Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[madmigs]

Originally Posted by Zassk

There's a huge tract of unused land called the False Creek Flats two blocks to the south, which could easily house 50,000 people and has even better rapid transit service, so I don't buy your argument in the least.

I wasn't making an argument either way, I was simply refuting the claim that removing the viaducts wouldn't free up any land.

What unused land 2 blocks south(aka Main & Terminal)? There's a park, an office tower, some stores, and science world, unless one of those things was knocked out in the last month. If you are referring to the railyard, which I agree should go and doesn't really belong so close to downtown(do they actually unload the trains there??), I wouldn't necessarily say that area has better rapid transit access than being 2 blocks from Main Street Station and 2.5 blocks from Stadium Station. Unless you happen to be on the part that is 1 block or so from Main Street Station.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by Zassk

There's a huge tract of unused land called the False Creek Flats two blocks to the south, which could easily house 50,000 people and has even better rapid transit service, so I don't buy your argument in the least.

So what? The more the better. The value of all assets should be maximized.

[invisibleairwaves]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

So what? The more the better. The value of all assets should be maximized.

That's a great way to get a bunch of big ugly empty lots all over the city. Which is exactly what the viaducts would become if they were knocked down today, or even years from now. Hardly maximizing assets if you ask me.

There's simply no point in knocking down important pieces of infrastructure to free up land when there's no shortage of it in the area.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

So what? The more the better. The value of all assets should be maximized.

Now you're being pedantic.

Then let's fill in False Creek and tear down all of the south & east bridges to downtown. Because hey, we filled in half of it 90 years ago, and all those bridges and water are covering up land whose value should be maximized, right?

Or shall we reconsider land use in Stanley Park?

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Now you're being pedantic.

Then let's fill in False Creek and tear down all of the south & east bridges to downtown. Because hey, we filled in half of it 90 years ago, and all those bridges and water are covering up land whose value should be maximized, right?

Or shall we reconsider land use in Stanley Park?

What's contentious about maximizing value? That could favour either position depending on the relative value of the competing ideas. The viaducts might have greater value left as is, or perhaps there's more value in a repurposed configuration. I'm not going to pretend to know, but I'd rather have an open mind than not.

Your comment was that because there's lots of empty space in False Creek flats, somehow that completely devalues land around it. This is ridiculous.

[andcarne]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Your comment was that because there's lots of empty space in False Creek flats, somehow that completely devalues land around it. This is ridiculous.

I think the point is more that because there is lots of empty space around that *doesn't require demolishing infrastructure* it makes sense to develop that land before removing the viaducts.

Basically, until there is a demand for more land in the area, the argument of demolishing the viaducts to free up space does not hold water.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by andcarne

I think the point is more that because there is lots of empty space around that *doesn't require demolishing infrastructure* it makes sense to develop that land before removing the viaducts.

Basically, until there is a demand for more land in the area, the argument of demolishing the viaducts to free up space does not hold water.

...or not even that. There's plenty of sites in the area, or in all of downtown for that matter, that could see further densification.

I too don't see any logic in knocking down critical infrastructure just for more land. And really, knocking it down is the easy way of doing things - why not be creative instead and find ways of integrating the structures with developments and surrounding neighbourhoods.

They may be "ugly," but what have we exactly done to make them look more aesthetically pleasing? We haven't even tried that.

A city can't be all flesh and muscle, it also needs its arteries and veins to work.

The justification for more land is a pitiful excuse...grasping draws at best.




Here's a diagram that deasine made awhile back:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4511616&postcount=86




http://forms.rennie.com/GMplace/Survey.html

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by andcarne

Basically, until there is a demand for more land in the area, the argument of demolishing the viaducts to free up space does not hold water.

With regards to the need for land, it's just a question of when, not if.

[SpikePhanta]

I remember at the concord pavillion, they had excellent demos of buildings in between the viaduct.

Why don't we do what they did at the costco/spectrum? The made local roads connecting to the ends of the viaduct, why cant they do that with the rest of the space? Make the viaduct less of something resembling a freeway and make it more like geogia street near coal harbour with a mix of office towers (the rogers arena tower) and residential?
With this you could still put retail at the bottom near pacific and expo.
And like another user said put pedestrian sidewalks on the viaducts, heck put trees like what they did at spectrum.

And when NEFC gets redeveloped the viaducts will essentially disappear from view

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

With regards to the need for land, it's just a question of when, not if.

And the "when" would be "after the False Creek Flats and SE False Creek are built out to downtown density" - at which point the viaducts will probably be at end-of-life, anyway (and many of this forum's members will already be dead).

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by Zassk

And the "when" would be "after the False Creek Flats and SE False Creek are built out to downtown density" - at which point the viaducts will probably be at end-of-life, anyway (and many of this forum's members will already be dead).

You're totally right, because land is both plentiful and cheap in Vancouver.

[Metro-One]

If you look at how much of Vancouver is single detached houses, it is plentiful

Look at how much density can be added to the Broadway and Cambie area alone.

And what about around all of the E-Line stations in Vancouver? Or the Commercial / Broadway hub area?

The "when" will be when all those areas consists of 30 to 40 story densely packed high-rise towers.

The funny thing is when a city becomes really dense, that is actually when they need viaducts and tunnels, in order to free up more land for housing (you can build facilities below viaducts and above tunnels, but surface streets in a dense city become regarded as wasted space

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

With regards to the need for land, it's just a question of when, not if.

Why is that a foregone conclusion? If successive city councils continue to choke off Vancouver it will become less and less desirable as a place to do business. This isn't Manhattan, London, or even Toronto with a vast number of jobs in the downtown core.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

What's contentious about maximizing value? That could favour either position depending on the relative value of the competing ideas. The viaducts might make have greater value left as is, or perhaps there's more value in a repurposed configuration. I'm not going to pretend to know, but I'd rather have an open mind than not.

Your comment was that because there's lots of empty space in False Creek flats, somehow that completely devalues land around it. This is ridiculous.

Now you are overlooking the economic value that the viaducts contribute to the local economy.

Not everything is about land value. Infrastructure plays a vital role in the reason why people want to live, work, or shop downtown. It could be reasoned that the viaducts maximize the value of downtown Vancouver itself. Trading infrastructure for a one time profit could actually lower the GDP value of the city.

The reason the flats are still rail yard is because it is far more valuable as rail yard (considering there would be hight restrictions for building on the landfill). The rail industry makes billions a year of shipping to and from the port; you think it makes sense for them to trade the assets that generate their wealth for a one time cash in?

You are way too focused in on the viaducts and the land under them without considering the larger picture. Sometimes valuable land has to be "sacrificed" for the greater good. We build schools, hospitals, and public parks on rather expensive land. Should St Pauls be torn down because a developer could build some luxury condos there? What's monetary value of a school? Perhaps we should outsource our child's education and send them to Burnaby where land, thus schools, are cheaper. You could either have 40,000 cars use the viaducts a day or at the most have 2,000 yuppies live there? Which is a more "valuable" to society? The city shouldn't cater to a developer or a few thousand people who are fortunate enough to have money they could live anywhere they wanted, but they should be concerned for the well being of our entire economy. What's the value of businesses downtown compared to the value of a few blocks of land?

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Now you are overlooking the economic value that the viaducts contribute to the local economy.

Excuse me?

I said that (all) benefits and costs need to be weighed, and that whatever option comes out on top wins. They are not sacred.

I actually like the viaducts, but I think the Prior street approaches are redundant.

[SpikePhanta]

Originally Posted by Zassk

And the "when" would be "after the False Creek Flats and SE False Creek are built out to downtown density" - at which point the viaducts will probably be at end-of-life, anyway (and many of this forum's members will already be dead).

Hopefully i'll still be alive when that happens, seeing in 50 years i'll be 65.

Originally Posted by SpikePhanta

I remember at the concord pavillion, they had excellent demos of buildings in between the viaduct.

Why don't we do what they did at the costco/spectrum? The made local roads connecting to the ends of the viaduct, why cant they do that with the rest of the space? Make the viaduct less of something resembling a freeway and make it more like geogia street near coal harbour with a mix of office towers (the rogers arena tower) and residential?
With this you could still put retail at the bottom near pacific and expo.
And like another user said put pedestrian sidewalks on the viaducts, heck put trees like what they did at spectrum.

And when NEFC gets redeveloped the viaducts will essentially disappear from view

Anyone read this yet?

[red-paladin]

I completely agree with this plan.

[worldwide]

who invited the economics textbook?

[Alex Mackinnon]

Voices of realism and economic utilitarianism are always welcome.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Voices of realism and economic utilitarianism are always welcome.

I thought the economy of this city ran on unicorn farts?