Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

The grey areas outlined on these two pages seem to show that the removal of the viaducts and rebuilding Pacific Blvd as a two-way street on a northern alignment is much closer to reality than anyone thought during the recent open houses.

Anyone else feel that last weeks' open houses were just a necessary song'n'dance to let people think that the decision to pull the viaducts isn't a fait accompli?

Come now, anyone following the standard m.o. of Mayor Moonebam and Vision Vancouver could hardly be surprised.

This is exactly the same tack taken with the bike lane "trial", Shannon Mews upzoning, Rize-Alliance Mt. Pleasant project etc etc. Hold a sham public hearing to pretend they care what the people think, then go ahead and do whatever they want. That's how they roll.

[logan5]

I'm surprised nobody has brought up the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco, or maybe it's not a fair comparison. The Embarcadero Freeway was an elevated structure that carried 70 000 vehicles per day and was removed and replaced with a boulevard. There was huge opposition to its removal, the mayor at the time, Art Agnos, lost an election because of it. The removal of the Embarcadero Freeway is now heralded as one the best things to happen to San Francisco. In 2006 Art Agnos' actions were commemorated.

I don't think it's a coincidence that other cities are looking for ways to get rid of their elevated roadways. Seattle is removing the Alaska Way Viaduct, Toronto is looking at the removal of a section of the Gardiner Expressway that cuts off its waterfront. St. Louis is looking at replacing their section of downtown freeway with a grand blvrd. The Bronx in New York wants to do the same thing, and there are probably lots of other examples.

There must be something very beneficial to the removal of elevated highway structures because everyone wants to do it, or are these cities secretly run by Mayor Moonbeam?

Edit - Even Tokyo is planning the removal of the Metropolitan Expressway.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by logan5

I'm surprised nobody has brought up the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco, or maybe it's not a fair comparison. The Embarcadero Freeway was an elevated structure that carried 70 000 vehicles per day and was removed and replaced with a boulevard. There was huge opposition to its removal, the mayor at the time, Art Agnos, lost an election because of it. The removal of the Embarcadero Freeway is now heralded as one the best things to happen to San Francisco. In 2006 Art Agnos' actions were commemorated.

I don't think it's a coincidence that other cities are looking for ways to get rid of their elevated roadways. Seattle is removing the Alaska Way Viaduct, Toronto is looking at the removal of a section of the Gardiner Expressway that cuts off its waterfront. St. Louis is looking at replacing their section of downtown freeway with a grand blvrd. The Bronx in New York wants to do the same thing, and there are probably lots of other examples.

There must be something very beneficial to the removal of elevated highway structures because everyone wants to do it, or are these cities secretly run by Mayor Moonbeam?

Edit - Even Tokyo is planning the removal of the Metropolitan Expressway.

There's a huge difference between elevated expressways going through a city and Vancouver's viaducts which can easily be built around and integrated into thr urban fabric.

[xd_1771]

Like I said: This isn't a double decker viaduct across a waterfront we're talking about here.

I'm also curious as to whether any of these (downtown?) areas are as geographically constrained and challenged as Vancouver's is.

Should be noted: the Tokyo plan will move the expressway underground; same with Seattle; possibly the same with Toronto. In St. Louis, I-70 will be rerouted to a different corridor.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Like I said: This isn't a double decker viaduct across a waterfront we're talking about here.

I'm also curious as to whether any of these (downtown?) areas are as geographically constrained and challenged as Vancouver's is.

Whether it's a waterfront or two neighborhoods, the point is, these structures create a disconnection between two places.

The Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco had 70 000 vehicles per day vs. our viaducts 40 000, so I would say there was actually more of a challenge in San Francisco, which is as dense as Vancouver.

Another case is the Cheonggye Freeway in Seoul, South Korea. This elevated freeway carried 120 000 vehicles per day in a city that is obviously much more constrained than Vancouver. Its capacity was replaced by a BRT route. By all accounts, the city is better off.

There's a huge difference between elevated expressways going through a city and Vancouver's viaducts which can easily be built around and integrated into thr urban fabric.

I'm not sure what the point is here.

The much larger scope of these other successful projects demonstrates how technically easy it would be to remove the viaducts. Each city where this has been done has reported an improved environment as a result. Whether the viaducts run through 1 neighborhood or 10 neighborhoods really shouldn't matter.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by logan5

I'm surprised nobody has brought up the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco, or maybe it's not a fair comparison. The Embarcadero Freeway was an elevated structure that carried 70 000 vehicles per day and was removed and replaced with a boulevard. There was huge opposition to its removal, the mayor at the time, Art Agnos, lost an election because of it. The removal of the Embarcadero Freeway is now heralded as one the best things to happen to San Francisco. In 2006 Art Agnos' actions were commemorated.

I don't think it's a coincidence that other cities are looking for ways to get rid of their elevated roadways. Seattle is removing the Alaska Way Viaduct, Toronto is looking at the removal of a section of the Gardiner Expressway that cuts off its waterfront. St. Louis is looking at replacing their section of downtown freeway with a grand blvrd. The Bronx in New York wants to do the same thing, and there are probably lots of other examples.

There must be something very beneficial to the removal of elevated highway structures because everyone wants to do it, or are these cities secretly run by Mayor Moonbeam?

Edit - Even Tokyo is planning the removal of the Metropolitan Expressway.

I'm pretty sure it's been brought up a number of times.

Seattle's was proven to be structurally unsound after the Nisqually earthquake. They we're a hideous, but liked enough to pass a referendum funding a $3,100,000,000 replacement.

The Embarcadero Fwy was very similar to the Viaducts in that it was a stub, but actually connected to a freeway system. Again, earthquake caused them the be condemned, and they never managed to connect up to the 101. Not so useful and yet again a hideous structure.

The Viaducts are there basically because downtown used to basically be an island, and still is pretty damn narrow at that point. It effectively makes the choke point wider, which is particularly handy if you live right beside them. Same as the original viaduct that came before these ones.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

The Viaducts are there basically because downtown used to basically be an island, and still is pretty damn narrow at that point. It effectively makes the choke point wider, which is particularly handy if you live right beside them. Same as the original viaduct that came before these ones.

Well no, that's not true at all. The original viaducts and the current ones were both built because there used to be a rail yard below them and the only way to provide an eastbound connection from downtown was to go over it. It's exactly the same reason for the bridge on 1st Avenue west of Clark Drive.

But the rail yards that spawned the viaducts are long gone now...

[jlousa]

Yet the escarpment remains, so a method of climbling ~40+ft is needed, the city seems to think a single steep ramp with increased surface traffic is preferable to the exisiting solution of two viaducts.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Yet the escarpment remains, so a method of climbling ~40+ft is needed, the city seems to think a single steep ramp with increased surface traffic is preferable to the exisiting solution of two viaducts.

That last part is the bit that really confuses me. What is the advantage of putting all that traffic at grade? I was skeptical of the Halcrow conclusions, but at least they tied their recommendations to a realistic time frame and the creation of substantial new transit.

According to this plan, as I understand it, the changes will result in 40,000+ car trips a day on the new surface road, with the excess diverted onto the surrounding street grid. Even Meggs isn't suggesting otherwise. (If, as I suspect, that estimated volume is based on assessments done during the Olympics, the actual volume will be much higher.) How is that a good thing? What do people think all that new park space will be like with that kind of road going through it?

If the viaducts had been damaged, and the issue was whether to spend a substantial amount of money to repair them, I think there might be a legitimate debate. But to propose spending $80 million to bring about that result seems bizarre. IMO, at least.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by DKaz

That's what you get when you 128 million people live in a country that's roughly half the size of British Columbia.

Side note, when I was in Japan, a friend drove about 100km to hang out with me, she had to pay $22 in tolls each way. She decided to take the train next time lol.

BC has a lot in common with Japan, actually.

It isn't so much the population of Japan that's the problem, but the amount of habitable land. 80% of the country is mountains. The major difference is Japan is a more temperate country due to it being further south.

In BC, there are multiple mountain ranges with a few areas of arable habitable land as well.

According to the sources I've found:

Japan is very mountainous and has about 11% arable land (~43,000 km2)
BC is 75% mountains, and only 3% arable land (~28,000 km2)

Much of Japan's population live in three areas:

Tokyo: 30M
Osaka: 16M
Nagoya: 9M
The Rest: 70M

So, it's very similar to BC, which has more than half most of its population in the Fraser Valley / Victoria

As for the viaducts, I don't see a huge benefit from removing them, except for developers... who will simply replace them with tall expensive condos.

Personally, I think that land will be a whole lot more useful when the viaducts near their end of life. We've just come off a HUGE buildout of Vancouver and we're not leaving any room for the future if we tear those down.

Imagine if we'd had this huge buildout in the 70s instead of now. We'd now be stuck with some very dated (dare I say ugly) concrete buildings covering Yaletown.

Having architecture slowly built up over decades seems like a wise move to me.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Having architecture slowly built up over decades seems like a wise move to me.

Yes, building fewer condos now is the answer to Vancouver's housing problems....

That argument drives me crazy, especially when the same people alternately complain about high prices.

We are still going to be building and densifying hundreds of years from now, barring other limiting factors. We are not all of a sudden going to be stuck at an architectural standstill.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Yes, building fewer condos now is the answer to Vancouver's housing problems....

That argument drives me crazy, especially when the same people alternately complain about high prices.

We are still going to be building and densifying hundreds of years from now, barring other limiting factors. We are not all of a sudden going to be stuck at an architectural standstill.

You don't think that Vancouver's housing problems have to do with supply, do you? There is a massive inventory of unsold properties on the market. Supply is not a problem and is not the answer to reduce Vancouver's housing prices. There's lots of land available.

My point, however, was that this land will be more valuable when the viaducts reach EOL and the city has grown considerably. Who knows what the city will need close to its downtown core when it is double the size?

If we're only concerned about density and building more housing, there is plenty of room to densify the broadway corridor, the Kingsway corridor, 41st, etc.

What's the rush?
Where's the vision?

[st7860]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

You don't think that Vancouver's housing problems have to do with supply, do you? There is a massive inventory of unsold properties on the market. Supply is not a problem and is not the answer to reduce Vancouver's housing prices. There's lots of land available.

My point, however, was that this land will be more valuable when the viaducts reach EOL and the city has grown considerably. Who knows what the city will need close to its downtown core when it is double the size?

If we're only concerned about density and building more housing, there is plenty of room to densify the broadway corridor, the Kingsway corridor, 41st, etc.

What's the rush?
Where's the vision?

The City could solve its housing problems almost overnight if

a) the aforementioned areas you mentioned were densified
b) developers were allowed to build micro suites

but a + b won't happen anytime soon because voters wouldn't go for it.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

You don't think that Vancouver's housing problems have to do with supply, do you? There is a massive inventory of unsold properties on the market. Supply is not a problem and is not the answer to reduce Vancouver's housing prices. There's lots of land available.

My point, however, was that this land will be more valuable when the viaducts reach EOL and the city has grown considerably. Who knows what the city will need close to its downtown core when it is double the size?

If we're only concerned about density and building more housing, there is plenty of room to densify the broadway corridor, the Kingsway corridor, 41st, etc.

What's the rush?
Where's the vision?

So you believe that building fewer condos has no effect upon prices? Really?

More desirable areas become developed in advance of less desirable areas. That is just an inevitablity.

There is a vision. You disagree with it and that is fine.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

The grey areas outlined on these two pages seem to show that the removal of the viaducts and rebuilding Pacific Blvd as a two-way street on a northern alignment is much closer to reality than anyone thought during the recent open houses.

Anyone else feel that last weeks' open houses were just a necessary song'n'dance to let people think that the decision to pull the viaducts isn't a fait accompli?

Someone in the City thinks this is a done deal, otherwise why include the two-way Pacific Blvd and the two-way Georgia Street extension? They could have just as easily drawn in the shaded areas as 'proposed' and 'option to purchase' without changing Pacific Blvd or including the intersection with the Georgia Street extension.

Yeah, I found it interesting that the only plans included were the future non-viaduct layout. Typically I would expect an existing plan with areas shaded.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Well no, that's not true at all. The original viaducts and the current ones were both built because there used to be a rail yard below them and the only way to provide an eastbound connection from downtown was to go over it. It's exactly the same reason for the bridge on 1st Avenue west of Clark Drive.

But the rail yards that spawned the viaducts are long gone now...

1898 Map

Portions of the DTES are built on filled in mud flats. The portions of the flats were backfilled by Chinese settlers prior to the rest of the false creek flats being settled. In the 1898 map you can see that at least 2 separate water bodies need crossing along the old Georgia viaduct route.

At Columbia, the width of the peninsula between False Creek and Burrard Inlet on the map is about half of of what it is at this point. The water is almost at Alexander St. in the North. and just South of Pender St. in the South.

I've read that on very high tides water would flow from False Creek into Burrard Inlet prior to the first backfilling.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

So you believe that building fewer condos has no effect upon prices? Really?

More desirable areas become developed in advance of less desirable areas. That is just an inevitablity.

There is a vision. You disagree with it and that is fine.

I believe that whether the area around the viaducts is used for homes is not related to prices. After all, if they comes down, who's to say it will be used for that purpose?

As I stated before, save that valuable land for a future unknown use when the viaducts are actually at EOL. There are plenty of places to densify in Vancouver.

What I DO question is that the record high prices we are seeing now are solely due to some supply problem. Really? There's been enough talk out there (even in the media) about real estate in Canada being on the cusp of a correction that solely blaming lack of density for high prices is rather silly.

Likewise, the idea that allowing micro-suites will miraculously reduce the average cost is silly. If anything, micro-suites will have a higher cost psf and encourage people to part with more of their money for even less space.

I think you WILL, however, see the other areas densified, but many developers won't go near those more risky development areas if the viaducts come down. Properties near downtown have a much higher profit potential.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

1898 MapIn the 1898 map you can see that at least 2 separate water bodies need crossing along the old Georgia viaduct route.

My copy of "Vancouver - A Visual History" (written by Bruce MacDonald, published by TalonBooks in 1992) shows that the area under the original viaduct had been filled in by 1910 when it was built. And water was certainly not an issue when it was replaced by the modern viaducts.

[officedweller]

I think the escarpment would be the main problem - same as on the Burrard Inlet side - otherwise wouldn't Burrard Street run down a steep hill to the water instead of being on a viaduct?

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

My copy of "Vancouver - A Visual History" (written by Bruce MacDonald, published by TalonBooks in 1992) shows that the area under the original viaduct had been filled in by 1910 when it was built. And water was certainly not an issue when it was replaced by the modern viaducts.

You can still see water underneath the viaducts here in 1926 at Columbia St. and in several photos here.