Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I'd counter that most recent developments that are adjacent have fronted the viaducts and extended sidewalks along them. The natural grade ends at Beatty, everything beyond is an extension of the downtown grid on top of the viaducts or adjacent development.

I will freely admit that Aquilini West and Regiment Square are well integrated. I fail to see how the same would work beyond the Arena.

[Vin]

This is from a Vancouver Sun article in 2015, but I still stand by what the retired City engineer said. This move is called "the suburbanization of downtown", and it's already true as I personally know many who used to hang out downtown back in the days but hardly come here anymore. I also notice that an average evening downtown is really quiet outside Friday or Saturday, and that's in big contrast with many other sizeable cities around the world. This is especially so right after the cruise season is over: downtown is pretty dead! Even though I live and work downtown, I actually spend more time shopping for groceries or hanging out with friends, etc. outside the downtown core. This is so wrong on many levels.

Former Vancouver city engineer questions need to demolish viaducts
https://www.vancourier.com/news/form...ucts-1.2027437

A retired City of Vancouver senior manager who once headed up the transportation department is questioning the need to demolish the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts.

Ian Adam, who retired in 2008 as the assistant city engineer of streets and structures, said he believes the loss of the viaducts will create more traffic congestion in Chinatown, Gastown and nearby areas.

“Anybody who thinks you can take down two major viaducts like that, which handles 60,000 people a day and a thousand heavy trucks a day — and not have some impact — they’ve got to be dreaming in Technicolor,” said Adam, who once held the position of what is now called director of transportation. “I would say leave them up. They’re a $100-million asset that’s doing a job.”

The Courier reported in July that city staff will recommend to council in September to knock down the elevated roadways, which were built in the 1970s and carry an average of 43,000 vehicles per day; Adam’s 60,000 calculation is based on number of people in vehicles.

Kevin McNaney, one of the city’s assistant directors of planning, told the Courier in July that a new road network would replace the viaducts and it will show “that it’s actually a better transportation system.”

Adam said he obtained traffic projections from the city that show increased traffic at peak hours along the East Hastings corridor, Chinatown and Cambie Bridge. He said he viewed the same projections at open houses on the viaducts.

The projections, which he shared with the Courier, show the Main Street area at the east end of the viaducts jumping from 970 vehicles during the peak to 2,135. Increases are also anticipated to jump from 800 to 1,102 along East Hastings, 1,030 to 1,341 on East Cordova, 435 to 545 on East Pender and 2,000 to 2,192 over the Cambie Bridge.

“It’s going to have rush-hour conditions for six to eight hours a day,” Adam said. “So it’s not going to be this pleasant drive around False Creek. It’s going to be basically a freeway.”

The city’s plan calls for Georgia Street to be linked with Pacific Boulevard on a sloping grade, which Adam agrees with. But, he said, the plan is simply re-orienting Pacific and not actually building a new street.

He’s aware of the talk about creating a new connector along Malkin or National to alleviate traffic through Strathcona. But, he said, traffic will still be a problem at the end of the connector.

Adam noted Hong Kong and Sydney, Australia have done innovative design work and landscaping underneath their viaducts, adding parks and walkways.

“The more difficult you make it to get there, the more people will simply choose not to go there,” he said of the effect the loss of the viaducts could have on downtown. “If they’re looking for a restaurant, or they want to find a lawyer or a travel agent or something, they’re not going to go downtown. So what you’re doing is your contributing to suburbanization of the region. If that’s what council wants to do, I guess that’s what they’re going to do.”

A staff report to city council in June 2013, said it would cost up to $55 million to demolish the viaducts. The tab for such a project climbs to more than $130 million when costs are calculated to modify existing streets, parks, utilities, build more parks and conduct soil remediation on what were former industrial lands.

This is an old article: we now know the final cost could be half a billion. What a waste!

[GenWhy?]

Data also shows a mild decrease or stagnation in autos entering / exiting downtown, while population and jobs in the Metro Core increase. There are more people living in the Metro Core and traveling within (area has the highest number of folks walking to work), while the number of folks entering downtown has increased and by means of alternative modes aside from the car. Most present commuting data is pre-Evergreen Line.

Suburbanization suggests de-population of Vancouver and them relocating to areas like Surrey or PoCo, which is not the case for Vancouver for population and employment steadily increase. It's also a positive factor that Vancouver has the highest ratio of residents that live and work in their city. In fact I think, statistically speaking, suburbanization is on a large decline in the Lower Mainland in general.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Data also shows a mild decrease or stagnation in autos entering / exiting downtown, while population and jobs in the Metro Core increase. There are more people living in the Metro Core and traveling within (area has the highest number of folks walking to work), while the number of folks entering downtown has increased and by means of alternative modes aside from the car. Most present commuting data is pre-Evergreen Line.

Suburbanization suggests de-population of Vancouver and them relocating to areas like Surrey or PoCo, which is not the case for Vancouver for population and employment steadily increase. It's also a positive factor that Vancouver has the highest ratio of residents that live and work in their city. In fact I think, statistically speaking, suburbanization is on a large decline in the Lower Mainland in general.

There is a difference between people coming into the city for work and getting out fast after, and those who are lingering or coming in to play and use the services during and after work hours. There may be more people coming in to work, but downtown should have a good balance of entertainment, culture, recreation, retail services, etc, in order for the core to stay vibrant. Sadly we are fast losing that. Robson Street, Chinatown and Gastown are good examples.

Suburbanization does not mean that the core is losing population. Therefore your de-population theory is flawed because urban sprawl actually means the suburbs gaining more population, and not the other way round. We are turning downtown into a bedroom community, and although gaining population, is losing its capability to be the vibrant centre that it ought to be.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

Suburbanization does not mean that the core is losing population. Therefore your de-population theory is flawed because urban sprawl actually means the suburbs gaining more population, and not the other way round. We are turning downtown into a bedroom community, and although gaining population, is losing its capability to be the vibrant centre that it ought to be.

I think you need to get your terms straight for this discussion.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...om%20community

a small community that has no major industries and that is lived in by people who go to another town or city to work

That does not describe downtown Vancouver at all. People live, work, and play there. I'm not sure what point you're trying to get at, we should be partying all night like Ibiza or something?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

There is a difference between people coming into the city for work and getting out fast after, and those who are lingering or coming in to play and use the services during and after work hours. There may be more people coming in to work, but downtown should have a good balance of entertainment, culture, recreation, retail services, etc, in order for the core to stay vibrant. Sadly we are fast losing that. Robson Street, Chinatown and Gastown are good examples.

Suburbanization does not mean that the core is losing population. Therefore your de-population theory is flawed because urban sprawl actually means the suburbs gaining more population, and not the other way round. We are turning downtown into a bedroom community, and although gaining population, is losing its capability to be the vibrant centre that it ought to be.

I respect your subjectivity.

[Vin]

delete

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

There is a difference between people coming into the city for work and getting out fast after, and those who are lingering or coming in to play and use the services during and after work hours. There may be more people coming in to work, but downtown should have a good balance of entertainment, culture, recreation, retail services, etc, in order for the core to stay vibrant. Sadly we are fast losing that. Robson Street, Chinatown and Gastown are good examples.

Suburbanization does not mean that the core is losing population. Therefore your de-population theory is flawed because urban sprawl actually means the suburbs gaining more population, and not the other way round. We are turning downtown into a bedroom community, and although gaining population, is losing its capability to be the vibrant centre that it ought to be.

I don't think that any of your points really relate to whether or not we retain or tear down the viaducts. If the viaducts are gone, maybe more people will stay because it's going to take them 1 to 4 minutes longer to get home. (Yes, that's meant to be humour).

Gastown seems to be going gangbusters whenever I walk through the area - very few retail units empty, and tenants wanting to take any units that do become available. Chinatown is entirely different, and faces long term change both in terms of buildings and retail tenants. New tenants still arrive, but the ones that seem to thrive (Vegan Supply, Virtuous Pie) aren't Asian related, and some that are (Rhino Fish) fail. Robson Street is also changing, but it's facing the same problems of other parts of the city where landlords have unrealistic expectations of rent. Even so, Indigo and Muji are recent arrivals, and it's by no means in terminal decline.

There are no residential projects in the CBD core, but there are ten new office buildings, with 5 million square feet of space (which is tens of thousands of extra jobs). As others have noted, it's not a bedroom community. The reason why Downtown has successful places like Yaletown is because there are residents, and workers, and tourists. Many Downtown areas in North America are dead by 6pm. Vancouver's isn't like that at all - my personal observation is that there are way more people around into the evening, (and not just on the Granville club strip) than there used to be only a few years ago.

[officedweller]

“The more difficult you make it to get there, the more people will simply choose not to go there,” he said of the effect the loss of the viaducts could have on downtown. “If they’re looking for a restaurant, or they want to find a lawyer or a travel agent or something, they’re not going to go downtown. So what you’re doing is your contributing to suburbanization of the region. If that’s what council wants to do, I guess that’s what they’re going to do.”

This sounds like the Regional Town Centre concept.
Lots of people who live in the suburbs have no reason to come to downtown Vancouver.
What's the problem?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I don't think that any of your points really relate to whether or not we retain or tear down the viaducts. If the viaducts are gone, maybe more people will stay because it's going to take them 1 to 4 minutes longer to get home. (Yes, that's meant to be humour).

Gastown seems to be going gangbusters whenever I walk through the area - very few retail units empty, and tenants wanting to take any units that do become available. Chinatown is entirely different, and faces long term change both in terms of buildings and retail tenants. New tenants still arrive, but the ones that seem to thrive (Vegan Supply, Virtuous Pie) aren't Asian related, and some that are (Rhino Fish) fail. Robson Street is also changing, but it's facing the same problems of other parts of the city where landlords have unrealistic expectations of rent. Even so, Indigo and Muji are recent arrivals, and it's by no means in terminal decline.

There are no residential projects in the CBD core, but there are ten new office buildings, with 5 million square feet of space (which is tens of thousands of extra jobs). As others have noted, it's not a bedroom community. The reason why Downtown has successful places like Yaletown is because there are residents, and workers, and tourists. Many Downtown areas in North America are dead by 6pm. Vancouver's isn't like that at all - my personal observation is that there are way more people around into the evening, (and not just on the Granville club strip) than there used to be only a few years ago.

My points are related. Haven't you read the article about what the former City planner Ian Adam said? Mind you he was also one of those who made Vancouver so special in the first place. The future removal of the viaducts is one way the City is crippling the downtown core: by making it harder for people across the board to access downtown, we are essentially killing off the vitality of the city. Other restrictions from backward City policies are also preventing development creativity here as well.

Sorry, but I don't see how much Vancouver can achieve by basing it on most North American city standards. That'll be a great insult.

Originally Posted by officedweller

This sounds like the Regional Town Centre concept.
Lots of people who live in the suburbs have no reason to come to downtown Vancouver.
What's the problem?

You also need to understand that if Vancouver had better City-development plans and concepts, we would never need the regional town centres to grow that much in the first place. The Lower Mainland population distribution could be brought closer to the core. That could give us a lot of benefits, notably less commuting time, city vibrancy, convenience in having more services around, efficiencies in shipping logistics, etc. Today, the suburb town centres are just filling in to accommodate what Vancouver has been lacking all along. The contrast is simply too real, as is evident at the borders of Vancouver/Richmond, or Vancouver/Burnaby. There is no reason why the pace of progress over in those jurisdictions cannot happen on the Vancouver side of the border, except for our City-made policies, as well as the attitude of some residents here.

Imagine if Commercial/Broadway were to see development in the likes of Brentwood Mall, say, 10 years ago. Developers would flock to the vicinity to build around it, and hence Brentwood mall area would most likely not be as attractive today. Just saying.

The Regional Town Centre concept is, IMO, an after-thought. Regional planners only came up with that after seeing the trend of development in the past couple of decades. Since so many people are moving far away from the City of Vancouver, it is better to establish a new core south of the Fraser that is willing to grow: hence the Surrey downtown concept was born.

While we are taking down vital infrastructure for people to enter the city, Surrey is expanding the crossings and transit to enable more people to get over there. In the long term, Vancouver will lose out.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

The Regional Town Centre concept is, IMO, an after-thought. Regional planners only came up with that after seeing the trend of development in the past couple of decades.

The regional town centre "concept" is probably older than you are.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The regional town centre "concept" is probably older than you are.

That is so not true. Metro Van concepts keep changing. Please see the video here:

http://www.metrovancouver.org/media-...ideo/340502070

In 1995, it was basically Vancouver downtown, the surrounding areas and parts of Burnaby and New West (which had been an urban core since before Vancouver was established). Note the yellow patches (regional town centres) added over the years.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

That is so not true. Metro Van concepts keep changing.

In 1995, it was basically Vancouver downtown, the surrounding areas and parts of Burnaby and New West (which had been an urban core since before Vancouver was established). Note the yellow patches (regional town centres) added over the years.

GVRD has had regional growth targets since at least 1975, and has promoted the idea of both Regional Centres, and population and employment growth outside the City of Vancouver. In fact, the population growth achieved in Vancouver has generally exceeded those targets, and not been met in many of the other parts of Metro Vancouver.

The concern then was "One of the biggest challenges in our regional proposals is to get future jobs that would ordinarily locate in Vancouver to locate outside of Vancouver instead." You obviously wouldn't agree with that idea in 1975, any more than you do 44 years later, but it's the basis on which the region has been planned for decades. Taking down the viaducts won't change it one way or another.

[Migrant_Coconut]

A 2015 article? Interviewing Ian Adam??? Old news from an older source; there's already rush hour conditions for 6-8 hours a day.

Originally Posted by Changing City

GVRD has had regional growth targets since at least 1975, and has promoted the idea of both Regional Centres, and population and employment growth outside the City of Vancouver. In fact, the population growth achieved in Vancouver has generally exceeded those targets, and not been met in many of the other parts of Metro Vancouver.

The concern then was "One of the biggest challenges in our regional proposals is to get future jobs that would ordinarily locate in Vancouver to locate outside of Vancouver instead." You obviously wouldn't agree with that idea in 1975, any more than you do 44 years later, but it's the basis on which the region has been planned for decades. Taking down the viaducts won't change it one way or another.

Correct, it's not like Bellevue wouldn't exist if Seattle were denser.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by Vin

The future removal of the viaducts is one way the City is crippling the downtown core: by making it harder for people across the board to access downtown, we are essentially killing off the vitality of the city.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this one. Compared to other cities, Vancouver actually has rather poor automobile access to the downtown core and yet also has an extremely vital downtown core. History suggests that it's actually the lack of access that contributes to the vitality - people want to live closer, which puts them within walking distance, because there's a huge barrier to commuting all the way out to suburbia. And transit is more competitive with private automobiles when there are no freeways.

If anything I think further restricting automobile access will make the downtown core more exclusive and ironically a more desirable place precisely because it isn't easy to get there.

Having multiple regional town centres ought to be more sustainable from a transportation perspective than one big downtown core. Ultimately this model should product shorter average trip distances, which puts less load on transportation infrastructure. We just don't quite have the right infrastructure in place yet.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by scottN

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this one. Compared to other cities, Vancouver actually has rather poor automobile access to the downtown core and yet also has an extremely vital downtown core. History suggests that it's actually the lack of access that contributes to the vitality - people want to live closer, which puts them within walking distance, because there's a huge barrier to commuting all the way out to suburbia. And transit is more competitive with private automobiles when there are no freeways.

If anything I think further restricting automobile access will make the downtown core more exclusive and ironically a more desirable place precisely because it isn't easy to get there.

Having multiple regional town centres ought to be more sustainable from a transportation perspective than one big downtown core. Ultimately this model should product shorter average trip distances, which puts less load on transportation infrastructure. We just don't quite have the right infrastructure in place yet.

That's ok ScottN. You do have a point there with the freeways. But that only applies to expressways cutting through the city core separating neighbourhoods. The viaducts are hardly like that. The vitality you see downtown today came about from the establishments of good road infrastructure, the West End residential neighbourhood and a solid commercial district with high density office towers, as well as large shopping centres back in the hey days of Vancouver. Subsequently improvements of the West End model created Yaletown and Coal Harbour. With the number of residents residing in the city centre, plus the ease of people entering the city centre to use the services suited for that time after the skytrain was built, the movement of people and traffic within and coming into the city centre created the initial vibrancy.

Now, in order to enhance our downtown core, we still need the current access points to remain in order to support the improvements. Perhaps you are only thinking about private automobiles using these access routes, but I'm thinking more of buses, streetcars, cabs, App-based car-hailing services, transport vehicles for goods & services, emergency vehicles, etc. All these need good and non-congested access points into downtown to enhance downtown's future development and support the movement of people and goods. Taking away some of the vital links such as the viaducts will definitely add to the congestion, and this isn't a guessing game: it will happen. We are going to add a lot more high-density developments around False Creek and making the entertainment district larger. How can traffic be improved that way when we all know that there will actually be a huge increase in traffic, residents and visitors in the area?

Perhaps you and others are right. Maybe there won't be a carmegeddon after the viaducts are torn down. But if we see the same amount of traffic then as now, it can only mean one thing: a lot less people are coming downtown.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Vin

That's ok ScottN. You do have a point there with the freeways. But that only applies to expressways cutting through the city core separating neighbourhoods. The viaducts are hardly like that. The vitality you see downtown today came about from the establishments of good road infrastructure, the West End residential neighbourhood and a solid commercial district with high density office towers, as well as large shopping centres back in the hey days of Vancouver. Subsequently improvements of the West End model created Yaletown and Coal Harbour. With the number of residents residing in the city centre, plus the ease of people entering the city centre to use the services suited for that time after the skytrain was built, the movement of people and traffic within and coming into the city centre created the initial vibrancy.

Now, in order to enhance our downtown core, we still need the current access points to remain in order to support the improvements. Perhaps you are only thinking about private automobiles using these access routes, but I'm thinking more of buses, streetcars, cabs, App-based car-hailing services, transport vehicles for goods & services, emergency vehicles, etc. All these need good and non-congested access points into downtown to enhance downtown's future development and support the movement of people and goods. Taking away some of the vital links such as the viaducts will definitely add to the congestion, and this isn't a guessing game: it will happen. We are going to add a lot more high-density developments around False Creek and making the entertainment district larger. How can traffic be improved that way when we all know that there will actually be a huge increase in traffic, residents and visitors in the area?

Perhaps you and others are right. Maybe there won't be a carmegeddon after the viaducts are torn down. But if we see the same amount of traffic then as now, it can only mean one thing: a lot less people are coming downtown.

Manhattan relies solely on transit for its daytime population, why cant Vancouver do the same. Nobodies drives in Manhattan.And nobody drives in Vancouver. Why is manhattan so great?
.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by logan5

[...]

Why is manhattan so great?

Clearly it's not, if freeways into the CDB are the standard. Shame that London, Paris, Rome, et. al, are all so deprived of the interstate bounty the thriving metropolis of Omaha enjoys.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Perhaps you and others are right. Maybe there won't be a carmegeddon after the viaducts are torn down. But if we see the same amount of traffic then as now, it can only mean one thing: a lot less people are coming downtown.

No it doesn't. Downtown has more jobs, and more residents (and the West End has more residents too). The same amount of traffic means the same number of people in cars/vans etc. Then there are also a lot more people taking transit to and from Downtown, more people riding their bikes to, from and within the Downtown, and more people are walking, especially within Downtown.

Edit - to add data. Here's the Downtown Local Area resident population data from the census for how they get to work. Twenty or so years ago (1996) there were just 17,405 residents living Downtown; in 2016 there were 62,030. In 1996 39.1% walked to work - an extraordinarily high proportion in North America. Even so, that went up to 41.1% in 2016. Meanwhile driving to work dropped from 35.5% to only 30.4%, and those biking to work or taking transit increased.

Similarly in the West End there were over 7,000 more residents, but the proportion driving to work went down from 31.7% to 24.8%, and those using transit, walking and biking all went up. (Biking doubled to over 7%, and not just the proportion, but the actual number of people driving to work fell).

[SpongeG]

i thought this would fit to share here, I thought it would take years for this viaduct to come down but wow its gone fast!
I wonder if Vancouver can do it as quickly

• Video Link