Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Here is a pdf from the city that discusses the Quebec connector, it's been on the engineering depts radar since 1989 to give you an idea of how long it's been around. The city owns all the property needed to make it happen. The city was prepared to go ahead with it but it was soundly defeated by the Mt Pleasant community vision group. If it had gone ahead changes to the viaduct would've made more sense to me.

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/cpp/mountpleasant/shopping/pdf/saw3kingswayquebec.pdf

Thanks. Hadn't heard of that before.
I wouldn't think it would be a good idea, especially with future capacity on Quebec likely to be reduced with the installation of the streetcar.

2009 Global Air Photo of the area

[Zassk]

What was the rationale for putting the Kingsway traffic on Quebec instead of Main? Quebec surely has lower total capacity than Main. Is there some basic problem with Main St. as an artery that I'm unaware of?

[jlousa]

The issue is that main st has enough traffic on it's own , combining Kingsway with it increases the traffic a lot, note the very marked change in Main st from Kingsway until the viaducts, once traffic jumps on the viaducts main becomes somewhat normal again. The idea behind the connector was to keep them seperate. Not sure if it would've been better or not but it's an interesting concept none the less.

[officedweller]

A lot of traffic from Kingsway takes 7th Ave (or 12th Ave) over to Cambie Bridge.

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The issue is that main st has enough traffic on it's own , combining Kingsway with it increases the traffic a lot, note the very marked change in Main st from Kingsway until the viaducts, once traffic jumps on the viaducts main becomes somewhat normal again. The idea behind the connector was to keep them seperate. Not sure if it would've been better or not but it's an interesting concept none the less.

Thanks for raising this issue. Viaducts aside, given the city's future plans for Main Street in the False Creek flats, re-routing traffic onto Quebec Street would have made it easier to connect the otherwise disparate Mount Pleasant and downtown Main Street neighborhoods, and rejuvenate the area in-between. I've walked that stretch a couple of times, and it is a less than inviting experience. My impression over the past several years, and especially after Woodward's, is that the centre of downtown is ever so gradually expanding back eastward after a 30 year hiatus. Moreover, should Vancouver ever be linked to Seattle and Portland via high-speed rail, I'm pretty sure the city will want the area adjacent to Pacific Central to feel more like a "main street." As it stands, that area, beautiful park and skytrain station notwithstanding, isn't terribly attractive by day, and actually gets a little spooky by night.

I should add that, despite my general hate-on for viaducts, I would personally much rather see them remain in place and have Main Street properly connected if I had to choose b/t the two - as contradictory as that might seem, given that connecting Main is probably the strongest incentive for removing them.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

. I think our perspectives diverge here in two ways. 1) I argue that Vancouver's place as commercial hub of the Lower Mainland is still quite secure, and suggest that it will remain so for the foreseeable future. 2) To the extent that the future sees a more diffuse spread of jobs throughout the region, concentrated in regional hubs where people actually live, I don't necessarily see this as problematic. Would having another urban centre in the region be a bad thing? I, for one, relish the notion of one day having a worthwhile Lower Mainland destination outside of Vancouver proper.

Again, I just want to point out that my concern is with any type of alarmist scenario that suggests Vancouver is going to the dogs if those viaducts are removed or if they stay (or, for that matter, if any relatively localized, superficial piece of infrastructure or lack thereof can have such an impact). My particular concern is with the misconception that making a downtown livable (with or without viaducts) is somehow "suburbanizing" it.

There's my bias again, however: For me personally, a suburb is the opposite of livability. You'd have to drag me kicking and screaming to pry me away from this city's high density commercial, residential and intellectual synergy. Take away any of those three, and I'll move at my nearest opportunity to a city that keeps these aspects humming together in perpetual harmony.

Although Manhattan's job growth is being eclipsed by its neighbours unlike Vancouver, they still are expanding the stock of office space available which is in stark contrast to Vancouver's condos, condos, and even more condos. Would having another regional centre be a bad thing?- Yes. Why? Because since Vancouver has a century head start on any other municipality in terms of being a real force as a business centre for the region, it would take far too long for any one of them to reach similar levels Vancouver has today. This would just leave a watered down downtown which would just cause Vancouver to fall further behind other big cities.

Tearing down the viaducts would only make the downtown core even more slow, less convenient, which would only further cause offices to look elsewhere (even more than they already do). They serve as a critical tool and are anything but superficial, and I would go a step further to add that getting rid of something that even might possibly aid in the continued development of much needed of quality, higher end jobs is anything but "livable".

[vansky]

we definitely need a via on top of number three, there's no way that steet will be flowing in 10 yrs.

if vancouver still wants to compete with other cities. 10 viaduct projects won't be enough. we probably need at least 2 bridges, 2 tunnels, 3 viaducts, 2 highways, talking about tens of billions here...

[Metro-One]

Umm ok, i think you are going a little far with that, hehe, i think for an east/west connection the ducts are enough, they just need to be built into the local fabric better, and connected better at their east ends.

[SpongeG]

i think we have to get away from teh idea of one city centre its a dying idea - think of vancouver as being on the forefront of multiple town centres - we may look back in 100 years and say wow they were really ahead of the game

[vansky]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

i think we have to get away from teh idea of one city centre its a dying idea - think of vancouver as being on the forefront of multiple town centres - we may look back in 100 years and say wow they were really ahead of the game

if this city's urban planning can inspire the next 50yrs of urban planning, i think it's already crazy...

the n.a urban planning of downtown and suburb, travelled only as far as the western world, hong kong and nyc alone influenced asia more than los angeles i'd say...skyscraper's proven to be the true cross cultural influence...

but i've heard some cities in china are starting to mimc vancouver, or seeing it as a successful model for medium sized cities, who have some good envirometnal advantage. it is possible that this city can influence similar size cities to a great degree...just by its reputation of livability...

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Although Manhattan's job growth is being eclipsed by its neighbours unlike Vancouver, they still are expanding the stock of office space available which is in stark contrast to Vancouver's condos, condos, and even more condos. Would having another regional centre be a bad thing?- Yes. Why? Because since Vancouver has a century head start on any other municipality in terms of being a real force as a business centre for the region, it would take far too long for any one of them to reach similar levels Vancouver has today. This would just leave a watered down downtown which would just cause Vancouver to fall further behind other big cities.

New Westminster was arguably as or more important than Vancouver a century ago.

Prior to the condo boom of the late eighties and early nineties, and especially before Expo '86, Vancouver was widely considered to be a cultural and commercial backwater by North American standards. Whether one wants to attribute the city's increased importance to the condos or not, it is obvious that it's profile has improved in lockstep with an increase in people residing in the core. In other words, those condos haven't hurt us so far, and even a cursory glance around our downtown core will notice that many of our most prominent downtown office towers were built during the same period - with two more big ones, I might add, likely on their way in the very near future near GM Place and Thurlow at Robson, and plenty of underutilized space near the core that will be ripe for redevelopment in the medium-term future. In sum, the historical evidence (ie. the correlatives) here suggests that any fears equating increased residential construction with commercial decline are thoroughly misplaced.

As for the viaducts themselves, I'm persuaded that life will go on whether they stay or not.

One more item, however. The biggest reason I believe the city is even studying the impact of viaduct removal has very little to do with "greenwashing" naivete, but rather with simple, cold-blooded economics. Witness the international attention this city has already garnered due to its unique "ecodensity" architectural trademark. "Vancouverism," as it has become known, is this architectural style, together with an infrastructural emphasis on transit, bike and pedestrian modes of transportation. Recent articles in international newspapers mention Vancouver's lack of a downtown freeway as something that makes the city unique and appealing. Mayor Robertson's recent re-branding of the city as the world's "Greenest City" is an attempt to cash in on and enhance this image, particularly before and after the Olympics, the end goal being to attract as many businesses as possible likewise keen on enhancing their "green" image - again, for simple, cold-blooded economic reasons.

I suspect the upcoming study will determine whether the potential economic disadvantages of removing such a key piece of automobile infrastructure offset the potential economic gains to be had from taking the city's "green" image and running with it.

[vansky]

u can still become green with viaducts, melbourne got more viaducts, and they are still one of hte most livable, second only to vanocuver, cuz it has less highways and viaducts...but just say we get more, there's no other "vancouver" so we r still ahead...

[Locked In]

Since it seems this thread is here to stay, it's missing some pictures. Here are some I took today of our beloved/despised viaducts and the surrounding area:

[Hed Kandi]

..

[Millennium2002]

I can't say that they go completely... but maybe we should keep or rebuild one of them like the Georgia Viaduct. I actually have a big drawing of what it might look like.

[Canadian Mind]

No, they should stay. I think, for the sake of noise complaints, the area between the viaducts should be developed with low-income housing, office, and retail near the stadiums, and market housing further away from the stadiums. Then use the space beneath the viaducts for amenities such as basketball courts, small outdoor markets, dog-walks, a children's playground, etc... All paid for by the development of that parking lot.

[geoff's two cents]

Locked In, thanks for the pics.

Those 'ducts (both Skytrain and roadway) do present a challenge. Clearly, these things were not designed initially with the pedestrian's experience in mind. Any long-term plan for the area that involves keeping them and building on or around them would do well to include plans for an aesthetic (perhaps in concert with a seismic, if needed) upgrade for the 'ducts themselves to make the area underneath a little more welcoming. Cheesy as it sounds, if all viaducts in the city resembled that in the watercolor painting posted a couple pages back, I don't think anyone would consider keeping them to be an issue.

[SpongeG]

all these people in th DTES whine about lack of affordable housing - that would be a good spot since it wouldn't be the easiest to sell should the viaducts remain

[flight_from_kamakura]

lol, true on the low cost housing: i'd live in that area for $300 a month, no sweat. seriously though, you pull down the dunsmuir viaduct, then two-way the georgia viaduct and rejig the onramp to quebec street (since most of the traffic is coming from main/first/kingsway) and then you've got something nice, i.e. several hundred thousand sqf to build out! imagine the intersection of main/prior with a consistent street wall, it's enough to make one salivate...

and thanks for the pics locked in.

[usog]

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

Yes, those hideous things must go.

Do they need to go because they are hideous or for an actual practical reason?