Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What are you talking about? The greenspace that the viaducts now cut through? There's not much use in a park there now, but there will be when they are gone.

Oh trust me, there will be use for the space if there is a will for it. Just like there is use for space in between the triangles of the ramps and Granville Bridge for the Vancouver House contruction: condo, retail, office, exhibition/mobile retail ground. On the south side of Granville bridge, there is a little park on the eastern flange where lots of kids and adults gather to play. Underneath Granville bridge, we all know there is a Granville Market and other tourist attractions. So don't give me the sad story that the parkland beside and space underneath the viaducts are useless.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

There are elevated skytrain lines all over the region and I don't hear anyone complaining that they're a barrier. In fact the viaducts aren't really a barrier either, they're just unsightly and oppresive. Skytrain guideways are far less imposing than the viaducts.

Well, that is just your opinion, and I do respect that, but from what we can gather on this thread alone, many don't seem to share the same opinion as you.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Vin

Well, that is just your opinion, and I do respect that, but from what we can gather on this thread alone, many don't seem to share the same opinion as you.

Many in this forum. The majority of people in this forum also voted 'yes' in the transit plebiscite, and look at how that turned out.

[csbvan]

More information:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/home...ter-removal-of-viaducts/article25668657/

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

There are elevated skytrain lines all over the region and I don't hear anyone complaining that they're a barrier. In fact the viaducts aren't really a barrier either, they're just unsightly and oppresive. Skytrain guideways are far less imposing than the viaducts.

Those mean ol' oppressive, imposing, unsightly viaducts.

Just to be clear I find them none of those things, and actually find them quite aesthetically pleasing within the context of an urban environment.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

Those mean ol' oppressive, imposing, unsightly viaducts.

Just to be clear I find them none of those things, and actually find them quite aesthetically pleasing within the context of an urban environment.

I'd be very surprised if that was the prevailing opinion. I strongly suspect that you're the exception that proves the rule.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

Those mean ol' oppressive, imposing, unsightly viaducts.

Just to be clear I find them none of those things, and actually find them quite aesthetically pleasing within the context of an urban environment.

aesthetically pleasing? Some of you worship these things like a god.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I'd be very surprised if that was the prevailing opinion. I strongly suspect that you're the exception that proves the rule.

I share that view. While I don't (as rather oddly suggested above) worship them as a god, I think they look neat.

Is it possible, do you think, that different people like different things?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by IanS

Is it possible, do you think, that different people like different things?

I've heard tell of this saying "It takes all kinds...", which seems to apply here.

[logan5]

This is a done deal and people here are still going on about. Maybe that's where the god worship comment stems from. Ah who knows.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by logan5

This is a done deal and people here are still going on about. Maybe that's where the god worship comment stems from. Ah who knows.

Perhaps it came to you from on high?

In any event, you are correct in saying that is is a done deal. It was a done deal when Vision won the last election. As you say, no point in crying about it now. We'll just have to take our lumps.

[Large Cat]

Originally Posted by Vin

Oh trust me, there will be use for the space if there is a will for it. Just like there is use for space in between the triangles of the ramps and Granville Bridge for the Vancouver House contruction: condo, retail, office, exhibition/mobile retail ground. On the south side of Granville bridge, there is a little park on the eastern flange where lots of kids and adults gather to play. Underneath Granville bridge, we all know there is a Granville Market and other tourist attractions. So don't give me the sad story that the parkland beside and space underneath the viaducts are useless.



Well, that is just your opinion, and I do respect that, but from what we can gather on this thread alone, many don't seem to share the same opinion as you.

You're right, we CAN use the space in a way that benefits the public without tearing down the viaducts, and the Granville Island area is a good example of this. But let's not discount how much better that area could be if the Hemlock, Fir, and 4th viaducts were never built. Right now just walking up to Granville and Broadway is extremely confusing and involves going underground far out of your way, unless you happen to find the one path through the east loop park which itself involves stairs. Then there's the condition of the roads and sidewalks surrounding Anderson and 2nd and the general lack of amenities between the island and Broadway. It really could be a lot better.

I commend the city for looking at tearing down the viaducts. It's about time.

[trofirhen]

For all the gloaters about the Viaducts coming down, it might be wise to remember:
*The Skytrain tracks are still there, and that flawless sea of grass and flowers through the new park, leading to the bay, isn't going to be so flawless.
*The land surrounding the park is owned by development companies, leading to the rather obvious conclusion that it will start pushing up high-rises (hopefully not green glass types).
*That new "super-road" may turn out not to be so "super" after all, so if in some years it is choked and gridlocked 24/7 don't cry. This is what you wanted.
*There's a new hospital going up in East False Creek, and the ambulances need speedy emergency access. Will they have it? It could save lives.

[Vin]

We all need to look at the alternative plan should the viaducts be taken down. It is always interesting how no one has even seen such a plan. Is it because it is near impossible for the new plan to be as advantageous, as compared to how the viaducts are currently benefitting the public in terms of connectivity and traffic flow? I'm sure Vision hasn't laid out the final plan for fear of it being ridiculed, which can then sway public opinion to the 'no' side. We really need to see what they have in store after the viaducts are gone, and I can already tell nothing awesome will come out of it.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

For all the gloaters about the Viaducts coming down, it might be wise to remember:
*The Skytrain tracks are still there, and that flawless sea of grass and flowers through the new park, leading to the bay, isn't going to be so flawless.
*The land surrounding the park is owned by development companies, leading to the rather obvious conclusion that it will start pushing up high-rises (hopefully not green glass types).
*That new "super-road" may turn out not to be so "super" after all, so if in some years it is choked and gridlocked 24/7 don't cry. This is what you wanted.
*There's a new hospital going up in East False Creek, and the ambulances need speedy emergency access. Will they have it? It could save lives.

"All the gloaters"

What gloaters? It's basically a thread of knee-jerk over the top reactions and other people saying that they can see the sense in bringing them down. Nobody is gloating so much as responding to the hyperbolic whining that has dominated this thread.

For example, responding to people posting doomsday scenarios based on speculation without seeing anything of the actual plan.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Large Cat

You're right, we CAN use the space in a way that benefits the public without tearing down the viaducts, and the Granville Island area is a good example of this. But let's not discount how much better that area could be if the Hemlock, Fir, and 4th viaducts were never built. Right now just walking up to Granville and Broadway is extremely confusing and involves going underground far out of your way, unless you happen to find the one path through the east loop park which itself involves stairs. Then there's the condition of the roads and sidewalks surrounding Anderson and 2nd and the general lack of amenities between the island and Broadway. It really could be a lot better.

I commend the city for looking at tearing down the viaducts. It's about time.

Unfortunately, I don't agree with you. Vancouver's House's office buildings, as well as the residential tower and retail podiums would not have been so interesting had they not been trying to integrate into the realm of Granville bridge and its ramps. The designs are unique with a sense of urban layering fabric that cannot be duplicated in other downtown areas. That is uniquely Vancouver and you don't see it elsewhere.

Olympic Village neighbourhood, on the other hand, is the type you can pretty much duplicate anywhere else in the world. Flattening the viaducts essentially means the creation of another OV-type neighbourhood, which we already have aplenty.

As for Granville Island, the entrance is just spectacular and iconic because it is under the bridge, with the steel structures reminiscent of a bygone era. Otherwise, the island would just be a splatter of old rusty industrial warehouses painted in bright colours, without a heritage structure looming over it. Same can be said about the Brooklyn neighbourhood right underneath Brooklyn bridge. Another example is Dumbo under Manhattan bridge?

The flaws you pointed out around the ramps of Granville bridge ramps are essentially not a problem of the overhead structures themselves, but how the city had planned and implemented land use, as well as the lack of maintenance, in the surrounding areas. Traditionally, industrial usage is never meant to look pretty, just like the area south of OV. There are no overhead bridge structures in that vicinity, but yet it is unwelcoming and boring like hell.

The viaducts had already created a very unique downtown neighbourhood around the stadium district. They helped create a neighbourhood which is uniquely Vancouver. Try imagining Calgary's Saddle Dome, being surrounded by nothing but on-grade parking. Without the viaducts, that would have been the legacy of our stadium district, except ours would be stadiums that are boxed in by condos, blocking them out of view forever.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

The viaducts had already created a very unique downtown neighbourhood around the stadium district. They helped create a neighbourhood which is uniquely Vancouver. Try imagining Calgary's Saddle Dome, being surrounded by nothing but on-grade parking. Without the viaducts, that would have been the legacy of our stadium district, except ours would be stadiums that are boxed in by condos, blocking them out of view forever.

You're not making any sense whatsoever. Implying that somehow a stadium surrounded by parking with viaducts is better than without. Frankly, both scenarios are pretty terrible.

What makes Vancouver unique is the climate (temperate rainforest) and the geography (mountains and ocean).

You whine incessantly about Olympic Village being boring anywhere else. Sure, it might be, however it's extremely functional, with great views, on the water with parks and the seawall. Those are the things that make Vancouver.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

For all the gloaters about the Viaducts coming down...

I'm on record upthread quite a ways as saying I'd prefer the viaducts to remain in place until they've reached their service lifetime. I'm not really in favour of bringing them down now.

However, if they were at the end of their service life than I'd see absolutely no reason to replace them with another set of viaducts. Their raison d'etre (spanning the rail yard) has long since passed.

Surface streets will work well enough. Traffic will adapt. It's the circle of life.

[jlousa]

I haven't really posted in this thread as it's been rather pointless for a long time. The viaducts are coming down as IanS said, the election sealed it. The writing was on the wall since day one when Vision instructed city staff to include flawed criteria in the initial study. Look back at my breakdown of that rfp. Personally I feel the mantra of the viaducts being an obstacle completely fictional. Every single north-south across the viaducts is open. There is no barrier present. The Skytrain tracks do provide a barrier but they only dip down mid-block so don't affect continuity anymore then if a building was located there. The area is dead today yes. But that is the city's doing, if they were to say the viaducts are staying until end of life, you would've seen the area developed by now and those empty parcels built out with condos and some retail enlivening the area. I ran the numbers years ago in a previous job about what could be built on those parcels, all of them could have their max FSR built out within the viewcones limits and with the viaducts in place. Aqualini which isn't known to spend money needlessly managed to build out around them. They wanted to connect the South Tower to the viaducts but were told by the city they would not allow it. They also were told to remove any reference of the 4th tower proposed on the North side, not because it can't be built but because the city doesn't want it built around the viaduct. It's been so blatantly obvious that keeping the viaducts was never given an honest chance. And for the record my belief is also to have kept them till end of life, the Burrard bridge is significantly older and nowhere near being torn down, if ridiculous to believe the viaducts are at that stage. Regardless if you are pro-viaduct or anti-viaduct, pro-vision or anti-vision, everyone should be upset on how this facade has played out.

[logan5]

Politics is a bunch of bullshit. A lot of commenters have political agendas affecting their judgement. Math is the universal language. The viaducts are not necessary.

[Pinion]

Nothing's "necessary." Some things are better off existing than not, and the viaducts are one of those things.

I won't cry when they're demolished since Vancouver proper already has scared me off from seeking employment there, but it makes me even less likely to ever look for a job downtown again, and each minute waiting in traffic makes me less likely to spend any money there. I'm not alone. Every one of these decisions is slowly chipping away at the downtown economy.