HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4001  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2015, 5:22 PM
s211 s211 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 8,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by nefc View Post
Now if only the Vision-blinded Vancouver Sun would pick up the story.
__________________
If it seems I'm ignoring what you may have written in response to something I have written, it's very likely that you're on my Ignore List. Please do not take it personally.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4002  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2015, 5:25 PM
WarrenC12's Avatar
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 24,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
Great! The viaducts are doing their job just fine and dandy.
Great! Let's never change anything!

You'd be a great fit with the NIMBY NPA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4003  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2015, 5:44 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Great! Let's never change anything!

You'd be a great fit with the NIMBY NPA.
Yes, I abhor a change for the worse, and no, I'm not a NIMBY. The viaducts are not blocking my view of those "beautiful mountains", unlike your future view. Now who's the NIMBY huh?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4004  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2015, 6:27 PM
WarrenC12's Avatar
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 24,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
Yes, I abhor a change for the worse, and no, I'm not a NIMBY. The viaducts are not blocking my view of those "beautiful mountains", unlike your future view. Now who's the NIMBY huh?
???? Not sure what you're thinking but the viaducts have no bearing on any view of mine. Big towers might, so we should just keep the current parking lots. Great use of space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4005  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2015, 7:54 PM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
I hope the Expo section under BC Place will be back to 3 lanes in the future. That is the most urban section of road we have in Downtown.
You say that as if "surrounded by concrete: top, bottom, left and right" were a good thing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4006  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2015, 10:28 PM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
You say that as if "surrounded by concrete: top, bottom, left and right" were a good thing.
For the 20 seconds or so it takes to drive from Costco to Cambie Bridge (a bit longer during rush-hours or when BCPlace & GM Place have the mass influx of people arriving by car for an event), it is tolerable.

Nobody's clamoring to grow a garden under Terry Fox Plaza.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4007  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2015, 10:35 PM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
You say that as if "surrounded by concrete: top, bottom, left and right" were a good thing.
It might not be beautiful, but it is pretty urban experience with all the peeks of towers you see while driving it. That small strecth of road feels very un-Vancouver to me and I always enjoy driving it. It is also quite quick to drive, although bicycles cause right lane to stop in front of Costco.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4008  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2015, 12:39 AM
EastVanMark EastVanMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by nefc View Post

Thanks for posting. My favorite quote from former transportation manager Ian Adam:

"“Anybody who thinks you can take down two major viaducts like that, which handles 60,000 people a day and a thousand heavy trucks a day — and not have some impact — they’ve got to be dreaming in Technicolor,”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4009  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2015, 12:49 AM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastVanMark View Post
Thanks for posting. My favorite quote from former transportation manager Ian Adam:

"“Anybody who thinks you can take down two major viaducts like that, which handles 60,000 people a day and a thousand heavy trucks a day — and not have some impact — they’ve got to be dreaming in Technicolor,”
He's ignoring similar projects in many other cities which have been generally regarded as successes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4010  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2015, 2:38 AM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant - The New Downtown South
Posts: 8,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by nefc View Post
Quote:
Adam said he obtained traffic projections from the city that show increased traffic at peak hours along the East Hastings corridor, Chinatown and Cambie Bridge. He said he viewed the same projections at open houses on the viaducts.

The projections, which he shared with the Courier, show the Main Street area at the east end of the viaducts jumping from 970 vehicles during the peak to 2,135. Increases are also anticipated to jump from 800 to 1,102 along East Hastings, 1,030 to 1,341 on East Cordova, 435 to 545 on East Pender and 2,000 to 2,192 over the Cambie Bridge.
Does this projection suggest that somehow removing the viaducts will increase the number of vehicles coming to and from Downtown? How can there be increases on all corridors?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4011  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2015, 3:39 AM
s211 s211 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 8,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastVanMark View Post
Thanks for posting. My favorite quote from former transportation manager Ian Adam:

"“Anybody who thinks you can take down two major viaducts like that, which handles 60,000 people a day and a thousand heavy trucks a day — and not have some impact — they’ve got to be dreaming in Technicolor,”
The kind of Technicolour that only spews out the back end of a unicorn, no less.
__________________
If it seems I'm ignoring what you may have written in response to something I have written, it's very likely that you're on my Ignore List. Please do not take it personally.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4012  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2015, 3:56 AM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 3,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Humanity has been urbanizing since the rise of organized agriculture.

The concept of the suburbs arose primarily in post-war North America, and parts of Europe. Other countries around the world emulated this development on the ideal of the US white picket fence, 2.5 kids, etc.

Now we are moving back towards urbanization as a society. To me, it's clear that is the long run trend, and the 20th century was more of an anomaly than a trend.

All that said, I don't think suburban lifestyles are affordable from a sustainability perspective. Humans are social animals and tend to enjoy being in groups, both family and otherwise.

Edit: Just to add on, I share an IT background and have done extensive working from home in the past. I much preferred working in my downtown condo and/or a local coffee shop, vs. in my isolated residential basement or office.
The suburbs look like most of Vancouver does, with houses and little streets. I grew up in the burbs and I don't think I was denied a social up-bringing. On the contrary, I played street hockey nearly every day in the summer, ran around in the local parks with my 20+ friends, played organized sports on the fields around our houses, and would run around playing cops and robbers with the kids in my immediate neighborhood.

When I went to school 90% of my socialization was at school and because of the lack of funding in Surrey schools, it meant my high school had 2000 or so students crammed into a facility built for 1100 so there was plenty of socialization going on given we were on top of each other.

That said if you did any actual research you'd realize that suburbs date back as far as Ancient Rome (basically as far as record goes). The wealthy used to live on the hills in Rome where as the poor people would live in the low lands surrounding thus the word subburbe bening "under or bellow the city".

Suburbs continued well into early European history with urban market hubs being constructed taking the form of walled fortifications then small villages would spring up all around the market hub. These were also suburbs.

If you want a real example do some reading on the history of London or rather Westminster and how over time the suburbs were swallowed up as "London" expanded to the city it is today. Still though even today London has suburbs that meet the modern definition and many are older than even the United States or Canada.

So unfortunately you're just categorically wrong that this is some sort of post-war modern invention. What you're seeing today isn't a migration to urban lifestyles but rather the growth of the "central market hub" or main city like happened back in Ancient Rome and then in Europe.

What you call urbanization of the suburbs is simply expansion of the urban core. The suburbs will simply continue to move out as has happened in every other major city throughout time.

Eventually if the earth is maybe 15-20 billion people we'd all be in urban centers as we'd be completely out of space but that's never going to happen we'd run out of resources well before then.

There's also a huge myth that suburbs are a bad thing. They only became a bad thing with the invention of the automobile because automobiles pollute our atmosphere and contribute to global warming. I've said it a million times that when humanity finally gets its collective head out of its ass and replaced gasoline with hydrogen and cars no longer pollute, this entire debate over urban vs suburban will become moot imho.

Outside of motor vehicles, people living in urban areas are not any more efficient than those in the suburbs. They eat the same amount of food, produce the same amount of garbage, require the same amount of goods per capita, and so on and so fourth. It's only the evil polluting car that pits suburb vs urban center.

The above all said, I'm fairly certain (in my opinion of course) that the viaducts will be coming down. If it is such an important Vision Vancouver thing, the fact they are moving forward with a giant ugly expensive set of suicide barriers along the Burrard street bridge to save the lives of less than 1 person per year tells me that when they've made up their mind about something, they'll make it happen regardless of opinion.

I also think at the end it won't be too drastically bad and may have some major positives like making sure every single person drives by the devoid parking lots Concord Pacific has throughout the area eventually forcing them to actually do something with them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4013  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2015, 4:52 AM
WarrenC12's Avatar
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 24,553
I'm not going to respond to every point, but I guess you totally missed the post about the per person expense of living in the suburbs being far, far higher than in an urban setting.

People in the suburbs use far more energy per capita than those in urban settings.

Of course there is a natural expansion of living space due to expense, that's not what the modern suburb is. The modern (postwar) suburb is a subdivision of inefficiently designed living spaces that our planet can not support on a scale in line with the number of people we have on it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4014  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2015, 5:05 AM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 3,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
I'm not going to respond to every point, but I guess you totally missed the post about the per person expense of living in the suburbs being far, far higher than in an urban setting.

People in the suburbs use far more energy per capita than those in urban settings.

Of course there is a natural expansion of living space due to expense, that's not what the modern suburb is. The modern (postwar) suburb is a subdivision of inefficiently designed living spaces that our planet can not support on a scale in line with the number of people we have on it.
You're being simplistic. I've read plenty of studies on urban vs suburban and every study I've read says while statistics seem to indicate energy use is higher in the suburbs then in urban areas, the causes aren't quite so cut and dry and a large contributors are the increases reliance on cars in the suburbs along with higher spread in urban regions that rely on power from coal and other high polluting energy sources.

Regardless, the suburbs aren't going anywhere. We'll all die of global warming before people give up their houses in the burbs. And let's be honest, the biggest issue is planetary over population. There should be a good 2-3 billion less humans on this planet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4015  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2015, 5:54 AM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
That said if you did any actual research you'd realize that suburbs date back as far as Ancient Rome (basically as far as record goes). The wealthy used to live on the hills in Rome where as the poor people would live in the low lands surrounding thus the word subburbe bening "under or bellow the city".
Of course the historical norm is that land is always cheaper further from the city and so there's always been this sort of hierarchy (with notable exceptions such as Detroit's recent woes proving the rule). But what changed in the post-war era was the extent to which the automobile vastly improved accessibility to the outlying regions. That caused a huge expansion of the suburbs to a degree that's pretty much without precedent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
Outside of motor vehicles, people living in urban areas are not any more efficient than those in the suburbs. They eat the same amount of food, produce the same amount of garbage, require the same amount of goods per capita, and so on and so fourth. It's only the evil polluting car that pits suburb vs urban center.
Not really true. Most families consume more energy heating and (less so here) air conditioning their homes than they do on gas. Because urban land is more expensive it leads to smaller lots, smaller houses, and a lot more use of shared structures such as townhouses and condos - all of which tend to be a lot more energy efficient than the large single family housing typically seen in suburbia. The denser urban areas of cities lead to lots of efficiencies such as increased walking and transit use, decreased cost and energy used for services such as deliveries, garbage disposal, construction of utilities, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4016  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2015, 4:12 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
He's ignoring similar projects in many other cities which have been generally regarded as successes.
They are not similar at all, not even close. What are our alternatives? Would there be a new tunnel for ours to reroute the traffic? Would ours have a newly beautified but artificial river? Are ours damaged by an earthquake? Are our viaducts also freeways that block access to the river/waterfront? Will there be nothing but parkland for the citizens of Vancouver after the viaducts are gone?


Or perhaps the awful truth is that ours is purely for the sake of property development. Nefarious.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4017  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2015, 4:22 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
Does this projection suggest that somehow removing the viaducts will increase the number of vehicles coming to and from Downtown? How can there be increases on all corridors?
Are you questioning a City transportation planner, an expert? Why are you not questioning the non-experts like City councillors?

Of course, diverted traffic from traffic build-up needs to go to other corridors, resulting in increases.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4018  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2015, 4:31 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
I'm not going to respond to every point, but I guess you totally missed the post about the per person expense of living in the suburbs being far, far higher than in an urban setting.

People in the suburbs use far more energy per capita than those in urban settings.

Of course there is a natural expansion of living space due to expense, that's not what the modern suburb is. The modern (postwar) suburb is a subdivision of inefficiently designed living spaces that our planet can not support on a scale in line with the number of people we have on it.
I totally agree with you on that. Even suburbs in the Lower Mainland are trying to concentrate services and people around urban city centres. This is a good sign. And the Metro region have drawn up boundaries to restrict urban expansion, but more needs to be done.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4019  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2015, 6:02 PM
WBC WBC is offline
Transit User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Metrotown/Downtown
Posts: 810
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post

Regardless, the suburbs aren't going anywhere. We'll all die of global warming before people give up their houses in the burbs. And let's be honest, the biggest issue is planetary over population. There should be a good 2-3 billion less humans on this planet.
Yes, that it the root cause of majority of our problems. Yes, we need to address our energy use and improve efficiency but that hardly helps if we (as a species) keep adding people endlessly. The problem is that our most prosperous states/societies run under capitalism and capitalism requires growth (among other things). Once you cut off population growth and start actually reducing the number of people you would have some tough problems to solve in terms of how the economy would function. For example, look at our country and our cities. A significant chunk of economy (something like 20%) is tied to real estate industry, construction and financials linked with it. Can you imagine the scenario in which you have population decline and as a result real estate and construction are basically dead? This would be a fascinating topic to explore...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4020  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2015, 6:12 PM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
They are not similar at all, not even close.
Sure they are. They are examples of major freeways that were replaced where the kind of "carmeggedon" touted in the linked article failed to materialize.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:51 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.