When it comes to the viaducts removal I'm skeptical because the biggest winner will be the developer and current land owners with tax payers bearing the majority (if not all) the costs and probably all of the risks.
The argument that they are "part of an old abandoned freeway plan" is meaningless to me. The viaducts were built for one reason: to move people (in cars) in and out of the downtown. The road had to be in the air because there was a large industrial sector below and it allowed for the easiest way to move cars in and out. The viaducts still serve their intended purpose, to move cars in and out of the dt core. Granted the land use underneath is substantially changed but keeping cars flowing seems better than having them rerouted (at great expense) to surface streets littered with traffic lights.
If removing remnants of an abandoned freeway plan is such a driving motivation, then when can we expect the Granville St bridge and associated southern viaducts to be removed? (I realize the northern 'circles' are on their way out) These structures were also part of a highway plan that fizzled yet they bridge does serve a purpose and replacing it would be scoffed at immediately (I would be one of those scoffers
)
I think the city and developers have purposely dragged their heals on this issue for much longer than the current debate. That land that is now suddenly earmarked for 'social housing' (right, we know how the City bailed on Oly Village percentages of social housing) and a park, to benefit the rest of us who will never afford the fancy condos that will also be built. If so, why has the land been left in its current deplorable state for so long? Indy race has been gone for years and years, High profile developments have been built on the periphery (City Gate, Tinseltown area, GM place/Costco area) yet the waterfront property, prime property sits vacant because of 2 roadways in the air?
I think the legacy of False Creek industrialization haunts this site (aka contaminated soil) and that this may be the real reason it sits largely abandoned. What perfect reason to re-mediate the soil then by removing the viaducts, creating a huge demolition project only to reveal what many people already know...the ground is toxic.
The irony is that the viaducts are cited as cutting off parts of Vancouver from each other. Won't the replacement "road" do exactly that? I can walk under the viaducts without being hit by a car and if development occurs that incorporates the design and space of the viaducts (as discussed in this group) then the ghetto that exists could be replaced with a much more pleasant atmosphere. What cuts off parts of downtown is a section of waterfront that has been left to waste for decades, 2 fast-paced one way surface streets, oh and a part of the city that has been left to waste socially and economically for over 50years (Chinatown and downtown east side). No one walks from false creek to main and Hastings for much more dire reasons than a viaduct over their head.
Maybe the city should rip up the asphalt, plant some grass, nice plants, build some nodes of interest and make the whole area a large park today, and then see about working for greater change involving a developer, later. The panic of a quick decision, that we need to replace this blight with condo towers and surface streets is nonsense, since the lot has been like this for a long time already. The city can work with developers on the north periphery to make condos and social housing relaties, perhaps infill from the BC Pavilion east as a starting point. There is room to encourage change and development in ithe area without having to re-define the transportation infrastructure all for a developers profits.
Prev
And that has been my point all along, yes I encourage traffic calming and a focus on pedestrian activity on local streets, but in Europe and Asia when doing so they also still provide free flow arteries for the heavier and through traffic.
Linear Mode
