Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Poor baby, I'm sure there's nothing worse for some overpaid civic bureaucrat than actually having to listen and answer well-informed questions from someone who pays his salary.

Now you are paying them to tear down the viaducts... hope you're happy, I am.

[Vin]

Tearing down the viaducts is analogous to enacting the viewcone policy back in the late 80s. The viaducts are part of Vancouver's urban heritage that we will never get back, to be replaced by cookie-cutter condos that are nothing but ubiquitous. No one thought that having the viewcone policies would have a trickle down effect on the creation of other policies meant to restrict how creative structures could be built, and that it brainwashed a new generation of people into believing that it isn't Vancouver's culture to have really tall towers, or anything out of the norm. Likewise, removing a vital transportation infrastructure entering the city will definitely dumb down our urban infrastructure to boring on-grade roads with the usual traffic signals, cross walks, etc, complete with the usual gridlock: the new norm of downtown driving. While more advanced cities are improving their road network in order to improve public transportation and private vehicular assess, eg. having more bus lanes, tram lanes, etc. added to their roads, we are in effect choking off what could be efficient for the future. The city may think that having more cars coming downtown is bad, but then again they never think that the future will bring us more green vehicles (eg electric cars, taxis or buses) that still need relatively wide roads for them to enter downtown efficiently. Such shortsightedness will definitely handicap this city in the future, much like what the viewcone policy is doing to our skyscrapers, or lack of.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

The viaducts are part of Vancouver's urban heritage that we will never get back

You have to be kidding.

The Viaducts are a pretty big wasteland right now. They carry a limited amount of traffic over a few blocks of parking lots and other roads.

I think if you take a look at them on google maps (with sat images on), you can see what a joke they are, and how much prime land they are wasting.

They also serve as an artificial separate between downtown and Chinatown. That is a gap that should have long since been filled.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Vin

The viaducts are part of Vancouver's urban heritage that we will never get back

I agree. The loads of tour buses disgorging people to look at the viaducts' urban heritage are getting really annoying. Maybe after the viaducts come down there can be a nice little remembrance park with a plaque saying "Here stood The Viaducts, a testament to Vancouver's urban heritage." And a walk-through historical display consisting of a mud pit, a hot parking lot, and car and truck exhaust and noise in the air.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You have to be kidding.

The Viaducts are a pretty big wasteland right now. They carry a limited amount of traffic over a few blocks of parking lots and other roads.

I think if you take a look at them on google maps (with sat images on), you can see what a joke they are, and how much prime land they are wasting.

They also serve as an artificial separate between downtown and Chinatown. That is a gap that should have long since been filled.

I don't see that at all. I see the viaducts as the ideal corridor to enable the new St. Paul's hospital to serve the peninsula. I see that Chinatown and downtown are both north of the viaducts, so the viaducts are a non-factor in terms of separating them.

I don't see prime land being wasted. The north end developments are proof that the viaducts don't prevent land usage. But also, there is tons of poorly used land around them. All of that land should be parkland - both the land under the viaducts and the whole undeveloped NEFC area. And parkland would be best served by having the roads grade-separated, as they are now.

[recurrence]

Let's not overstate the matter, the viaducts are only 3 blocks long. It's a stubway more than a freeway

Ambulances are not going to be impacted because when traffic is bad, they could not take the viaducts anyway. Hence, we design the new system so that cars can get out of the way of incoming lights and sirens and we have a win-win.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by recurrence

Let's not overstate the matter, the viaducts are only 3 blocks long. It's a stubway more than a freeway

Ambulances are not going to be impacted because when traffic is bad, they could not take the viaducts anyway. Hence, we design the new system so that cars can get out of the way of incoming lights and sirens and we have a win-win.

It also sounds as though the city is scrapping the idea of using Prior Street as a replacement to the viaducts and will instead build a better alternative that takes into account the new location for St. Paul's.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by csbvan

It also sounds as though the city is scrapping the idea of using Prior Street as a replacement to the viaducts and will instead build a better alternative that takes into account the new location for St. Paul's.

I'm interested to see what that looks like as well... along with how Georgia will connect down the hill.

[WarrenC12]

Recent presentation that Frances Bula managed to obtain:

Looks like a high level presentation from a working group.

http://www.francesbula.com/wp-content/up...%99s-Viaducts-JWG-Jun22-Planning-PDF.pdf

[cleowin]

Personally, I would have preferred if the freeway system was actually built, although i would have done it differently. instead of copying the Seattle method of freeway development, I'd literally want to construct the freeway system mostly underground (At least in the downtown core), and then feed through the Burrard inlet as planned.

Today, if it were possible, I think a tolled diversion off Grandview Highway through the same train ditch as the Skytrain system should be built (could be double decked) with a Freeway terminus intersecting Main & Terminus. Could be a 6 Lane freeway, 1 HOV + 2 Thru lanes. TOLL mandatory for all vehicles except for Public Transit Vehicles to encourage people out of local streets. There is no need for an actual freeway system to exist within the downtown core, but getting to it would be alot more useful.

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Recent presentation that Frances Bula managed to obtain:

Looks like a high level presentation from a working group.

http://www.francesbula.com/wp-content/up...%99s-Viaducts-JWG-Jun22-Planning-PDF.pdf

Page 12 *facepalms*

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Vin

Tearing down the viaducts is analogous to enacting the viewcone policy back in the late 80s. The viaducts are part of Vancouver's urban heritage that we will never get back, to be replaced by cookie-cutter condos that are nothing but ubiquitous. No one thought that having the viewcone policies would have a trickle down effect on the creation of other policies meant to restrict how creative structures could be built, and that it brainwashed a new generation of people into believing that it isn't Vancouver's culture to have really tall towers, or anything out of the norm. Likewise, removing a vital transportation infrastructure entering the city will definitely dumb down our urban infrastructure to boring on-grade roads with the usual traffic signals, cross walks, etc, complete with the usual gridlock: the new norm of downtown driving. While more advanced cities are improving their road network in order to improve public transportation and private vehicular assess, eg. having more bus lanes, tram lanes, etc. added to their roads, we are in effect choking off what could be efficient for the future. The city may think that having more cars coming downtown is bad, but then again they never think that the future will bring us more green vehicles (eg electric cars, taxis or buses) that still need relatively wide roads for them to enter downtown efficiently. Such shortsightedness will definitely handicap this city in the future, much like what the viewcone policy is doing to our skyscrapers, or lack of.

Very well put

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Page 12 *facepalms*

Such comical propaganda. (pg 12 especially funny)
I was genuinely surprised not to see the viaducts being blamed for 9/11 in that "document" posted by Frances Bula.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vin

Tearing down the viaducts is analogous to enacting the viewcone policy back in the late 80s. The viaducts are part of Vancouver's urban heritage that we will never get back, to be replaced by cookie-cutter condos that are nothing but ubiquitous. No one thought that having the viewcone policies would have a trickle down effect on the creation of other policies meant to restrict how creative structures could be built, and that it brainwashed a new generation of people into believing that it isn't Vancouver's culture to have really tall towers, or anything out of the norm. Likewise, removing a vital transportation infrastructure entering the city will definitely dumb down our urban infrastructure to boring on-grade roads with the usual traffic signals, cross walks, etc, complete with the usual gridlock: the new norm of downtown driving. While more advanced cities are improving their road network in order to improve public transportation and private vehicular assess, eg. having more bus lanes, tram lanes, etc. added to their roads, we are in effect choking off what could be efficient for the future. The city may think that having more cars coming downtown is bad, but then again they never think that the future will bring us more green vehicles (eg electric cars, taxis or buses) that still need relatively wide roads for them to enter downtown efficiently. Such shortsightedness will definitely handicap this city in the future, much like what the viewcone policy is doing to our skyscrapers, or lack of.

+2 ... Makes total sense

Originally Posted by Zassk

I don't see that at all. I see the viaducts as the ideal corridor to enable the new St. Paul's hospital to serve the peninsula. I see that Chinatown and downtown are both north of the viaducts, so the viaducts are a non-factor in terms of separating them.

I don't see prime land being wasted. The north end developments are proof that the viaducts don't prevent land usage. But also, there is tons of poorly used land around them. All of that land should be parkland - both the land under the viaducts and the whole undeveloped NEFC area. And parkland would be best served by having the roads grade-separated, as they are now.

Yes, yes, and yes!!

[Steveston]

The presentation speaks of "Connecting Communities" and "Removing Barriers", but how will that happen while the at-grade portion of the SkyTrain line remains? You can walk underneath the viaducts, the only way past the SkyTrain line will be to build expensive pedestrian overpasses.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You have to be kidding.

The Viaducts are a pretty big wasteland right now. They carry a limited amount of traffic over a few blocks of parking lots and other roads.

I think if you take a look at them on google maps (with sat images on), you can see what a joke they are, and how much prime land they are wasting.

They also serve as an artificial separate between downtown and Chinatown. That is a gap that should have long since been filled.

10% of fast and efficient vehicular traffic entering downtown isn't limited amount of traffic. It'd even be higher if the bike lane wasn't added. And care explain how the City proposes to bring bike traffic up the slope to the downtown core once the viaducts are removed?

Furthermore, those few blocks of land underneath the viaducts may be light in traffic now, but it definitely would not be once the new entertainment district, including the Casino, Plaza of Nations, and the current Concord Pacific Properties are all developed. Even now, the area is packed to the brim with traffic before and after major events at both stadiums, as well as the theatre district. Off those times, driving around that area at this time is comfortable, with drivers having a few choices to enter and exit downtown with alternative routes, unlike what drivers from the North Shore are forced to go through everyday. Why take away a good thing?

Seriously, Googlemaps shows the area as empty right now because the area isn't developed yet. The viaducts are not taking up a lot of prime land as the City would like to make people believe. The fact is, as I've mentioned before, Pacific Boulevard can be realigned right underneath and close to the viaducts to free up more land for the City to have their coveted pieces of land deeemed for development. The current viaduct area cannot be completely developed anyhow with the existence of the skytrain guideways. There is no determination by the City to examine what can be done to improve the area with the inclusion of the viaducts, only what can be done without. That "gap" you mentioned would've been filled by now if the surrounding lands around the viaducts are developed, and even with the viaducts still there.

I still don't get why sometimes people just lap up whatever stuff the City throws at them and consider it as golden. In this case, it sure isn't.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

I still don't get why sometimes people just lap up whatever stuff the City throws at them and consider it as golden.

Fear of change is a dangerous thing. You're making up all kinds of scenarios that may or may not occur.

The fact is the viaducts have been an orphan for 50 years, while everything else around them has changed dramatically. I'm fine with the removal, I'm not campaigning for it.

You seem to be much happier with malls and highways. There are places other than Vancouver you might like better.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I agree. The loads of tour buses disgorging people to look at the viaducts' urban heritage are getting really annoying. Maybe after the viaducts come down there can be a nice little remembrance park with a plaque saying "Here stood The Viaducts, a testament to Vancouver's urban heritage." And a walk-through historical display consisting of a mud pit, a hot parking lot, and car and truck exhaust and noise in the air.

Tons of people around the world have seen our viaducts via TV series and movies as they are one of the favourite shoot locations, and what's more, the viaducts serve as a vital link for coach/tourist buses, like the Pacific Coach Lines, zipping to and from downtown to the Terminal bus station. Loads of visitors, tourists and locals have benefited from this vital link.

So yeah, despite not having your sarcastic tale as the true version, the viaducts are still our urban heritage.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Fear of change is a dangerous thing. You're making up all kinds of scenarios that may or may not occur.

Like how you fear new modern downtown shopping malls, or extremely tall buildings in OV?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Steveston

The presentation speaks of "Connecting Communities" and "Removing Barriers", but how will that happen while the at-grade portion of the SkyTrain line remains? You can walk underneath the viaducts, the only way past the SkyTrain line will be to build expensive pedestrian overpasses.

The City of Vancouver is hoping that people are too dumb to ask such questions. If you do, like what one of our fellow forumers encountered, they will say that the design is not yet finalised.