Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[ssiguy]

The elitism of Vancouver City Hall seems to know no bounds.

Why is it that if an ugly route serves the Eastside it has to be torn down but if it's an ugly route serving the Westside { a la Granville Bridge}, it is considered an indespensible piece of infrastructure?

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Why is it that if an ugly route serves the Eastside it has to be torn down

Do you mean Powell? That was a Port construction job to separate vehicles from trains. The City of Vancouver needs to finish the Gastown area with redoing the street. I personally love sticking with the cobblestone idea - but instead of brick, I'd like to see cubed-rough cut granite.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by SOSS

instead of brick, I'd like to see cubed-rough cut granite.

that rough cut stuff is more European. to keep the vibe of gas town correct brick would be more vintage for that area.


keep the viaducts!!! if you keep cars off the main streets, away from bikes, peds, street-car then there will be less chances for an accident! i can cross a 3 lane road and get to the other side. with this "stroad" id have to cross something like 8 lanes and walk next to trucks and lots of cars instead of them being out of the way. i don't know, seems kind of backwards to me.

our viaducts are crazy open! compared to a lot of other cities ours are a lot taller, have very few support columns, and the columns we have are single and not some massive H-frame type. i find out viaducts so minimalist. on a sunny day it doesn't feel dingy and dark, on a rainy day its nice to have some cover on the side walk. and no, even in the rain i don't get the dingy dark I'm-going-to-get-stabbed feeling around them.

if they add that connector to them that allows street-space to be reclaimed for bikes and peds without having them all clashing together causing frustrations.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

that rough cut stuff is more European. to keep the vibe of gas town correct brick would be more vintage for that area.


keep the viaducts!!! if you keep cars off the main streets, away from bikes, peds, street-car then there will be less chances for an accident! i can cross a 3 lane road and get to the other side. with this "stroad" id have to cross something like 8 lanes and walk next to trucks and lots of cars instead of them being out of the way. i don't know, seems kind of backwards to me.

our viaducts are crazy open! compared to a lot of other cities ours are a lot taller, have very few support columns, and the columns we have are single and not some massive H-frame type. i find out viaducts so minimalist. on a sunny day it doesn't feel dingy and dark, on a rainy day its nice to have some cover on the side walk. and no, even in the rain i don't get the dingy dark I'm-going-to-get-stabbed feeling around them.

if they add that connector to them that allows street-space to be reclaimed for bikes and peds without having them all clashing together causing frustrations.

Total agreement about the viaducts here!: (except I'd prefer granite, too)

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The problem with integrating the viaducts today is what happens in 30 years when they really are in terrible shape and not worth keeping. You have to think long term...

This is a an argument that is thrown around often by those supporting to tear them down.

Honestly, it is a lazy argument at best.

In response I ask you this:

What are we going to do when the Burrard bridge reaches its end of life soon (older than the viaducts!) I guess we better cancel the Vancouver House project.

What about the entire Expo Line? (nearly the same age as the viaducts). i guess we should not build anyhting in and around the Expo Skytrain line, or any skytrain line if we think long term enough.

What about the Burrard bridge? That must be past its life now!

etc...

Sorry, super weak argument.

I guess we should also stop adding new buildings to our old sewer system (I believe some areas are over 100 years old).

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

This is a an argument that is thrown around often by those supporting to tear them down.

Honestly, it is a lazy argument at best.

In response I ask you this:

What are we going to do when the Burrard bridge reaches its end of life soon (older than the viaducts!) I guess we better cancel the Vancouver House project.

What about the entire Expo Line? (nearly the same age as the viaducts). i guess we should not build anyhting in and around the Expo Skytrain line, or any skytrain line if we think long term enough.

What about the Burrard bridge? That must be past its life now!

etc...

Sorry, super weak argument.

I guess we should also stop adding new buildings to our old sewer system (I believe some areas are over 100 years old).

All of your arguments can be answered by rebuilding the infrastructure, because it is required.

[theKB]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

All of your arguments can be answered by rebuilding the infrastructure, because it is required.

So if rebuilding that infrastructure is more pressing why are we pondering the idea of dropping 100 million on a pet project?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by theKB

So if rebuilding that infrastructure is more pressing why are we pondering the idea of dropping 100 million on a pet project?

You're taking my quote out of context.

If you read the first message I posted, a fully costed plan is my main priority for making a decision.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

What about the Burrard bridge? That must be past its life now!

The difference between the viaducts and the Burrard Bridge is that the obstacle that the Burrard bridge passes over is still there. That's not true of the viaducts - there's no need for them to be elevated today.

[Bcasey25raptor]

I'd keep them but get rid of the filthy parking lot just south of the viaducts and build housing/businesses in that location.

It looks like an urban blight and as someone who lives by there it upsets me.

[ssiguy]

I think tearing down the viaduct is a stupid idea.

Cars come into a city and have to get there somehow so if they are not taking the viaduct they will have to take Powell/Hastings/Pender which is the worse possible scenario as these are important transit corridors and the added traffic will greatly impede transit movement.

If they are overwhelmed by a bunch of Greenies and are going to tear them down then there should be one proviso.............they tear down the equally ugly and far more obtrusive Granville Street Bridge. That of course would effect the Westside so it will never happen.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I think tearing down the viaduct is a stupid idea.

it is a stupid idea to tear them down. tearing down things that are only half-way through there life is a big waste of, well, everything.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

tear down the equally ugly and far more obtrusive Granville Street Bridge. That of course would effect the Westside so it will never happen.

you really have a lot of hate for the west don't you? it seems to be a recurring theme which is a bit disappointing in my eyes. just because a handful of people living in the west side are stuck up it doesn't mean they all are. it would be like saying all east side people are just poor drug addicts.

also, tearing down the Granville street bridge was discussed at one point, but it was realized it would be a horrible waste of money, even more expensive then the viaduct tear down. plus, well you know, there's that whole body of water in the way and what-not. very few people have cars that can double as a boat.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The difference between the viaducts and the Burrard Bridge is that the obstacle that the Burrard bridge passes over is still there. That's not true of the viaducts - there's no need for them to be elevated today.

yes, there is a barrier. there is a large drop-off from Georgia Street. it is basically a cliff. there has been a viaduct for about 100 years now. you cant just make Georgia a dead-end street. some for of viaduct would need to be built on a smaller scale to prevent that. also, doesnt it make more sence to keep traffic away from peds, bikes, street-cars? the less they interact the less chance of an accident happening. another point i mentioned before. right now i can cross 3 lanes to get to the other side. with this "stroad" idea i would need to cross something like 8 lanes. i can also walk down the street with minimal traffic. with the "stroad" there would be a ton of cars, trucks, noise and the alike. it is a step backwards with what VV wants to do.

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

I'd keep them but get rid of the filthy parking lot just south of the viaducts and build housing/businesses in that location.

It looks like an urban blight and as someone who lives by there it upsets me.

yes the parking lot is not very nice, but unlike what the city, and others would like you to believe, it is possible to develop around the viaducts and integrate them into the surroundings. take a look at Rogers Arena, you can access the upper floor because of the viaducts with the walkways they built.


wow, sorry for this being so long.

[theKB]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

If they are overwhelmed by a bunch of Greenies and are going to tear them down then there should be one proviso.............they tear down the equally ugly and far more obtrusive Granville Street Bridge. That of course would effect the Westside so it will never happen.

nooooooo now they just want to put a greenway down the middle... I know hanging out in the middle of a major thoroughfare sounds sooooo amazingly awesome! Oh yeah and there is that little problem that it would potentially reduce the approaches to on lane each way from granville, that may be a problem.

I really don't think there is logic coming into play when it comes to the viaducts otherwise even the estimated expense would shy away any logical person. It's the same way they redesigned the main onramp giving two turning lanes about 50 feet to merge once they turn left, fantastic traffic management.

Here's a clever "viaduct"...


credit :http://onthesetofnewyork.com/theavengers.html


credit: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/51832967

Clever integration with buildings (we have something similar in the way Rogers arena and the apartments are placed) Why not just allow for development (maybe NOT just condos) around it and integrate them into the landscape?

[Vin]

I mentioned before that if Pacific Boulevard were to be realigned and shifted closer to the viaducts (partially underneath), then roughly the same amount of land can still be opened up for condo construction or parkland use, regardless of whether the viaducts are torn down or not. I think Vision is trying to leave yet another dumb legacy, just like other ones conjured by previous city councils(eg. viewcones bylaws). They probably have the warped idea that tearing down the viaducts would signify an awesome 'green' move, to be showcased around the world. Small town folks have small town mentality ....

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The problem with integrating the viaducts today is what happens in 30 years when they really are in terrible shape and not worth keeping. You have to think long term...

The same applies to any bridge or viaduct - it can be maintained or replaced as needed.

Even the demo plan has a new viaduct from Pacific Blvd to Georgia St., and it will need eventual replacement too.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The same applies to any bridge or viaduct - it can be maintained or replaced as needed.

Even the demo plan has a new viaduct from Pacific Blvd to Georgia St., and it will need eventual replacement too.

Do you have any renders or plans for that? Thanks. I'd like to take a close-up look.

[ssiguy]

It's not that I think everyone on the Westside is stuck up but rather if the viaducts but let's be serious, if the viaducts were serving the Westside we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

[Procrastinational]

I wouldn't mind replacing the viaducts with some sort of small scale Big-Dig style underground connection.

[makr3trkr]

These have been posted before but they give an idea of the actual footprint of the so-called "super road."

The viaducts are shown in as an interim state before demolition.

http://www.franclarchitecture.com/work/rogers-arena-site-development

[officedweller]

That may show the width of the super road, but that's not the alignment of it. It will cut diagonally across what is now Abbott St. shown in the 1st rendering.