Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by spm2013

All the viaduct traffic is above ground with no interactions with pedestrians. You are forcing vehicles into more intersections and more crosswalks which will mean more pedestrian deaths. So therefore I must be against this dangerous and wicked proposal. Save the viaducts, save the pedestrians!

Statement seconded

[rsxstock]

can someone explain why it was being demolished and then rebuilt?


Demolishing the Georgia Viaduct, Tuesday 7 September 1971

Source: Photo by Ernie H Reksten, City of Vancouver Archives #2010-006.196

Source: searcharchives.vancouver.ca

[waterloowarrior]

here is some info
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45379817@N08/5512904995/

Georgia Viaduct and Wholesale Section of City, Vancouver, B. C."

The Georgia-Harris Viaduct, circa-1915, which ran between Georgia and Beatty Streets and Main and Harris Streets (Harris Street became East Georgia Street in 1915) over the C.P.R. and G.N.R. False Creek rail yards and the small water spur of False Creek (photographed from just west of Main Street).

The viaduct was built 1913-15 by the engineering firm of Armstrong, Morrison and Company and opened on Dominion Day, 1915. Originally known as the McHarg Viaduct after war hero Lt. Col. William Hart-McHarg of the Duke of Connaught's Own Rifles who died at Ypres in April 1915. In later years it was merely called the Georgia Viaduct.

Demolished in 1970 after being plagued for years by premature decay and falling pieces of concrete.

Bridge engineer Robert Harris wrote about the old span: “A classic product of low bidding ($494,000) and meagre supervision, it was never a sound bridge. Streetcar tracks were laid but never used. Every second lamppost was removed to save weight. Much blacktop was used to fill mysterious sags and hollows in the deck. People passing below were injured by falling concrete, and concrete spans were propped with timber. The bridge was replaced by the parallel Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts in 1972, each carrying three lanes of one-way traffic.”

[logan5]

Originally Posted by spm2013
All the viaduct traffic is above ground with no interactions with pedestrians. You are forcing vehicles into more intersections and more crosswalks which will mean more pedestrian deaths. So therefore I must be against this dangerous and wicked proposal. Save the viaducts, save the pedestrians!

On the other hand... people tend to go quite fast along Pacific. A few signals will have a calming effect and possibly save a few lives.

[spm2013]

....

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by logan5

On the other hand... people tend to go quite fast along Pacific. A few signals will have a calming effect and possibly save a few lives.

Then the answer is clear - we should decommission Pacific Boulevard instead of the viaducts.

[spm2013]

....

[huenthar]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

IMO this is a unique opportunity, working in an area that is a blank slate.

I can see that for sure. I just don't think the city is actually evaluating the opportunity properly... Look at SEFC, they had an area vision/plan, future road/transit network all planned out before any development there was done at all. The city's not doing that in this area at all - they're pursuing detailed studies of a particular course of action with no transparent and accountable goals or purpose in mind.

If we want to study the area's land use with a 100+ year time line in order to inform development decisions, why not forget about the viaducts for a second and just study the area as if it really was a blank slate? Go through the different options:

-have a bunch of small surface streets
-have a large boulevard/super-road
-have one or two viaducts in various configurations
-any combination of the above
-keep current configuration ("do nothing" option)

evaluate each on the same criteria: development potential (in terms of # of units residential); park space; transportation capacity (vehicles, goods, transit); pedestrian/urban experience & aesthetics; cost.

(In my list of priorities, of course, I would want them to make sure the transportation infrastructure is the very best we can do, with a 1-200 year outlook, and have development opportunities generally conform to that design. I think it's easier and more effective to work individual developments around infrastructure rathe than the other way around - and I also think the quality of the infrastructure is more important and should come before particular development considerations. Needless to say, I don't think a wide, busy surface boulevard is the superior infrastructure choice here - especially when it represents the more expensive option! But that is all IMO )

It would be great if the city was actually looking at the area as a blank slate... but they're not. They don't have a clear problem statement or a solid understanding of what exactly it is they are trying to achieve here, and they're not looking at the various options on an equal footing.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by huenthar

I think it's easier and more effective to work individual developments around infrastructure rathe than the other way around - and I also think the quality of the infrastructure is more important and should come before particular development considerations.

A major assumption is if one sees the viaducts as a piece of infrastructure that should last 100+ years. Some people who support keeping the viaducts *now*, are open to reassessing and removing them when patullo-level refurbishment is needed in 40-50 yrs. if that's the case, you can argue that you can remove them now, at a much lower cost for demolitions, mitigations, etc and have more of an ability to plan land use with your modes of transport.

If you think that the viaducts need to stay indefinitely, then you plan for that accordingly. (If you do want them to stay infinitely would you really want to construct buildings under them? what happens when you need to do that remediation work, or replace the viaduct with a new viaduct structure?)

for NEFC, or any area, your traansport plan is your land use plan. we should ask ourselves first about the future of the viaduct, then plan the area in detail.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by rsxstock

can someone explain why it was being demolished and then rebuilt?

It was demolished because it was ready to fall down.

It was rebuilt in its current form as the first part of an expected "downtown freeway" network that came under heavy opposition by Vancouver residents and was eventually cancelled.

If you were laying out the streets today, there would be no need for an elevated structure.

[radacal]

You know this is a done deal. Vision will just hammer it though. Let's move on. Strathcona can deal with all the additional traffic trying to find it's way downtown. It's a ploy to get more people to live downtown by making it more inconvenient to drive in, thereby selling more condos, rewarding the developers who line the politicians pockets...

Anyone one want to bet that right after the viaduct is demolished, the RFP for an elevated bike bridge will come out? There was one a couple of years ago proposing one that went from Clark Street westward to cross over the train tracks but was cancelled....

[officedweller]

FYI

Received by e-mail from the City:

City Council will hear speakers on this matter at the Standing Committee on Planning, Transportation and Environment on June 26, 2013.

Speakers will be heard starting at 2:00 pm.

RE: Dunsmuir and Georgia Viaducts and Related Area Planning

The above-noted Administrative Report dated June 18, 2013 will be presented to Council on Tuesday, June 25, 2013. The presentation will be broadcast on the City’s website at http://vancouver.ca/councilvideo

Council will hear speakers on this matter at the Standing Committee on Planning, Transportation and Environment at its meeting on:

DATE: Wednesday, June 26, 2013

TIME: 9:30 am

PLACE: Council Chamber

Third Floor, City Hall

The agenda for the meeting can be viewed at: http://vancouver.ca/councilmeetings and the relevant report at: http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20130625/documents/rr1.pdf Hard copies are also available upon request at that time.

If you wish further information on this matter, please contact Karis Hiebert at 604.873.7041. If you wish to address the Standing Committee, please contact Tina Hildebrandt at [email protected] or at 604.873.7268. Please note speakers are requested to limit their comments to no longer than five minutes.

You may also communicate your thoughts on the issue to the Mayor and Councillors by emailing [email protected] and the City Clerk’s Department will ensure Council receives all correspondence before the matter is considered.

For your information, all meetings of Council are webcast and can be viewed at: http://vancouver.ca/councilvideo. The minutes for this meeting can be viewed at: http://vancouver.ca/councilmeetings approximately two days following the meeting. Hard copies of the minutes are available upon request.

[sacrifice333]

Originally Posted by huenthar

...Or how while they mention various park expenses on either side, they talk only about how wonderful the new park space with viaduct removal would be...

Excellent point. I live at The Village and look over Hinge Park which is arguably one of the best designed, most actively used small parks in the city. Millions were spent on the park infrastructure. Yet to this day there isn't a budget to maintain the park. A gardener is on site some of the time by way of a "loan" from the Stanley Park Rose Garden.

Millions on infrastructure and not a dime for maintenance. Awesome.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

It was demolished because it was ready to fall down.

It was rebuilt in its current form as the first part of an expected "downtown freeway" network that came under heavy opposition by Vancouver residents and was eventually cancelled.

If you were laying out the streets today, there would be no need for an elevated structure.

The viaducts would have worked great with the planned freeways, but they were still desperately needed on their own. The viaducts crossed a wasteland of polluted railyards and industrial land. Without them, the downtown core would have been almost inaccessible to a large portion of commuters.

And the streets aren't being laid out today. Our predecessors decided to make sacrifices to give us the viaducts. It's not like money grew on trees back then either. Something somewhere had to be cut in order to build the viaducts. They worked with what they had (a huge pit of — they wanted to get people past and a crumbling viaduct that tied into the road network) and came up with a solution, paid money and built it.

Then when we had Expo 86, when the land was a true blank slate, we kept the Viaducts and built Expo and Pacific. They worked with what they had, empty land, and laid out a road network. If a single giant road would have worked back then, why didn't we tear down the viaducts to build Skytrain? We planned Skytrain, Pacific/Expo, and the Cambie Street Bridge and decided the Viaducts were still useful. We could have done anything at that time. Why didn't we?

Because we don't just go around undoing decisions made before us. Continuity is a big part of planning. Throwing good money after bad is usually frowned upon. So even if you think mistakes were made when we built the Viaducts, at this point, throwing money on the table to undo them, as the idiom goes, is a waste of money. I'm sure the viaducts are still a capital asset that are on the books. So not only do we spend $100 million to tear them down, but what kind of equity/value/debt are we throwing out with them?

There are other things that need to be done/finished. SEFC is still a work in progress, with much of the waterfront stalling completely. At least the land around the Viaducts (that would become a park) is in a usable state right now (and the land was useful during the Olympics, for community gardens and whenever Cirque comes to town). The land to the east of the Cambie bridge is unused.

Where is our focus on following through with what we already started?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Then when we had Expo 86, when the land was a true blank slate, we kept the Viaducts and built Expo and Pacific. They worked with what they had, empty land, and laid out a road network. If a single giant road would have worked back then, why didn't we tear down the viaducts to build Skytrain? We planned Skytrain, Pacific/Expo, and the Cambie Street Bridge and decided the Viaducts were still useful. We could have done anything at that time. Why didn't we?

The viaducts predated Expo 86 by well over a decade, back when the railway right of way they spanned still existed. There never was a time when the land was a "blank slate". In fact a even during Expo a concrete plant was still in operation where the row of condominiums just north of Stadium Skytrain station are today. There was a conveyor belt that ran from that plant right through the Expo site to the barges tied up at the waterfront.

The reality of the situation is that an elevated road was required when the original viaducts were replaced, but today there isn't anything below them that would really require that.

[jlousa]

The reality of the situation is that an elevated road was required when the original viaducts were replaced, but today there isn't anything below them that would really require that.

We'll besides the 40ft drop from where Downtown meets the Flats. Guess a steep hill is better than the current gradual incline in todays planning circles. I'm sure the Dunsmuir businesses that were thrilled with the bike lane before are really looking forward to it deadending in the future, that's sure to spur business, I can see lease rates soaring.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The viaducts predated Expo 86 by well over a decade, back when the railway right of way they spanned still existed. There never was a time when the land was a "blank slate". In fact a even during Expo a concrete plant was still in operation where the row of condominiums just north of Stadium Skytrain station are today. There was a conveyor belt that ran from that plant right through the Expo site to the barges tied up at the waterfront.

The reality of the situation is that an elevated road was required when the original viaducts were replaced, but today there isn't anything below them that would really require that.

I know they predate them by over a decade. I'm pretty sure I mention that in my post. In fact I say "Why didn't we tear down the Viaducts to build Skytrain?"

What I'm saying is that when we were planning for Expo, and, by extension, post Expo, why didn't they remove the viaducts at that time?

Instead of building Pacific and Expo, and a Skytrain that ducks under the Viaducts, why didn't we tear them down at that point? If they were just a relic of our freeway fever dreams, and serve no practical function without motorway connections, why did we not tear them down to have more land for Expo, and post Expo?

For Expo, we built a new Cambie bridge and Pacific and Expo boulevards in a way so that they integrate with the Viaducts. They all serve something different. If the viaducts were useless, then they would have been torn down then and dealt with when the land was wiped clean in preparation for Expo.

Between 1983 and today, the only 3 structures in that area that stand today are the Roundhouse, (a just completed) BC Place, and the Viaducts. If that is not a clean slate then I don't know what is.

We could have planned anything (with no Rogers Arena in the way) and decided that the viaducts serve a needed purpose, and integrated the design of many structures to work with/around them. If we were going to tear down the Viaducts, we could have better designed the Cambie Bridge to work with a mega Pacific Blvd.

So what I'm really getting at is that the area today, is not a blank slate. We have made a lot of planning and design decisions over the years that incorporate the Viaducts. It just seems silly at this point to turn all those decisions into bad ones.

[spm2013]

....

[logan5]

Would it be fair to compare the Powell St. closure to the possible loss of the viaducts? Powell St. traffic will reroute to the same streets that viaduct traffic would reroute to. Although the viaducts have a higher capacity than Powell St., Powell St. has very few lights (east of Hawks) and so moves traffic with viaduct like efficiency.

If the alternate routes can handle the extra Powell St. traffic, wouldn't this be an indication that viaduct traffic could be absorbed by Hastings, Pacific, Broadway, etc.

Originally Posted by whatnext

...who will get the pleasure of hearing trucks grind up the new Georgia Street hill. Also wondering how long it will take till the first longboard fatality.

Keep your fingers crossed!

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jlousa

We'll besides the 40ft drop from where Downtown meets the Flats. Guess a steep hill is better than the current gradual incline in todays planning circles. I'm sure the Dunsmuir businesses that were thrilled with the bike lane before are really looking forward to it deadending in the future, that's sure to spur business, I can see lease rates soaring.

I pity those living in Spectrum (?) who will get the pleasure of hearing trucks grind up the new Georgia Street hill. Also wondering how long it will take till the first longboard fatality.