Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

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

Yes, it does seem that those photos show water under one span. However I note the panoramas which reveal that it's only a tiny fraction of the entire structure - the major obstacle that the viaduct spanned was all of the rail yards below.

And again, water was not an issue when the new viaducts were built - the obstacle in the 1970's was still the rail yards.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

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.

I don't know who's arguing that this is solely due to a supply problem. Rather my point was that reducing supply would exacerbate the issue.

[jlousa]

With the talk about the plans for the Rogers arena tower only showing plans for a viaduct free Vancouver well before any decision has been made by council on their future I starting having a case of Deja-vu. Then it hit me. Way back in Dec 2008 at the NEFC high level open house they had a presenation board which way back then already showed Pacific as a two-way street. When I questioned staff on it I was told it was an error. Looking back now it seems a tad suspicious and makes you wonder how long the viaduct removal has been in the works.

Originally Posted by jlousa

Okay here goes, I got soaked and probably sick but it was worth it.

What the city wanted in sqftage

residential 1.4M
Commercial 350K
Public space 80K

What Canadian Metropolian is proposing is

Residential 1.4M
Commercial 700k (350K More)
Public space 67K (13K less)

Public accessibly ice rink + 14K indoor space (~100K)

All in all it's a very impressive proposal, here's the readers digest version

Ice rink building would be next to Coopers lookout and have two towers over it. There are 7 towers in total with the highest being ~30Stories. The more interesting proposal is two 30 stories towers along Pacific connected via a 6 storey bridge at the very top. To be honest as interesting as it looks I'm not a big fan of it.
The Plaza would be where Enterprise Hall is today, so at the southern end of the property, it would be ~48K sqft and large enough for 4000 people.
Seawall will finally be along the water's edge there instead of cutting inwards.
The Expo forest on the West side of Enterprise Hall ~10K will remain, while the Expo forest on the East side will disappear as will the building which currently houses Gossip.
The Presentation boards will be released tomorrow afternoon, the image of Pac Blvd being bi-directional are wrong though, it will remain as is but with traffic calming in place. The Streetcar is envisioned to run along the south side of the street until the stadium and then transfer over to the north side.
The steps down Georgia will connect across via a street level crossing and include another mini plaza at the waters edge.

If everything goes smoothly rezoning could occur next year, with shovels in the ground not expected until 2012 at the earliest.

The Ice rink will be for the Canucks and visiting teams from 8am-11am when they require it. Apparently the NHLPA regulates practice times to only those hours. All other times, or when the team isn't in town the rink would be available for use by the public. The Canucks would also have 3-4 stories of commercial office space above the rink.

Link to post
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5086286&postcount=264

unfortunately the presentation boards are no longer on the city website...

[logan5]

Originally Posted by jlousa

With the talk about the plans for the Rogers arena tower only showing plans for a viaduct free Vancouver well before any decision has been made by council on their future I starting having a case of Deja-vu. Then it hit me. Way back in Dec 2008 at the NEFC high level open house they had a presenation board which way back then already showed Pacific as a two-way street. When I questioned staff on it I was told it was an error. Looking back now it seems a tad suspicious and makes you wonder how long the viaduct removal has been in the works.

You're probably right. The removal of the viaducts has probably been talked about almost as soon as it was realized there would be no Vancouver Freeway. Our little piece of America.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

I don't know who's arguing that this is solely due to a supply problem. Rather my point was that reducing supply would exacerbate the issue.

Good thing there are no planned demolitions that would reduce supply then, eh?

Besides, reserving the space under the viaducts for other future uses does not reduce supply, it simply shifts it. Arterial roads take up room just as viaducts do... so it's likely any effects would be minimal. Keeping the viaducts would also force us to use the land creatively. There would less temptation to make condos in this area luxury condos and in general may ironically make the area more affordable for your average Vancouverite.

On another note, I think supply has played a very minor role in Vancouver's frenzied price rise over the past several years. Fear, low interest rates, loose lending standards and other economic factors have played a much larger role. We have seen the same run-up in many cities across Canada, even in places where supply is not constrained.

I'm sure most would definitely agree with you that reducing supply probably would increase prices somewhat. That's basic supply and demand. However, I don't personally think Vancouver has any major supply problem and it's not like developers would stop building elsewhere just because we don't build a few extra units in the NEFC.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jlousa

With the talk about the plans for the Rogers arena tower only showing plans for a viaduct free Vancouver well before any decision has been made by council on their future I starting having a case of Deja-vu. Then it hit me. Way back in Dec 2008 at the NEFC high level open house they had a presenation board which way back then already showed Pacific as a two-way street. When I questioned staff on it I was told it was an error. Looking back now it seems a tad suspicious and makes you wonder how long the viaduct removal has been in the works.

It could be a different scenario though - I remember when the Casino proposal was going through - I could have sworn that the renders showed Pacific being two-way right up to the Casino.

Interesting that this new Georgia St. ramp could potentially prevent two-way-ing to the Casino.

The Casino plans get announced August 1.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Yes, it does seem that those photos show water under one span. However I note the panoramas which reveal that it's only a tiny fraction of the entire structure - the major obstacle that the viaduct spanned was all of the rail yards below.

And again, water was not an issue when the new viaducts were built - the obstacle in the 1970's was still the rail yards.

You're missing my point still, the viaducts add capacity to an area with a natural choke point.

In other news, canvassers have started walking around Strathcona petitioning against the changes and I didn't even have to do anything.

[red-paladin]

Looks like the viaducts are just part of the wider plans....

Granville Street Bridge a candidate for two-lane greenway
By Kate Webb
Metro Vancouver



City engineers want to take advantage of extra capacity on the Granville Street Bridge by installing a two-lane greenway for cyclists and pedestrians in the middle of it as early as 2015.

The proposal is subject to further study and consultation as part of the city’s draft Transportation 2040 plan, which will be presented to council for approval in October. So far the greenway is just a concept, but transportation director Jerry Dobrovolny said repurposing the centre of the bridge at some point in the next few years would be an efficient move.

“It’s actually quite a practical approach, because the bridge has off-ramps on either side, so doing something on either Howe or Seymour would result in a significant reduction in capacity,” he told Metro........

From:Metro News

[WarrenC12]

Better idea that getting rid of the viaducts.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Better idea that getting rid of the viaducts.

Damning with faint praise.

But true nonetheless.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by IanS

Damning with faint praise.

But true nonetheless.

Well, to expand a little, I think the capacity is there on the Granville bridge, and it would be a nice walk, but it's a bit like a bridge to nowhere. The access to Granville Island from the south end of the bridge needs to be drastically improved (stairwell, something?). Other than GI, there's not much there to get people to use the bridge. Downtown to Kits is served well by the Burrard bridge for walking and cycling.

I live in Yaletown, and Granville Island is very difficult to get to considering the distance. The aquabus is expensive, the way we get there is usually a bike ride around the Seawall.

[officedweller]

My first comment would be that the pathway would preclude use for a future surface LRT.

My second comment would be - how do you get to the centre lanes?
If it's from below, then that's probably more a a detour than the current [unpleasant] routing on the sidewalks.

[Zassk]

Instead, they should close the 4th Ave. off-ramp and dedicate that whole ramp to a two-way bike path. It's properly situated for Kits traffic, and could also be connected to the Arbutus rail corridor if that is ever turned into a bike path.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by officedweller

My first comment would be that the pathway would preclude use for a future surface LRT.

My second comment would be - how do you get to the centre lanes?
If it's from below, then that's probably more a a detour than the current [unpleasant] routing on the sidewalks.

unless the pathway is a method to save the ROW for for a future tram (the path would have to be closed, though.)

It would be easy to access the centre walking path from a pedestrian island from the crosswalk at drake, dunno how the south end would link up - ? a ped overpass at the loops? or even an intersection?

[wrenegade]

Christ, how many bike lanes do we need? I will admit that there is excess capacity on the Granville Street bridge, but I fail to see how adding bike/walking lanes in the middle of the bridge without connections at either end will help anything? I know there will be new lights at the North End that will help, but would this mean a new light at 5th to get traffic off of Granville, or to the sidewalks?

As much as it pains me to say it I think it would actually make more sense to turn the curb lanes into separated bike lanes (that lead to/from Howe & Seymour) than put them in the middle. I doubt a commuter cyclist would want to cross 3 lanes of traffic on Granville street twice to get to the greenway and back as opposed to going on the sidewalk. It seems like a bit of a waste. Also, who wants to walk or take their kids on their bikes down the middle of a bridge in between 6 lanes of traffic? They view is much much better on either sidewalk, and while it's narrower traffic is only on one side of you. As for connections to Granville Island, I think both the Burrard Street Bridge and arguably the Cambie Street Bridge have better connections from a cycling point of view. And as expensive as the Aquabus may be, it's a much easier connection from the Downtown side rather than walking the entire length of the bridge to 5th. There could be a staircase built at/around Lamey's Mill Road but it would probably end up being 4-5 flights of stairs, which isn't really that friendly.

[whatnext]

And in other news community centres are being forced to close for a week at a time due to Vision starving them of funds, but there is appatently an unlimited supply of funds for these asinine studies!

[Porfiry]

Wow, this is so off-topic.

[IanS]

Given the loss of capacity caused by the decision to destroy the viaducts, I wonder if it might not make more sense to wait until the dust settles on traffic issues before going ahead and reducing capacity in other areas. We may find that there's not that much excess capacity on the Granville Street bridge once the viaducts are gone.

[Metro-One]

I would support this 10 times over tearing down the viaducts. But, that being said, a proper pedestrian connection to Granville Island should be made via staircases. Also, this should go into its own thread.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Wow, this is so off-topic.

Over-ruled. I'm going to allow this line of questioning. I agree with the prosecutor's argument.