471** Posted **Nov 25, 2009, 12:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by deasine

Not studied nor do I think it's considered at this point of time.

A study is going to be done by the City in the spring. The motion passed council last week.

s211 · #**472** Posted **Nov 25, 2009, 1:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by paradigm4

A study is going to be done by the City in the spring. The motion passed council last week.

Yeah, buried in with umpteen other crack-addled motions. This council is like ONE BIG LOOSE CANNON.

racc · #**473** Posted **Nov 25, 2009, 2:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

Yeah, buried in with umpteen other crack-addled motions. This council is like ONE BIG LOOSE CANNON.

When you resort to insults, that is a sure sign you don't really have any legitimate arguments to add to the debate.

biketrouble · #**474** Posted **Nov 25, 2009, 5:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by paradigm4

A study is going to be done by the City in the spring. The motion passed council last week.

Yay! And yay for big loose cannons too. I look forward to revisiting this subject next year

BTW, +1 for Lee_Haber's comment, especially addressing the "most obtrusive" skytrain guideway. It turns out that if you repeat something often enough, it doesn't actually become true.

WBC · #**475** Posted **Nov 25, 2009, 5:14 AM**

How about building on top of the viaduct - as in with VanCity building above the SkyTrain tracks?

Locked In · #**476** Posted **Nov 25, 2009, 5:30 AM**

Not to be too repetitive, but the reason people have referred to the skytrain track as obtrusive is because it actually runs at (or near) grade for some distance east of Carrall. It's hard to see how an at-grade rail line with 10 foot razor wire fences is less obtrusive than an overhead viaduct. Where the track is elevated, it's not particularly obtrusive at all (much like the viaducts, some would say).

Also, the space between the viaducts certainly isn't unusable. The land west of Carrall is pegged for major development. The land east of Carrall is (I believe) marked for hardcourt recreation and potentially a streetcar OMC (if we're lucky...)

WBC · #**477** Posted **Nov 25, 2009, 5:42 AM**

How about this for a legitimate question. Is this about sustainability or about Concord Pacific wanting the city to fork over more ocean front land to them so that they can build more condos? Why is old industrial land downtown the only place that Vancouver practices sustainability and high density at? Why not turn some of the land around old sky train stations outside of downtown into high density neighborhood (Nanaimo, 29th street, Commercial)? Same goes for the Millennium line. Burnaby and Richmond seem to be taking advantage of the rapid transit wherever they can (but that is another topic)

There is a ton of land in False Creek flats that has been sitting empty for decades or is being developed as we speak for the most non-sustainable and car friendly businesses possible (car wash, drive through Starbucks?!?, Timmy's). So next to the ocean (and Concord Pacific domain) we are practicing sustainability and cramming people into shoe boxes and 2 blocks away we are building car washes and drive-throughs

So what signals is the city of Vancouver really sending?

Locked In · #**478** Posted **Nov 25, 2009, 5:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WBC

How about this for a legitimate question. Is this about sustainability or about Concord Pacific wanting the city to fork over more ocean front land to them so that they can build more condos? Why is old industrial land downtown the only place that Vancouver practices sustainability and high density at? Why not turn some of the land around old sky train stations outside of downtown into high density neighborhood (Nanaimo, 29th street, Commercial)? Same goes for the Millennium line. Burnaby and Richmond seem to be taking advantage of the rapid transit wherever they can (but that is another topic)

I would imagine that building on brownfields generally doesn't require extensive land consolidation (no hold-out problems!). Also, there are no pesky neighbours for the developer to deal with - because there's no existing neighborhood. The three Vancouver stations you mentioned are all in the middle of mature low-density residential neighborhoods - so there are lots of interests in play. The CoV could certainly do better in permitting higher densities around those stations - but it's not as easy as it is for brownfield development. Also, a lot of the density that's gone in around stations in Burnaby has been in industrial/commercial areas.

As for focusing development downtown, I have no problem with that. Locating homes close to the regional hub for jobs and amenities is sustainable. Once downtown is built out, there will be pressure to develop further from the core. As for the flats, there are plans (visions? hopes?) for development more sustainable than drive through Timmys... when that will happen is anyone's guess. An M-line extension wouldn't hurt matters though...

Zassk · #**479** Posted **Nov 25, 2009, 8:18 AM**

The flats puzzle me because the area is framed by 2 SkyTrain stations, eventually 3 once Millennium is extended. It's prime land for high-density residences and commercial, but everyone is so focussed on adding buildings to NE False Creek instead, even going to the lengths of tearing out functional infrastructure. Why don't people prefer to make all of NE False Creek a park (which is much needed), and build the density in the flats instead? The flats are huge, you could probably add over 50,000 residents there, and it would make other pet projects more feasible, such as the streetcar network and the M-line to Cambie.

geoff's two cents · #**480** Posted **Nov 25, 2009, 9:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zassk

The flats puzzle me because the area is framed by 2 SkyTrain stations, eventually 3 once Millennium is extended. It's prime land for high-density residences and commercial, but everyone is so focussed on adding buildings to NE False Creek instead, even going to the lengths of tearing out functional infrastructure. Why don't people prefer to make all of NE False Creek a park (which is much needed), and build the density in the flats instead? The flats are huge, you could probably add over 50,000 residents there, and it would make other pet projects more feasible, such as the streetcar network and the M-line to Cambie.

The reason is an ever shrinking supply of industrial land.