Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

Yes, those hideous things must go.

Based on that logic alone, Vancouver would have lots of empty space.

[red-paladin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hed Kandi View Post
Yes, those hideous things must go.

Just remember the same thing was said about our medical arts building, the birks building, the previous hotel Vancouvers, and quite a few Orthodox churches in the USSR, and we miss all those things.

[Hed Kandi]

..

[Millennium2002]

They're not exactly related... are they? = \

This sounds more like a Kosovo situation... =S on whether the declared independence of a state would create a precedent. Although here, the issue is not political conflict but instead the demolitions of buildings / structures.

To be honest... everything has to be taken individually and not swallowed whole. We can not always say that one situation will apply to many others. The loss of heritage buildings in Downtown do not compare well to the potential loss of a grey, dark, and gloomy structure.

Having said that, I've always acknowledged that there will still need to be roads running through the area... so again... we can keep one of the viaducts or rebuild one of them completely to make things blend in.

This also makes me want to ask... if a new viaduct were to be built... what shape should it take and why? =O

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think once you are 3 or 4 stories above the viaducts it wouldn't sound that much different from being above Howe, Seymour, Nelson, Smithe or Georgia. We've built many a luxury condos near the feet of high speed bridges, like Granville and Cambie. How are the viaducts that much different that those situations?

I have a friend who lives in a building where when you walk out the lobby you are almost standing right under the Granville Bridge -> Seymour street ramp. It's loud on the street, but in their place you would never know unless you looked out the window.

I think with an inventive use of space, like multi story retail, office space, and community space on the first few floors, and had residential units above the viaducts, you would never know you had viaducts outside your home. They always talk about needing a school downtown, why not put in the pedestal of a condo tower to take up the space because of the Viaducts?

[Metro-One]

They're not exactly related... are they? = \

This sounds more like a Kosovo situation... =S on whether the declared independence of a state would create a precedent. Although here, the issue is not political conflict but instead the demolitions of buildings / structures.

To be honest... everything has to be taken individually and not swallowed whole. We can not always say that one situation will apply to many others. The loss of heritage buildings in Downtown do not compare well to the potential loss of a grey, dark, and gloomy structure.

Having said that, I've always acknowledged that there will still need to be roads running through the area... so again... we can keep one of the viaducts or rebuild one of them completely to make things blend in.

This also makes me want to ask... if a new viaduct were to be built... what shape should it take and why? =O

This same quote can be used when people compare what San Fran and other areas have done with some of their elevated structures. For example, Boston's Big dig had their viaduct replaced with a higher capacity tunnel, Seattle is thinking of the same, and after looking it over the section taken down in San Fran was a poorly designed route meant to connect two freeways together downtown, it was not taking any artery INTO the heart of the city away, just one (older and earthquake damaged) unfinished connection between two freeways (as it appears from what I can find through maps and old articles)(PS, to the comment a few pages back, i was thinking of the section of viaduct in Oakland that was replaced by a surface freeway.)

That being said, I do like your idea of mitigation. hence why I respect your posts, instead of just saying tear them down and replace with local surface streets.

Tearing one down, and leaving (or properly re-buiding) the other (preferably the Georgia Duct) to handle 2 way traffic is a fantastic idea.

I just worry that this "study" being done is going to only look at the situation in black and white, either both stay and nothing changes, or both go and nothing is re-built. I feel this way because I have a hunch that this study is fuelled by those who have an anti-car agenda, and encouraged by the condo developers who stand to make more "low fruit" money at the cost of the city demolishing and rezoning the area (and at the cost of accessibility to the commercial core).

If they want to encourage people to take transit and bike, thats cool, but do it by building better transit and bike infrastructure, not by tearing down existing infrastructure with no true after plan.

I am actually thinking of a plan right now that may solve both the viaduct and Lion's Gate Bridge problem in one, mega project stone.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I am actually thinking of a plan right now that may solve both the viaduct and Lion's Gate Bridge problem in one, mega project stone.

Zip-lines for cars?

Just hook up your car and you're over the inlet in 90 seconds! Whatta rush!

[Zassk]

If we want to encourage walk/bike, then why would you tear down either viaduct? Close Dunsmuir viaduct to traffic, and allow bikes on it, while converting Georgia viaduct to 2-way vehicle traffic. The viaducts would be extremely valuable to those who want more dedicated bike routes, I don't know why anyone would want to tear them down, rather than change their usage for bikes.

[radacal]

It seems like people are glossing over the fact that relocating the Skytrain would disrupt Skytrain into down town for several months even if you built the new section first, eventually you have to disconnect the existing portion to connect the new portion in. Throw in the removal of the viaducts at the same time, you would have gridlock coming in from the east...

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by radacal

It seems like people are glossing over the fact that relocating the Skytrain would disrupt Skytrain into down town for several months even if you built the new section first, eventually you have to disconnect the existing portion to connect the new portion in. Throw in the removal of the viaducts at the same time, you would have gridlock coming in from the east...

There are a lot of discussions around here that seem to be based around another reality, certainly not the one we live in.

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by radacal

It seems like people are glossing over the fact that relocating the Skytrain would disrupt Skytrain into down town for several months even if you built the new section first, eventually you have to disconnect the existing portion to connect the new portion in. Throw in the removal of the viaducts at the same time, you would have gridlock coming in from the east...

Not quite so. Ever heard of a story in Ottawa a few years ago where they literally "moved" new overpass pieces into place to replace an older structure at the same spot?

Island Park and Hwy 417 Rapid Bridge Replacement - Google Videos

A weekend closure of the Skytrain to do this type of work would be more than enough time for this work to take place if everything is done right.

[Millennium2002]

This is an image of what might happen if the viaducts were combined into one.

WARNING: Large image. May take long to load. (1.6 MB)

[Metro-One]

I like that idea! But can the Georgia Duct be retrofitted for 4 lanes? Please send that to the city and/or study group.

Also, can we change the skytrain guideway without disrupting service? Replacing one section of bridge with a new section is somewhat easy if the grade and elevations are kept the same, but for the skytrain the guide way would have to be completely re-built.

Also, what program are you using to draw that map??? I want it! Please.

[geoff's two cents]

Wow, I'm impressed! Unfortunately, my skills do not lie in this area, or I might have attempted something similar. I particularly like your retention of the west end of the Dunsmuir viaduct, and your ideas surrounding the revamped skytrain guideway, with allowances for buildings enveloping them. This opens up a lot of previously unavailable space, maintains the Georgia viaduct as a potentially interesting piece of infrastructure to work around and underneath, and represents only a slight diminution in mobility for SOVs wanting speedy access to the downtown core.

A slight critique would be that it is easier to build around or underneath two smaller viaducts than one large one.

I have my own feelings vis a vis the ducts, as you know, but there's no question that some creative ideas, combined with technical know-how, represent a step in the right direction.

Provided new buildings were constructed with at least future pedestrian access from the viaducts in mind, this would enable the future consideration of possible traffic-calming and/or bikepath/greenway implementation on the Georgia 'duct itself. This future possibility could/should be kept in mind, should the viaduct require upgrades for 4-lane capacity anyways.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

This is an image of what might happen if the viaducts were combined into one.

It certainly looks feasible, but I'm still not sure why we would take the effort.

• In terms of finding space for new buildings, we have many other locations that can accomodate new buildings without requiring an extensive infrastructure project - some that have much better views than this location.
• In terms of servicing the existing residents, I'm unaware of any issues with the current layout - except for recreation and school space, which is not improved by this plan.
• In terms of improving the street grid, there are other streets of Vancouver that are in greater need of revision, and would cost less.
• In terms of improving the cycling and pedestrian grid, this plan reduces the separation between them and vehicle traffic, and eliminates a viaduct that could be reassigned as a safe bicycle route.
• In terms of transit, this plan does absolutely nothing for buses or the streetcar plan, and takes away a potential site for its OMC.

[Millennium2002]

The program used was Inkscape, an open source vector graphics program. For precise detailing that wouldn't be the best program but for illustrating ideas quickly with some detail it works like a charm. =)

The plans that I made seeked to retain traffic connections in several ways while also allowing for better development of the areas that the Dunsmuir and Skytrain viaducts now occupy.

@ Metro-One:

like that idea! But can the Georgia Duct be retrofitted for 4 lanes? Please send that to the city and/or study group.

The viaducts can be retrofitted to four lanes I think for most of the journey. The only exception is Chinatown. On the satellite maps you would notice that after the Main St exit the viaduct slightly narrows... and I'm not sure as to how four lanes can be squished in there.

Also, can we change the skytrain guideway without disrupting service? Replacing one section of bridge with a new section is somewhat easy if the grade and elevations are kept the same, but for the skytrain the guide way would have to be completely re-built.

I was thinking of a complete rebuilding with rapid replacement of the sections joining the new and the old. If you look at satellite/orthophoto imagery you'll see that the guideways in their current form are actually set back a little from Expo Bvld... whereas in this case they're hugging it. This is done so there's less disruption to SkyTrain while it gets rebuilt. The rebuilding also helps to increase clearance underneath for shops and such if necessary (except for the portion that goes under the Georgia Viaduct).

This also reminds me, how do you like the idea of more buildings being built around SkyTrain as indicated in my map? =)

@ Zaask:

* In terms of finding space for new buildings, we have many other locations that can accomodate new buildings without requiring an extensive infrastructure project - some that have much better views than this location.

True. There are other locations that could be used. This is just in the case that council decides to push with demolition anyway with at least one or both viaducts.

* In terms of servicing the existing residents, I'm unaware of any issues with the current layout - except for recreation and school space, which is not improved by this plan.

I didn't show where schools are parks might be placed as that wasn't actually what I trying to illustrate in the first place. Rather I just wanted to get the road and skytrain network down. If you notice, I only offered some land use suggestions but not all of them. If the city wanted to they can still do things differently.

* In terms of improving the street grid, there are other streets of Vancouver that are in greater need of revision, and would cost less.

There are probably other projects of higher importance than this. Seeing as though council is trying to make this happen anyway, I thought I'd just make this up.

* In terms of improving the cycling and pedestrian grid, this plan reduces the separation between them and vehicle traffic, and eliminates a viaduct that could be reassigned as a safe bicycle route.

For a bike route... one of the viaducts could be used... yes... but in terms of space usage it's actually a little wasteful to have such a wider than normal viaduct.

* In terms of transit, this plan does absolutely nothing for buses or the streetcar plan, and takes away a potential site for its OMC.

Again, I only assigned some land uses and not all of them... so there's room to fit a streetcar OMC in there. As for buses... few buses travel through the area and almost none use the viaducts... so the plans won't wreak too much havoc in the local area.

[Alex Mackinnon]

I like the idea of running 2 way traffic on the georgia viaduct quite a bit actually. The problems I have with it are that there's not an easy way of adding in a left turn lane off of Main St, and the loop of going around to Gore St. would put a lot of traffic on a bike route and on the edge of Strathcona.

I think if this kind of thing was implemented you'd pretty much have to connect Kingsway to Quebec to deal with the volume restrictions on Main St. and reduced connectivity.

[wrenegade]

Yeah the only thing I don't see here (nor do I have a plan on how to accommodate it) would be the left turn from Main onto the viaduct.

Also, the street you have labeled as "Terminal" is actually "Quebec". Otherwise fantastic job!

[Alex Mackinnon]

You could potentially make a shorter right turn loop, like a small cloverleaf to hook it up, but it would take a good chunk out of the park space.

[Metro-One]

This also reminds me, how do you like the idea of more buildings being built around SkyTrain as indicated in my map? =)

You don't even have to ask, you know I love that idea!