HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4201  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 6:39 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
Yes the parcels of land you're quoting will have public space included in them, it's a requirement for any parcel developed of that size. And it's impossible for me to tell you how much the city will fall short w/o knowing how much the city will chisel away at the park land in order to get the numbers closer to breaking even, nor how flexible they will end up being on the "affordable housing" requirements. My best guestimate puts the number I expect the city to recoup at between $100-150M based on the current proposal... I would also be surprised if the final costs come in at under $225M and not the $200M we're hearing right now. I predict a loss of ~$75M. We won't know for at least 5yrs though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4202  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 7:18 AM
Kisai Kisai is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa View Post
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.
*cough*affordable housing* ... you mean 300sq foot bachelor suites and not the 1500sq ft 3-bedroom units families need (which cost nearly 3000$/mo when they need to be less than half that price to be affordable.)

The Viaducts will have to be replaced if they are not removed eventually, but do we do that now, or do we do that when pieces start falling off and hurting people?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4203  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 9:17 AM
Sprawl Sprawl is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa View Post
My best guestimate puts the number I expect the city to recoup at between $100-150M based on the current proposal... I would also be surprised if the final costs come in at under $225M and not the $200M we're hearing right now. I predict a loss of ~$75M. We won't know for at least 5yrs though.
So, arguably, this urbane replacement road and its social, economic and environmental benefits has a net cost to the city of ~$75 million dollars. Contrast that with the ~$63 million cost of seismic upgrades, which would only mitigate against disaster and not prolong their use, and I'd say we're looking at a very competitive proposition.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4204  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 1:41 PM
Bcasey25raptor's Avatar
Bcasey25raptor Bcasey25raptor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vancouver Suburbs
Posts: 2,869
This will make my commute to and from work longer. This is stupid.
__________________
River District Big Government progressive
~ Just Watch me
- Pierre Elliot Trudeau
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4205  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 2:13 PM
WarrenC12's Avatar
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 24,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
Well given that he has played the role of Vision apologist for years his attitude is not surprising.

$200 million is an insane amount to spend on destroying something. we could have downtown streetcar for less than that.
I'm a Vision apologist? I've never voted for them in my life.

But we know you're a west-side NIMBY, so you must be a supporter of them...

I am enjoying all the butt-hurt in here. This is like a BCTF forum during the teachers' strike.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4206  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 2:21 PM
Sprawl Sprawl is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor View Post
This will make my commute to and from work longer. This is stupid.
Well, at least you're up front about your self-interest. Take a minute off your morning shower and briskly powerwalk from your parking space to your desk and you will have more than compensated for the 60-180 seconds of travel time this change will add.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4207  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 4:24 PM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by st7860 View Post
200m does sound like a lot to tear down the two viaducts.
I expect that the $200M covers not just tearing down the viaducts but also building the roads, etc. that will be needed to replace them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4208  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 4:55 PM
makr3trkr makr3trkr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 593
http://www.vancouversun.com/Vancouver+un...ia+Dunsmuir+viaducts/11418320/story.html
Major questions remain about the future flow of traffic to the east
By Bethany Lindsay, Vancouver Sun October 6, 2015

".. the exact location of a new thoroughfare has not yet been decided and the funding has not been secured, the city's acting manager of engineering, Jerry Dobrovolny, told a media briefing Tuesday."

"With that new roadway, whether it is Malkin or National, it would require some senior government funding, because it involves a significant portion of bridge to get up and over the railroad tracks at Clark Drive."

".. approval of the city's plan will not be dependent on securing the cash for the alternate arterial, and the city's current plan still calls for east-west traffic to follow Prior and Venables."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4209  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 5:00 PM
st7860 st7860 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
I expect that the $200M covers not just tearing down the viaducts but also building the roads, etc. that will be needed to replace them.
Makes sense. Probably includes utilities to the future residences as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4210  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 5:40 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by st7860 View Post
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
Even if they do meet modern seismic codes, I'm sure the City will skew numbers to say they don't. Lions Gate Bridge and Burrard Bridge were built way before the viaducts and yet they seem to be meeting modern seismic codes just fine. $63mil to upgrade the viaducts is peanuts as opposed to taking them down ($200mil) and putting in new infrastructure (another $150mil?)


Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
I expect that the $200M covers not just tearing down the viaducts but also building the roads, etc. that will be needed to replace them.
Somehow I doubt it. Otherwise the City would have announced, I mean, gloated about it by now. They only announced that the 200mil includes tearing down the viaducts and creating a new park and immediate surrounding area, but that would not include the Malkin Connector (another 100mil). Who knows, perhaps the park would only be a quarter of its original size after they sell off most of it to cover their shortfalls.

Last edited by Vin; Oct 7, 2015 at 6:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4211  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 6:16 PM
WarrenC12's Avatar
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 24,527
Per Frances Bula this morning $100M is included for a new connector over to Main/Prior area. $200M sounds like an all-in number. After all, it's a demolition, how much can that really cost?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4212  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 6:22 PM
IanS IanS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 364
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Per Frances Bula this morning $100M is included for a new connector over to Main/Prior area. $200M sounds like an all-in number. After all, it's a demolition, how much can that really cost?
I think you are misreading the story. According the Ms. Bula, the $200 million is to take down the viaducts, configure the roads, create a new 5 hectare park and build the "alternative bide bridge".

The $100 million to reconfigure roads easy of main is, as yet, unfunded. According to the story, the feds are expected to contribute heavily.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4213  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 6:40 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,729
This is an interesting read from Vancitybuzz. At the time I read this article, 66% of correspondents voted NO to the viaduct removal, 26% YES.



Vancouver viaducts removal cost climbs to $200 million

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/10/vancouver-viaduct-removal-cost/
BY KENNETH CHAN
12:41 PM PDT, TUE OCTOBER 06, 2015
Comments
NEWSTRANSPORTATION


The proposed plan to demolish Vancouver’s Dunsmuir and Georgia viaducts and build new park space has soared to $200 million, an increase of $70 million from earlier estimates when the City of Vancouver began exploring the feasibility of the project.

During a media event held today, the City’s planners confirmed that the plans include:

tearing down the 1.3-kilometre-long, 1972-built viaducts and replacing it with a new 8-lane reconfiguration that merges Expo and Pacific boulevards;
building a five per cent grade ramp at the end of Georgia Street between Rogers Arena and B.C. Place that leads to Pacific Boulevard;

a 13-acre expansion of Creekside Park, a bridge connection for cyclists and pedestrians starting at Dunsmuir Street that gently descends from the escarpment;
and a new neighbourhood for 2,500 units that consists of both market and affordable housing.

But before any part of the project can happen, the area’s soils must be remediated as the area contains a high level of toxins from False Creek’s industrial past.

The entire cost of the project, both the viaducts demolition and beautification of the area, will be covered by fees on the private development on the new land and through other sources.

Planners claim that the viaducts are seismically deficient and are no longer necessary transportation infrastructure as the route currently utilizes 750 of its 1,800 vehicle per lane per hour capacity. Currently, approximately half of the viaduct’s traffic comes from the eastern half of the city.

As well, staff assert that traffic levels on routes in and out of downtown have fallen by 20 per cent since 2000.

But Non-Partisan Association city councillor George Affleck is challenging the assertions of planners and the proponents with the Vision Vancouver party.

“I don’t understand how we’re possibly going to find $200 million and build a bunch of social housing,” Affleck told media. “The math doesn’t add up to me, but I’ll be look to this report to explain that. The $200 million cost will be embedded in the report.”

“Staff say traffic is down in the city, we don’t have people coming into the city – we don’t have people coming out of the city. Well the reason in my mind is that we make it so difficult to get around in the city. We’ve made Vancouver unattractive to come into.”

Travel times are expected to increase by up to three minutes on the same route if the viaducts are demolished and replaced by a major new road with four new traffic intersections.

Affleck also expressed his concerns on the possible need for the City to tap into its capital reserves or even increase taxes. He added that private developers who benefit most from the project should pay for the entire bill.

“The redevelopment should absolutely underwrite the $200 million cost. There should be a direct correlation on the added benefit to developers to pay for the destruction of the viaducts.”

Another $100 million is needed to complete the Malkin Connector Viaduct to transplant traffic from Prior Street.

A detailed staff report will be released on October 21 for deliberation by Vancouver City Council. If approved the viaducts could be demolished in 2018 and the full implementation of the entire project will occur in two phases over five years. An approval will also trigger the start of the planning process for the city park and new neighbourhood.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4214  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 7:15 PM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant - The New Downtown South
Posts: 8,126
The story is a little misleading. The 2500 units is for the Concord Lands. The potential for the viaduct lands is said to be 1000 units.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4215  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 7:17 PM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
They only announced that the 200mil includes tearing down the viaducts and creating a new park and immediate surrounding area, but that would not include the Malkin Connector (another 100mil).
What does the Malkin Connector or any other new road development east of Main Street have to do with any of this? It's a plan to replace the viaducts, period.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4216  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 7:41 PM
WarrenC12's Avatar
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 24,527
Ahh yes, the downtown core. As the late Yogi Berra would say "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4217  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 7:45 PM
wrenegade's Avatar
wrenegade wrenegade is offline
ON3P Skis
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lower Lonsdale, North Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,594
Looking through this report from the city, they envision 800,000 sq ft of residential use on site "6D", the city owned land where the main street ramps currently sit. Depending on how you measure that land area (somewhere between 287,000 and 300,000 sq. ft), this is actually somewhere between 2.67 and 2.79 FSR. I know the the land market has gone a little nuts in Vancouver recently, but $200M for that density equates to $250 PSF. That is probably fine for a market development, but absolutely out of the question if social housing has to be considered.

Further, it has yet to be mentioned, as far as I have seen at least, if the environmental remediation costs are included in that $200M figure.
__________________
Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4218  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 7:53 PM
s211 s211 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 8,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrenegade View Post
Looking through this report from the city, they envision 800,000 sq ft of residential use on site "6D", the city owned land where the main street ramps currently sit. Depending on how you measure that land area (somewhere between 287,000 and 300,000 sq. ft), this is actually somewhere between 2.67 and 2.79 FSR. I know the the land market has gone a little nuts in Vancouver recently, but $200M for that density equates to $250 PSF. That is probably fine for a market development, but absolutely out of the question if social housing has to be considered.

Further, it has yet to be mentioned, as far as I have seen at least, if the environmental remediation costs are included in that $200M figure.
As I recall, the remediation costs are the province's problem, so the city is likely not giving it any consideration.
__________________
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
     
     
  #4219  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 8:19 PM
wrenegade's Avatar
wrenegade wrenegade is offline
ON3P Skis
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lower Lonsdale, North Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by s211 View Post
As I recall, the remediation costs are the province's problem, so the city is likely not giving it any consideration.
Really? Has that been mentioned in any of the reports? I would like to see that.
__________________
Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4220  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 8:42 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
What does the Malkin Connector or any other new road development east of Main Street have to do with any of this? It's a plan to replace the viaducts, period.
Then good luck in trying to disperse traffic east out of downtown and Strathcona area from Pacific Boulevard.



Pre Viaduct Removal
1. Cross Beatty Street on West Georgia
2. Breeze through viaduct
3. On Prior Street.


Post Viaduct Removal (& without the Malkin Connector)
1. Cross Beatty Street on West Georgia
2. Down the ramp at West Georgia to Pacific Blvd, turn left at signals
3. Possibly stop to go thru Pat Quinn Way Intersection
4. Possibly stop and go thru Carall Street Intersection
5. Stop and turn left at signals on National Avenue intersection
6. Stop and turn left at signals on Main Street intersection
7. Stop and turn right at signals on Prior Street intersection
8. Possibly stop and go thru a new subdivision street intersection
10. Possibly stop and go thru Gore Avenue Intersection
11. On Prior Street.

Now, try to imagine traffic situation on a game night, with the added traffic from the new Casino Entertainment complex and thousands more residents on Northeast Falsecreek.

Yup, downtown would be even more inviting....
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 12:37 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

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