Quote:
Originally Posted by racc
If you bothered even doing just a bit of research, including reading previous posts or doing a quick Google, before posting, you would know the answer. It really is quite ridiculous that you don't even make the effort when it is really so easy with the Internet.
At the risk of boring the others on the forum with the obvious, the reason why the viaducts are being looked at now is because they are next to, in and around parcels of land that will be redeveloped soon both by Concord Pacific and due to the upgrade of BC Place. It makes sense to look at a comprehensive approach to the entire area before proceeding. By looking at the viaducts, the city could potentially gain tens of millions of benefits for the people of the city including social housing and parks while saving taxpayers money in the process. This is the financially prudent action for city council to do.
|
BC place isn't integrated into the Viaducts or obstructed by the viaducts at all. With or without the Viaducts, BC place would pretty much function just like it does now.
If they weren't there you would still have to climb up some stairs to get to the main level. And the BC Place is ready to go, it's going ahead ASAP, even if we start seriously looking at the Viaducts removal today, the first phase of the study won't be done until the renos on BC Place are finished.
In fact, it's easier to get to BC place with the Viaducts in place than without. You can walk out the lower exit of Stadium and across a rather unbusy Expo blvd and Griffiths Way to the stairs to BC place. Without the Viaducts you would need to cross what would become the busiest intersection (Georgia/Expo/Pacific) downtown west of Seymour.
But the city already owns much much more land around SEFC that sits barren. Developing the land next to Olympic Village will make the city much more money. Money can be made off building there, right away, and that money can be used to fund social housing. Why target functioning infrastructure for removal when we have empty lots under city ownership elsewhere?