Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

This is why this thread is unbearable, really. Even when you try to have a respectful conversation, people turn it into childish garbage.

Hard to be polite when good logic, common sense, and rationale is completely thrown out the door consistently. Despite all the good arguments AGAINST their removal, all the reasons not to, and the trumping of all the baseless and ill-thought 2+2=5 "pro-removal" arguments with sound logic... this debate is still going on and on around in circles. It's utterly insane, it has no logical basis just like a ouija board.

How exactly will viaduct removal, which will obviously lead to more cars on neighbourhood roads, equate to a more vibrant and pedestrian/cycling friendly area for a huge swath of Downtown? Not everyone can take transit (not to mention the section on the Expo Line from Downtown to Commercial-Broadway is already severely strained) and the viaducts are major route for goods and commercial trucks to access downtown (do you really want more of these in city streets?).

Even the City of Vancouver's own projections, which are highly skewed on matters dealing with cycling and the viaducts, call for much traffic volumes all around. For instance: even on vibrant Water Street in Gastown, which is quite some distance away from the viaducts, will have a ~33% increase!

Our city streets would be so much more vibrant and pedestrian/cyclist friendly if we had proper road layers that diverts vehicle traffic into major grade-separated arterials. Instead, here in Vancouver, vehicle traffic spills out everywhere onto every street.

The traffic has to go somewhere, and it will spill over. Some of it, a very small portion of it, will likely be lost... after all, this very act decreases the connectivity and mobility with the eastern part of the region. For the practical and regional minded, this shouldn't be something we should want to do.

And how exactly are the viaducts even in bad shape? We've got much better things to worry about than knocking down infrastructure that has decades left in its life span. This is regression, it adds nothing to the city but rather removes it. Instead of regression, how about we spend that $100 million viaduct removal money on progression like the implementation of the streetcar?

The viaduct removal will also mean we'll have a new massive and steep arterial street between BC Place and Rogers Arena. How exactly is this good for a pedestrian-heavy area for stadium events? Also note that this means we won't have the Georgia Steps, or maybe a much smaller version of it....and the steps will actually add to the vibrancy of the area.

Regardless of our anti-car sentiments or what we perceive to be future trends this city and region will only continue to grow - it needs this infrastructure and capacity to allow for the potential of future growth. It's the only layered road infrastructure we've got for east-west routes out of the Downtown peninsula. Let's face it, we most likely won't be building any new road infrastructure within our lifespan but we should strive to retain what we have. Removal for cosmetic reasons, for yet another green lawn park and the creation of all this traffic impact is just absurd. This huge park and the creation of a massive stop-and-go traffic light road does more to separate the city east and west...this is much more of a barrier than the viaducts will ever be.

And the viaducts don't need to be the barrier that they are today considering so much can be done to improve them and integrate them with the neighbourhood. It can really add to the vibrancy of the area if we even gave an ounce of serious thought to improving them.

How hard is it to grasp all of this? But hey, we'll be back in the same never-ending cycle after a short few posts.



http://www.vancouverobserver.com/city/2011/11/23/whats-your-vision-vancouvers-viaducts#previmg

[Sir Conga]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

This is why this thread is unbearable, really. Even when you try to have a respectful conversation, people turn it into childish garbage.

Glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. This forum in general is great for staying up to date with development, but that's about it. I guess that's the internet for ya...

[spm2013]

....

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by spm2013

The existence of the viaducts has created the vibrancy in those areas, therefore removing it would kill that energy.

Said in the true spirit of the big lie.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Sir Conga

Glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. This forum in general is great for staying up to date with development, but that's about it. I guess that's the internet for ya...

It has a propensity to turn into insults, name-calling, and oddly-directed anger. I can accept that people disagree with me on this issue. I don't think that they're stupid for doing so. I have no anger towards them. Their beliefs are not entirely baseless. Their absolute certainty confounds me to some degree, but whatever.

You have posted similarly respectful, open-minded things, only to be met with the same disrespect. It's weird.

On a related note, I feel uncomfortable when people portray Meggs as a caricatured villain. On the opposite side of the political spectrum, I have the same unease when Harper is portrayed that way. The truth of these things, to me, is much more complicated. A younger version of myself would have been far more swayed by these inclinations of political allegiance though.

[Jebby]

There is so much that could be done to improve the way the viaducts interact with the urban environment. Here are some examples done in other cities:

London (the structure on the right is actually a viaduct!)


Vienna:


Paris:

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

It has a propensity to turn into insults, name-calling, and oddly-directed anger. I can accept that people disagree with me on this issue. I don't think that they're stupid for doing so. I have no anger towards them. Their beliefs are not entirely baseless. Their absolute certainty confounds me to some degree, but whatever.

You have posted similarly respectful, open-minded things, only to be met with the same disrespect. It's weird.

On a related note, I feel uncomfortable when people portray Meggs as a caricatured villain. On the opposite side of the political spectrum, I have the same unease when Harper is portrayed that way. The truth of these things, to me, is much more complicated. A younger version of myself would have been far more swayed by these inclinations of political allegiance though.

The thing is ouija board comment is spot on. I never agree with my creme de la creme rival on almost anything but I do with this one...his wall of text explains it very clearly why this back and forth debate is silly.

And if you felt frustrated by the reactions of the people here to your post, how do you think I feel when people attack me when, say I push for the merits of prioritizing Surrey rapid transit instead of Broadway? The ouija board comment is hardly offensive, more of a satirical joke but its no way personal, especially compared to what I go through this forum for the past 14 years....

I agree with Sir Conga, this forum is best for updates only. But if you are going to try to rationalize a point of view to the people here, prepare to be flamed. I personally just do so to kill time, but majority of my activity here is for updates on some infrastructure and office tower projects...

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

The thing is ouija board comment is spot on. I never agree with my creme de la creme rival on almost anything but I do with this one...his wall of text explains it very clearly why this back and forth debate is silly.

His reply explains things from his point of view, yes. Is it therefore a closed case, are his arguments infallible? No. State your case and let the discussion go on. There is no need to attack others.

And if you felt frustrated by the reactions of the people here to your post, how do you think I feel when people attack me when, say I push for the merits of prioritizing Surrey rapid transit instead of Broadway? The ouija board comment is hardly offensive, more of a satirical joke but its no way personal, especially compared to what I go through this forum for the past 14 years....

To be honest, you often express things in an antagonistic way and that will certainly invite the same in return. That being said, we should each be responsible for our own form of expression. There is a way to disagree respectfully.

The ouija board comment is representative of a larger problem. It did not cause grave offence or anything silly like that.

I agree with Sir Conga, this forum is best for updates only. But if you are going to try to rationalize a point of view to the people here, prepare to be flamed. I personally just do so to kill time, but majority of my activity here is for updates on some infrastructure and office tower projects...

We all agree on something then. I would like to see this forum still be a place for respectful discussion though.

[ssiguy]

I can understand the want of getting rid of the viaducts but frankly I don't think it's a great idea and especially not if any high rises are built.

It's all very well to say it's an eyesore but where exactly will the traffic go? It will only have one option.......DTE. They have no political clout so I can see the city going ahead with it If they have some form of touchy-feely green desire to tear something down then it should be the Granville Street Bridge.

I know that they will also build more high rise condos which do not blend in well with the community and will push real estate even higher and you will get even more "renovictions". Vancouver has so little road infrastructure that tearing down what little it has seems wasteful.

I also find the hypocracy and elitism/classism of the idea is also very offensive although not surprising. The Lions Gate rips thru the heart of incredibly beautiful Stanley Park but can you imagine trying to tell the West Vancouverites to just take the Ironworkers?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

On a related note, I feel uncomfortable when people portray Meggs as a caricatured villain. On the opposite side of the political spectrum, I have the same unease when Harper is portrayed that way. The truth of these things, to me, is much more complicated. A younger version of myself would have been far more swayed by these inclinations of political allegiance though.

+1. I can't stand when people refer to our mayor as "Mayor Moonbeam" or the premier as "Krusty". These are the fairly elected political leaders, they deserve respect regardless of your own political views. Unfortunately the internet brings out the worst in people. This website isn't as bad as the typical news1130 comments section, but sometimes it gets close.

As for the viaducts, I am against their removal, at least until their useful life has been reached. However if it does happen, I'm interested to see what development takes place. Right now that land is terrible underused (although I think improvements can be made with viaducts remaining).

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

As for my reasons, the routes that the traffic will be diverted to don't seem overly-burdened in their current roles. The capacity is there, especially with the planned road adjustments. Will it be as convenient for some as the viaducts are? No, but it won't be as difficult an adjustment as some might believe. From my perspective, the benefits outweigh the negatives.

I think what makes the streets so pleasant to walk on is their lower (I wont say lack of) use. Despite the road network re-alignment, there will still be spill-over of traffic, and I am concerned it will ruin the current atmosphere. In what ways do you believe removing the viaducts will improve the livability of the area?

It feels like the goal is to cut the carrying capacity of traffic into downtown. In my opinion this is insane for many reasons already stated. However, if the goal is to lower vehicle use within downtown and the areas immediately adjacent to it, why not cut the capacity of the local roadways? It would make those unnecessary local trips, rather than the regional trips (which would continue to use primarily the viaducts) an inconvenience to encourage local walking, cycling, and transit use. The extra space could be put towards wider sidewalks, extra patio space for cafes, restaurants, and drinking establishments, more dedicated bike lanes (even if my opinion is that this is just a fad), dedicated transit lanes, maybe even more room for a streetcar?

I also encourage you to look around. Someone posted a picture of the old brick viaduct in London. It's much prettier than ours, but I'm sure ours can be dressed up and utilized in a similar manner. Besides that example, there are many other places with viaducts that learned to not cope with their local viaducts, but thrive around them. Japan, which we love to espouse for so many other reasons, has a plethora of highways and viaducts. There are many places there where the undersides of viaducts and elevated highways are used in much the same manner as that viaduct in London.

[spm2013]

....

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

His reply explains things from his point of view, yes. Is it therefore a closed case, are his arguments infallible? No. State your case and let the discussion go on. There is no need to attack others.

And yet my POV, which is supported by the majority around here, logically and rationally knocks down every single silly point the pro-viaduct removal team makes.

But no, what do you do? You re-state the exact same point again in defiance again...and again....and again.

Conversation 1
Removing the viaducts will make the area more vibrant and pedestrian friendly and cyclist friendly..........no it won't, the traffic has to go somewhere, cars will spill over into all other streets and it'll create a bigger barrier in peninsula with the massive grade level road and park; more cars on roads where pedestrians and cyclists are do not make for a pedestrian and cyclist friendly city.........removing the viaducts will make the area more vibrant just because it will!!!!....... x 66 full never ending cycles to date

Conversation 2
There will be less cars on the roads, it won't be bad as people think it will be and people will take transit instead.........no, even the City's highly biased reports project much higher traffic volumes everywhere; the Expo Line along this stretch is severely strained in capacity; it makes no logical sense that all those cars and commuters will just disappear entirely (it certainly won't all be on transit), and if it does that doesn't bode well for downtown's economy.........there will be less cars on the roads, it won't be as bad as people think!!!!!! people can ride their bikes everywhere instead! yay!!!!........ x 66 full never ending cycles to date

Conversation 3
i want the viaducts demolished because i think they're ugly.........it'll cost $100 million which could be used to build other things like the streetcar; and we haven't ever given any serious thought into improving them which is much more easy, practical, and cost efficient to do; there are many global examples around the world of what can be done to animate viaducts, the viaducts have also not passed their expiration and have decades left.........i want those evil viaducts demolished so that there will be less evil cars on the road!!!!......... x 66 full never ending cycles to date



No wonder why people are frustrated.

As note above, there's opinion and then there's just being plain stupid despite all the logic-based reasons against. And that's being nice. Either that or it's ideological.

[Sir Conga]

I personally just had a problem with the statement that there wasn't a single reason to take them down. When pressed to share my rationale I tried to sincerely present my point of view. I was reluctant to do so, as I knew what would happen. Instead of any one commenting on any of my points, all the responses were simple arrogant dismissals of my opposing point of view. The member who asked me to share my view didn't even respond.

I'm not trying to start a point by point discussion on this matter, as I feel it has been discussed to death here. But I stand by my belief that there are a few reasons to take the Viaducts down eventually.

But anyone who thinks they should eventually be removed is just an idiot... Fine. End of discussion for me. Going back to lurk-mode on this thread.

[Alex Mackinnon]

You can't forget these gems:

#4
Tearing down the viaducts would yield several new acres of park!

There's already a ton of park around the viaducts, most of which has been a parking lot since 1987 at either Concord's or CoV's will. More park than currently planned will more than likely create a giant dead zone in the city. As is there's no eyes on the street anywhere around there, and it's not the nicest place to walk alone at night. Use the viaducts to provide more all weather park area.

The city also hasn't bothered developing the half city block where Hogan's Alley used to be, and doesn't consider it lost park in their calculations.

#5
We could build more density without the viaducts.

Cue pictures of 4 towers proposed by Aquilini, and any other random locations. The FSI is basically the same. Concord may even have to build something interesting, like a building constrained to going around the viaducts.

Of course there are some legit reasons to take them down, but largely it's driven by aesthetics and developer land money.

Just look at the order of operations:

1) Beasley suggests international architecture competition.
2) Bing Thom suggests local based competition is more relevant.
3) City posts ReConnent competition.
4) Beasley et Al win competition.
5) City runs with Beasley suggestions.
6) City moves up time line from 15+ years to May (but pushed back to July now?).
7) City tells local groups that any plans East of Main will have to wait until after approval of removal plan because of critical time line. Don't ask for a Malkin plan, don't torpedo viaduct "process".

[spm2013]

....

[dreambrother808]

"You're stupid"

That's the level of discussion around here.

As for your points, they are all opinions. You feel that the change in traffic flows will absolutely, without doubt create these effects, and yet there is no actual proof. It is a potential vision.

You also assume that the city simply foots a $100 million dollar bill for this project. Do the developers then get the land for free? Will there be no other source of funding? Once again this is all conjecture presented as incontrovertible fact.

I don't even really care to a strong degree if they get torn down so CHILL OUT.

You are right about the fact that all of the arguments have been presented on either side. People are therefore free to draw whatever conclusions they will. In the meantime, I will happily move on to more productive exchanges of ideas.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

+1. I can't stand when people refer to our mayor as "Mayor Moonbeam" or the premier as "Krusty". These are the fairly elected political leaders, they deserve respect regardless of your own political views. Unfortunately the internet brings out the worst in people. This website isn't as bad as the typical news1130 comments section, but sometimes it gets close.

As for the viaducts, I am against their removal, at least until their useful life has been reached. However if it does happen, I'm interested to see what development takes place. Right now that land is terrible underused (although I think improvements can be made with viaducts remaining).

I disagree. The last voter turnout was 34.57% in Vancouver. This is the cities fault. I don't consider this enough to give anyone the power to do as they wish when it comes to the destruction of public infrastructure and such massive and ideological changes. Something like this should go to a referendum at the very least and there should be very strong pressure on the city to find a way to increase voter turnout. There are many ways they can do this, if they only cared enough, which they don't because they fear their constituents imo.

As for the removal, it is something that I have followed closely for a long time and my opinion is set in stone and the fact that this has gotten this far actually does make me angry. /rant

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by cornholio

I disagree. The last voter turnout was 34.57% in Vancouver. This is the cities fault. I don't consider this enough to give anyone the power to do as they wish when it comes to the destruction of public infrastructure and such massive and ideological changes. Something like this should go to a referendum at the very least and there should be very strong pressure on the city to find a way to increase voter turnout. There are many ways they can do this, if they only cared enough, which they don't because they fear their constituents imo.

As for the removal, it is something that I have followed closely for a long time and my opinion is set in stone and the fact that this has gotten this far actually does make me angry. /rant

My god, I'm so sick and tired of using poor voter turnout to argue that elected leaders don't have a mandate. Is it possible to be more lazy and more complainypants at the same time? It's the same lack of respect that is exactly my point.

You're saying you don't like Gregor, then when I say he was elected after his known support for bike lanes, you said enough people didn't vote, and you also blame Gregor for that. Do you see how stupid that looks? Your guy lost, get over it.

Sorry for the off topic rant.

[spm2013]

....