Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Vin

So are the viaducts coming down or Not?

the vote is coming up, Vision will vote yes, but if the NPA is elected, odds are they will reverse it and make it no.

but, as of now, utility relocation and decommissioning is slated to start the 3rd quarter of this year.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

the vote is coming up, Vision will vote yes, but if the NPA is elected, odds are they will reverse it and make it no.

but, as of now, utility relocation and decommissioning is slated to start the 3rd quarter of this year.

The Green vote is tricky; it's difficult to say if the councilor will feel there is enough social housing to justify voting to allow view cone protrusions.
The NPA could vote no, just to put a thumb in the eye of a Vision legacy. However, there is a lot of housing proposed, which they must recognize is a winning issue given the recent by-election campaign.

In short, do the NPA or Green councilors vote no? Maybe, but it would be more about election posturing than any real opposition.

The contracts to demolish the viaducts will likely go out soon, so that the project can begin quickly in order for it to not become an issue ahead of the October civic election.

“At that point, it will be too far down the road to reverse by the new City Council,” said Affleck.

Demolition work on the viaducts and the construction of the new replacement road infrastructure is expected to begin in 2019.

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/north...vancouver-cost

[Vin]

"City Councillor concerned about $1.7-billion cost for Northeast False Creek plan"

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/north...vancouver-cost


Thanks Vancouverofthefuture, interesting times indeed.

Feathered friend, you need to realize that even with the viaducts intact, it is still possible to squeeze in similar number of affordable housing units, especially if viewcones can be removed right?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

the viaducts don't need to be removed to create housing, they really take up very little space. you'd get a lot more interesting architecture and designs if they were left and designed around.

and are they serious? they are going to ram this through like that? that should be illegal. "before people throw us out because they don't like our idea, we will ram it through so they cant stop it!!!" he shouldn't be allowed a vote if that's what he is going to do.

[p78hub]

Similar to some of the other Vision projects, they're probably going to have all the demolition equipment staged and ready to start work the moment the vote finishes. The next government gets to deal with the aftermath since it'll be too late to do anything to stop it.

[WarrenC12]

George Affleck is sure out there saying a lot for a guy who's already said he isn't running in the next election.

As for the viaducts, it's hardly "ramming it through" since this has been in the works for several years.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

George Affleck is sure out there saying a lot for a guy who's already said he isn't running in the next election.

As for the viaducts, it's hardly "ramming it through" since this has been in the works for several years.

In the works for so many years but yet can't secure any funding for this. I guess they always treat Vancouver residents as their Golden Geese.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

In the works for so many years but yet can't secure any funding for this. I guess they always treat Vancouver residents as their Golden Geese.

Do you know how much land this will free up for sale and future property taxation?

[Aroundtheworld]

In the article it says there was an anonymous source that said that of the $1.7 B cost, $500 Million will have to come from non-developer sources. Likely some of that will come from the Provincial and Federal governments, probably to support the environmental remediation ($170 M), affordable housing ($603 M) and parks ($251 M) components.

Nobody, said this would be cheap, but it's definitely feasible and plausible they can get the funding necessary.

Does anybody know if similar projects like the removal of the Bonaventure Expressway in Montreal got funding from higher levels of government?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

In the article it says there was an anonymous source that said that of the $1.7 B cost, $500 Million will have to come from non-developer sources. Likely some of that will come from the Provincial and Federal governments, probably to support the environmental remediation ($170 M), affordable housing ($603 M) and parks ($251 M) components.

Nobody, said this would be cheap, but it's definitely feasible and plausible they can get the funding necessary.

Does anybody know if similar projects like the removal of the Bonaventure Expressway in Montreal got funding from higher levels of government?

I'm pretty sure the province is already on the hook for the soil remediation of anything that was part of the Expo lands. It wouldn't be a hard sell to get the NDP behind some of the affordable housing as well. This isn't a lot of money given it will be spread over so many years.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Do you know how much land this will free up for sale and future property taxation?

Not much since they're just replacing it with a wide road on the ground. They can build around the viaducts, as said many times before.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Do you know how much land this will free up for sale and future property taxation?

Not much.

That's why the City is even willing to bend the rules and allow the proposed buildings to defy viewcones just to get as much density as possible, so that developers will at least be able to help them with part of the 1.7billion the City doesn't have. But, if you use your head to ponder harder, do you really think the developers will have 1.7bil of spare change lying around to give the City, especially when so much of the housing is dedicated to social units?

Able to achieve the same density by going short you used to say?
The City won't allow tall towers you used to say?
Tearing down the viaducts a done deal you used to say?
I told you then, never say never.

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

In the article it says there was an anonymous source that said that of the $1.7 B cost, $500 Million will have to come from non-developer sources. Likely some of that will come from the Provincial and Federal governments, probably to support the environmental remediation ($170 M), affordable housing ($603 M) and parks ($251 M) components.

Nobody, said this would be cheap, but it's definitely feasible and plausible they can get the funding necessary.

Does anybody know if similar projects like the removal of the Bonaventure Expressway in Montreal got funding from higher levels of government?

Are you sure? When they first mooted this, a figure of $100 million was proposed. Yup, they said this would be cheap, way cheaper than seismically upgrading the viaducts.

Chances are, the "non-developer" funding means what's coming from Vancouver residents and business owners, or the suckers who pay the City property or business taxes.

[Metro-One]

The original original price tag was actually 55 million.

And yes, it seems that the argument for the cost of seismic upgrades (which would have extended the life span by another 50 years at least) has been forgotten now that it is chump change compared to this proposal.

And yes, as posted by jlousa in the past, using concrete sources, the difference in how many units that can be built through tearing them down vs. retaining and building around is minuscule. (And yes, this is why the city is suspiciously allowing several towers to piece the viewcones here, while projects elsewhere in the city are denied the same privilege, especially in areas that arguably should be allowed to do so much more than here (Cambie / Broadway future hub anyone?)

This entire process / project has been a dog and pony show from the start.

I don’t hate it, but even if you love it you would have to blind not to see how much political twisting has occurred in its development to this point.

Ironically through several wrongs they have created a right in the taller towers, which is really the only major positive for me (since again, the vast majority of this can be done with them in place).

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Do you know how much land this will free up for sale and future property taxation?

To my untrained eye, it would seem areas 6B (Plaza of Nations and 10C (BC Place tower) are completely unaffected.

It is hard to say how much of Area 6C (Concord) would be affected. There would be at least two towers, 20 and 22 stories, that would be eliminated. Quite possibly another 20 story tower would need have some density shaved off. Still, all of that density could be spread around the site with increased heights / removal of park space, so it is hard to say if there would be any net loss.
http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applica...boards_000.pdf

Site 6D (The City Lands) is a different story. All 5.6 acres sit under the viaduct ramps. Keeping the Viaducts ensures none of that space can be developed, and would probably ensure a significant backlash from the Chinatown, Carnegie, and Hogan's Ally groups.
http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applica...reet/index.htm

[Metro-One]

There were suggestions to end the viaducts at main. Such a reconfiguration would have freed up some of that space if it really is that important.

In all honesty I find the idea of artificially re-building a long demolished ethnic neighborhood to be sort of tasteless. Almost theme park in feel.

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

...
In all honesty I find the idea of artificially re-building a long demolished ethnic neighborhood to be sort of tasteless. Almost theme park in feel.

Something I wasn't going to say, but I think needed to be said. What are they going to do, restrict the buyers to just the people that fit the original ethnic and socioeconomic character of the neighbourhood?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The original original price tag was actually 55 million.

And yes, it seems that the argument for the cost of seismic upgrades (which would have extended the life span by another 50 years at least) has been forgotten now that it is chump change compared to this proposal.

And yes, as posted by jlousa in the past, using concrete sources, the difference in how many units that can be built through tearing them down vs. retaining and building around is minuscule. (And yes, this is why the city is suspiciously allowing several towers to piece the viewcones here, while projects elsewhere in the city are denied the same privilege, especially in areas that arguably should be allowed to do so much more than here (Cambie / Broadway future hub anyone?)

This entire process / project has been a dog and pony show from the start.

I don’t hate it, but even if you love it you would have to blind not to see how much political twisting has occurred in its development to this point.

Ironically through several wrongs they have created a right in the taller towers, which is really the only major positive for me (since again, the vast majority of this can be done with them in place).

If I were Marriott hotel (at the casino) or Parc, I would sue the City for being unfair to let me build so short. Because of that, the view of BC Place Stadium has also been blocked off when seen from the west.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

There were suggestions to end the viaducts at main. Such a reconfiguration would have freed up some of that space if it really is that important.

In all honesty I find the idea of artificially re-building a long demolished ethnic neighborhood to be sort of tasteless. Almost theme park in feel.

Originally Posted by Colin4567

Something I wasn't going to say, but I think needed to be said. What are they going to do, restrict the buyers to just the people that fit the original ethnic and socioeconomic character of the neighbourhood?

They are not even rebuilding it, but simply putting in a new high density neighbourhood with the pretext that it is the new Hogan's Alley. The original one was a slum, but I suppose they need to say that in order to shut down any opposition to the redevelopment, especially from those Chinatown protesters.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Colin4567

Something I wasn't going to say, but I think needed to be said. What are they going to do, restrict the buyers to just the people that fit the original ethnic and socioeconomic character of the neighbourhood?

I believe that there actually is a plan somewhat similar to what you have described being proposed. Adding to the artificial feel. Don’t remember the specifics, but I remember reading something about targeting African owned businesses / those with African decent for the neighborhood.

It’s a strange feeling for me, because I think this plan is stemming from good intentions, but comes off somewhat offensive to me. I would even say that it feels exploitive.

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by Vin

They are not even rebuilding it, but simply putting in a new high density neighbourhood with the pretext that it is the new Hogan's Alley. The original one was a slum, but I suppose they need to say that in order to shut down any opposition to the redevelopment, especially from those Chinatown protesters.

I've never understood the Chinatown protestors. Chinatowns are quite often urban slums and why anyone wouldn't want to turn it around I have no idea.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I believe that there actually is a plan somewhat similar to what you have described being proposed. Adding to the artificial feel. Don’t remember the specifics, but I remember reading something about targeting African owned businesses / those with African decent for the neighborhood.

It’s a strange feeling for me, because I think this plan is stemming from good intentions, but comes off somewhat offensive to me. I would even say that it feels exploitive.

This is so dumb. There's something positive to be said of apologizing for past wrongs and even offering compensation, as these need to be corrected. HOWEVER, this simply looks like race-baiting identity politics. Besides, isn't this kind of segregation? Sort of defeats the whole "civil rights" thing.