Northeast False Creek | Proposed

[Migrant_Coconut]

True. Should be manageable though, save for the area around the track switch; put up a barrier on Dunsmuir on that area, make it a busker/vendor zone, and that should take care of it.

[cov]

I'd be really happy with a green wall. Nature + urban functionality all in one

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Pretty basic stuff - how would people commute on the "High Line," how important are views, how important are connections to the SkyTrain/seawall/stadiums, how important is seating/lighting/the view/art... shouldn't be a lot of controversy for this one.

It's not a "Highline": it's just another viaduct OK? Spend millions to pull down perfectly good viaducts and then spend much more to install another one. Real smart here.

I don't think developers would be able to contribute that kind of money this time round. So yeah, good luck to that.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

It's not a "Highline": it's just another viaduct OK? Spend millions to pull down perfectly good viaducts and then spend much more to install another one. Real smart here.

I don't think developers would be able to contribute that kind of money this time round. So yeah, good luck to that.

Except the existing viaducts aren't 'perfectly good' and the developers appear to be able to contribute the necessary funds. And no, it won't cost a billion dollars.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Except the existing viaducts aren't 'perfectly good' and the developers appear to be able to contribute the necessary funds. And no, it won't cost a billion dollars.

Are you sure the developers can contribute the funds? Have they actually handed the money over?

Also, I never say it would cost a billion dollars, but it would cost half of that, which is more than plenty for something totally unnecessary.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Are you sure the developers can contribute the funds? Have they actually handed the money over?

Also, I never say it would cost a billion dollars, but it would cost half of that, which is more than plenty for something totally unnecessary.

.

Plaza of Nations have handed some over. It's rezoned - that's why the Development Permit is being processed. It's not half a billion either.

[Migrant_Coconut]

~$300-400 million to be precise.

Originally Posted by Vin

It's not a "Highline": it's just another viaduct OK? Spend millions to pull down perfectly good viaducts and then spend much more to install another one. Real smart here.

The original High Line is literally "just another viaduct." And removal is cheaper than upgrades and maintenance.

[jollyburger]

Wouldn't be surprised to see the demolition costs escalate before they start.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Wouldn't be surprised to see the demolition costs escalate before they start.

Neither would the City. That's why the $360m budget includes an $85m contingency.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Neither would the City. That's why the $360m budget includes an $85m contingency.

is that 360m just for demo, or also the replacement as well?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

is that 360m just for demo, or also the replacement as well?

Demolition, replacement, temporary traffic re-routing, service diversion and upgrades, all the design costs and an $85m contingency. Up to 2018 $24m of the $360m had already been spent on the design and engineering studies and consultancies, so it's less than $360m today.

The demolition and new structure is $96m. The new Pacific Boulevard (including new streets for hospital access) is $59m. Utility works, including upgraded and moved city and third-party utilities is $45m. Remediation of contamination under streets is $21m. Traffic detours and a temporary skateboard park is $10m. That all adds up to $231m. Add in design, planning and public engagement at $44m (with over half already spent) and an $85m contingency takes the total to $360m. Some is expected to be recovered from the private utilities who own the rerouted services, but that's not a given, so the full cost has been budgeted for now.

[Migrant_Coconut]

I take it that the costs for the "keep, upgrade and maintain" option would've shot up too?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I take it that the costs for the "keep, upgrade and maintain" option would've shot up too?

That would seem to be a reasonable assumption. The last costings were $90m to patch up the structures to an intermediate seismic standard, or $120m to replace them to a full seismic standard. I don't think that included any contingencies. The replacement can be paid for through the NEFC redevelopment because it's an integral element of the reconfigured land arrangement, so CACs can be generated and used to pay for the work. A straight replacement has to be paid from taxes, so would have to be part of the capital plan approval at a future election, and then come out of property taxes. Obviously there would still be CACs from any rezonings that still happened in NEFC, but if the viaducts stay there's less land to develop, and the CACs would be used on other city priorities.

[SpongeG]

whats the $90 million figure going about in social media then? its saying the viaduct project is starting and its $90 million

[rofina]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

whats the $90 million figure going about in social media then? its saying the viaduct project is starting and its $90 million

Demolition and initial construction costs. The whole project will be closer to third of a bill, as per above.

[officedweller]

One reminder - the High Line was the re-purposing of an old, decrepit, existing structure.

That's not what's happening here...

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

~$300-400 million to be precise.



The original High Line is literally "just another viaduct." And removal is cheaper than upgrades and maintenance.

300 - 400mil will only be part of it. Wait another couple of years and inflation/additional work would push it up to 500mil. You can trust me on this.

Replacement and demolition cheaper than upgrades and maintenance?! What other lies these people can concoct next are simply beyond me.

Do you think the new Highline and road system will not need maintenance?

Originally Posted by officedweller

One reminder - the High Line was the re-purposing of an old, decrepit, existing structure.

That's not what's happening here...

Exactly right. What we are doing here is simply demolishing a good structure to replace it with another similar structure: a complete waste of money only this city is capable of.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by officedweller

One reminder - the High Line was the re-purposing of an old, decrepit, existing structure.

That's not what's happening here...

I think the costs are about the same though. Dunsmuir at about 750 metres long ($80-90 million) and High Line Phase 1 at about 800 metres that cost I think $90 million USD ($115 USD in 2019 or $150 CAD).

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

That would seem to be a reasonable assumption. The last costings were $90m to patch up the structures to an intermediate seismic standard, or $120m to replace them to a full seismic standard. I don't think that included any contingencies. The replacement can be paid for through the NEFC redevelopment because it's an integral element of the reconfigured land arrangement, so CACs can be generated and used to pay for the work. A straight replacement has to be paid from taxes, so would have to be part of the capital plan approval at a future election, and then come out of property taxes. Obviously there would still be CACs from any rezonings that still happened in NEFC, but if the viaducts stay there's less land to develop, and the CACs would be used on other city priorities.

More lies. Why can't a straight replacement be from NEFC rather than taxes? Do you think the surrounding lands are not capable of new developments with the viaducts standing? If the City allows density to go way up without the Viewcones in place, the NEFC paid for on developments of the current land can pay for replacements many times over.

People just make up stuff to justify the dumbest decision this city can make.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Changing City

That would seem to be a reasonable assumption. The last costings were $90m to patch up the structures to an intermediate seismic standard, or $120m to replace them to a full seismic standard. I don't think that included any contingencies. The replacement can be paid for through the NEFC redevelopment because it's an integral element of the reconfigured land arrangement, so CACs can be generated and used to pay for the work. A straight replacement has to be paid from taxes, so would have to be part of the capital plan approval at a future election, and then come out of property taxes. Obviously there would still be CACs from any rezonings that still happened in NEFC, but if the viaducts stay there's less land to develop, and the CACs would be used on other city priorities.

I take it you're referring to this CAC policy item?

>"2.4 Capital renewal and/or capital renovation costs for any public benefits from policy 2.2 may only be considered as CACs to the extent it can be demonstrated that it provides an incremental benefit beyond what is currently provided to the public and is related to population and/or employment growth."<