Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts? - Page 301

GenWhy? · #**6001** Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 8:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

Few and far between. That's all I can say for recent accomplishments.

And if not for the foresight of Lord Frederick Stanley, a British citizen from the 19th century, by giving Stanley park to the citizens of this land, we won't have the title of having the world's longest uninterrupted waterfront path today.

This is what Lord Stanley said:
"To the use and enjoyment of people of all colours, creeds, and customs for all time.
I name thee Stanley Park"

Lord Stanley
Governor-General
October 1889

This means that he City will never be able to expand into the park, which benefits us tremendously.

The retail/restaurant nodes are a huge welcome, but I still think the moves to implement them are not bold enough. Everything is of a minuscule scale, and won't make a huge impact to help make downtown become a shopping destination like it used to. Back in the days people from all over would come over to view the displays at the Woodwards store, especially during Christmas time. Mind you that the Woodwards department store was one of the biggest in the world at its time. We have simply lost that ability to attract by only thinking small.

Now that's interesting.

Vin · #**6002** Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 8:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Stop with your false budget numbers. $500M if the City leaves the land empty, which is one of your bigger fallacies.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/northeast-false-creek-plan-city-of-vancouver-cost

Nice try buddy, it's actually going to be 1.7 billion bucks.

The demolition of the viaducts ALONE is 360mil. Go figure.

To pay for this amount, it means getting the developers to donate all of 1700 units of 1million-dollar condo sales proceeds to make it happen. How is that possible?

WarrenC12 · #**6003** Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 8:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/northeast-false-creek-plan-city-of-vancouver-cost

Nice try buddy, it's actually going to be 1.7 billion bucks.

The demolition of the viaducts ALONE is 360mil. Go figure.

To pay for this amount, it means getting the developers to donate 1700 units of 1million dollar condo sales proceeds to make it happen. How is that possible?

And what is the city revenue from this land today? Vs. the future?

Focus on the demolition vs. new property tax differences. All of the social stuff would presumably happen across the city anyway, or not. But then we'd have nothing anyway.

WarrenC12 · #**6004** Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 8:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Now that's interesting.

Any development into Stanley Park would be political suicide, but nothing is impossible. If the city/province/etc. petitioned the Federal government, they can change anything. We're not beholden to a guy who's been dead for 100 years.

Vin · #**6005** Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 8:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

And what is the city revenue from this land today? Vs. the future?

Focus on the demolition vs. new property tax differences. All of the social stuff would presumably happen across the city anyway, or not. But then we'd have nothing anyway.

If it's that easy, it would've happened already. Remember how keen the ex-mayor was? Obviously we don't have the money to pull this off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Any development into Stanley Park would be political suicide, but nothing is impossible. If the city/province/etc. petitioned the Federal government, they can change anything. We're not beholden to a guy who's been dead for 100 years.

I respect this guy way more than all the recent politicians and planners combined. At least he had foresight, and was not out there simply for a popularity contest.

GenWhy? · #**6006** Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 8:31 PM**

The contributions and improvements are worth $1.7 billion... it won't "cost" the City $1.7 billion up front.

For instance, developers build social housing within their overall projects, while these units have a value, but the City or Feds do not directly build them.

There's the viaducts... then there's the cost of building a new neighbourhood.

GenWhy? · #**6007** Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 8:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Any development into Stanley Park would be political suicide, but nothing is impossible. If the city/province/etc. petitioned the Federal government, they can change anything. We're not beholden to a guy who's been dead for 100 years.

Thought it was interesting because most of what was stated wasn't exactly true ( or an exaggeration and sense of blurred nostalgia).

WarrenC12 · #**6008** Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 8:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Thought it was interesting because most of what was stated wasn't exactly true.

Par for the course when Vin is posting.

WarrenC12 · #**6009** Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 8:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

If it's that easy, it would've happened already. Remember how keen the ex-mayor was? Obviously we don't have the money to pull this off.

They are just drawing out your pain.

GenWhy? · #**6010** Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 8:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

If it's that easy, it would've happened already. Remember how keen the ex-mayor was? Obviously we don't have the money to pull this off.

I respect this guy way more than all the recent politicians and planners combined. At least he had foresight, and was not out there simply for a popularity contest.

Not to get off topic but you do know that the Park was lobbied to be created to boost adjacent land values for mansions in the West End... right?

fredinno · #**6011** Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 9:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

The retail/restaurant nodes are a huge welcome, but I still think the moves to implement them are not bold enough. Everything is of a minuscule scale, and won't make a huge impact to help make downtown become a shopping destination like it used to. Back in the days people from all over would come over to view the displays at the Woodwards store, especially during Christmas time. Mind you that the Woodwards department store was one of the biggest in the world at its time. We have simply lost that ability to attract by only thinking small.

Vin, we don't really have much of a choice TO think that big here, even if you didn't have to stay within the viewcones. It's literally only a couple blocks. If you're going to be fighting to turn the False Creek seawall into a real hub for activity (as we should), the fight is on adding lining the the 60s era apartments on False Creek South, Concord Molson, Concord Bayshore, and the Squamish Lands at Burrard with commercial zones.

WarrenC12 · #**6012** Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 9:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredinno

Speaking of False Creek South, I find that Granville Island is really limited by its small size- Pike Place Market is simply far bigger- but we really don't have much room to expand it (being an Island and all). Other than the obvious (get rid of the parking lots, which is already on the list), is there really any way we can build up and still maintain the Neoindustrial vibe?
Pike Place is definitely multi-layered- but it's also on a slope. I don't know if a 6-story faux warehouse at Granville Island would feel genuine.

Pike Place is certainly not bigger than Granville Island. GI has tons of untapped space, from surface parking, to old Emily Carr space, to the cement plant (not likely to be there forever).

aberdeen5698 · #**6013** Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 9:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Any development into Stanley Park would be political suicide, but nothing is impossible.

Indeed, as the construction of the causeway shows.

fredinno · #**6014** Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 9:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Pike Place is certainly not bigger than Granville Island. GI has tons of untapped space, from surface parking, to old Emily Carr space, to the cement plant (not likely to be there forever).

I did some calculations. Never mind, Granville is bigger. Pike Place just felt a hell lot bigger than Granville when I was there, which is probably just as bad for Granville Island.

Next time I should avoid embarrassing myself like this.

As long as there's condos being built in Downtown, there's demand for cement. Which means the plant probably stays- short of using eminent domain or the company shutting down. It's survived 50 years as is.

WarrenC12 · #**6015** Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 9:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredinno

I did some calculations. Never mind, Granville is bigger. Pike Place just felt a hell lot bigger than Granville when I was there, which is probably just as bad for Granville Island.

Next time I should avoid embarrassing myself like this.

I like Pike Place, but they are different animals.

Plenty of room to improve GI though!

Migrant_Coconut · #**6016** Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 10:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

I guess spending at least $500 mil to get rid of perfectly functioning viaducts, without any guarantee in funding, helps in "gambling your way out of debt"?

I love your logic!

The sunk cost fallacy is strong with this one. Either traffic will increase, in which case the viaducts will be useless to handle gridlock anyway, or traffic won't, in which case the viaducts will be redundant. Whichever way you cut it, removal is the end goal, so better to do it when it only costs $360M and start getting development fees & property taxes coming in now, rather than twenty years later when it creeps up to $600M + wasted seismic upgrades + no revenue in-between.

The problem isn't lack of funding, it's the lack of a final plan. If you want to talk about the Canada Line, you should talk about how it ended up half-assed for the sake of cost cutting and getting built on time. I thought you complained about Vancouver being too slow... now you say that they should've started by now?

Migrant_Coconut · #**6017** Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 10:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Indeed, as the construction of the causeway shows.

Somehow, I don't think a proposal to fill in Coal Harbour will have a happy ending...

Vin · #**6018** Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 10:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

The contributions and improvements are worth $1.7 billion... it won't "cost" the City $1.7 billion up front.

For instance, developers build social housing within their overall projects, while these units have a value, but the City or Feds do not directly build them.

There's the viaducts... then there's the cost of building a new neighbourhood.

It would be way more expensive to rebuild the neighbourhood without the viaducts than with them intact. It isn't free to build a new bike ramp (essentially a new viaduct, duh!), the new Pacific Blvd, and the new ramp coming down from West Georgia. All these alone would drive the cost to 500mil, as denied by Warren012.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredinno

Vin, we don't really have much of a choice TO think that big here, even if you didn't have to stay within the viewcones. It's literally only a couple blocks. If you're going to be fighting to turn the False Creek seawall into a real hub for activity (as we should), the fight is on adding lining the the 60s era apartments on False Creek South, Concord Molson, Concord Bayshore, and the Squamish Lands at Burrard with commercial zones.

LOL, I am also fighting that fight.

GenWhy? · #**6019** Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 11:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

It would be way more expensive to rebuild the neighbourhood without the viaducts than with them intact. It isn't free to build a new bike ramp (essentially a new viaduct, duh!), the new Pacific Blvd, and the new ramp coming down from West Georgia. All these alone would drive the cost to 500mil, as denied by Warren012.

LOL, I am also fighting that fight.

It would probably be more expensive to embark on this design than keeping them up, but is the question how much are we willing to pay to re-design the local road network, or is the question do the viaducts serve a future need and do we extend their lifespan? Or is it a congestion issue? Is there an objective reason to keep them?

Not sure where you get the $500 million from. I could be wrong. Everything I've seen is a cost estimation at $360 million for "viaduct replacement and critical infrastructure". With contingencies and escalation built into this amount (City contingencies are HUGE), I'm not sure a shared-use path would cost $140 million or if it would be classified as road or park.

Feathered Friend · #**6020** Posted **Nov 1, 2019, 2:20 AM**

https://bids.vancouver.ca/bidopp/RFP/doc...cesfortheBCPlaceConcourseIntegration.pdf

Quote:

Here's an update on Vancouver's plan to demo the False Creek Viaducts. Per the RFP, the City of Vancouver is seeking a consultant to design an extension of the BC Place concourse to integrate it into the future Georgia St. Ramp
https://bids.vancouver.ca/bidopp/RFP/RFP-PS20191302.htm

https://twitter.com/City_Duo/status/1190088444036272130?s=20