Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Millennium2002]

Actually it could apply to the south side as well... there's a building underneath the bridge I think.

I have to say that the design looks quite nice.

[huenthar]

Yeah, I don't get how people find this 'revolutionary'. To me it's more like 'common sense'... There's lots of perfectly usable space beneath overpasses, guideways - why wouldn't you want to use it?

No reason why you couldn't use the space under the viaducts, bridges, guideways etc. for buildings as well as parks: retail, maybe even light industrial? Nightclubs, with the viaduct as the roof? Permanent exhibition/performance space?

Heck, you could even make an interesting upscale restaurant by closing off a space underneath the viaduct with glass; call it "The Viaduct" and you've got a great name and a great urban-retro-futurist concept to work with

[Yume-sama]

The Viaduct sounds like a good bar name

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by huenthar

Yeah, I don't get how people find this 'revolutionary'. To me it's more like 'common sense'... There's lots of perfectly usable space beneath overpasses, guideways - why wouldn't you want to use it?

No reason why you couldn't use the space under the viaducts, bridges, guideways etc. for buildings as well as parks: retail, maybe even light industrial? Nightclubs, with the viaduct as the roof? Permanent exhibition/performance space?

Heck, you could even make an interesting upscale restaurant by closing off a space underneath the viaduct with glass; call it "The Viaduct" and you've got a great name and a great urban-retro-futurist concept to work with

I agree totally.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by huenthar

Yeah, I don't get how people find this 'revolutionary'. To me it's more like 'common sense'... There's lots of perfectly usable space beneath overpasses, guideways - why wouldn't you want to use it?

No reason why you couldn't use the space under the viaducts, bridges, guideways etc. for buildings as well as parks: retail, maybe even light industrial? Nightclubs, with the viaduct as the roof? Permanent exhibition/performance space?

Heck, you could even make an interesting upscale restaurant by closing off a space underneath the viaduct with glass; call it "The Viaduct" and you've got a great name and a great urban-retro-futurist concept to work with

Thank You!

A great example of creative thinking that would create unique neighbourhoods instead of the lazy "tear it down" thinking.

The viaducts give us the potential to create one of the most interesting, layered urban fabrics within our city.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by huenthar

No reason why you couldn't use the space under the viaducts, bridges, guideways etc. for buildings as well as parks: retail, maybe even light industrial? Nightclubs, with the viaduct as the roof? Permanent exhibition/performance space?

Heck, you could even make an interesting upscale restaurant by closing off a space underneath the viaduct with glass; call it "The Viaduct" and you've got a great name and a great urban-retro-futurist concept to work with

Under the Queensboro Bridge in NYC:

http://www.guastavinos.com/index.html

[Locked In]

^ Wow. Awesome.





Source: Guastavinso Photo Gallery

[Hed Kandi]

..

[hollywoodnorth]

Stupid Stupid Stupid!

[racc]

Originally Posted by huenthar

Yeah, I don't get how people find this 'revolutionary'. To me it's more like 'common sense'... There's lots of perfectly usable space beneath overpasses, guideways - why wouldn't you want to use it?

No reason why you couldn't use the space under the viaducts, bridges, guideways etc. for buildings as well as parks: retail, maybe even light industrial? Nightclubs, with the viaduct as the roof? Permanent exhibition/performance space?

Heck, you could even make an interesting upscale restaurant by closing off a space underneath the viaduct with glass; call it "The Viaduct" and you've got a great name and a great urban-retro-futurist concept to work with

Might want to go down there and actually take a look. Under the viaducts, there isn't that much usable space as the viaducts are between Expo and Pacific Blvds. Not the idea place for a park especially with False Creek nearby which is much nicer to be around. Much of the land is really contaminated so it would be really expensive just to build a one storey building underneath.

Where the most usable land would be if the viaducts were replaced is at the east end where the access ramps are. You can't build under the ramps for the most part as they are earthen and not elevated structures.

For the elevated sections, where the space would come from for other uses is the consolidation and or moving of Expo and Pacific blvds to gain more or better developable space.

Lastly, to compare these rather boring structures to some of the more interesting viaducts in other parts of the world is a bit of stretch.

Anyway, as the article posted from the Sun indicates, there will be a process to determine what the opportunities are and if the removal of the viaducts make sense. Please try and keep an open mind, there might be some really creative options that will add to the fabric of the city and address people's transportation concerns.

[Canadian Mind]

why not develop the area between and under the ducts then?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by racc

Might want to go down there and actually take a look. Under the viaducts, there isn't that much usable space as the viaducts are between Expo and Pacific Blvds. Not the idea place for a park especially with False Creek nearby which is much nicer to be around. Much of the land is really contaminated so it would be really expensive just to build a one storey building underneath.

Where the most usable land would be if the viaducts were replaced is at the east end where the access ramps are. You can't build under the ramps for the most part as they are earthen and not elevated structures.

For the elevated sections, where the space would come from for other uses is the consolidation and or moving of Expo and Pacific blvds to gain more or better developable space.

Lastly, to compare these rather boring structures to some of the more interesting viaducts in other parts of the world is a bit of stretch.

Anyway, as the article posted from the Sun indicates, there will be a process to determine what the opportunities are and if the removal of the viaducts make sense. Please try and keep an open mind, there might be some really creative options that will add to the fabric of the city and address people's transportation concerns.

Yet you seem to have dismissed every idea we have given on this forum short of tearing both of them down.

Also I believe Jlousa has displayed time and again how little residential / commercial space is actually added by their removal. And if anyone on this forum has good insight into the nickels and dimes of any proposal in this city, it is him, and I am far better than councillor Meggs and his agenda know.

[WBC]

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

Contemplating life without the viaducts
Derrick Penner

Sun

Tuesday, March, 23, 2010


Vancouver Coun. Geoff Meggs said he has heard a lot of enthusiastic response to the idea of tearing down the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts since he re-raised the idea a couple of weeks ago.

However, the thought has also raised some anxieties among land owners on the eastern edge of downtown Vancouver.

While eliminating the elevated concrete roadways would be esthetically pleasing for the downtown neighbourhood, the city wouldn't be able to do it without finding a way to deal with the traffic that the routes now carry.

"The first concern I hear is from people worried about traffic connections," Meggs said in an interview.

<b>"And we've always made it clear we're not going to eliminate those, but thought they could be redone."
</b>

I think we may be jumping the — here a bit. I don't think that even Meggs is necessarily for just tearing down the viaducts and building a few condo towers in place. Maybe there is a way to redesign entire area in such a way that you:

a) keep the traffic flowing
b) open up more space
c) make things looking more cohesive and better connected from pedestrian/cycling point of view.
d) connect the area with upper Georgia

How? - I have no idea, but that is where study comes into place

The only thing is that this is probably going to cost a whole lot of money to do.

[s211]

Memo to Meggs.

1) Shut up. You obviously know zilch about how real-world transportation works.
2) Get a real job. Stop trying to be an opportunistic politician. It's as plain to see as the nose on your face.
3) Did I mention "shut up"?

[racc]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Yet you seem to have dismissed every idea we have given on this forum short of tearing both of them down.

Also I believe Jlousa has displayed time and again how little residential / commercial space is actually added by their removal. And if anyone on this forum has good insight into the nickels and dimes of any proposal in this city, it is him, and I am far better than councillor Meggs and his agenda know.

And you dismiss any possibility that this could be of great benefit to the city before even seeing the results of the study the city is doing. Why are you afraid of the city even studying this?

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by s211

Memo to Meggs.

1) Shut up. You obviously know zilch about how real-world transportation works.
2) Get a real job. Stop trying to be an opportunistic politician. It's as plain to see as the nose on your face.
3) Did I mention "shut up"?

Talk about going overboard. What the hell is "real-world transportation" anyways? Cars, cars, and more cars?!

[Metro-One]

(to racc) If it were a non bias study I would not be afraid of the city studying this. But it is obvious that Meggs has a set agenda.

Also, I feel that during a time of deficit, this is a huge waste of money. Money that could be spent elsewhere, such as our parks, if the agenda is to make our city so green, or into how to develop the lands around our Vancouver skytrain stations that are still dominated by single detached houses.

That is why.

For me this is the same as hiring the "Rail for the Valley" to conduct a study on skytrain, and if it should be expanded. Meggs already has his mind made up, and will likely force a study to meet his liking, as the rail for the valley people do against skytrain.

I have welcomed many of the suggestions on here that have brought up the idea of taking them down, and building a single, better designed structure in their place, or the tearing down of one but the expanding of the other to 4 lanes, etc...

But I think most here on this forum know your agenda racc.

My question to you is, if the study comes out saying "The viaducts should remain and not be altered." Will you support that decision, or will you call foul and demand another study be done?

Also to s211, Meggs have every right to express his opinion and I do feel your attitude only damages the opinion of those of us who believe they should stay. i just personally dont agree with Meggs, as many on this forum feel.

[Stingray2004]

What people here may fail to realize is that the City of Vancouver legally cannot remove the Georgia/Dunsmuir viaducts even if they so wished.

Here are the legal ramifications starting from the City of Vancouver back in 1998:

September 28, 1998 - The City of Vancouver is seeking public input on the selection of roads to include in a regional Major Road Network.

The Major Road Network refers to the system of selected arterial roads, highways, and bridges that meet major intra-regional transportation requirements. Roads designated part of the MRN will meet one or more of the following criteria: provide direct access to an area deemed an activity centre; carry a high volume of inter-regional travel; carry a minimum of 10 buses per hour in the peak hours and direction; carry a minimum of 800 trucks per day; and connect MRN elements.

The City retains ownership and control of roads included in the network, while abiding by agreed-upon regional standards to maintain the functionality of the network, and having access to funds for maintaining it.

City staff will provide information on the legislation; the suggested criteria for the selection of major roads; and the benefits and drawbacks of designation

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/newsreleases1998/NRmajorroadmeetings.htm

The City of Vancouver has already designated and committed the viaducts expressly as part of Translink's regional Major Road Network legally described as South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority By-Law Number 59-2009 (Revised October 13, 2009 - See Schedule A).

http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/Board/bylaws/592009.ashx

Simply put, the City of Vancouver has already acquiesced to the viaducts comprising part of Translink's regional MRN so that's a done deal.

Ergo, any "study" is just a moot point.

[Canadian Mind]

So really it's all just a waste of money, no matter the outcome?

Nice find.

[paradigm4]

It's easy enough to change the MRN.