Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[logan5]

How are we "spending" 200 million to remove them if the monies generated from their removal more than cover the costs?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Here's another opinion, also from BIV.

https://www.biv.com/article/2015/8/retired-vancouver-director-transportation-question/

IMO, unless they design the new, wide Pacific Bvd with better interchanges than stop-go traffic lights, we're headed for gridlock.
But don't take my suggestion seriously, please. Just read the link. Please

On only has to look at the Vision-idiocy at Pacific and Davie to see how this will play out. Where Gregor & Co got rid of the turn bays on Pacific in favour of some ridiculous median pathway that nobody uses. And it causes complete backup as cars get are only able to make turns one at a time each light cycle.

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by Sprawl

Yet demonstrably it is not. Several million dollars have been spent comprehensively addressing this question. Rigorous planning, modelling and assessment has identified and specified zero negative impact on vehicle capacity and acceptable negative impact on vehicular movement in the order of 60-180 seconds, with the added benefits of improved vehicle circulation and increased route choice. The body of theoretical and case study literature would suggest that the proposed efforts to accommodate vehicles may even overcompensate, with the less quantifiable but clearly observable variable of 'disappearing traffic' likely to reduce the already negligible negative impact even further than predicted.

Once economic viability, community support and lack of disbenefit (or indeed actual benefit) to vehicle movement is demonstrated, all of which have been, the case for removal becomes an inarguably sensible idea from the standpoint of literally any metric by which we assess whether or not an urban planning concept has merit which provide a clear and rational argument in favour of removal.



Well, no. Because comprehensive (and even more expensive) traffic modelling and iterative concepts have produced a design which is, literally, efficient.

While I respect that your opinion is a different one then mine.

They want to pay money to tear down usable infrastructure, which by your own admission will increase travel times. Acceptable negative impact as you put it, is still negative impact. This is why its a stupid idea. In my opinion.

[WBC]

Originally Posted by logan5

How are we "spending" 200 million to remove them if the monies generated from their removal more than cover the costs?

The same way the Olympic Village paid for itself...

[jlousa]

*l* you don't really think the city's portion of land will be enough to generate the $200+million . . . Do you?
Almost all of the non park land shown is already in private hands. The parcels that the city has are shown as park land right now. So we can expect a bait and switch and we still won't see city generate near enough to offset those costs. And yes please quote me on that.

[logan5]

What are you're calculations? there is close to 300 000 sq ft of land. Multiply that by at least 5, probably higher, and you have 1.5 million buildable square feet. You don't think that will generate more than 200 million? What's the going rate for prime real estate like that? At 134$ per buildable sq foot you break even. that is probly quite low for that area. That's my math. Tell me where I went wrong and let's see your numbers.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by jlousa

*l* you don't really think the city's portion of land will be enough to generate the $200+million . . . Do you?
Almost all of the non park land shown is already in private hands. The parcels that the city has are shown as park land right now. So we can expect a bait and switch and we still won't see city generate near enough to offset those costs. And yes please quote me on that.

The graphic the city provides shows both blocks that flank Main as city owned.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by logan5

What are you're calculations? there is close to 300 000 sq ft of land. Multiply that by at least 5, probably higher, and you have 1.5 million buildable square feet. You don't think that will generate more than 200 million? What's the going rate for prime real estate like that? At 134$ per buildable sq foot you break even. that is probly quite low for that area. That's my math. Tell me where I went wrong and let's see your numbers.

Hold on so they are not putting in a park and 8 lane supper road but instead selling the land to developers, after having the public decontaminate it? They are taking out public infrastructure that 10's of thousands of people use and they are transferring it to private hands for zero, and I mean zero benefit to the public, and not only zero but actually negative by removing "transportation" infrastructure. And worse of all there is enough room there to build towers in between the viaducts and absorb all the potential density as is, so there isn't even extra units being built in the city.

Oh and then they turn around and tell CP not to rezone their land...I would laugh if I was not so angry. The only good thing is that I don't live in Vancouver anymore nor will I ever, and this is one of my reasons. I cant support idiocy, I am not that rich.

[Vin]

Hmmm let's see if this makes sense: the developers build all the condos, then give 200mil of revenue to the City to cover the costs of the viaduct removal. Does that even make any cow sense? How gullible do they think we are (ok maybe for one or 2 folks)? The City had essentially been lying to us that it would cost 100mil pre-election and now suddenly the cost has ballooned to 200mil? They also say this process will take 5 years to finalize, so by then the costs would have ballooned to 400mil? Man we are surely being taken for a joy ride by the City.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Vin

How gullible do they think we are...

VERY gullible. We voted them back in, right?

[Vin]

So, the extra costs, perhaps another 300mil or more to build the Georgia ramp, bike access bridge to Dunsmuir street and Pacific Boulevard widening will also be paid for by the developers? Wow these developers must be rearing golden geese for being so charitable to the City's whims and fancies.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by IanS

VERY gullible. We voted them back in, right?

I didn't.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by IanS

VERY gullible. We voted them back in, right?

Election was 43.4% turnout. With multiple levels of government that does not give the municipal government a very strong mandate. More people in the city of Vancouver voted for the BC Liberals then voted for Vision Vancouver. Interesting no?

[jlousa]

I don't know why I bother arguing with you as you don't seem to grasp stuff that has been explained in detail over and over again, but thankfully others learn from my posts.
You can't have it both ways, depict the vast areas of park land, and claim 300Ksqft of city owned area to be redeveloped (remember most of the land is already in private hands. Lets assume the city does crave out 300Ksqft of land to develop... There is no way. I repeat no way it will get an FAR of 5...or higher as you mentioned. Individual towers will certainly chime in at around the 5 FSR (remember there is still spacing requirements and a low view cone over the area), but the area as a whole will not reach 5FAR. Also lets not forget the city has also promised (something I'm sure will get diluted with time) that they are planning on providing affordable units into the mix. Yet another cost incurred and limiting the amount that land will bring it.
My argument has always been mostly about the economics of this, and they suck as much today as they did when I crunched the numbers myself well over a decade ago.

[st7860]

Originally Posted by logan5

What are you're calculations? there is close to 300 000 sq ft of land. Multiply that by at least 5, probably higher, and you have 1.5 million buildable square feet. You don't think that will generate more than 200 million? What's the going rate for prime real estate like that? At 134$ per buildable sq foot you break even. that is probly quite low for that area. That's my math. Tell me where I went wrong and let's see your numbers.

The in thing for people that don't live in Vancouver is to support car based infrastructure also to get bent out of shape when more residential units will be built

[jlousa]

I probably live closer to the viaducts then anyone on this forum... and I don't even own a car... so I'm going to assume that wasn't directed at me.

[st7860]

Yup didn't even see your thing until after I clicked "go" . There may be a couple of self declared individuals that do not live in vancouver . 200m does sound like a lot to tear down the two viaducts. If they were left up I wonder if they meet modern seismic codes - haven't heard anyone think about that aspect yet

[wrenegade]

I agree that I doubt anything close to 5 FSR is achievable. 3 FSR gross is more likely (like the Olympic Village). At current market rates that might achieve $200M (290,000 sf @ 3 FSR x $225 per buildable sq. ft), but that doesn't taken into consideration any environmental remediation, rental housing, or social housing. A pure market development might just scrape by making financial sense (ignoring the effect the MASSIVE electrical substation next door might have on sales), but as soon as any social component is thrown in the mix, kiss that "revenue neutral" idea goodbye.

Unless they are considering the CAC revenue that might be generated from Concord rezoning their land, but that really shouldn't apply here, as that land could be developed separately and the City of Vancouver would still extract CACs to pay for something else, viaducts or no viaducts.

Beyond the financial side of things, I still fail to see how the at-grade portion of the skytrain guideway (which isn't going anywhere, obviously) OR the new "super-road" isn't just as much of a "physical or psychological barrier" as the current viaducts themselves.

[logan5]

The 2 square blocks that flank main street total close to 300k sq ft when I measure with planimeter. You're saying that those 2 blocks are going to be partly park land? That's contrary to what the city is depicting. The City is also depicting that land as being city owned land. Am I wrong? And you don't go into much detail about anything.

[Sprawl]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I don't know why I bother arguing with you as you don't seem to grasp stuff that has been explained in detail over and over again, but thankfully others learn from my posts.
You can't have it both ways, depict the vast areas of park land, and claim 300Ksqft of city owned area to be redeveloped (remember most of the land is already in private hands. Lets assume the city does crave out 300Ksqft of land to develop... There is no way. I repeat no way it will get an FAR of 5...or higher as you mentioned. Individual towers will certainly chime in at around the 5 FSR (remember there is still spacing requirements and a low view cone over the area), but the area as a whole will not reach 5FAR. Also lets not forget the city has also promised (something I'm sure will get diluted with time) that they are planning on providing affordable units into the mix. Yet another cost incurred and limiting the amount that land will bring it.
My argument has always been mostly about the economics of this, and they suck as much today as they did when I crunched the numbers myself well over a decade ago.

So we've got a figure somewhere between $0 and $200,000,000 in terms of what will be offset. If you reject the claim that it will be entirely covered which is what was said at the press conference, where do you think it will fall? 10%? 50%? 80%?

Beyond land sale revenue surely there's many other factors to be considered. You can write off $63 million for the no longer necessary seismic upgrades, for example.