Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by cabotp

All that would happen if you built the connector is people would notice that traffic is easier and thus more people would drive. So your back to where you started with traffic on Prior and 1st as well as traffic on the new connector. And everyone is complaining about the traffic and that we should build another connector.

Twin it and toll it.

[jlousa]

Originally Posted by racc

Get your facts right. The point of replacing the Viaducts would be to increase park space and housing near downtown, not to spite drivers. The city could potentially gain tens of millions of dollars from the sale of the land for development.

We have been over this before, land is sold by build-able sqftage. A site of that size would have up to a gross fsr of up to 5.0 at the max but probably closer to 3.0. Either is already quite doable within the existing conditions. There will be no additional density to be sold by ridding the viaducts. So chose a different argument.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by racc

Get your facts right. The point of replacing the Viaducts would be to increase park space and housing near downtown, not to spite drivers. The city could potentially gain tens of millions of dollars from the sale of the land for development.

By that logic, develop Stanley Park too. Just a waste of acres of trees that could be densified and mini developed parks could be built to replace it.

[Zassk]

I don't buy this argument to open up more development space in False Creek. The entire False Creek Flats are just sitting there, one block away, waiting to be developed. You could build twenty City Gate projects on the Flats, and no need to tear up infrastructure 50 years early to do it.

[invisibleairwaves]

Here's a quick and dirty MS Paint mess highlighting the vacant land in the areas around the viaducts. This obviously doesn't include the Plaza of Nations site or small old buildings that could be bulldozed for higher-density development:



The argument that we need the land just makes absolutely no sense.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Maybe that's what they are saying, but really, all that is in that area now is parks and empty land yet to be developed. There's even more empty land across false creek to the west of the OV. The city really shouldn't even think of touching the viaducts until those areas are fully built out and sold. Then maybe re-assess the area.

Every new condo built downtown means a certain number of trucks need to make it into the city to delivery "supplies" necessary for life.

Whether the viaducts get torn down is in the "anything is possible" file right now. Why the city is spending $700k to think about it in 2010 is stupid.

^That's for sure. If we put every "study" on hold - and they usually lead nowhere or almost nowhere, we could save loads of time and money that could be applied to immediate things that need to get done; rehab clinics, medical care for street people, you name it.

It's bizarrely comical how politicians at all levels are paid to blither-blather over "plans" and "studies," most of which get trashed in the long run.

I suppose it's much the same in most other cities though.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Twin it and toll it.

Ok assuming that the Malkin Connector and something is built through the Cut.

I would toll it as you say. I would then convert Prior/Venables to a local side street. As well as 1st Ave from Clarke east and removed the ramps at Hwy 1.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

By that logic, develop Stanley Park too. Just a waste of acres of trees that could be densified and mini developed parks could be built to replace it.

Exactly - "highest and best use" isn't necessarily highest density if there is another tangible benefit being provided.
That was the developers' argument for demolishing BC Place and moving it to the suburbs, which I'm glad isn't being done.

[racc]

Originally Posted by jlousa

We have been over this before, land is sold by build-able sqftage. A site of that size would have up to a gross fsr of up to 5.0 at the max but probably closer to 3.0. Either is already quite doable within the existing conditions. There will be no additional density to be sold by ridding the viaducts. So chose a different argument.

Yes we have gone over this before and your argument makes absolutely no sense at all. Just look at an overhead view of the viaducts. There obviously is a lot of land that could be developed if the viaducts are removed (around Main Street for example). As well, some of the plots could be developed more efficiently.

[racc]

Originally Posted by Zassk

I don't buy this argument to open up more development space in False Creek. The entire False Creek Flats are just sitting there, one block away, waiting to be developed. You could build twenty City Gate projects on the Flats, and no need to tear up infrastructure 50 years early to do it.

The industrial land in the Flats is needed for the services and warehouses needed to supply the city. Develop that land and there will be even more truck traffic on the streets and even more congestion for you to complain about.

The site next to the train station should really be saved for when the train station needs expanding for high speed rail.

[racc]

Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves

The argument that we need the land just makes absolutely no sense.

Then why do developers want to take land out of the Agricultural Land Reserve?

News flash. It is expected that hundreds of thousands of people will move to the region over the next few decades. The more people living near downtown, the fewer driving downtown and congesting roads throughout the region.

[Zassk]

^ And how do you propose to deliver all of the goods that those residents of the downtown peninsula will need? By airship? Not via Hastings, surely?

As for high speed rail, the notion of having the terminus at Main Street is ridiculous. HSR can terminate at the south end of the Expo Line, and would probably save at least $1 billion by doing so.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Zassk

^ And how do you propose to deliver all of the goods that those residents of the downtown peninsula will need? By airship? Not via Hastings, surely?

I'm guessing by an team of cyclists.

[jlousa]

I've studied the aerials, I've walked the area, taken measurements and actually ran the numbers, and I'm not the only one, numerous people have done the same already. You can max out allowable density with the viaducts in place and this isn't with having to build overtop of them. Feel free to wait for the report though.

Originally Posted by racc

Yes we have gone over this before and your argument makes absolutely no sense at all. Just look at an overhead view of the viaducts. There obviously is a lot of land that could be developed if the viaducts are removed (around Main Street for example). As well, some of the plots could be developed more efficiently.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Ok assuming that the Malkin Connector and something is built through the Cut.

I would toll it as you say. I would then convert Prior/Venables to a local side street. As well as 1st Ave from Clarke east and removed the ramps at Hwy 1.

That is exactly along the lines of what I have been proposing for a long time on this forum.

[invisibleairwaves]

Originally Posted by racc

Then why do developers want to take land out of the Agricultural Land Reserve?

News flash. It is expected that hundreds of thousands of people will move to the region over the next few decades. The more people living near downtown, the fewer driving downtown and congesting roads throughout the region.

And, as the map I posted shows, there is already a crapload of available land in the area, and I didn't even account for knocking down smaller buildings and redeveloping them. Why do we need to take out important pieces of infrastructure to get something we already have plenty of?

Incidentally, it's a similar situation with the ALR...it occupies a relatively small portion of the undeveloped land in Metro Van.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by cabotp

I would love to see the traffic removed from Prior and 1st and Hasting. But I also don't feel that shifting it from one area to another is not the solution as well .

So it isn't that I want to condemn Prior and 1st and Hastings to the status quo.

What I'd like to see is LRT lines built along 1st and Hastings as well have a toll charge to drive in the city of Vancouver. Id rather look at ways of reducing traffic than just trying to move traffic.

All that would happen if you built the connector is people would notice that traffic is easier and thus more people would drive. So your back to where you started with traffic on Prior and 1st as well as traffic on the new connector. And everyone is complaining about the traffic and that we should build another connector.

I think a few thousand people living in Strathcona -especially along Prior- won't be complaining about the traffic to & from downtown being relocated to the industrial area along Malkin Ave.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

That is exactly along the lines of what I have been proposing for a long time on this forum.

So you are also in support of the idea of converting prior and 1st ave into local side streets? Because to me there is no point of even building a connector unless you force people onto it.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I think a few thousand people living in Strathcona -especially along Prior- won't be complaining about the traffic to & from downtown being relocated to the industrial area along Malkin Ave.

Which is why I did say in a later post that if the Malkin and eventually a connector in the Cut is built. That Prior and 1st Ave should be converted to a local side street with the no access to Hwy1 at 1st ave. If they are not going to close down Prior and 1st. Then there really is no point of building the other connnectors. Because traffic will still be going through the Strathcona area anyways.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves

Here's a quick and dirty MS Paint mess highlighting the vacant land in the areas around the viaducts. This obviously doesn't include the Plaza of Nations site or small old buildings that could be bulldozed for higher-density development:



The argument that we need the land just makes absolutely no sense.

this map says more than 1000 words could say. I think that the whole issue of tearing down the viaducts is a "STRAW MAN" argument and that - jlousa and deasine permitting - this thread should be closed, for the time being anyway.