Downtown Vancouver Updates

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Unless those streets are signalled for turning, it will be distinctly unpedestrian friendly (ie. way more potential vehicle-pedestrian interaction points).

It says "people friendly" streets. I assume large sidewalks, prioritized for pedestrians, and happens to allow vehicles for access to buildings I would assume.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by rofina

I tend to agree. Quit wasting space with streets, build something fun and dense with a more walkable concept, its a tight area don't need to have streets crossing every way. Just need it for delivery and refuse disposal logistics and it should be fine.

That area could turn into a neat district given proper planning. Funky areas around bridges like that is what give character and uniqueness.

I'm thinking something like the Spectrum/Costco project between the Georgia viaducts where there are multiple "levels" to the city, hopefully with more vibrancy at the bridge level than at Georgia.

[officedweller]

Those streets are there to replace the functionality of the loops.
Because Seymour is a northbound one way street, you can't circle right (around the block) from the bridge via Seymour to get to Pacific.
Likewise, you can't access the bridge from Pacific by circling right (around the block) via Howe, because Howe is one way southbound.

The alternative, I suppose, is to make short 2-way sections of Seymour and Howe next to each ramp to provide that functionality - but that's essentially what the loops do.

[jollyburger]

Hoarding going up under the Scotiabank tower I assume for the reclad.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Hoarding going up under the Scotiabank tower I assume for the reclad.

Lobby integration I think.
There's a hoarding passage through the lobby.

[Vin]

Yup, the Granville loops should stay. Removing them is like trying to tear down the Georgia viaducts, as the result can only fare much worse than existing conditions. The loop ramps really help to make traffic flow really smoothly in this area. The only chokepoint is at the intersection of Burrard Bridge and Pacific Blvd: and yes, that's because there are no loop ramps leading to Burrard Bridge.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Lobby integration I think.
There's a hoarding passage through the lobby.

The probably makes more sense I think it was covered from West Georgia to the construction site.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

IIRC it's in response to people wanting an easier connection to the seawall. The loops aren't bad, but unlike the rest of the bridge and ramps, I've never seen more than three vehicles a minute... so why not replace them with something more walk-friendly?

I just saw six cars in a row on the loop when I was trying to cross it last weekend on my way to Granville Island.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Even so, six cars on a street once in a blue moon is hardly gridlock. It's the ramps that are irreplaceable.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

i dont really see the point in replacing the loops, when you're adding in that many new streets through the properties that aren't even that big. really it is a terrible use of space. i wonder if the build-able lot size decreases with all these new streets. i cant imagine it increases.

realistically they should be building in the loop, and then cantilever over above it instead. then create a nice pedestrian environment above them. essentially turning them into tunnels. they are pretty low to the ground already.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Neon and Continental (the centre of the "H") are already there and taking up space though. Sure, the new road would bisect the loop lot, but the two smaller lots would have more room; Vancouver House next door makes it work just fine.

I suspect that any kind of raised pedestrian structure would be comparatively worse. The elevations don't line up very well to begin with, and then people still can't get to the seawall. Not to mention increased construction/maintenance costs.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

Yup, the Granville loops should stay. Removing them is like trying to tear down the Georgia viaducts, as the result can only fare much worse than existing conditions. The loop ramps really help to make traffic flow really smoothly in this area. The only chokepoint is at the intersection of Burrard Bridge and Pacific Blvd: and yes, that's because there are no loop ramps leading to Burrard Bridge.

No that's because the Burrard bridge only has a single street feeding it that instersects with a busy Pacific.

Granville has itself, Seymour, and Howe for traffic flow, and goes right over Pacific and intersects with other less busy streets further up.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

No that's because the Burrard bridge only has a single street feeding it that instersects with a busy Pacific.

Granville has itself, Seymour, and Howe for traffic flow, and goes right over Pacific and intersects with other less busy streets further up.

interestingly enough, there was a plan to add ramps to the Burrard St Bridge back in the 1969 with the proposed development of the Expo Lands. (30yrs before they were developed). clearly that never materialized.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

interestingly enough, there was a plan to add ramps to the Burrard St Bridge back in the 1969 with the proposed development of the Expo Lands. (30yrs before they were developed). clearly that never materialized.

Part of the freeway plan or something else?

Granville works because there is free flowing on/off ramps (sort of) on both sides. Burrard can't open up one side without fixing the other.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

No that's because the Burrard bridge only has a single street feeding it that instersects with a busy Pacific.

Granville has itself, Seymour, and Howe for traffic flow, and goes right over Pacific and intersects with other less busy streets further up.

Don't forget that Granville Street is heavily curtailed for mostly bus use only, and there are Hornby and Thurlow for Burrard to feed into. Need to expand your imaginaion.

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

interestingly enough, there was a plan to add ramps to the Burrard St Bridge back in the 1969 with the proposed development of the Expo Lands. (30yrs before they were developed). clearly that never materialized.

Exactly!~

Hence the bottleneck at Burrard.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

Don't forget that Granville Street is heavily curtailed for mostly bus use only, and there are Hornby and Thurlow for Burrard to feed into. Need to expand your imaginaion.

Yes, you're imagining things if you think Thurlow and Hornby connect to Burrard bridge in the same way Seymour/Howe, and Fir/Hemlock do for Granville.

Apples and Oranges.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Part of the freeway plan or something else?

it was not part of the free plan directly. it was a bit like project 200, it was proposed because of the freeway plan. basically it was a proposal to create Yaletown. Residential as well as hotel space along the waterfront of False Creek. those roads, and others, were meant as connectivity to and from the neighbourhood.

the design principals looked very interesting. one of the key items in the report is limiting traffic noise from getting to residents through the use of good design principals. they even talking about future rapid transit. both at grade, and overhead.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

interestingly enough, there was a plan to add ramps to the Burrard St Bridge back in the 1969 with the proposed development of the Expo Lands. (30yrs before they were developed). clearly that never materialized.

There was also a plan to add a ramp from Burrard Bridge to Hornby St. That's why the City owns the former Kettle of Fish / Art Knapps building.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by officedweller

There was also a plan to add a ramp from Burrard Bridge to Hornby St. That's why the City owns the former Kettle of Fish / Art Knapps building.

mhmm, there was. (that's shown in the photo above as well)

[officedweller]

Sorry, I meant as a standalone project that seemed to have survived til then.