Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[officedweller]

The viaducts built form is quite a bit different than the Gardiner.
The Gardiner uses bents (likr Granville Bridge @ Granville Island) and has flanking on and off ramps.

[Sir Conga]

Originally Posted by s211

I'm sorry. Restoring a creek is called daylighting? God I hate planners. They're like dark age priests speaking latin. Sounds fancy but means less than dick to the rest of us.

Really? Doesn't take much to get you riled up, along with the majority in this ever-confusing thread.

Daylighting is such an easy to understand and concise term, and I'm shocked any one here had trouble understanding.

--------

In response to whatnext, and some of the other opposing voices: believe it or not some people are pro-removal of the Viaducts without a financial stake or hate of cars. I personally just think they are a pointless eyesore, and I feel the city would be better off with out them, period. I certainly don't agree with every little idea the city has, and feel they don't need to be in such a rush... but we do need to plan for this.

To those who say taking the Viaducts down is nonsense, I say leaving them up for any longer than their life-span is the height of insanity.

[dreambrother808]

If the viaducts remain I will not be angry, nor will I go around spewing ridiculous attacks against those who disagreed with me.

I have no financial stake in this, I simply have an opinion on what I feel would improve that area of the city.

I use both car2go's and transit infrequently, while for the most part walking pretty much everywhere.

I am also pro-Gateway.

People don't fit into simple stereotypes. People can form opinions that differ from your own based upon various factors involved.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Sir Conga

Daylighting is such an easy to understand and concise term, and I'm shocked any one here had trouble understanding.

Oh? I call 100% bullship on that. How hard would it be for planners to use plain vernacular, instead of some made-up nomenclature that means dick to the average Joe?

Maybe get out of the ivory tower and edumicate us then.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by s211

Oh? I call 100% bullship on that. How hard would it be for planners to use plain vernacular, instead of some made-up nomenclature that means dick to the average Joe?

Maybe get out of the ivory tower and edumicate us then.

This coming from a forum that uses all kinds of terms to describe "big tall buildings"?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

...........

Toronto is taking its time coming up with ways to pay for a replacement that will serve the city at the same level or even improve it. Vancouver just pulls a knee-jerk decision to rid themselves of the "evil" viaducts as quickly as possible with little to no regard to potential practical uses or consequences of their actions. HUGE difference between the two.

> Precisely. This knee-jerk reaction you speak of bugs me no end, and it seems to be a Vancouver specialty.

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

If the viaducts remain I will not be angry, nor will I go around spewing ridiculous attacks against those who disagreed with me.

I have no financial stake in this, I simply have an opinion on what I feel would improve that area of the city.

I use both car2go's and transit infrequently, while for the most part walking pretty much everywhere.

I am also pro-Gateway.

People don't fit into simple stereotypes. People can form opinions that differ from your own based upon various factors involved.

> May I add my voice to yours? I agree 100%

Originally Posted by Sir Conga

Really? Doesn't take much to get you riled up, along with the majority in this ever-confusing thread.

Daylighting is such an easy to understand and concise term, and I'm shocked any one here had trouble understanding.

--------

In response to whatnext, and some of the other opposing voices: believe it or not some people are pro-removal of the Viaducts without a financial stake or hate of cars. I personally just think they are a pointless eyesore ... .

> Really? They're not The Champs Elysées or Park Avenue, but they're not pointless, either.
They move large quantities of vehicular traffic east>< west in and out of Vancouver.

Originally Posted by s211

Oh? I call 100% bullship on that. How hard would it be for planners to use plain vernacular, instead of some made-up nomenclature that means dick to the average Joe?

Maybe get out of the ivory tower and edumicate us then.

> Quite!! Regarding "daylighting" and other nomenclature: Pompous obfuscation is a great way for planners, and others, to pull the wool over our eyes !!

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by Sir Conga

In response to whatnext, and some of the other opposing voices: believe it or not some people are pro-removal of the Viaducts without a financial stake or hate of cars. I personally just think they are a pointless eyesore, and I feel the city would be better off with out them, period. I certainly don't agree with every little idea the city has, and feel they don't need to be in such a rush... but we do need to plan for this.

To those who say taking the Viaducts down is nonsense, I say leaving them up for any longer than their life-span is the height of insanity.

Eyesore yes, but surely there are other ways to deal with that then killing them 25-30 years before the end of their intended lifecycle.

[huenthar]

Originally Posted by s211

Oh? I call 100% bullship on that. How hard would it be for planners to use plain vernacular, instead of some made-up nomenclature that means dick to the average Joe?

Maybe get out of the ivory tower and edumicate us then.

You know, "viaduct" is jargon just as much as is the verb "daylight". If it weren't for Vancouver's viaducts and the current publicity around the removal debate, many "average Joes" in the city might not know that term either. Why didn't they just use the plain ol' vernacular and call it the "Georgia street False Creek Flats bridge" and the "dunsmuir bridge" or something similar instead of getting all high and lofty with this made-up "viaduct" nonsensical nomenclature that means dick to the average Joe?

Daylighting is the word you use to describe what you do to buried creeks and the term has been widely used for years, if not decades; read for example every report written in the last twenty years on the Still Creek watershed. Seriously...

[Spork]

Originally Posted by huenthar

You know, "viaduct" is jargon just as much as is the verb "daylight". If it weren't for Vancouver's viaducts and the current publicity around the removal debate, many "average Joes" in the city might not know that term either. Why didn't they just use the plain ol' vernacular and call it the "Georgia street False Creek Flats bridge" and the "dunsmuir bridge" or something similar instead of getting all high and lofty with this made-up "viaduct" nonsensical nomenclature that means dick to the average Joe?

Daylighting is the word you use to describe what you do to buried creeks and the term has been widely used for years, if not decades; read for example every report written in the last twenty years on the Still Creek watershed. Seriously...

It's about common language versus specialist terms. Viaduct should be common knowledge, as the below two links indicate.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/daylighting?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/viaduct?s=t

You could argue about what people do and don't know, but I look to a dictionary as a general source of what people might know. If something isn't in there, it is likely highly specialized. At the same time, we shouldn't need to dumb down conversation so that everybody can understand it, but perhaps the majority should.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by huenthar

You know, "viaduct" is jargon just as much as is the verb "daylight". If it weren't for Vancouver's viaducts and the current publicity around the removal debate, many "average Joes" in the city might not know that term either. Why didn't they just use the plain ol' vernacular and call it the "Georgia street False Creek Flats bridge" and the "dunsmuir bridge" or something similar instead of getting all high and lofty with this made-up "viaduct" nonsensical nomenclature that means dick to the average Joe?

Daylighting is the word you use to describe what you do to buried creeks and the term has been widely used for years, if not decades; read for example every report written in the last twenty years on the Still Creek watershed. Seriously...

Lo and behold planners like to use descriptive vernacular.

Should we describe everything like this?


Source: XKCD. http://www.xkcd.com/1133/ Creative Commons Liscense.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by huenthar

You know, "viaduct" is jargon just as much as is the verb "daylight". If it weren't for Vancouver's viaducts and the current publicity around the removal debate, many "average Joes" in the city might not know that term either. Why didn't they just use the plain ol' vernacular and call it the "Georgia street False Creek Flats bridge" and the "dunsmuir bridge" or something similar instead of getting all high and lofty with this made-up "viaduct" nonsensical nomenclature that means dick to the average Joe?

Daylighting is the word you use to describe what you do to buried creeks and the term has been widely used for years, if not decades; read for example every report written in the last twenty years on the Still Creek watershed. Seriously...

As an average Joe, I always thought viaduct meant over land, while bridges were over water. Not the correct definition maybe, but that seems to be how they're used here.

It's not so much the definition of the word as how often you use it. Everyone in Vancouver knows what the Georgia viaduct is regardless of whether they can define viaduct.

I had no idea what daylighting meant until I googled it, though.

[p78hub]

Actually, there are two definitions for "daylighting", one of which has to do with putting windows on buildings and the other with redirecting streams. I have no idea why they would call it that for streams, having nothing to do with "day" or "light" :S...

[Sir Conga]

Originally Posted by s211

Oh? I call 100% bullship on that. How hard would it be for planners to use plain vernacular, instead of some made-up nomenclature that means dick to the average Joe?

Maybe get out of the ivory tower and edumicate us then.

In its context the word is easy to understand, and I think an efficient use of language. If these "planners" invented the word I would celebrate that.

Your last sentence is a little out of left-field. I'm very much a layman, and have had to look-up a few words I've read on this forum. I've had to look up "spandrel" a couple of times. No big deal. No ivory tower here.

Originally Posted by trofirhen

>Really? They're not The Champs Elysées or Park Avenue, but they're not pointless, either. They move large quantities of vehicular traffic east>< west in and out of Vancouver.

I just think there is no need for an elevated roadway. The point of the viaduct was to pass over railway and contaminated land, but (correct me if I'm wrong) that is not really the case any more. Maybe pointless is a little far, but the fact that the things are so short makes it seem pretty pointless to me. Just my opinion.

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Quite!! Regarding "daylighting" and other nomenclature: Pompous obfuscation is a great way for planners, and others, to pull the wool over our eyes !!

I cannot help be confused by your use of the words nomenclature, pompous, and obfuscation in a statement decrying informed language use.

Wool is being pulled over who's eyes now?

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Eyesore yes, but surely there are other ways to deal with that then killing them 25-30 years before the end of their intended lifecycle.

I completely agree with this. There is no reason the city should move too quickly in the planning and especially the execution of this incredibly important project. If the Malkin Connector is an important part of a Viaduct removal, why not wait until that is sorted out?

[trofirhen]

This gives a professional's definition of "daylighting" pertaining to architecture. How the definition relates to turning part of Carrall Street into a canal I do not understand.

http://www.betterbricks.com/

Daylighting 101


by Joel Loveland and the New Buildings Institute

The following information presents a quick overview of the basics of daylighting design. It is not intended to cover all the design issues, but instead to highlight some of the key ones.
A good daylighting design
What do we mean by daylight? Inside a building, daylight performs the same way as diffuse light from the overcast sky. Good daylight is soft and cool, both in temperature and color. If a building owner or an architect sets daylighting as a design goal, the building will admit this diffuse light, proportioned to the needs of the people in its spaces.
Diffuse Daylight not sunlight
Sunlight -- the direct rays of the sun -- may be welcome on a day at beach, but not inside offices and classrooms. Architects want to avoid generously opening a building to the sky in ways that give access to the sun's direct rays. Glare and overheating from the sun's rays are debilitating in areas where workers perform critical visual tasks. In offices, and classrooms, direct rays seriously distract from the work at hand.
Instead, architects seek to maximize the penetration of diffuse light and block the direct sunlight. The U.S. Green Building Council's LEED™ standard requires that no direct sunlight be admitted to critical task areas in order to be considered as daylit.
The many different climates of the Northwest produce a wide diversity of sky conditions and therefore daylighting design challenges. Every area of the region has great potential for using daylight. Even the dark and gray overcast of the coastal Cascadian region of the Northwest offers abundant diffuse light, an ideal condition for daylighting design.
Daylight varies by season and time of day During the day, daylight changes in both direction and intensity. A good daylighting design is one where the patterns of light and the patterns of work follow the movement of light in the sky. A building that uses daylight effectively also accounts for changes in seasonal cycles.

[David]

Oh dear, this thread I created so long ago has gone through so many bizarre and crazy discussions and arguments, but I think this one takes the cake.

[Emendo]

Daylighting itself is a term that has positive connotations and that is why they use it describe the action of un-burying something that used to be underground. Let's think about it from an emotionally standpoint - daylight is good, happy, and positive. How do you say no to that and who would want to be dark and gloomy?

With that said, who wants to support my proposal to Daylighting the Battery Street Tunnel or the Canada Line tunnel?

[huenthar]

+1 xkcd

Wikipedia has an entry for "daylighting" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylighting_(streams)

all of the references are from books about Seattle




edit: what? how did my post get inserted above other people's earlier posts???

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

This gives a professional's definition of "daylighting" pertaining to architecture. How the definition relates to turning part of Carrall Street into a canal I do not understand.

http://www.betterbricks.com/

Daylighting 101


by Joel Loveland and the New Buildings Institute

The following information presents a quick overview of the basics of daylighting design. It is not intended to cover all the design issues, but instead to highlight some of the key ones.
A good daylighting design
What do we mean by daylight? Inside a building, daylight performs the same way as diffuse light from the overcast sky. Good daylight is soft and cool, both in temperature and color. If a building owner or an architect sets daylighting as a design goal, the building will admit this diffuse light, proportioned to the needs of the people in its spaces.
Diffuse Daylight not sunlight
Sunlight -- the direct rays of the sun -- may be welcome on a day at beach, but not inside offices and classrooms. Architects want to avoid generously opening a building to the sky in ways that give access to the sun's direct rays. Glare and overheating from the sun's rays are debilitating in areas where workers perform critical visual tasks. In offices, and classrooms, direct rays seriously distract from the work at hand.
Instead, architects seek to maximize the penetration of diffuse light and block the direct sunlight. The U.S. Green Building Council's LEED™ standard requires that no direct sunlight be admitted to critical task areas in order to be considered as daylit.
The many different climates of the Northwest produce a wide diversity of sky conditions and therefore daylighting design challenges. Every area of the region has great potential for using daylight. Even the dark and gray overcast of the coastal Cascadian region of the Northwest offers abundant diffuse light, an ideal condition for daylighting design.
Daylight varies by season and time of day During the day, daylight changes in both direction and intensity. A good daylighting design is one where the patterns of light and the patterns of work follow the movement of light in the sky. A building that uses daylight effectively also accounts for changes in seasonal cycles.

Different professions, different definitions...

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by David

Oh dear, this thread I created so long ago has gone through so many bizarre and crazy discussions and arguments, but I think this one takes the cake.

Agreed.

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by Pinion

As an average Joe, I always thought viaduct meant over land, while bridges were over water. Not the correct definition maybe, but that seems to be how they're used here.

It's not so much the definition of the word as how often you use it. Everyone in Vancouver knows what the Georgia viaduct is regardless of whether they can define viaduct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway

In Vancouver, the term Causeway is used to describe the entire roadway between Coal Harbour and the LGB. (And in Victoria, people still call the 700 block of Government Street "The Causeway".