Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[red-paladin]

Showing the creek 'the light of day' As opposed to being in a culvert.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Dave2

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".

The Stanley Park causeway is a "causeway" because it cut off (via a raise embankment) Lost Lagoon from Coal Harbour.

Wiki's definition of viaduct is consistent with what I think - a long approach to a bridge can be a viaduct, too.

A viaduct is a bridge composed of several small spans. The term viaduct is derived from the Latin via for road and ducere to lead something. However, the ancient Romans did not use that term per se; it is a modern derivation from an analogy with aqueduct.[citation needed] Like the Roman aqueducts, many early viaducts comprised a series of arches of roughly equal length. Viaducts may span land or water or both.

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

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The Stanley Park causeway is a "causeway" because it cut off (via a raise embankment) Lost Lagoon from Coal Harbour.

Oh definitley, but often the entire route through Stanley Park is often called "The Stanley Park Causeway".. (Google)... Too funny.. 'officedweller' is on page 1

"When the Province widened the Lions Gate Bridge a few years back (by replacing the deck), the Vancouver Parks Board initially stonewalled the widening of the Stanley Park Causeway by 1 metre each side"

I call it the Causeway too, we all do it.

1925... City archives http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eX9yEG1vIrU/TbDKpElREOI/AAAAAAAADPI/ATXVQK-g644/s1600/ATT00001.JPG

City Website... .

" This area was once a tidal mud flat. When the Stanley Park causeway was built in 1938, the mud flat became a fresh water body."

1938? You know the history, I know the history.. Whoever wrote the above . not so much.
http://vancouver.ca/parks-recreation-culture/landmarks-in-stanley-park.aspx

Originally Posted by officedweller

Wiki's definition of viaduct is consistent with what I think - a long approach to a bridge can be a viaduct, too.

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

Hastings Viaduct... Grandview Viaduct... Granville Viaduct too, but it was torn down.

[officedweller]

Yeah, I only mentioned the Stanley Park Causeway because it's not necessarily obvious now that there used to be water across there, since the width is so wide now.

[twoNeurons]

Let me just say that the past few pages about daylighting has been ever so entertaining.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I think that when you expose a stream that has been running in a culvert (oh, I mean a "tunnel carrying a stream or open drain under a road or railroad") to daylight, daylighting is an entirely appropriate, and dare I say, easily comprehensible (understandable), word to utilize (I mean "use").

[s211]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Let me just say that the past few pages about daylighting has been ever so entertaining.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I think that when you expose a stream that has been running in a culvert (oh, I mean a "tunnel carrying a stream or open drain under a road or railroad") to daylight, daylighting is an entirely appropriate, and dare I say, easily comprehensible (understandable), word to utilize (I mean "use").

You're so right. Daylighting is so instantly more sensible to the general public than oh, say, "re-introduction" or "revitalization" or "restoration".

No, you are crazy. That's so much easier to understand.

[moosejaw]

Daylighting is a common engineering/architectural term
For instance.......I saw it today in a set of construction documents where the architect referenced redirecting a rain water leader into a exterior column enclosure where it daylighted onto the pavement below.

[s211]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

Daylighting is a common engineering/architectural term
For instance.......I saw it today in a set of construction documents where the architect referenced redirecting a rain water leader into a exterior column enclosure where it daylighted onto the pavement below.

I don't give a rats flying fcuk what parlance is used by specialists.

How hard would it be for people to speak in common English?

Again, you're the equivalent of arguing in favour of priests forbidden to speak or write in anything but Latin.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by s211

I don't give a rats flying fcuk what parlance is used by specialists.

How hard would it be for people to speak in common English?

Again, you're the equivalent of arguing in favour of priests forbidden to speak or write in anything but Latin.

Instead of berating others
a 30 second search on your favorite web portal would have resulted in this....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylighting_(streams)

Whats so hard about that?

[dreambrother808]

Wow... some people really need to learn how to let things go. None of this is a big deal. Time to move on.

[jlousa]

I agree, daylighting is a very common term in this regards. It might not be common knowledge to the average Joe but it certainly is to the professionals involved and that's where this conversation originated and who it's target audience was.
Now (moderator cap on)all of this is off-topic and has run it's course. Back to discussing the Viaducts.

[Sir Conga]

So... how about those Viaducts, eh?

[deasine]

Mind I also take this opportunity to remind everyone to remove personal attacks from the debate.

[WarrenC12]

When the Costco food area is overflowing, I sure am glad I can eat my hotdog under the cover of the viaducts on the many rainy days we have here in Vancouver. Why does Meggs hate reasonably priced hot dogs?!

[Sir Conga]

Flyers are starting to go up around Strathcona for the Reclaim Prior Campaign against the removal of the Viaducts.

The flyers claim the city might vote on the Viaducts as early as mid-April.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Sir Conga

Flyers are starting to go up around Strathcona for the Reclaim Prior Campaign against the removal of the Viaducts.

The flyers claim the city might vote on the Viaducts as early as mid-April.

The city just agreed to allow Aquilini to build an underground parking garage under what is currently a viaduct today.

Looking into the future, does that mean they could build a tower on top of the garage? I'd imagine there would have to be significant pre-planning for that type of structure. Or, if it's destined to be a parking lot forever, that means that above ground space would be useless if the viaducts were removed...

[officedweller]

What the critics don't mention (or understand) is that the area being leased is a volumetric portion of the site directly under the viaducts between the support columns. The area being leased is not, in itself, sufficient to build an underground parkade (I don't think the City owns the adjacent lands from which access would be required). The part owned by the City would be the Right-of-Way expropriated for the viaducts - ie. a "swath" across the third party owned land - so even if the viaduct is removed, the City-owned parcel wouldn't be developable in a large scale manner (highrises).

And yes, as I think the lease is just the underground volume (it's not really clear who has the surface, as the report described a volumetric area under the "viaduct" not under the "surface"), the surface area is still probably available to the City to develop for parkland, etc. Conceivably, a small structure (or the new Georgia ramp?) could be built within the "swath" if the underground parkade can support it.

Here's the plan from the City Council report:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[makr3trkr]

I can see both sides of the argument for keeping or removing. The problem I really have is that the city and taxpayer are going to be on the hook for any unseen contamination or remediation costs - which could be hundreds of millions. It seems fair if any developers want a slice, they should bear at least part of those costs.

The other problem I have is not that the proposal is bad. It's fine. But that's just the problem - it's only fine. Mid-rise here, high-rise there. Throw in a park or two. It's nice enough but seriously lacking in imagination. They held that whole dog-and-pony show for people to submit ideas and went with the safest, slickest, most palatable solution. The waterfront "park" (really a big lawn) seems painfully barren.

[officedweller]

BTW - I was talking with a Ministry of Environment official last week, and he said that when Concord Pacific's "revised" proposal for a string of midrises along Pacific Blvd was proposed, he said that they, in effect, screamed... "noooooooo".

Apparently Parcel 6C/9 is the site of the former BC Electric (?) coal gasification plant (I think that's the massive silo you see in some historical photos). That's the most heavily contaminated part of the Expo Lands (and is planned on being remediated "in-situ" with contminants sealed in place (like under Andy Livingston Park)).

Any towers built along there would have coal tar seeping into the underground garages through the concrete walls (even after trying to remediate) - and remember - the Province is responsible for remediation on the Expo Lands - so it would become an ongoing liability for the Province.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Source: Pacific Place Remediation Project - Remediation Plan Summary
www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/bib66916.pdf

[s211]

Originally Posted by officedweller

BTW - I was talking with a Ministry of Environment official last week, and he said that when Concord Pacific's "revised" proposal for a string of midrises along Pacific Blvd was proposed, he said that they, in effect, screamed... "noooooooo".

And yet the Gregorinos on council are all cheerleading Concord's new proposal, yes?