Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[usog]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

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

Actually it's more like irresistible force meets immovable object IMO. There is no way either side will be convinced their argument is wrong and it's getting a bit circular, but that's nothing new around here now is it.

[racc]

Originally Posted by usog

Actually it's more like irresistible force meets immovable object IMO. There is no way either side will be convinced their argument is wrong and it's getting a bit circular, but that's nothing new around here now is it.

So lets wait for the results of the city's study so all of us will actually know more what we are actually talking about.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by racc

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

Alright, I'm tired of hearing your oratory as well. What you are doing is no different from BCPhil. This is another case of difference in opinions, and it should be clear already, as usog mentioned earlier (in addition to the many announcements made by all three of the Vancouver moderators), that there is no way either side will be able to sway the other. If you think one is "trolling", then simply ignore it and report it. It will be logged into the system and we will be able to access the situation. Responding to "trolls" doesn't make the situation any better.

I have to point out one thing. While I disagree, somewhat, with geoff's position, I have to commend him for his calamity. Geoff generally seems to understand how to approach and respond to other members respectfully, even if there is a difference in opinion. I hope others will begin to follow suit. Without this, discussions start deteriorating. The quality of discussions at SSP:Vancouver have been decreasing over time, as indicated by jlousa in an announcement I hope all of you have read already, and if you don't cooperate, you will be suspended.

[biketrouble]

Originally Posted by 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'm sure what you say is true. However, developers are acting in their own interests - as should be expected - and their calculations can only be trusted to be a guide to how much or how little they personally will benefit. So we cannot and should not take developers' word alone when it comes to matters of public interest.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by racc

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.

From a livability standpoint, I think residents would be more concerned about the noise, congestion, and danger caused by 15 tonne delivery trucks rolling down their local streets then noise from the viaducts.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think it depends on how one defines a suburb, really. If a suburb is a place where lots of people live and have to commute to work then in some ways Vancouver downtown could be considered more suburban than many American downtowns.

The question is: What is urban? You have to answer that question before anything else.

Is it skyscrapers?

Is it a compact self-contained area that has sufficient work/live/play areas?

Is it a commercial core ringed by accommodation?

Or is it just a densely populated area?

[s211]

Originally Posted by racc

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.

"no one".

Delusional.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I think it depends on how one defines a suburb, really. If a suburb is a place where lots of people live and have to commute to work then in some ways Vancouver downtown could be considered more suburban than many American downtowns.

The question is: What is urban? You have to answer that question before anything else.

Is it skyscrapers?

Is it a compact self-contained area that has sufficient work/live/play areas?

Is it a commercial core ringed by accommodation?

Or is it just a densely populated area?

I've always thought of an urban area as the location where most people gravitate too for work and play (downtown), while suburbs are more along the lines of where generally people live. Vancouver doesn't really have that divide as people work, live, and play pretty much everywhere.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by racc

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.

There's a difference between tolerating closed lanes for the greater good in constructing the Canada line and between tolerating them for someones anti car agenda.

As far as viaduct closures go, would that lane closure by the spectrum happened to have occured just after the viaduct splits from 2 lanes to 3 in the westbound side or just at the beginning of the viaduct on the east bound side?

In the west bound side it doesn't serve as a bottle neck because the only 2 lanes of traffic enter, it doesn't matter much if they're simply moved over slightly. The capacity of the viaducts is mostly rate limited by the number of cars which can turn on from main st. and by the 2 -> 1 lane merge prior to main st.

On the east bound side, that curb lane would have only served as a merge lane for right hand turning traffic. I'd assume the only changes that occured because of that were the transition of the merge up a couple blocks and additional back ups of people attempting to turn left off of Beatty.

In either case you're not really blocking a primary traffic lane.

[officedweller]

For the westbound viaduct one lane still remains closed - not sure why. The lanes should be able to be remarked so that it flows into the lane created just before Beattty.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by 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...

A slight correction, they are wasting our money, as taxpayers.

Give how wet our climate is the viaducts offer the perfect chance to develop a dry outdoor venue. However, I'll doubt we'll see anything that creative from the City.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by 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?

How exactly does clearing obstructions for land make development harder?

[racc]

Originally Posted by deasine

I have to point out one thing. While I disagree, somewhat, with geoff's position, I have to commend him for his calamity. Geoff generally seems to understand how to approach and respond to other members respectfully, even if there is a difference in opinion. I hope others will begin to follow suit. Without this, discussions start deteriorating. The quality of discussions at SSP:Vancouver have been decreasing over time, as indicated by jlousa in an announcement I hope all of you have read already, and if you don't cooperate, you will be suspended.

If you remember, your response to my post was way over the top and you were trying to misinterpret my response. So, if you want calm, reasoned discussion, I suggest you start setting a good example rather than just aimless rants.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by officedweller

For the westbound viaduct one lane still remains closed - not sure why. The lanes should be able to be remarked so that it flows into the lane created just before Beattty.

So wait, where does the closure start if its still in place. I thought those concrete barriers had been there for a while.

[Millennium2002]

if you look at Google Maps you will see that the Dunsmuir viaduct has space for an extra lane but they added a row of concrete barriers starting at Main St to prevent it from being used.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

How exactly does clearing obstructions for land make development harder?

"they are ugly & make development harder" because they are there right now.

Removing them will remove their ugliness & open up some slivers of land along Expo Blvd and Pacific Blvd for more unaffordable condos.

But does nothing about the SkyTrain tracks that run parallel to the viaducts.

[Metro-One]

That is what I love about Vancouver style downtown living. It is 100% geared to the high middle class and above.

Building condos next to elevated guide ways actually gives lower income people a chance to own or rent downtown without the need of social assistance. Not to mention the base 4 or 5 floors could be built as commercial or office space.

It seems that people here are more concerned in making Vancouver a "resort" city then a functioning city.

It has been said time again but actually having the ducts removing the heavier commercial and industrial traffic off of the local roads below actually make the local roads below more welcoming to trams, pedestrians and bikes. Not to mention the ducts can also act as some well needed awnings in this city in creating a sheltered bike path/park/sports facility/market place.

It is nice to have neighbourhoods with variety and character. Again I believe that the Granville street bridge is one of the primary factors that has saved Granville Island from becoming a carbon copy Yaletown as well. it is actually a unique area with true character.

The same could easily happen under and around these two ducts.

Again, I like Yaletown, but if everywhere downtown is like Yaletown then Vancouver downtown will have an extreme mono feeling (in atmosphere, look and inhabitants). Not to mention it will also take away from the uniqueness of Yaletown itself.

[racc]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Removing them will remove their ugliness & open up some slivers of land along Expo Blvd and Pacific Blvd for more unaffordable condos.

The condos will only be unaffordable if one choses to waste their money on automobiles. Fortunately, people living there won't need to own one.

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by racc

The condos will only be unaffordable if one choses to waste their money on automobiles. Fortunately, people living there won't need to own one.

Yes, because, everybody is driving a Ferrari that will bring the condos down in price by $300,000

Seriously, your agenda is so obvious. You need to just be quiet for a little bit.

Cars are not "unaffordable", nor does owning one automatically make someone too poor to be able to afford a house. In fact, almost everybody in the lower-middle class owns a car. Teenagers have owned cars for decades.

[Metro-One]

Exactly.