Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Metro-One]

My favourite argument is that they should come down because "they are ugly." This is where Vancouver really needs a reality check, not every corner of the city needs or should be a high end condo market for the high middle class and above with breathtaking views. Believe it or not but the city does need some "ugly" infrastructure.

A true live work city is not the resort style condo/basic retail only model we have been recently addicted to (while this is good in spots, such as Yale Town and Coal Harbour, it should not be the model for every square inch of downtown, which it is quickly becoming), but one that includes business, industry, trains and roads, and housing for low, middle and high class.

I hate to say it, but as a city become larger, and especially when city is like Vancouver (heavily restricted by water, mountains, border and ALR) it needs layers! These layers keep a city functioning and indeed help to create unique districts.

I am in Osaka right now (my second home) and there are thousands ok km of elevated walkways, train guide ways, highways and expressways. There are actually areas that will have a road at grade, a train guide-way above it and a highway crossing above that. I hate taking my camera with me around here now (because I hate looking like a tourist) but here a few shots of a passenger train guide-way going through the city.

Pic one - Here you can see the train guide-way travelling overtop of a parking garage, what a perfect spot for such a necessary feature in a city! Also notice that other utility and commercial features have been built below.




In these pictures (taken from the train) you can see that alongside the guide-ways are offices and residential housing! These trains travel at a good 80 to 90kmh and yet there is housing beside them (and the trains are not slowed down)! Of course these apartments are cheeper then others but this allows lower income people to also live downtown (without social assistance) and maybe have slightly larger apartments for bigger families. Not everything is a luxury condo! It also allows for some offices to have cheeper rent closer to the business hearts. Good starting points for small businesses!






While these pics are not the best for demonstrating how all these viaducts are integrated into the urban fabric, they demonstrate the reality of big city living and how sometimes function has to go before beauty. I will try and take more pics of Osaka's layers and post them on here this week.

Vancouver will have to do this soon, for in around 10 years we will be around 3 million, which is a decent size population for our small area (that is, if we wish to keep our forests, parks and ALR).

Last but not least, this is the kind of market street that could also be built under the ducts:



Of course this pic also does not show it best, but we could have a pedestrian/bike orientated market under the ducts with lots of bright lights and signage. The ducts would shelter it from the rain (making it year round) and they would also stop such light from the signage from disturbing local condo towers.

That to me would be a much more interesting neighbourhood and destination (especially for around the stadiums) then more bland half empty vacation condos.

[Millennium2002]

@Yune-sama:

As much as I expect civility from one side of the debate, i expect it from the other side as well. Placing a whipping smilie in your comment doesn't help the debate and from my point of view is somewhat offensive. =S
________
@Metro_One:

I know that Japan, with its high-density developments in city centres, tend to serve as a good role-model to what other cities should do to grow their populations and jobs. On the other hand, I don't expect a complete translation between that and Vancouver.

Your idea of placing non-market housing in the area is quite interesting. Surely... as land values are lower you can sell homes at cheaper prices... which benefits families, couples, and singles in the lower-middle-class. A bonus of course would be the proximity of Stadium Stn.
________

Hmm... I was just thinking of some new ideas or thoughts that might change the discussion a little.

Now... the viaducts don't have trolley wires. That single idea might not mean much but if we take a look at the other access routes to Downtown most of them do. This means oversized cargo may be blocked from heading in if a lot of trolley wires will have to be moved. So there should be one free access route to Downtown that is free of such obstructions.

It is also very true that the viaducts serve as a necessary bypass for people wanting to go downtown.

On the other hand the need of the viaducts is a little questionable... and they do take up room that may otherwise be used (apart from the Skytrain Viaduct whichs is a big obstacle).

Now... what would people think if we only took one of the viaducts down (the Dunsmuir Viaduct)? It preserves the bypass and unrestricted height functions of the viaducts and it helps free up some space as well.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

@Yune-sama:

As much as I expect civility from one side of the debate, i expect it from the other side as well. Placing a whipping smilie in your comment doesn't help the debate and from my point of view is somewhat offensive. =S

I retract the whipping icon. However, if you get offended by an emoticon, we may have larger issues

And no, I am not actually physically winking at you.

[Rothwell]

Let Vancouver tear down the viaducts. It will only hurt downtown Vancouver. Watch the south of the fraser area become even more powerful. Vancouver continues its march towards becoming a bedroom community.

[Metro-One]

Thank you Allan_kuan for thinking constructively.

I would begrudgingly support (if it had to come down to it) the removal of 1 viaduct only if the other could be expanded to 4 lanes (2 each way) and continue to be properly integrated into the road network. I would still like to see this remaining viaduct (and I still think we would need to rebuild a small duct/ramp on the western end of the one being taken down to navigate the escarpment) integrated into the city through the options I have already listed: tram OMC, parks, covered paths, night style market/entertainment area, parking garage for the stadiums, lighting effects, etc...)

this way we could free up more land for vacation condos but still have an opportunity to build residential units for lower income people and have direct access downtown for trucks, emergency vehicles, etc...) and have a unique neighbourhood with a more "urban" flavour.

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by Rothwell

Let Vancouver tear down the viaducts. It will only hurt downtown Vancouver. Watch the south of the fraser area become even more powerful. Vancouver continues its march towards becoming a bedroom community.

The South of Fraser still has quite a long way before it becomes as powerful as Vancouver. It's also hard to foresee Vancouver lose it's powerful identity and image and the region will remain associated to Vancouver.

I do have to say though... Vancouver is lacking office space that would sustain jobs. Our planning atm of course isn't very suited towards that... but then again there's almost zero demand for skyscrapers. >.<

(this post may be edited... watch it! =O)

[Stingray2004]

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.

According to a May, 2008 UBC study of False Creek North, which includes the area surrounding the viaducts:

A majority of FCN households own at least one vehicle.

http://kitchentablesustainability.com/wp...er-False-Creek-North-POE-Report-2008.pdf

I'm "Metro Vancouver" centric. Some here seem to be "Inner City Vancouver" centric with a pedestrian/bike orientation. And that's certainly our perogative.

[officedweller]

Article of interest.
The same will happen with the viaducts once the areas below them are fully developed (i.e. GM Place provides only periodic pedestrian traffic (like the east end of Georgia generally)).

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/732445--waking-from-the-gardiner-s-urban-sleep#article

Waking from the Gardiner's urban sleep
November 30, 2009

Christopher Hume

Sometimes big changes come in small moves. Consider the arrival of a coffee shop, Second Cup, at 33 Bay St. If that address doesn't conjure up any images, that's because it belongs to a new building south of Lake Shore Blvd. on the east side of the street in the curve of the Gardiner on-ramp.

The view is among the best, though not one most of us have had the pleasure of enjoying. That's because, until now, the site had been dismissed as a wasteland. Cast in permanent shadow, facing onto raised highways, concrete columns and a forest of skyscrapers: this is the urban landscape up close and personal.

It might still be a bit much for many, but don't forget, the Air Canada Centre is just across the corner, the waterfront a few metres to the south, a parking lot to the north and, of course, any number of office towers and highrise condos, each occupied by hundreds of inhabitants.

While the debate on taking down the Gardiner has all but disappeared from consciousness, the elevated expressway is being quietly incorporated into city life. A couple of months ago and much farther west, a bottom section of the Gardiner became the location of a permanent artwork by Kim Tomczak and Lisa Steele. Meanwhile, Yonge beneath the Gardiner has been transformed by a recent city landscaping effort. Though unfinished, the space is alive as never before.

What's unfolding here is the result of a new attitude to the city, and how it should be occupied. Until now, the land beneath the Gardiner was also beneath contempt. But the influx of residents and workers has changed all that. Suddenly, even an orphaned site like the one occupied by Second Cup has value.

The speed of change has led to some dangerous incongruities. For example, Harbour St., which between Bay and Yonge serves as an eastbound exit ramp from the Gardiner, is now the main street for thousands living at the massive Pinnacle condo complex. The pedestrian-hostile lights at Bay and Lake Shore are also no longer appropriate and the on-ramp itself has become a serious hazard for those on foot.

At some point, the city will have to redo it, much as it has the Gardiner exit on Yonge.

"It's been good," says owner/franchisee Heather Lithgow, who opened the café just last month. "Many people don't know we're here yet, but there's a lot of walk-in traffic. And a lot of people tell us, `Oh wow, what a great location.'"

Toronto hasn't reached Tokyo-level densities yet; in that city you can sit and eat a bowl of noodles under an expressway. And although action is unlikely in this car-addicted region, tearing down the Gardiner would have been the preferred option.

But watching as the city colonizes itself from within can be interesting; the ideas that prevailed when the Gardiner was planned and constructed, and which created this landscape in the first place, have since been discredited. Districts long set aside for the infrastructure of industry and transportation are fast being turned into residential neighbourhoods. Every morning dog-walkers can be seen happily wandering the urban darkness of the Gardiner.

The question is whether the city can keep up with itself; as Lithgow's coffee shop makes clear, she and the real estate scouts at Second Cup are well ahead of the urban planners.

Despite the awkwardness of this transitional period, the urbanizing forces now unleashed are remaking Toronto from top to bottom. It's a job that will never be finished, but at least it has started.

[Rothwell]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

The South of Fraser still has quite a long way before it becomes as powerful as Vancouver. It's also hard to foresee Vancouver lose it's powerful identity and image and the region will remain associated to Vancouver.

I do have to say though... Vancouver is lacking office space that would sustain jobs. Our planning atm of course isn't very suited towards that... but then again there's almost zero demand for skyscrapers. >.<

(this post may be edited... watch it! =O)

The name Vancouver will always be assosciated with the region. Much like the name Detroit is assosciated with it's region, yet holds no economic clout compared to it's nearby suburbs. Vancouver is becoming very much the same, although for different reasons. And removing these viaducts from downtown Vancouver will only make the suburbs become even more appealing for companies.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

My favourite argument is that they should come down because "they are ugly." This is where Vancouver really needs a reality check, not every corner of the city needs or should be a high end condo market for the high middle class and above with breathtaking views. Believe it or not but the city does need some "ugly" infrastructure.

A true live work city is not the resort style condo/basic retail only model we have been recently addicted to (while this is good in spots, such as Yale Town and Coal Harbour, it should not be the model for every square inch of downtown, which it is quickly becoming), but one that includes business, industry, trains and roads, and housing for low, middle and high class.

I hate to say it, but as a city become larger, and especially when city is like Vancouver (heavily restricted by water, mountains, border and ALR) it needs layers! These layers keep a city functioning and indeed help to create unique districts.

I am in Osaka right now (my second home) and there are thousands ok km of elevated walkways, train guide ways, highways and expressways. There are actually areas that will have a road at grade, a train guide-way above it and a highway crossing above that. I hate taking my camera with me around here now (because I hate looking like a tourist) but here a few shots of a passenger train guide-way going through the city.

Pic one - Here you can see the train guide-way travelling overtop of a parking garage, what a perfect spot for such a necessary feature in a city! Also notice that other utility and commercial features have been built below.




In these pictures (taken from the train) you can see that alongside the guide-ways are offices and residential housing! These trains travel at a good 80 to 90kmh and yet there is housing beside them (and the trains are not slowed down)! Of course these apartments are cheeper then others but this allows lower income people to also live downtown (without social assistance) and maybe have slightly larger apartments for bigger families. Not everything is a luxury condo! It also allows for some offices to have cheeper rent closer to the business hearts. Good starting points for small businesses!






While these pics are not the best for demonstrating how all these viaducts are integrated into the urban fabric, they demonstrate the reality of big city living and how sometimes function has to go before beauty. I will try and take more pics of Osaka's layers and post them on here this week.

Vancouver will have to do this soon, for in around 10 years we will be around 3 million, which is a decent size population for our small area (that is, if we wish to keep our forests, parks and ALR).

Last but not least, this is the kind of market street that could also be built under the ducts:



Of course this pic also does not show it best, but we could have a pedestrian/bike orientated market under the ducts with lots of bright lights and signage. The ducts would shelter it from the rain (making it year round) and they would also stop such light from the signage from disturbing local condo towers.

That to me would be a much more interesting neighbourhood and destination (especially for around the stadiums) then more bland half empty vacation condos.

those are functional but really ugly

[Metro-One]

Welcome to a real city! And actually, these alleys are very alive at night and are much nicer then our crack addict, homeless, dumpster alleys.

Sometimes one has to put functionality before looks! And in reality, myself, and many others actually find an urban beauty and interest in such street scapes.

many people find big huge scars on mountain sides ugly, but many want to ski and snowboard!

To me having such guideways in an dense, growing urban area is more important then having giant ski hills, but look at which one gets singled out...

Not every part of a city needs to be beautiful (but in Japan they do keep every part clean, which is something Vancouver lacks). if you don't like these features, then don't move by them, but having such features and building near them allows people just above the poverty line and lower middle class to buy and rent close to where they work without social assistance.

If you ask me, functioning transportation and having all wage groups able to easily buy near where they work is a true live work strategy! Not our current, make everything into a resort style condo or a crack alley so only the high and low can live/slum downtown.

[SpongeG]

i don't disagree - they are still ugly - like toronto on a good day - oops i didn't say that

[Metro-One]

OK, i read you now. If you ever go to Japan though it is amazing how fast one can travel by train or car across a city of 10 million.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Sometimes one has to put functionality before looks!

Its too bad that city council is completely oblivious to that, but rather prefers to live in never-never land while Vancouver becomes even more of a resort/bedroom community

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Its too bad that city council is completely oblivious to that, but rather prefers to live in never-never land while Vancouver becomes even more into resort/bedroom community

Vancouver has, and will have for some time, and likely for the foreseeable future, by far the highest jobs:residents ratio in the Lower Mainland. In relation to which city are you suggesting that Vancouver is becoming a mere bedroom community?

Richmond?

Burnaby?

Surrey?

Really, people: This line is getting pretty tired pretty fast. . .

[officedweller]

I think that the comment probably refers to a general dilution of downtown Vancouver's importance in the region over time (and not any one particular municipality taking over). This is somewhat reflected in the draft Regional Growth Strategy projections:

[Zassk]

^ Those may be the official Livable Region growth numbers, but I don't think they reflect what is most likely to occur. Richmond has stated its intention to add 80,000 people near its Canada Line stations by 2031. That's 10,000 more, just within a narrow corridor, than the chart predicts for the entire city of Richmond. I am sure there are other similar anomalies throughout the chart. Some of the growth predictions for employment seem unlikely to me; I would think Surrey and Delta will have explosive growth in employment from ports, for example. However, your point is made, Vancouver has a lot of employment, about 1/4 of Metro's jobs overall, both now and in 2041, and its ratio of population to employment is one of the best on the chart (but not quite the top).

[officedweller]

From the Courier:

Viaduct study is wrong focus

Sandra Thomas
Vancouver Courier


Wednesday, December 02, 2009


A city runs on two kinds of infrastructure.

There are the nuts and bolts that keep our streets, sewers and water lines operational, and then there's the social infrastructure that's supposed to ensure people have a place to live, enough to eat and access to support when they need it. In a perfect world, that social infrastructure includes community centres, seismically upgraded schools, daycare programs and access to arts and culture.

Traditionally, it's the social infrastructure that's hit first, and hardest, when a city is facing budget cuts as Vancouver is now. In tough economic times many of those services are suddenly deemed "non-essential" to the day-to-day operation of the city. And facing a $61-million budget shortfall for 2010, the city is forcing departments like the park, library and police board to make tough fiscal decisions.

I attended a park board meeting two weeks ago during which several speakers actually wept at the idea of losing services such as the Bloedel Conservatory. So I was disheartened to read a story by fellow Courier reporter Mike Howell that week, in which Vision Vancouver Coun. Geoff Meggs says he requested city staff study the viability of the removal of the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts to redevelop that land.

Meggs is being championed in his quest by world renowned architect Bing Thom, who told Howell in that same story that the SkyTrain track that runs under the viaduct is a "major issue," but he suggests the track could be buried if need be. Sure, why not.

Meggs got the go-ahead from council to have staff compile a report, detailing what a complete study would entail and cost. He notes because the city is short-staffed, the report on the report won't be ready until March or April 2010.

Which brings me to my question. Is now the time to explore such a megaproject? Meggs says yes. He says with the redevelopment of Northeast False Creek under debate, the moment is ideal. He adds the land on which the viaducts sit is likely some of the most valuable property in North America and could bring the city hundreds of millions of dollars while opening Chinatown to development.

I agree the viaducts are eyesores and I'd love to see them gone from the landscape, but it's a matter of priority. Whether the city will gain financially from the project is yet to be seen, but in the meanwhile we've got more immediate things to worry about, like closing libraries and reducing hours at community centres.

If this redevelopment gets the green light, some developers are going to make huge amounts of money. So why not make them pay for the detailed study? Meggs says that's a possibility. One of the obvious contenders sure to be most interested in such a redevelopment is Concord Pacific, which already owns much of the property neighbouring the Georgia Viaduct.

The Courier reported in July that Concord and its subsidiary, Pacific Place Developments Corp., donated $119,750 to Vision's 2005 and 2008 campaigns. Those donations don't include the money Concord gave to Vision as one of the lead sponsors at the party's fundraiser Feb. 4. At the time, Mayor Gregor Robertson said donations from developers do not buy favours at city hall. But obviously they can't hurt.

But in the meanwhile city staff is wasting precious resources on studying this idea during one of the worst economic crises in recent times. If the city can't afford to maintain its social infrastructure, where will it find the millions of dollars needed to complete this project?

© Vancouver Courier 2009

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Zassk

^ Those may be the official Livable Region growth numbers, but I don't think they reflect what is most likely to occur. Richmond has stated its intention to add 80,000 people near its Canada Line stations by 2031. That's 10,000 more, just within a narrow corridor, than the chart predicts for the entire city of Richmond. I am sure there are other similar anomalies throughout the chart. Some of the growth predictions for employment seem unlikely to me; I would think Surrey and Delta will have explosive growth in employment from ports, for example. However, your point is made, Vancouver has a lot of employment, about 1/4 of Metro's jobs overall, both now and in 2041, and its ratio of population to employment is one of the best on the chart (but not quite the top).

I think what you see with other big "new" cities. Read: "North American Cities" is that the downtown has a much higher percentage of their region's jobs.

Is this a good thing?

Not really. While it boosts the importance of the city proper, it means more people work in the core but live outside of it, meaning transportation usage is polarized ( like Calgary ). It's at capacity during rush hour but barely used outside of it.

I'd like to think that as Vancouver grows we can get a reverse commuter flow going. So people live Downtown and work in Surrey or along the Canada Line or the Tri-Cities.

Sure, there are advantages to centralizing the work-force, but disadvantages as well.

For example, as much as Downtown is alive after 5PM, if you look at some areas of the CBD, they are dead. If our CBD was a lot bigger and contained more of the jobs, wouldn't that create more open dead spaces after 5pm?

I much prefer Vancouver's model which has jobs outside the downtown core.

Also remember, in time, "shiny new condos" will be old. People who are yuppies now will have families that outgrow their bachelor pad or 1 bdrm place suite.

Many will not be able to afford or have no desire to live in downtown with growing children. Some will stay, of course.

At that time, the place that commands a high premium now should be more affordable.

[SpongeG]

vancouver downtown - doesn't it have a reverse commute? most residents have to leave the downtown to go to work - which might be just acorss a bridge...