Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[SpongeG]

cars are never going away

the same anti car pollution people will be the first in line when an environmentally friendly car is on the market

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Vancouver is probably the last city in the word to have done so. I find this "anti-freeway" movement to be a wicker-man chase. I completely agree that building American style city freeways where huge swaths of land are used to build such structures, and sometimes, completely encircle a downtown area is a horrible idea, but that being said, there are other ways to build such structures! Again, look at the vast majority of European and Asian cities that have such freeways running through, or coming very close, to their central cores!

The viaducts we have can easily be built into the urban fabric. Again, we have listed the many options that can be done (park underneath, bike/walking paths underneath sheltered from the rain! markets/commercial space built underneath, a future OMC for the streetcar, etc...) Simply look at the westernmost 300 meters of the viaducts, they are completely absorbed into the urban fabric!

There is also a gigantic difference between taking 1 lane of traffic away from the Burrard street bridge and taking down the viaducts. First of all, the Burrard street bike project took 1 lane away, not 6! Second, the north/south corridor is serviced by three high capacity arteries, the east west corridor is only serviced by the one (the viaducts). Third, in the near future, more lanes are planned to be taken away and or marginalized from the surface streets along our tiny east/west land bridge when the new streetcar is eventually pushed through and more traffic calming measures/biking infrastructure is put in place.

Again, Vancouver downtown is 80% cut off by water!!!!! We don't have the luxury of a continuous street grid accessing our downtown from all sides, or even half its sides.

It is insane to think it is a good idea to take 6 lanes of traffic away from an area, and then jam all that traffic with pedestrians, bikes and a new tram system together on a small 2km wide land bridge (not to mention then jamming that land bridge with condos, essentially making them residential neighborhood streets).

If one thinks that the viaducts are under utilized, then maybe we should build the local streets in a fashion where all of the industrial, commercial, freight, emergency and cross regional traffic is funneled onto them! This would then leave the surface streets in perfect condition to be traffic calmed, have the trams implemented with minimal disruption, and have a safer atmosphere for pedestrians and cyclists!

But then again, there are those who want to put all their eggs into one basket!

Just because one is a cyclists and an environmentalist does not mean you have to join the anti-freeway bandwagon. Instead, one can join the anti-poorly designed freeway and poor land zoning bandwagon. Freeways, if utilized and designed properly, can actually enhance local areas and urban fabric.

Right on, Metro!! You summed it up perfectly. It's NOT an all-or-nothing situation in Vancouver, surrounded by water as you say, necessitating bridges. And it's not about building the equivalent of the Pasadena and Harbour Freeways into downtown. It's just doing it right. And it can be done, as you say!

[Zassk]

We could tear them down... or... we could run bike lanes -and- a streetcar -and- rail to the valley on them! Now who wants to tear them down?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

Would your solution be to shut them down when it is (apparently) less viable to do so? - ie. not during the Olympics? This may not go over well with those who claim those viaducts to be essential for their morning commute.

BTW, some of us may find your choice of name offensive - "Mayor Moonbeam and his merry green minions" (ie. the administration as well as those who - like many on this board - support what he is doing). You might consider toning this down in future posts.

Political opportunism deserves ridicule, whether its on the extreme Right or Left. This is nothing more than Meggs and Co. trying to establish their "green" credentials though an unnecessary and assinine expenditure of public money.

The whole issue is a clarion cry for amalgamation. That way self-important urbanites and planners who rarely venture beyond Granville Island won't be destroying Metro Vancouver for everybody else.

[Millennium2002]

The only problems I think are actually the Dunsmuir Viaduct and the SkyTrain tracks. We could keep the Georgia Viaduct as part of it overhangs a road so not a lot of land could be gained by tearing it down anyway. The Dunsmuir Viaduct and the SkyTrain tracks, on the other hand, impose very unique restrictions to any sort of development that could exist in this area, which in the end can limit some of its usefulness.

BTW people please be more constructive. Slanting really far to one side like asking for amalgamation to wipe out specific opinions... or nicknaming the mayor as a moonbeam... is really despicable. This also applies in reverse as well.

I wish not to stop discussing about this topic but the back and forth attacks between the two groups is really discouraging.

[twoNeurons]

If The viaducts were torn down... Vancouver would finally understand what Surrey has to put up with ( the Port Mann )

[jlousa]

Do people walk around the viaducts? I live close to them and have spent alot of time around them, there is no land lift to be had by the city by removing them. Heck if you don't have the time to go down there play around with vanmap, you will see that they are not hindering density on the site at all, at the western undeveloped edge they is a 33m of distance between them lots of space for a monster sized tower. Heck even at the eastern edge where it closes in there is still slightly over 16m between them, thats the same as the slim edge of the Abbott tower at Woodwards which is 32 story tower. Without removing the viaducts you could still build towers that would bounce off the height limits and provide more fsr then the city would allow anyways.

So please stop using money as a motive to remove the viaducts it's a bogus argument. Argue traffic mangement, air pollution, community building, whatever.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

The only problems I think are actually the Dunsmuir Viaduct and the SkyTrain tracks. We could keep the Georgia Viaduct as part of it overhangs a road so not a lot of land could be gained by tearing it down anyway. The Dunsmuir Viaduct and the SkyTrain tracks, on the other hand, impose very unique restrictions to any sort of development that could exist in this area, which in the end can limit some of its usefulness.

BTW people please be more constructive. Slanting really far to one side like asking for amalgamation to wipe out specific opinions... or nicknaming the mayor as a moonbeam... is really despicable. This also applies in reverse as well.

I wish not to stop discussing about this topic but the back and forth attacks between the two groups is really discouraging.

Theres not really anything new to discuss. At least not until that study finishes or someone makes some new content to talk about. Until then this is just going to be status quo political bickering.

Theres not really too much for people wishing to preserve the viaduct to do. I've already made a model of what I think should be done. A couple people have maps up. And a few things pointing the other way have already been done. What's important that's left to argue?

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

cars are never going away

Not for a long time anyways - I'm sure they'll outlast me. That said, as a historian I've learned to never say "never."

Originally Posted by SpongeG

the same anti car pollution people will be the first in line when an environmentally friendly car is on the market

This is debatable. I suppose some might refer to me as an "anti car pollution" person (that's not exactly true - see my previous posts), but I don't plan on ever owning a car, regardless of what it runs on.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

With that said, the Olympics are far from a normal time to conduct such a study. [B]Also, this "study" that is being done is spearheaded by those who have an agenda to tear them down (for personal financial gain on the developer's behalf and a personal agenda for those of the extreme environmental perspective) so I really doubt this is going to be a fair and balanced study. It is akin to allowing the RCMP to investigate themselves

I respectfully disagree. The data will not be perfect, it will certainly not be "objective" (nothing is), but it's a chance to get some preliminary numbers on the cheap - and one that it would be a shame to pass up. My hunch is actually that council will not recommend the removal of the viaducts, especially now that the Quebec connector is effectively null (as jlousa pointed out), and regardless of what the study results are - though there is a great likelihood that the numbers therein will not be as viaduct-removal-friendly as many on this board fear.

Originally Posted by s211

And I thought green people had thicker skin.

I'm tired of wasting my time reading childish, name-calling posts on this forum. As for having "thicker skin," I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that I let online insults or disagreements keep me awake at night? You'll just have to trust me when I tell you that's not the case. In any case, I'm not sure what bearing the thickness of my skin has on the discussion.

Originally Posted by s211

I'll stick to my sig. Calling a spade a spade. Vancouver's self-appointed social engineers are, at heart, no different than how the Taliban operates: conform or we'll force you to.

Calling people (the mayor, as well as people on this board) names like the one I pointed to above is not the same as "calling a spade a spade." The equivalent from a left-wing perspective would be "eco-barbarian," "selfish pollution-fascist," "eco-ignoramus," "car-commuting fascist," or some other such childish misnomer that serves only to inflame, polarize, and grossly simplify, with only a dubious likelihood of being in any way true.

As for gross exaggerations (ie. your comparison of the city council to the Taliban - by that criterion, every boss I've ever had has been, at heart, no different from the Taliban ), I might find them a tad irritating, but it's not directed at me personally, so I'll just politely disagree and move on.

[trofirhen]

To all of you who have not been there, and have the time and means to do so, take a trip to Stockholm, study the structure of the freeways and underground rail system, meditate on it, then come back to Vancouver and continue on as before . . . . if you can.

[Yume-sama]

There are much better things to study in Sweden than roads.



I hope they bring several planefuls of them to cheer on team Sweden

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

The only problems I think are actually the Dunsmuir Viaduct and the SkyTrain tracks. We could keep the Georgia Viaduct as part of it overhangs a road so not a lot of land could be gained by tearing it down anyway. The Dunsmuir Viaduct and the SkyTrain tracks, on the other hand, impose very unique restrictions to any sort of development that could exist in this area, which in the end can limit some of its usefulness.

BTW people please be more constructive. Slanting really far to one side like asking for amalgamation to wipe out specific opinions... or nicknaming the mayor as a moonbeam... is really despicable. This also applies in reverse as well.

I wish not to stop discussing about this topic but the back and forth attacks between the two groups is really discouraging.

We aren't discussing the relative merits of the glazing on Tower A vs. Tower B. We are talking about decisions that can literally help make or break this city. I would hope that all such decisions are debated passionately. They are too important not to be. I have no ties to any civic or provincial political party (can all here say the same), "merely" the interest of someone born and raised in this city.

Countless examples have been given here of imaginative work done around the world in integrating structures like the viaducts into the urban fabric. Rather than waste our money and staff time on studies like the above, Mayor and Council would better serve us by improving transit to a point where removing the viaducts would actually be a non-issue.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Political opportunism deserves ridicule, whether its on the extreme Right or Left. This is nothing more than Meggs and Co. trying to establish their "green" credentials though an unnecessary and assinine expenditure of public money.

The whole issue is a clarion cry for amalgamation. That way self-important urbanites and planners who rarely venture beyond Granville Island won't be destroying Metro Vancouver for everybody else.

Bravo!

[s211]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Political opportunism deserves ridicule, whether its on the extreme Right or Left. This is nothing more than Meggs and Co. trying to establish their "green" credentials though an unnecessary and assinine expenditure of public money.

The whole issue is a clarion cry for amalgamation. That way self-important urbanites and planners who rarely venture beyond Granville Island won't be destroying Metro Vancouver for everybody else.

Here here! Planners' heads have gotten far too big of late. When you have "rock star" planners (in the eyes of other planners), you know you have a problem.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

There are much better things to study in Sweden than roads.



I hope they bring several planefuls of them to cheer on team Sweden

Yes, yes, yes,! I know!! But if you're in Sweden, Stockholm anyway, try and study the road and transit infrastructure (if you can tear your eyes away from "other" stuff long enough)!!!

Seriously, we all know about Swedish girls, but Stockholm IS an example of how to "do it right" regarding inner-city expressways and subways.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

BTW, some of us may find your choice of name offensive - "Mayor Moonbeam

Geoff, I like Gregor as well but the "Mayor Moonbeam" moniker was also used recently by Gregor supporter Charlie Smith, editor of the Georgia Straight:

Charlie Smith
Thu, 2009-12-31 09:43

I hear what they say on our site. You don't have to agree with everything I write. People are smart enough to draw their own conclusions. I know this: when the Georgia Straight conducted its Best of Vancouver survey that involved thousands of responses, Mayor Moonbeam won in the category of "best politician". Of course, that was before the park board's budget decision involving the Conservatory.

http://www.straight.com/article-279448/v...on-and-vision-vancouver-councillors-2009

[hollywoodnorth]

I will be interested in everyone's thoughts who were pro DEMOLITION next week after actually have no viaducts for once I think it will be a gong show.....

[Millennium2002]

it'll probably be a very messy situation... fortunately I'm not going down there for awhile =O

[Metro-One]

Are you hinting at a vacation??? If so, I envy you, hehe.

[geoff's two cents]

Alright, fair enough.

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Geoff, I like Gregor as well but the "Mayor Moonbeam" moniker was also used recently by Gregor supporter Charlie Smith, editor of the Georgia Straight:



http://www.straight.com/article-279448/v...on-and-vision-vancouver-councillors-2009