Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Sure the traffic engineers' vision of the future from 1950 is still valid and should be respected, right? Right?

Well there are definitely more cars registered in Metro Vancouver now than in 1950, so I'm not sure why reducing infrastructure for them would be seen as wise.

Second, the viaduct removal increases vehicle-pedestrian interactions and vehicle-cyclist interactions. It makes pedestrians and cyclists less safe. It will also slow down cyclists commute time coming from the East Side. In short, it doesn't enhance active transportation, it is nothing more than political theatre.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

That era was truly the golden age of this city. We were dynamic, unafraid to be bold, punched well beyond our weight in so many categories but sadly that is long gone now.

If current administration was around then, Vancouver would have a population of about 400,000 and would be Halifax west; a nice place to visit and perhaps retire, but not much else.

Totally agreed. The Marine Building, Hotel Vancouver, Lions Gate Bridge, Burrard Bridge, trolley buses, skytrain, etc. If Vision were to rule then, I don't think they would approve any of those, especially the viaducts.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

15 Reasons why Vancouver is the greatest city on Earth

Mercer Quality of Living Survey

https://www.nestpick.com/millennial-city-ranking/Nestpick Cities Ranking

I will note that (a) these are all independent surveys, not local boosterism, and (b) they all rate Vancouver highly despite its traffic issues. Apparently for many people, myself included, whatever Vancouver is doing seems to producing generally desirable results.

I will also note that the style and mechanisms of development in Vancouver are often cited as a model for other cities to follow.

Nothing's perfect, of course, and I completely understand the necessity of criticism in order to spur improvement. But people who don't stop and smell the roses every once in a while just end up leading a depressing life.

None of them to do with modern infrastructure, but more to do with the nature that surrounds this city, ethnic foods and skiing, and buildings of the bygone era.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

15 Reasons why Vancouver is the greatest city on Earth

Mercer Quality of Living Survey

https://www.nestpick.com/millennial-city-ranking/Nestpick Cities Ranking

I will note that (a) these are all independent surveys, not local boosterism, and (b) they all rate Vancouver highly despite its traffic issues. Apparently for many people, myself included, whatever Vancouver is doing seems to producing generally desirable results.

I will also note that the style and mechanisms of development in Vancouver are often cited as a model for other cities to follow.

Nothing's perfect, of course, and I completely understand the necessity of criticism in order to spur improvement. But people who don't stop and smell the roses every once in a while just end up leading a depressing life.

All I saw was a review telling folks to come visit Vancouver as a tourist. That's great and all, but has little to nothing to do with how the city operates day to day. Of note, even then most things pointed out in the review are not man made.

If you actually look at the parameters behind the "quality of life" surveys, you would see that things like how many hospitals or schools you have per 100,000 people is one of the measurements. People tend to equate this to a direct result of recent urban planning efforts, but this is simply wrong, and a byproduct of our national geography more than anything. And for the record, we used to trade the #1 spot with Vienna on a regular basis before, but now are lower.
Never even heard of the other one, but I see it measures the ready availability of contraception as a measurement, so I guess we're a great city because you can get easy access to condoms Yay! Perhaps we can pay our down payment for a house in condoms.

(On a side note, have a gander at that nightlife score )

Regarding the notion other cities use "Vancouverism" and is "often cited", that is a made in Vancouver propaganda tool. You only see it in personal blogs or on questionable sources like Wikipedia where literally anyone can type anything.

However, none of this still doesn't address poor traffic decisions such as removing perfectly good infrastructure to wedge yet more condos in a given area

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I will also note that the style and mechanisms of development in Vancouver are often cited as a model for other cities to follow.

I would set myself on fire in the streets before I ever agreed to a model heavily influenced behind the scenes by the Chinese and people who want their view of the mountains.
Three of the major points are Asthetics, Planning Process and sustainable development. All three are arguably major problems with the city where everything is a dull mid-rise, anemic arterial routes, and transit corridor reductions that make no logical sense.

15 Reasons why Vancouver is the greatest city on Earth

The article is the usual spiel. Great food, great rec locations, great communities, great hotels...oh, and you are close to Seattle and Portland.
So, awesome if you are a tourist. Totally different if you want to move there. The part about unaffordability is curiously left out. Then again, the british don't like talking about their high youth unemployment and cost of housing either, no?

Anyways, going off topic here.....

[WarrenC12]

If you guys are that down on Vancouver, I highly recommend moving. Life is too short.

[Pinion]

On my way out. Crippling traffic problems with no fixes on the horizon were definitely a part of that decision.

[theKB]

Seems to be very quiet on this subject. Now with Gregor's imminent departure could we see this project die on the vine or will we wake up one morning to the viaducts closed?

[GenWhy?]

Does anyone really see millions being put into two new overpasses or repairs that do not connect to freeways?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by theKB

Seems to be very quiet on this subject. Now with Gregor's imminent departure could we see this project die on the vine or will we wake up one morning to the viaducts closed?

I have no idea where this is on the council's agenda. I thought it was supposed to happen in the fall of 2017.

They still have a year, even if you think Gregor is a "lame duck", it's still plenty of time. I have to imagine it will become an election issue.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Does anyone really see millions being put into two new overpasses or repairs that do not connect to freeways?

Are you referring to replacing the viaducts? Not going to happen. What freeways?

I think the choice is either take them down now, or take them down in 10-20 years or whenever they need to come down due to age and maintenance anyway.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Are you referring to replacing the viaducts? Not going to happen. What freeways?

I think the choice is either take them down now, or take them down in 10-20 years or whenever they need to come down due to age and maintenance anyway.

WarrenC12, do you know if they have already secured the 400-500mil to take down the viaducts and build the Malkin connecter, plus other bells and whistles?

Provincial government agreed to the funding?

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

If you guys are that down on Vancouver, I highly recommend moving. Life is too short.

Or we can choose to make the City keep the viaducts and admit their follies. You're right. Life is too short.

[s211]

Originally Posted by theKB

Seems to be very quiet on this subject. Now with Gregor's imminent departure could we see this project die on the vine or will we wake up one morning to the viaducts closed?

I can picture Vision ramming commencement through before there's boot prints on their @sses, just like the Cambie Bridge lane conversion was.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Are you referring to replacing the viaducts? Not going to happen. What freeways?

I think the choice is either take them down now, or take them down in 10-20 years or whenever they need to come down due to age and maintenance anyway.

And they probably don't need to come DOWN in 20/30 years... if they're maintained.

Would anyone be surprised if they looked for every little thing wrong with them... like they wouldn't withstand a magnitude 9 earthquake... so they're unsafe.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by MIPS

I would set myself on fire in the streets before I ever agreed to a model heavily influenced behind the scenes by the Chinese and people who want their view of the mountains.
Three of the major points are Asthetics, Planning Process and sustainable development. All three are arguably major problems with the city where everything is a dull mid-rise, anemic arterial routes, and transit corridor reductions that make no logical sense.....

That is so true. It sort of sums up the overall infrastrucatural "gut", and the resultant pace and feel of the city.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

WarrenC12, do you know if they have already secured the 400-500mil to take down the viaducts and build the Malkin connecter, plus other bells and whistles?

Provincial government agreed to the funding?



Or we can choose to make the City keep the viaducts and admit their follies. You're right. Life is too short.

Do you have a source for that dollar figure?

The Province isn't funding anything. Although they are friendly to Vision now so you never know. Watch the budget in Feb...

I think you are confusing the "life is short" statement. I'll be happy whether the viaducts stay or go, but if I had to pick I'd rather see the whole area redeveloped.

If Vision doesn't set things in motion during this term, they only have themselves to blame for the delay. This is the same with the BC Liberals and the Massey Bridge. They talked about it for 5 years and did nothing, so it was easy for the NDP to cancel.

That said, if the NPA runs a platform similar to what got Bremner a win in the by-election, they might support the redevelopment anyway. He wants more housing everywhere.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

That said, if the NPA runs a platform similar to what got Bremner a win in the by-election, they might support the redevelopment anyway. He wants more housing everywhere.

you don't have to tear down the viaducts to building housing. you can build over, around, and under them while leaving them intact. that is something no one in council seems to want to talk about.

see Granville Street Bridge Vancouver House development.

you can put shops/commercial under them with weather protected outdoor shops and then building house next to and over-top of the viaducts. next thing you know, they'll be gone from sight.

but nahh, that works in other world class cities so why would Vancouver want that. we just want their bike and walking network, we don't want what keeps those cities moving, car network


as for the progress on the project, i hear utility relocation should start sometime in the midsummer/July of 2018.

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

you don't have to tear down the viaducts to build housing. you can build over, around, and under them while leaving them intact. That is something no one in council seems to want to talk about.

see Granville Street Bridge Vancouver House development.

you can put shops/commercial under them with weather protected outdoor shops and then building house next to and over-top of the viaducts. next thing you know, they'll be gone from sight.

Mr Chonks of Generic_sounding_chinese_developer_company doesn't have it in his agenda to build around an existing road. UBC students don't like dealing with the road noise. He needs preclearled land that is prepared and prezoned for him beforehand.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by MIPS

Mr Chonks of Generic_sounding_chinese_developer_company doesn't have it in his agenda to build around an existing road. UBC students don't like dealing with the road noise. He needs preclearled land that is prepared and prezoned for him beforehand.

oh that's right. we are boring, close minded, cheap, and prefer to bend over instead of standing up.

my mistake.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Do you have a source for that dollar figure?

The Province isn't funding anything. Although they are friendly to Vision now so you never know. Watch the budget in Feb...

I think you are confusing the "life is short" statement. I'll be happy whether the viaducts stay or go, but if I had to pick I'd rather see the whole area redeveloped.

If Vision doesn't set things in motion during this term, they only have themselves to blame for the delay. This is the same with the BC Liberals and the Massey Bridge. They talked about it for 5 years and did nothing, so it was easy for the NDP to cancel.

That said, if the NPA runs a platform similar to what got Bremner a win in the by-election, they might support the redevelopment anyway. He wants more housing everywhere.

http://www.vancouversun.com/vancouver+un...ia+dunsmuir+viaducts/11418320/story.html

https://www.pressreader.com/canada/vancouver-sun/20170619/281599535493550

Viaduct removal and park++ = $200mil (2015 figure)
Malkin or other options = 100 - $230mil (I say put it at $200mil)

Total = $400mil (minimum)


Doesn't it cost only $200mil to have the streetcar fully implemented downtown, with connections to Granville Island, Yaletown, Gastown and Stanley Park?
Without any Provincial funding, where are they going to get the 400mil? No wonder Gregor is trying to escape the situation, because others have already jumped ship.

[GenWhy?]

Are the largest reasons for folks to keep them because they are not immediately at the end of their life, are an essential transportation piece of infrastructure, or the price tag?