Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Millennium2002]

Given that he sees the viaduct removal to be one of his next possible famous personal achievements, more likely than not he's going to spin things around his own way so that it becomes true in the end.

[s211]

Originally Posted by whatnext

There's a huge difference between a weekend closure and permanent removal. I thought even Meggs had (just) enough intelligence to understand that. Apparently not.

Come on. Meggs' whole pitch was that the Olympics are/were the new normal, and therefore the viaducts are dust. At least he's being consistent when he tries to draw parallels.

That's not a defense of that monkey, BTW. ANYTHING BUT.

[aberdeen5698]

To start with, I support keeping the viaducts until their end-of-life. We paid for the infrastructure, it seems senseless to me to demolish it before we've gotten the maximum benefit from it.

But that having been said, the impacts of removing vehicle capacity are almost always a lot less severe than car advocates fear. The classic example of this was the destruction of the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Yes, it caused a lot of problems initially, but by the time the city came to the point of deciding what to do everyone had adjusted their travel patterns and ultimately the decision was made NOT to rebuild it.

Another example from the opposite point of view was the 4-month Translink strike in 2001. Total gridlock was predicted as hundreds of thousands of people who normally take transit sought out other means of transport. Again, people changed their habits and "carmaggedon" failed to materialize.

People adjust and life goes on.

[p78hub]

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/256449--vancouver-without-viaducts-up-for-debate

Vancouver without viaducts up for debate

VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - You're going to get your say on the future of Vancouver's Northeast False Creek, and whether the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts should be torn down. The City of Vancouver is holding public meetings next Tuesday morning as part of a $300,000 study.

Strange that the story doesn't mention where the meetings will be held.

[logan5]

Pretty run of the mill opinion.

My vote is to tear them down. Really all they are is a 1 km expressway to stop and go traffic. I believe Pacific/Expo could easily be reconfigured to handle the extra volume.

The ramps sit on 2 large city blocks that could house at least a couple thousand people that would inject more life into the DTES and Citygate, as well as tying the 2 neighborhoods together.

I consider the viaducts an urban cancer.

[Metro-One]

So what is your plan then with Georgia street and the escarpment? Are you going to have our primary ceremonial highest traffic volume street dead end?

Also, the plan is not to reconfigure Pacific and Expo to handle the traffic, but indeed decrease their traffic volume into neighborhood streets...

So what then, jam all that extra traffic onto Hastings and Water street? Yeah, that will be great for that areas pedestrian revival.

Especially when considering that the trams will remove more surface lanes when built (no problem there for me, as long as the viaducts are still around).

Again, only an urban cancer because they have allowed to be that way, so much creative stuff can be done to incorporate them. The skate park and the area between GM place and Stadium station are a perfect example interesting, unique urban environments. (year round as well considering how they are sheltered from the rain)

Also they do not act as a start and stop, they do connect to a wider regional transportation / road network. Again, how else would you connect the east end of Georgia?

Also, jlousa has posted on here time and again how tearing these structures down will add next to zero new residents in the area in the concern for density, since until this argument came up all of the condo visions made worked around the viaducts, in rather interesting ways.

So again, this is just being used as symbol, a poster child project for Meggs.

[logan5]

I haven't followed this too closely so what am I missing here? The ramps sit on an area about 3/4 the size of the OV. How can that not add density if it's developed? And is there not the option to have ramps from Dunmuir/Georgia onto Expo/Pacific?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by p78hub

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/256449--vancouver-without-viaducts-up-for-debate

Vancouver without viaducts up for debate

Strange that the story doesn't mention where the meetings will be held.

Wow, a whole weeks notice. Typical Vision Vancouver m.o., hold it in the middle of the summer and barely allow time for sufficient public input. Now we just need Andrea Reimer to send out a tweet to stuff it with their acolytes and the circle will be complete.

And, as usual, Meggs his talking out his *ss. Saying the viaducts cut Chinatown off from the downtown core shows a laughably poor grasp of geography.

[p78hub]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Saying the viaducts cut Chinatown off from the downtown core shows a laughably poor grasp of geography.

Oh wow, I just noticed that. The only thing that Chinatown is separated from by the viaducts is er.... Science World.

[jlousa]

Removing them doesn't add density, reading the whole thread I've explained it. Here goes again. An area is allowed an FSR, lets be generous and say this area could handle an FSR of 5.0. Which is 5 times the sqftage of the entire area. This is a number much higher then within SEFC or the West end.
That FSR of 5.0 can be fit in with the viaducts in place. Example Specturm, the proposal for Rogers Arena towers etc. The remaining sites can still house an FSR of 5.0, if you knocked down the viaducts you would still only be allowed to build the same sqftage. There is zero gain in density, the only gain you would obtain is more freedom in how to configure that sqftage. Hence keeping them in place will provide the exact same amount of residential units as tearing them down.
Do not forget that Expo/Pacific are also earmarked for the Streetcar line which will reduce it's own car carrying capacity.
I to this day fail to see how the viaducts cut off Chinatown from D.T., in fact with the viaducts removed that would reduce access, as right now they drop you off on Main St.
Also fail to see how they cut off the DTES from the waterfront as Abbott, Carrell and Columbia all continue straight thru, there isn't a single connection cut off by the viaducts. If we remove them and turn Pacific/Expo into higher traffic roads that would do more to create an barrier.
This is Meggs solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

[invisibleairwaves]

Originally Posted by p78hub

Oh wow, I just noticed that. The only thing that Chinatown is separated from by the viaducts is er.... Science World.

And even then it's only "separated" in the sense that you have to walk under an overpass to get there, along mostly calm roads with wide sidewalks.

I really can't wrap my head around the "barrier" argument that Meggs keeps throwing out with relation to the viaducts. The whole point of elevated viaducts is that they put traffic on a different grade, allowing a calmer, pedestrian-friendly environment underneath. Busy surface streets like Terminal Avenue are a much bigger obstacle to pedestrian traffic than the viaducts are, which is exactly why the viaducts should be extended (Malkin Connector) rather than removed. If the area under the viaducts is hostile to pedestrians, it's the CoV's fault for not building proper pedestrian facilities underneath, rather than some intrinsic flaw of the viaducts themselves.

[jlousa]

Oh wow it gets better.

At the same meeting Council is recommending that Hastings be reduced to 30km/hr from Jackson until Abbott.
Good to see it noted in the report that although one of VPD's top goals is the reduction of traffic fatalities in the city, they are not endorsing this proposal.

However, the VPD does not support this report’s recommendation for a 30km/h speed zone along Hastings St. Collision data suggest that the majority of pedestrian fatalities are a result of pedestrians entering the roadway when unsafe and, to a lesser extent, inattentive drivers. Speed is not the primary contributing factor in most incidents, and daytime traffic flow along this major arterial route is typically less than 50 km/h. Furthermore, the posting of additional traffic restrictions in this area of the city will result in a significant increase in traffic complaints and citizens’ requests for enforcement. Unfortunately, strategic priorities and staffing levels significantly reduce our capacity to conduct effect enforcement in this area. The VPD would be supportive of engineering alternatives that don’t require increased police enforcement to reduce pedestrian/traffic collisions in this area.

Just want to clarify I'm car-free and I still think this is insane.

[logan5]

The area between Quebec and Gore, where the ramps are, look to be difficult to develop with the viaduct in place. And the area between Taylor and Quebec looks to be undevelopable as well. Sorry I'm not seeing it.

[touraccuracy]

without reading 89 pages, this seems like a pretty solid point.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

So what is your plan then with Georgia street and the escarpment? Are you going to have our primary ceremonial highest traffic volume street dead end?

[jlousa]

There is no Taylor there it stops at Keefer due to the park. If you mean the block between Carrall and Columbia(Quebec) I've previously shown that you could build 3 towers (up to the viewcone limit) over a short podium easily overshooting the maximum allowable FSR.

East of Main you could build the entire length of Union (probably up to 10 stories to keep with the area), you could build along 85% of Gore st, and ~50% of Prior St, not to mention add retail to Main St under the viaducts. Again you would not gain any additional density, just the ability to reshape it.

[logan5]

OK thanks for explaining it again.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Oh wow it gets better.

At the same meeting Council is recommending that Hastings be reduced to 30km/hr from Jackson until Abbott.
Good to see it noted in the report that although one of VPD's top goals is the reduction of traffic fatalities in the city, they are not endorsing this proposal.

Just want to clarify I'm car-free and I still think this is insane.

The junkie protection rule.

Never has this city had such an idealogically blinkered Council. Just a reminder election day is 4 months from this past Tuesday.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Oh wow it gets better.

At the same meeting Council is recommending that Hastings be reduced to 30km/hr from Jackson until Abbott.
Good to see it noted in the report that although one of VPD's top goals is the reduction of traffic fatalities in the city, they are not endorsing this proposal.



Just want to clarify I'm car-free and I still think this is insane.

The average speed during the day is definately less than 50km/hr already simply because the light timings on Hastings are some of the worst outside of Coquitlam (which has the worst intersection light timings in Metro Vancouver). You simply can't go 3 blocks without hitting at least 2 red lights. And with 0 to no left turn lanes anywhere, and buses, it's a horrible street to drive.

Viaducts should stay in place. I don't think they'll ever get rid of them. Not if they don't want to see even more businesses vacate downtown Vancouver like they have been and moving out to Burnaby or Surrey.

[racc]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Removing them doesn't add density, reading the whole thread I've explained it. Here goes again. An area is allowed an FSR, lets be generous and say this area could handle an FSR of 5.0. Which is 5 times the sqftage of the entire area. This is a number much higher then within SEFC or the West end.
That FSR of 5.0 can be fit in with the viaducts in place. Example Specturm, the proposal for Rogers Arena towers etc. The remaining sites can still house an FSR of 5.0, if you knocked down the viaducts you would still only be allowed to build the same sqftage. There is zero gain in density, the only gain you would obtain is more freedom in how to configure that sqftage. Hence keeping them in place will provide the exact same amount of residential units as tearing them down.

What bafflegab. It is pretty obvious that the Viaducts occupy a significant amount of land. If the Viaducts were torn down, the city could sell this land and it could then be rezoned providing much more density in the area.

[s211]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Wow, a whole weeks notice. Typical Vision Vancouver m.o., hold it in the middle of the summer and barely allow time for sufficient public input. Now we just need Andrea Reimer to send out a tweet to stuff it with their acolytes and the circle will be complete.

And, as usual, Meggs his talking out his *ss. Saying the viaducts cut Chinatown off from the downtown core shows a laughably poor grasp of geography.

QFT. (Di)vision Vancouver strikes again.