Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Time for an eye test? There's been one there since 2018. The bigger permanent one will be developed when the CAC deal is reached and the viaducts come down, and the CAC will more than pay for both. Like Andy Livingstone Park, David Lam Park and George Wainborn Park, the most polluted land will be left underneath it, as it's safer to leave it undisturbed than taking it off site for treatment.

So how many decades have False Creek residents been waiting for their "permanent" park?

[logan5]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I don't think ABC is going to be pushing the viaduct removal anytime soon. And I'm good with that. Believe we will see Ken Sim's council go thru the city budget line by line and see the city return more towards it's traditional role of providing services and less about social engineering. Going to upset some people but think the majority had enough for now, of course things will probably change again after a future election.

There's more pressure from David Eby to get housing built, so the viaduct removal might be seen as more of a priority now. The best way to rehabilitate the DTES is to bring in as many functional/working residents as possible. Chinatown was getting there because of handful of developments along Main Street. Need to keep it going.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So how many decades have False Creek residents been waiting for their "permanent" park?

Too long, but who cares. They have a nice temporary park and unobstructed views.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So how many decades have False Creek residents been waiting for their "permanent" park?

As long as it takes. The park can't be built until the contaminated soils can be buried. The only people complaining were the Citygate residents who apparently didn't understand the legal agreement. Those are the same residents who complained that Concord wasn't paying high enough property taxes, only to have the land tribunal lower the value of the land to $1, meaning the city gets no taxes. Gee, thanks.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So how many decades have False Creek residents been waiting for their "permanent" park?

Like as in expropriation?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Changing City

As long as it takes. The park can't be built until the contaminated soils can be buried. The only people complaining were the Citygate residents who apparently didn't understand the legal agreement. Those are the same residents who complained that Concord wasn't paying high enough property taxes, only to have the land tribunal lower the value of the land to $1, meaning the city gets no taxes. Gee, thanks.

What?! As in 88 pacific Boulevard? I thought they use it for commercial purposes (sales centre) and a parking lot. Shouldn't they at least be charged the same rate as a parking lot? That's madness.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

What?! As in 88 pacific Boulevard? I thought they use it for commercial purposes (sales centre) and a parking lot. Shouldn't they at least be charged the same rate as a parking lot? That's madness.

Yes, that one. The residents thought the valuation was too low. The assessors thought it's only worth $1. The land to the west of Carrall has higher value, and pays some taxes, as it'll be the site of future buildings, rather than the future park.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Yes, that one. The residents thought the valuation was too low. The assessors thought it's only worth $1. The land to the west of Carrall has higher value, and pays some taxes, as it'll be the site of future buildings, rather than the future park.

A consequence of valuation based on future use, I suppose.
In the same way that small retailers are being taxed highly for future development on their sites, this one has been lowered because of the future use of the land as a contaminated soil repository and public park.

[Klazu]

Nothing new per se and I hope demolition stays in the limbo as long as possible. Access to the new St. Paul's is going to be ridiculously bad with changes to Prior and once/if the viaducts go.

https://biv.com/article/2022/11/demolishing-viaducts-be-new-vancouver-city-council-agenda

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I don't think ABC is going to be pushing the viaduct removal anytime soon. And I'm good with that. Believe we will see Ken Sim's council go thru the city budget line by line and see the city return more towards it's traditional role of providing services and less about social engineering. Going to upset some people but think the majority had enough for now, of course things will probably change again after a future election.

Meat's back on the menu.

Demolishing viaducts to be on new Vancouver city council agenda

...
The Vancouver city council set to be sworn in Nov. 7 is likely to re-examine a project to demolish the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts.

Little time in the recent municipal election campaign was spent on the initiative aimed at creating a vibrant Northeast False Creek neighbourhood.

Nonetheless, top city council vote-getter and A Better City Coun. Sarah Kirby-Yung told BIV that the project needs to be re-examined.

That is because so much has changed since Vancouver city council in October 2015 voted to remove the viaducts to free up land for housing and parks, and in 2018 voted to approve the Northeast False Creek Plan, she said.

Back in 2015, the viaduct-removal project was expected to begin in 2017 and be finished by 2020, funded entirely by community amenity contributions (CACs) from developers.

Canadian Metropolitan Properties Corp.’s (CMP) redevelopment of the Plaza of Nations then languished. So did Concord Pacific’s redevelopment of its land to the east of the Plaza of Nations, where Cirque de Soleil has sometimes staged shows in temporary tents.

BC Pavilion Corp. (PavCo) did not redevelop its land between BC Place and Rogers Arena. Aquilini Investment Group similarly owns undeveloped land near Rogers Arena.

Delays in those projects meant no money flowed to the city to embark on the project.

“It’s not a question of stopping it right now,” Kirby-Yung said of demolishing the viaducts. “There is no funding, so there isn’t anything to stop.”

The city’s most recent estimate is that demolition will not start until at least 2027, with some changes to road networks happening in the next few years.

Kirby-Yung is open to having the project proceed but is not convinced that funding from developers will be sufficient.
...

[LINK - Source BiV]

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Nothing new per se and I hope demolition stays in the limbo as long as possible. Access to the new St. Paul's is going to be ridiculously bad with changes to Prior and once/if the viaducts go.

https://biv.com/article/2022/11/demolishing-viaducts-be-new-vancouver-city-council-agenda

What changes to Prior? And why would there be any difference to the traffic that wants to use Prior with, or without the viaducts? Other than right now the Georgia Viaduct is a slingshot for a few boy racers who then head east on Prior at a lot more than the 30kph speed limit, and with a more 'normal' road pattern they wouldn't think they were in Need for Speed, or whatever their game of choice might be.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

So you can't tell steel from concrete? There aren't many alternatives to repairing a bridge over water, except completely replacing it. Those bridges have all needed tens of millions spent on them. The viaducts were there to cross an area of heavy industries. Those have gone now - we can put the road on the ground.

Granville Bridge, for example
1997: seismic retrofit of the north and south piers
2009-2010: installation of over 3,000 steel stirrups to the concrete ramps
2012: repairs to pier M7 at the north end
2013: replacement of the steel truss span bearings
2016: repairs to the gantry system
2019-2021: seismic and structural upgrades.

The Lion's Gate was rebuilt in 1975, and that lasted 25 years until it was seismically upgraded again in 2001. That cost $63.4m (in 2001 dollars - over $100m in today's dollars).

You'd apparently prefer taxpayers to find another $90m (in 2018 dollars) to prop up the viaducts than have them replaced.

So you think an old concrete structure cannot be repaired?

$90mil versus $500mil? Sure, if you donate the difference, I have no objection whatsoever. You can tear down anything you want.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Nothing new per se and I hope demolition stays in the limbo as long as possible. Access to the new St. Paul's is going to be ridiculously bad with changes to Prior and once/if the viaducts go.

https://biv.com/article/2022/11/demolishing-viaducts-be-new-vancouver-city-council-agenda

???

When council first approved demolishing the viaducts, councillors expected that the viaducts would be gone long before the hospital launched operations.

To improve access to the future hospital, there will need to be “significant changes to Gore Avenue,” which may include truncating the viaducts before any full removal, Fry said.

He added that removing the viaducts could improve ambulance response time because viaduct traffic can get bottlenecked.

https://biv.com/article/2022/11/demolishing-viaducts-be-new-vancouver-city-council-agenda

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by madog222

???

Motivated reasoning is a hell of a drug.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

So you think an old concrete structure cannot be repaired?

$90mil versus $500mil? Sure, if you donate the difference, I have no objection whatsoever. You can tear down anything you want.

Only $500m in your imagination. The accurate estimates have already been posted several times, were intended to come from CACs, not the taxpayer - and the $90m will be more now.

[GenWhy?]

"Vancouver’s unaffordable housing problem has also mushroomed in recent years into a full-blown crisis, convincing city councillors that Northeast False Creek needs a diverse range of housing tenure and not simply the strata units that were originally envisioned, she said."

also this seems odd to me unless she's just talking about Concord's site? Did I miss something along the way over the years?

[logicbomb]

I think it will still get done, somehow or someway. There's a motivation by both sides of the political spectrum to get this done. Either for a large park and reclamation project or to appease developers by opening up more land. Just a matter of securing more funding.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

I think it will still get done, somehow or someway. There's a motivation by both sides of the political spectrum to get this done. Either for a large park and reclamation project or to appease developers by opening up more land. Just a matter of securing more funding.

It is all about catering to developers. Always has been in Vancouver and always will be.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

"Vancouver’s unaffordable housing problem has also mushroomed in recent years into a full-blown crisis, convincing city councillors that Northeast False Creek needs a diverse range of housing tenure and not simply the strata units that were originally envisioned, she said."

also this seems odd to me unless she's just talking about Concord's site? Did I miss something along the way over the years?

There's the Pavco tower which was approved (for rezoning) as a rental tower while it was initially planned to be strata by Pavco. Though I don't think they were going to pay CAC regardless.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Only $500m in your imagination. The accurate estimates have already been posted several times, were intended to come from CACs, not the taxpayer...

I'm not super savvy on how the CACs work, but it strikes me that suggesting that the removal of the viaducts is somehow "free" because of them is at least a little bit disingenuous, given that the same money could be put to some other use instead. So the viaduct removal in fact costs us whatever other benefit that money would buy if we left the viaducts standing.