Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[s211]

Originally Posted by IanS

Well, if nothing else, the Report and Meggs' efforts to have the viaducts removed have stimulated a vigorous debate on this forum and elsewhere.

Spend a boat load of my tax money on a wasteful PARTISAN-DRIVEN study and it's OK because it stimulates debate ?!?!?!?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by s211

Spend a boat load of my tax money on a wasteful PARTISAN-DRIVEN study and it's OK because it stimulates debate ?!?!?!?

Heh. Well, the money's spent.. may as well try to imagine some useful result.

[Porfiry]

Debate underscores the point that a clear consensus does not yet exist, largely because there's insufficient clarity around the options and the consequences. The study will hopefully bring precision to both.

[Metro-One]

What annoys me about the study as from what I have seen so far is it has not included anything in how to properly integrate the structures into the urban fabric via all the options that have been mentioned here by myself and others (interesting building designs, plazas, night markets, parks, bikeways, malls, etc...) its only question is, how can we tear them down.

The study was initiated by a man who already has it in his head that he wants these viaducts gone. That is what urks me. If this study was initiated by the city engineering department or translink, and the question was not just should we tear them down, but also how can we effectively integrate them in creating an interesting neighborhood, then I feel it would have a lot more validity.

I have not seen a single slide or memo in any of their presentations so far regarding what can be done with them existing, instead all we have been shown is dilapidated viaducts that have been torn down. Very bias if you ask me, just as bias as the casino debate, if not worse.

And the problem again is this was not a problem until Meggs brought it up, all this energy could have been used in researching how to make Water street pedestrian only, or how to get rid of the dumpsters and create some alley arcades, etc..

Before this "debate" was brought up concord and other companies were introducing some really innovative designs in how they were going to build around the ducts, now they are all just rubbing their hands so they can make a few extra dollars and put up some more bland cookie cutter condos with them gone.

It should also be noted that before this "debate" was brought up the city engineering department was actually planning on building upon the viaducts via the Malkin connector. So it seems to me the transportation professionals who are not involved in the politics saw the viaducts as a tool for Vancouver to use. Also, all these professors they bring in against the ducts are just as wishy washy and bias as the 'professors" rail for the valley is able to find against skytrain along Broadway.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

What annoys me about the study as from what I have seen so far...

Unless you've seen a prerelease document, you haven't seen anything so far.

What's come out in the media is that there are four options, one of which is a status quo option and the other three are incremental repurposing, entirely dependent on transportation mode shifts over the next 20+ years.

The fate of the viaducts will be determined over the course of a generation, the idea that one voice controls that destiny is absurd and paranoid.

[Metro-One]

Yes, so paranoid, hmm, so strange that all the presentations / open houses so far have been essentially anti-viaducts... yes, very balanced approach. And again, I have seen nothing in regards on how to integrate them in the city fabric.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Yes, so paranoid, hmm, so strange that all the presentations / open houses so far have been essentially anti-viaducts... yes, very balanced approach. And again, I have seen nothing in regards on how to integrate them in the city fabric.

Because, as you point out, the cabal behind the study has no interest in integrating them into the urban fabric. Talk of "incremental repurposing" aside, its clear what they really want is the ludicrous option of cul-de-sacing Georgia and Dunsmuir at the escarpment.

Their blind hatred of the private car motivates them. You can see that thinking parotted here by their acolytes who assume that everyone should and could live as a downtown single person living two blocks from their workplace does.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Because, as you point out, the cabal behind the study has no interest in integrating them into the urban fabric. Talk of "incremental repurposing" aside, its clear what they really want is the ludicrous option of cul-de-sacing Georgia and Dunsmuir at the escarpment.

Their blind hatred of the private car motivates them. You can see that thinking parotted here by their acolytes who assume that everyone should and could live as a downtown single person living two blocks from their workplace does.

You summed the whole planning "process" in this region to a "T" right there. Bravo.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Because, as you point out, the cabal behind the study has no interest in integrating them into the urban fabric.

Three of the four options under consideration retain some or all of the viaduct structure.

[s211]

Originally Posted by IanS

Heh. Well, the money's spent.. may as well try to imagine some useful result.

The only possible useful result would be the exposure of Meggs and Robertson for what they truly are: left-wing fascists.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Three of the four options under consideration retain some or all of the viaduct structure.

Fair enough.

Now I ask you, all ideology aside etc, do you honestly believe the parties pushing this are seeking nothing less than the total removal of the viaducts? And do you feel terminating the east end of Georgia and/or Dunsmuir is good urban planning?

For myself, I accept that the bike lanes on the viaducts are here to stay and that as (hopefully) transit options increase that the area given over to private vehicles on the two structures may well decrease. However, I will never accept that removing them and creating cul de sacs is desirable.

[Zassk]

Good points raised. Why isn't Water Street or Hastings Street considered in this study?

A truly unbiased study would have considered options to leverage the viaducts to relieve other corridors, in addition to the four options previously mentioned.

Does anyone really think that we can rehabilitate the DTES without removing some commuter traffic from Hastings?

Aren't the viaducts crucial to any such project?

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Unless you've seen a prerelease document, you haven't seen anything so far.

What's come out in the media is that there are four options, one of which is a status quo option and the other three are incremental repurposing, entirely dependent on transportation mode shifts over the next 20+ years.

The fate of the viaducts will be determined over the course of a generation, the idea that one voice controls that destiny is absurd and paranoid.

Right, which is why it is a biased study. It is either status quo vs their ideas. Not an all encompassing study approaching the topic of what is the best solution overall. There is no talk of putting things under, around, or over them. There is no talk of utilizing the viaducts to improve the city. The study is only approaching it from one angle.

So the study is not looking for the BEST thing to do; it is only looking to see if it is it better to do option A or nothing. It ignores all other options out there. And usually when you compare nothing to something, something looks better.

[3D Ninja]

Not sure if it's been posted, but re:place has a 3 part (past, present, future) series on the viaducts:
http://regardingplace.com/

[deasine]

Originally Posted by 3D Ninja

Not sure if it's been posted, but re:place has a 3 part (past, present, future) series on the viaducts:
http://regardingplace.com/

I actually haven't read it but I do like the idea. Thanks for posting this. Really great concept.

[geoff's two cents]

I'm skeptical of the pictures that show brand-new condos magically integrated with hundred-year-old forest habitat, but certainly like the fact that at least some people (outside this forum) have moved beyond the take-them-down-cars-🞵🞵🞵🞵/leave-them-up-cars-rule debate.

I also like the fact that these concepts are considering leaving the majority of the space underneath the 'ducts as public/park space, as I think aesthetically-pleasing green space is the one ingredient currently missing from the area, and increased height allowances in Chinatown/Gastown to the north and condo construction in that no-man's-land west of Rogers Arena/BC Place can only render such "destination" green spaces more attractive and/or necessary.

For my part, I'm for just about any concept that plans Abbott (and possibly Carrall) as entertainment destination streets, with suitable zoning above street-level - hotels/hostels, clubs, office, residences for upper stories, etc. - and leaves the rest as public parkland with well-lit paths, shade-friendly vegetation, etc. Imaginative connections with the sidewalks and bike lanes on the ducts above would be an added bonus, as would long-term consideration of some sort of canal along one of these streets linking False Creek and Burrard Inlet (per that otherwise wrong-headed article cited elsewhere on this forum).

One way or another, as Metro and others have commented, successful planning for this area will definitely require thinking outside the box. Too many residences will mean merely replicating Coal Harbor, and the city, imo, really needs a concentrated, non-Yaletown-esque entertainment district that caters to the over-25 crowd. As such, the city might even consider eliminating that no-fun, no-patios-open-after-11pm bylaw for this area only. Being trapped inside loud bars after that hour, when one would rather have a meaningful conversation over drinks, is one of my biggest pet peeves with this city.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by s211

The only possible useful result would be the exposure of Meggs and Robertson for what they truly are: left-wing fascists.

Oh come off it. Fascists? Really?

There honestly haven't been all that many fascist governments in history and they've all been within the last century, so it isn't hard to look to examples of what a fascist government and society look like. I'm at a loss to find parallels between Vancouver over the last few years and 1930s Italy, Germany, and Spain. I must have missed our kristallnacht, night of long knives, or Blackshirt-backed coup d'etat.

Do you genuinely mean fascism or is that hyperbole?

[SpikePhanta]

^^ Yeah Leftwing Facists? That's somewhat of an oxymoron, not to mention some oldpeople would be absolutely disgusted at comparing NaziGermany and MussoliniItaly with society today.

[geoff's two cents]

Don't feed the trolls.

[dreambrother808]

It's only a democracy when your side wins.