It was confusing yesterday to see most media outlets report the big news out of council as the city’s plan for a “super-road,” something that has been in city documents for over a month.
This was the slideshare the city posted May 28, which provided the framework for the public open houses in June that the planning and engineering staff then reported on yesterday. The whole point of the slideshare and discussions was to talk about the super-road idea, and the way it would absorb the viaducts’ traffic.
The real news, which business groups were watching closely, was that Mayor Gregor Robertson issued a big, fat: “We’re not going to do anything too fast and let’s take a closer look at a whole bunch of things” statement. That was a relief to several parties.
What he said exactly, in case you are dubious about my sketchy translation above, was (from the city’s news release):
The Mayor included the following measures among his priorities:
· Making immediate traffic improvements to Prior Street, including re-instating parking and exploring speed bumps and other calming measures, to make the street safer for local residents
· Pursuing the Malkin connector to divert traffic, including heavy industrial, off residential streets of Strathcona and Grandview Woodlands and onto designated routes
· A timeline for deliverables for local residents, including expanding park space and affordable housing, as well as options for phased or partial removal of the viaducts, as opposed to one single removal
· Incorporating any removal of the viaducts with the City’s Economic Action Strategy goals of increasing job density, particularly in the clean technology and digital media industries, in False Creek flats and along Great Northern Way
· Ensuring that the flow of commercial goods is a priority and that the needs of the business community are considered, as outlined by the Vancouver Board of Trade
So what’s interesting is that he chose not to barrel ahead but get cautious, something that Geoff Meggs, the councillor who has been the most vocal advocate for the viaducts take-down, officially supported but which had to be seen as a bit of a setback.
I understand that the mayor’s caution came because it appeared some business groups were getting worried. The Vancouver Board of Trade has expressed some qualified support, but raised a lot of questions about consequences.
One group has hired former city traffic engineer Ian Adam, who was at council yesterday watching the proceedings. He said his preliminary assessment is that taking down the viaducts will cost city businesses $27 million in extra costs for delivering goods.
As well, he said the planned new Pacific Boulevard, which will have to take the 40,000 cars a day from the viaduct along with its usual traffic of 30,000, will inevitably end up being congested.
That’s quite different from what current transportation engineer Jerry Dobrovolny is saying, which is that the new Pacific Boulevard could easily take the worst-case scenario of traffic with no significant impact.
(It should be noted that Ian was always somewhat skeptical, in his time at city hall, of the newfangled, no-new-car-space theories of younger engineers like Peter Judd, who is now the head of the city’s engineering department.)
There’s a lot more public discussion likely to bubble up over this.
The city’s feedback at open houses indicated 69 per cent of people who came out were supportive of taking the viaducts down. But a new poll, by Barb Justason, gives that a bit more context. Yes, people downtown are quite supportive about removing the viaducts. Elsewhere in the city, there’s more of a split.
One strong advocate, though, who is coming out forcefully in favour of the viaducts-removal plan: Larry Beasley. The city’s former planning director made his first appearance at a public city council meeting yesterday since he left the city six years ago, just to give silent support as staff made their presentations.
75 responses so far ↓
1 gman // Jul 25, 2012 at 6:46 pm
I don’t see why we should settle for a super road,I think we should demand no less than a SUPER DUPER ROAD……..really what are these guys 12 yrs.old….sheesh!!!
2 Bill Lee // Jul 25, 2012 at 7:20 pm
The “cold-water” press release is at:
http://www.mayorofvancouver.ca/easterncore#more-2496
400 words, the core 150 words quoted above.
5 mentions of Mayor, 2 of Robertson
Links to
“>> Click here to view the staff presentation to Council”
vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20120724/documents/rr2presentation.pdf
and if you wish
” > Sign-up for email updates from the Mayor of Vancouver”
mayorofvancouver.us2.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=ccef5bd922055cb76fc47191a&id=d7d730fd08
….which if you go to the root of the mayorof …list-manage link throws up a rather rude comment from ChimpMail which I don’t think they know displays, showing their disdain for the general public.
3 Bill Lee // Jul 25, 2012 at 7:29 pm
As the city has thrown cold water on Main street artist ‘lofts’ garrets near the viaduct discharges, maybe readers want to be slum landlords as the city tries to fob off industrial warehouses for their crowd and scions in an arts development pretend push. (Also from the vanmayorsoffice tweet factory.)
/vancouver.ca/commsvcs/cultural/facilities/documents/Artist-Studio-Space-Operator-Call-2012.pdf
4 catch22 // Jul 25, 2012 at 7:43 pm
My initial opinions on taking the viaducts down come from simply standing at the intersection of Main and the viaducts.
You have the Cobalt to the south. Pain and Wastings is to the north. And dividing it are two huge freeway overpasses, leading down to…little, tiny (relatively) Prior Street. The area to the west is a wasteland. Trying to ride a bike from the Union Street bike route westward towards False Creek is…irritating.
So the idea of taking them down, and building something, be it parks, or condos or stores sounds promising. It seems absurd to have four freeway lanes leading down to a smallish arterial street. What they have proposed promises to revitalize a terribly troubled area, and I very much like this.
However removing them will remove some traffic capacity in the eastward direction, about 1000 cars per hour if I read their diagrams correctly. The idea is that this excess traffic will be dispersed to Hastings, Cordova, Pender, and the Cambie Bridge. And according to their measurements, those roads are not being used to capacity. In addition, the Evergreen line will, in 2016 likely reduce east/west commuting significantly.
My support for this project is dependent on how it is implemented. Traffic needs to flow, and there needs to be careful planning. I do hope they follow through on this, since if they don’t, and if building begins around the viaducts, it will be nearly impossible to get rid of them, and I believe this will be a terrible missed opportunity.
5 Frank Ducote // Jul 25, 2012 at 7:56 pm
I for one am thrilled that the Mayor has tapped the brakes somewhat on this headlong rush to dismantle – and replace- costly civic infrastructure. Concerns for affected neighbourhoods and businesses should rightfully take top priority in this game-changing enterprise over the property interests like Concord and Aquilini.
I particularly like the very first suggestion – to reinstate parking on Prior. Not only is this an effective traffic-calming approach, it is also something that is very cheap to implement. Not something that can be said for the overall Meggs concept.
I’ve gone on record as supporting restoring peak period on-street parking on some shopping streets in the city like Commercial Drive and Robson Street, perhaps even Central Broadway, for this and other reasons, like enhancing pedestrian comfort and business activity.
Kudos to the Mayor for providing at least one voice of reason.
6 Frank Ducote // Jul 25, 2012 at 8:11 pm
Correction Fabula – Larry Beasley is a former Co-Director of Planning, not a Director. Not so minor a distinction.
7 Frances Bula // Jul 25, 2012 at 8:51 pm
@gman. Super-road is the media’s term, not the city’s.
8 Silly Season // Jul 25, 2012 at 10:39 pm
I’m confused.
Councillor Meggs was on with Mike Smyth on ‘NW this morning. I only caught a few minutes of the viaducts conversation, but the Councillor sounded pretty determined that the viaducts were going to come down, as well as more than a little impatient with callers questioning that decision. Anyone else want to check out the Audio Vault (around 9:20 or so?). I would hope that this is not some fit of pique and push to get it done and “empire building” vanity exercise (after all, this is his pet project, yes?) before the Vancouver-Fairview NDP nomination.
I would be interested in further explantions, costing, etc. On the face of it “no viaducts” sounds good, depending on traffic flows for the hood, and what might come out of it with regard to housing and some ammenities—though I never hold my breath that the first enthusiastic site illustrations are anything like what we end up at the end of the day.
But the $100 million price tag (Sorry, Gord!) to take them down makes me wonder just what that entails. And makes me nervous—governments have the unfortunate habit of low-balling all their plans.
9 Shane // Jul 25, 2012 at 10:46 pm
Yes, it is clearly the media’s term. And, one outlet referred to it as 6 lanes each direction, yet I have never seen a reference to that anywhere.
Are they including 2 directions of bike lanes, 2 directions of streetcar, and 2 directions of Skytrain?
10 Glissando Remmy // Jul 26, 2012 at 12:03 am
Thought Of The Night
“You see what you want to see, and you hear what you want to hear… Could this be Vision Vancouver’s mantra? Almost, but no. It’s the Rock Man giving advice to Oblio, in “The Point”!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2a-_dvxtN0
“Down with the Vancouver Viaducts!” says the Mayor & 1st Violin Meggs … but gently, and only after a lot of LOL “consultation and citizen input” … with an “approval rate” of cca. 69%, get it? 69!
But it’s for your benefit.
New Director Of Centralized GWA Planning for Climate Change Adaptation was announced!
A Yes Man redivivus, with a resume that spans several decades and with trips from coast to coast, with a time line that makes you dizzy, and with a smile and spectacles that makes you think … Gregor, in 20 years!
I’m taking bets, 25 to 1 that the gent departs before his second bureaucratically induced heart attack kicks in… accompanied by the customary by now, severance package aka “The Farewell Penny”.
But it’s for your benefit.
The start of this week was a very busy week indeed, if you are City Hall staff, you are spitting fire right now and kick empty aluminum cans on your way home, when no one is around.
The Mayor’s Office is in a PR mode, in full force… the Mayor likes the tearing down of the Viaducts, but warns the unsuspecting Vancouver peasant… that it will come at a cost, wow!
But it’s for your benefit.
We need to keep the First Respondent Major Catastrophe Earthquake & Tsunami Specialist Team of Professional Stunt Men and Women … active… in the case of a Catastrophic Earthquake & Tsunami or Flood due to the Greenland Ice sheet melting, and with the sea level rising, to the point where you don’t have to go to the Kits Beach to be on the beach. If you live in Mount Pleasant… you’ll be the beach!
But it’s for your benefit.
And all this, for what? To cover up and deflect the attention from last week’s flop of trying to push a silly Seawall/ Super-Bike Lane from Kits to Jericho? Really?
Or from the fact that an “anonymous donor” – (yeah, who?) would rightfully sink millions of dollars in a project that was kept on the QT with the concourse of the Mayor’s Office for almost a year, when this was/is clearly a project that falls under the Title “City of Vancouver Works” and not “Hollyhock Park Rejuvenation”… hmmm!
Anyway, perhaps someone could also explain to the “unidentified” Vision Fans, that the two Election Signs they suddenly appeared on the fence facing Grandview Hwy @ Nanaimo St. on Monday/ Tuesday with “Re-Elect Gregor Robertson – Vision Vancouver” are… hilarious.
The election is long gone… nine months now. He won!
On the Radio, in Print, dunno about TV as I’m not watching… Comrade Robertson is everywhere, all that’s left to do in this “campaigning” week is for him to… visit a Women’s shelter, kiss a newborn baby, DJ a street party, bike over Burrard Bridge on a BIXI, erect a V-pole, administer CPR to a drowning victim, gift all his Travel Allowance to the charity “Shoes for Homeless”, bake some “Lawns 2 Loaves” bread… what I’m saying is, be creative! Also, time permitting, to watch “The Point” movie, in full, hopefully during one of the Cinema in the Park sessions.
Till then…
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
11 Roger Kemble // Jul 26, 2012 at 3:53 am
This plan is all Pacific Boulevard and no neighbourhood.
We did that at FCN twenty years ago . . .
Where have all the neighbourhoods gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the neighbourhoods gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the flowers gone?
Planners have picked them every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
12 Agustin // Jul 26, 2012 at 8:47 am
These slides include several maps with arrows and other paths overlaid. Is there a legend somewhere for what those different markings mean?
For instance, some of the arrows are red, some are green, and some are yellow. Do we know what those colours mean?
Maybe someone who went to an open house knows?
13 Brian // Jul 26, 2012 at 9:11 am
On the whole, I like the transportation decisions this mayor has made, but I’m glad to see him slow this one down. Politically, it makes sense to do this gradually. Every time the we get a big (and awesome) change, it seems like it is rushed through the process and some group gets angry (rightfully or not) or details get missed. This seems like a more steady-handed approach.
14 Frank Ducote // Jul 26, 2012 at 9:31 am
Augustin – I was at an open house and can tell you that one arrow to watch out for is the one indicating a bike connection from grade up to Dunsmuir Street. The sketch sections show this tube-like piece of hardware beside the curb (where trees and poles normally are located) and about 2.5m away from building facades. Yikes!
This very long sloping thing promises to be a very intrusive and expensive piece of infrastructure, and doesn’t look well thought out so far. They intend to divert all the vehicle traffic onto other streets (not only Pacific, BTW) but bikes, god bless ‘em, get a special and very ugly thing that nobody else can use, not even pedestrians.
15 Andrew Browne // Jul 26, 2012 at 9:51 am
I’m having trouble understanding what happens to the Dunsmuir connection. It’s starting to sound like all inbound traffic is diverted to Pacific, and able to turn right onto Georgia. So… no more inbound traffic at all on Dunsmuir? I don’t get this.
(Note: I missed all open house opportunities due to work and travel, so maybe this is an obvious question that’s been covered. Apologies if that is the case.)
16 Bill Lee // Jul 26, 2012 at 10:37 am
@catch22 // Jul 25, 2012 at 7:43 pm #4
You look north from Union and Main and you can’t see Chinatown? It sis invisible to some people?
Now Chinatown is both old and new. It used to be only west of the China Gate at Dupont (Later Pender [ Nathan Road in Kowloon was also Dupont, coincidence? ] and Main.
Some restaurants, a few food stores, tourist trinkets in Trans-Nation and so on.
It didn’t expand until the 1950s when immigration limits were eased, and quickly became the large section we have today.
Chinatown learned to live with the old Viaduct (Yes, there was one since the 1920s, a steel and iron straight line from Georgia to Gerogia, you can see the footings just north of the Hydro substation on Main), even docking their fish boats (some from seized Japanese fleet) under the viaduct. Yes boats were docked where Andy Livingston Park is today.
The viaduct and its structure have always been with Chinatown and it should be considered.
However the new Chinatown redevelopment see a lot of luxury condos overlooking the new playgrounds and Chinatown to be merely a piece of tat, a chinoiserie to be shown on tourist tours.
http://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/carnegie-community-action-project-statement-on-the-2012-chinatown-neighbourhood-plan-in-council-july-25/#more-8171
Have no one noticed that the huge super-road of Expo and Pacific is going to be 6 lanes each way!! A 12! lane road that will be impossible to cross? Will Yaletown yuppies die needlessly? What about geese and duck migrations waddling across.
Will you be at the September 19th barricades as they start the teardown as they did with next day delivery of the Hornby bike path mess.
17 JohnA // Jul 26, 2012 at 10:48 am
I’ve been following this story from the side lines but from what I’ve seen so far there is a real lack of information about how much this is all going to cost. I think I read somewhere that removing the viaducts would be in the 80 – 100 million range. Tack on another 40 million for the Malkin Connector. But the big question would be how much the Super Road would eventually cost. I see the city hopes that they could cover some of the demolition costs from the sale of development rights on land currently under the viaducts. That would take years to negotiate I would think. So for a City that isn’t exactly flush with extra cash rushing into a project of this magnitude would be fiscally irresponsible. This of course is another example of Vision’s short term planning strategy that Frances touched on in an earlier post.
18 Frank Ducote // Jul 26, 2012 at 10:57 am
Hi, John A – cost seems to be a secondary consideration in this initiative, as does neighborhood impacts. To heck with both of them! full speed ahead, says visionary Meggs.
Andrew – westbound downtown traffic currently using the viaducts (aka the East Van “bridges”) would indeed turn right from the new Pacific/Expo Boulevard onto a let-down Georgia Street connector. Eastbound traffic would do the reverse.
For what’s worth, IMO a “great street” – not super road – that combines both Expo and Pacific would be a good thing, in terms of saving land and creating a much better environment in general here. There is also no way that it would be 12 lanes, BTW, so quit fearmongering folks and find out the as much of the details as you can before raising such alarms. The blogosphere is not necessarily the best place to do the homework.
19 Bill Lee // Jul 26, 2012 at 11:26 am
Meanwhile, in the darkest regions of the forgotten East Side, the Powell Street overpass, designed to allow CPR to assemble and move trains that will be will be 3 kilometres long!!
And further cutting the city inhabitants on the east side from any access to the waterfront.
Time to move the docks and elevators off the Burrard Inlet and give it back to the city.
They will take away the False Creek yards for the Malkin overpass and for housing.
20 Roger Kemble // Jul 26, 2012 at 11:42 am
Frank @ #18
“IMO a “great street” – not super road – that combines both Expo and Pacific would be a good thing, in terms of saving land and creating a much better environment in general here. ”
I agree. What you are implying, I assume, is that a rush hour arterial is not the route to go here: rather it be treated as an urban design issue.
They did that with Leg-in-Boot Square across the water and it didn’t turn out very well: lacking a critical mass and isolated from its population by rail and 2nd ave.
The current plan to replace the viaducts seems to rely too much green space, may be for its superficial appeal to popularity, but surely isn’t there a surfeit of green space at that end of town.
Perhaps there isn’t the expertise at Thu Hall, to design a comprehensive public space/public use scenario: there certainly wasn’t further west on FCN.
The competition revealed one excellent solution that was, evidently, rejected for late entry.
It should be resurrected!
21 jolson // Jul 26, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Here is another consideration from an environmental perspective. The Greenest City Action Plan adopted by Council needs to be implemented by measuring proposals such as “the super something” in terms of carbon emissions. Adam has a point about potential congestion, and we know that gridlock always means environmental damage. An environmental assessment of this urban design proposal has yet to be completed but would seem to be required by current policies. What could an assessment reveal? Would we see from the biosphere perspective an unacceptable idea? or manageable consequences? or new opportunities to layer multiple economic and environmental benefits?
22 Morven // Jul 26, 2012 at 12:26 pm
This is not the first time that some VISION councillors become hypnotised by optimism bias instead of engaging in cool, calm deliberation, backed by expert opinion from both sides.
-30-
23 waltyss // Jul 26, 2012 at 1:47 pm
JohnA@#17, Have you considered waiting for or finding out some facts. Facts are not assumptions you make up and then put out on the blogosphere.
Morven@#22, I thought that what the May9r was doing was asking for more study. I don’t know what “expert opinion from both sides”. I would hope that those paid and unpaid would put discuss both the positive and the negative of the proposal. That would allow the citizens of this city to decide.
Rather we seem to get too much of the chipmunk on speed approach that I heard from Michael Smyth on the Bill Good Show on Wednesday where Councillor Meggs, I thought, acquitted himself rather well, when he was actually given an opportunity to speak by Smyth or the caller.
I don’t know what I think and would certainly like to learn more about cost, secondary effects on neighbourhoods, traffic downtown and the like. There are many on this blog who have useful observations to contribute. Unfortunately, there are also a few too many expats from City Caucus who will oppose it and make up things to oppose anything a Vision council proposes.
24 Michelle // Jul 26, 2012 at 2:36 pm
But Waltyss #23,
You have to admit that we have huge, huuuge, conflict of interests in this piece of land, the developers (Concord/ Aquilini/ Holborn…) are salivating buckets; Local politicians give speeches, make promises, propose plans, and prepare themselves for the Provincial nominations; the city staff, are charging overtime on this as if there was no tomorrow; present/ former planners are already spending the money they’ll get for the feasibility studies they’ll run by this council; the neighborhood wants to believe that their properties will skyrocket in value following this new housing addition; everyone in favore of tearing down the viaduct have a vested monetary interest in it. Period. Don’t kid yourself, and don’t try to kid others!
25 Morven // Jul 26, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Waltyss $ 23
I am neither a CityCaucus fugitive or a vehement VISION opponent. I am merely a puzzled citizen.
What irritates me is that the city makes everything seem ad hoc – no system for appraisal, no systematic consultation, no summing up of costs and benefits. Every different planning problem has procedures that seem to me made up on the spot.
I am all for pragmatism but not at the expense of accepted planning procedures.
If it is not ad hoc, the city planners have done a lousy job of communication.
-30-
26 Julia // Jul 26, 2012 at 4:07 pm
this is like following politics in Chicago
27 Higgins // Jul 26, 2012 at 6:42 pm
Julia #26 and Morven #25
I was just about to agree on the Chicago angle (Duh, where’s that Johnston from?)
Just following politics in China, former USSR, North Korea… only Lite! For now!
What we see here is their (Vision/ Mayor) good side, try to get to their bad side…
28 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 26, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Roger ‘n Frank n’me all in agreement along with everyone else!
Yes, we can tear down the viaducts, but it’s a pregnant proposition… What are we getting in return?
The re:connect competition winner—the Larry Beasley team—looks like ‘Towers in the Park’ and very expensive rebuilding of Expo/Pacific boulevards that are just fine they way they are.
Last night at the Mount Pleasant Implementation Committee we got another dose of “Modernism is (still) the way to go in this City”.
Yuck!
Tear down the viaducts, sure, but before we do that…
(1) Make sure that we have usurped the commuter trips into BRT or LRT. BRT would mean taking the Hastings B-Line, giving it lane and signal priority, and making it so that it an move 100,000 people per day effortlessly. That should take out most of the viaducts 40,000 cars.
(2) Make the Main Street Trolley BRT on dedicated lanes with signal priority. That will take out the rest of the 40,000 viaduct vehicle load away.
(3) Get serious about the neighbourhood plans for areas affected (West End, Downtown, Mount Pleasant, Strathcona, Downtown Eastside). Build ground oriented, high-densitiy urbanism without towers.
You know, the time-tested stuff that make places that people can enjoy.
What we heard last night at MPIC that did ring true was a Vancouver immigrant family intent on building a ‘legacy’.
We need more of just that kind of vision & leadership. And it should not come from the City. It should come from we the people.
Removing the viaducts must be seen as a step away from automobile-driven urbanism, and a step into our new future.
A future where neighbourhood design, great streets, cities and urbanism are all calculated to maximize the joy of living in the city. This is urbanism that takes precedence over domination by the automobile, or any other form of transportation.
However, in Mount Pleasant, we are fighting the other monster—a City Hall strapped for cash and willing to do anything, and permit everything that will double the CACs (i.e. development fees paid in cash).
Welcome to the Wild, Wild West. 147 years of settlement history here really hasn’t made that much difference on what is driving the train…
29 waltyss // Jul 26, 2012 at 10:43 pm
Thank you Julia #26 and Higgins #27 for your bottom feeding contributions.
Michelle#24. If there is development going on, presumably developers and those who cater to developers, including former city planners, will be smacking their lips with glee. After all, that is how they make their money.
A conflict of interest does not occur if someone proposes policies that support one’s field of endeavour. If that were not true, the Board of Trade would be in a conflict every time it supported anything that was business friendly.
If a former planner or anyone else has been hired by the city when they have a particular vested interest such as owning land or being employed by the owner of land that will be developed , that is another matter. No-one even in the fevered imaginings that often pass for “fact” in the blogosphere has suggested that is going on.
For the rest, we know who someone like a Beasley is employed by. When he makes a pitch, we can filter his contributions through the knowledge of who he has been employed by but still hopefully try to judge what he, for example, suggests is a good idea.The issues would seem to be three:
Is tearing down the viaducts a good idea?
If so, what should be put in their place?
How best to implement the replacement with the least dislocation to neighbourhoods and traffic into downtown.
Let’s not pretend that something like this, if we do undertake it can be done without any dislocation. However, let’s not have a repeat of the Cambie Street mess either, even if the end result is pretty good, IMHO.
Instinctively, most people would probably agree that a highway to nowhere in the middle of the city is not something desirable. However, it has been there a long time, people have adjusted to it and if we are going to suffer dislocation, let’s be very sure that what replaces it is worth the effort and comes in realistically with a reasonable net cost.
And I really believe that we can have a reasoned and civilized debate about what is being proposed and what might be a better alternative, including whether we should proceed with this project at all.
(Sorry, Julia and Higgins, I did not mean to suggest that you were capable of civilized or reasoned debate. Didn’t mean to spoil your reputations.)
30 brilliant // Jul 26, 2012 at 11:29 pm
Does anyone else notice that waltsyss will start off a “contibution” with a gratuitous slam against other posters who don’t share his Gregormania, and then will at some point whine and snivel about being insulted? Talj about expats, how about explants from the Vancouver Observer. And I’m sure we all shate your concern about poor Geoff Meggsaphone trying to be heard.
31 Richard // Jul 27, 2012 at 12:25 am
@Lewis
Please tell us how you are going to get your tower free high density in existing neighbourhoods without leveling a good portion of the existing houses and businesses. You do know that is exactly how they achieved high density in many parts of cities that you refer to as good examples like Paris.
A variety of heights make streets and cities interesting. All four story buildings or row houses is rather boring.
32 Roger Kemble // Jul 27, 2012 at 2:46 am
Well, “Yes,” Lewis @ #28 “we can tear down the viaducts, but it’s a pregnant proposition… What are we getting in return?”
Good question! And the answer, to me, is a brutal extension of more of the same.
Fortunately the mayor has put the skids on this more-of-the-same euphoria for the time being, giving us time to reflect.
First we must discourage the technocrats.
Surely we can do better than repeat the mistakes of thirty years, which is the embodiment of the current conversation: I mean this obeisance to smoothing the traffic makes a mockery of the mayor’s green” pretensions.
The current proposal, continuing the Pacific Boulevard repeats all our mistakes of thirty years.
I do not agree with everything you say Lewis (I wish you would do yourself a favour: get off your “Build ground oriented, high-density urbanism without towers obsession: it kills all your good ideas) but at the beginning of the twenty-first century urbanism must come before techno-babble!
33 Roger Kemble // Jul 27, 2012 at 3:30 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iraX8Aznccg
No comment . . .
34 Don // Jul 27, 2012 at 9:38 am
Larry Beasley is currently employed by Concord Pacific, which funded his viaducts removal proposal, which has in turn become the City’s viaducts removal plan.
If you dig your way through the green-washing and giddy, hyperbole (restoring the Main Street corridor, honoring Vancouver’s black heritage/Hogan’s Alley, reconnecting neighbourhoods, blah, blah, blah), this plan is nothing more than a developers’ wet dream and a scam that would provide the City and its residents with an insignificantly tiny increase in parkland (which, if Creekside Park is any indication, may never actually exist) – and massive traffic headaches, unmanageably high densities and a huge bill.
This recent announcement is a glimmer of sanity.
35 Guest // Jul 27, 2012 at 12:00 pm
The only good thing to come out of the dviducts removal proposition is the advancing of the Malkin Connector so as to reunite Strathcona – This has always been contemplated and isn’t the brainchild of the present council.
There’s no reason why the Malkin Connector can’t connect to the existing viaducts and the lands under, around and above the viaducts can’t be developed with the viaducts in place. Rumour is that Aquilini had developed a plan for a north side (of Rogers Arena) tower over the SkyTrain and Dunsmuir viaduct, but the City put the brakes to it (perhaps because demonstrating such feasibility would squash their viaduct removal efforts).
Just look at the much vaunted Westbank / BIG proposal for their 49 storey tower and low-rise buidlings next to, below, around and above the Hornby on-ramp to the Granville Bridge.
36 gmgw // Jul 27, 2012 at 12:27 pm
@Don #34:
Well said. Thanks. This whole proposal is rooted in one Councillor’s obsession– and has reached this stage primarily due to Vision’s desire to do yet another in a long line of big favours for their developer buddies. Whether Robertson’s sudden caution is an indication that, Pinocchio-like, he has actually cut his strings– or not– remains to be seen. Whether Geoff Meggs should be viewed as Stromboli or Geppetto depends on one’s POV, of course, although he does seem able to alternate between the two as required.
gmgw
37 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 27, 2012 at 2:48 pm
“I do not agree with everything you say Lewis—I wish you would get off your Build ground oriented, high-density urbanism without towers obsession…”
Roger 32
¡Vamos a Brindar!
After all, the row houses are now a real option for the first time since 1865! My efforts all to the good… urbanism, of course.
38 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 27, 2012 at 3:14 pm
… how you are going to get your tower free high density in existing neighbourhoods without leveling a good portion of the existing houses and businesses… that is exactly how they achieved high density in many parts of cities that you refer to as good examples like Paris.
A variety of heights make streets and cities interesting. All four story buildings or row houses is rather boring.
[The Other] Richard 31
As a FREE public service, and to kill a few minutes, let’s analyze your proposal.
(1) Intensification without eradication of existing/extant housing
Sleazy easy! You take out the houses in those places of the city where the urbanism is choking up and not working—For example, along ALL the arterials. While we’re there, we’ll notice there is a whack of 0.5 FSR commercial that can redevelop as well.
Single family res looms around the 0.2 FSR. ‘Good’ urbanism is 2.0. 10x the density without sacrificing neighbourhood quality, human-scale, sun exposure, gloomy streets, etc.
But here’s the catch, Richard—it won’t work unless you revitalize the streets.
We were told the other night at MPIC that there’s no money for that. [Don't infer from that report that revitalization is NOT possible, just that the current Crew at the Hall sees it that way].
(2) Napoleon III wielded urban revitalization like a political guillotine in Paris until his fool’s war with Bismarck brought it all to a halt.
You know, the more I read about the mid-19th century re-organization of Paris in French, the more I learn about just how far advanced the French were in their methods. Don’t believe everything you read in English about the French. We have to but go to our own Montreal to realize that something MAJOR was going on.
Spoils of victory for the Germans? They got the new urbanism and took off.
(3) Variety is the spice of life… But, in urbanism, varying the building heights is a recipe for failed towns & neighbourhoods.
Get outta your wing chair, man, and walk in some good urban places. Then, notice that when the buildings are all more or less the same height (uniform build out) the town takes on the contours of the land, and EVERY HOUSE gets a view.
I have some great shots of just that from the Amalfina (Amalfi coast between Capri & Naples). The bays cut into the land so far that you can stand on one side and get a splendid panorama of the opposite side of the bay. At times it is staggering. The sheer hoard of windows creating a solid mass of fenestration staring back at you!
Do it the other way, and the tower and the tall block “block” views & sun for miles. To boot, they can also produce unpredicted and unwanted wind effects and solar reflections.
This notion of “varying the building height” being “good urbanism” is a local myth most likely perpetrated for the benefit of—guess who?
When the skyline of the city begins to resemble the boom and bust cycles of our frontier, resource-based economy you have to face up to the fact that you may have reached the end of our quest and found the answer to the question: Why do the building heights vary so much outside the downtown tower zone in Vancouver?
Its either a weak grasp on good urbanism, unfamiliarity with the joys of Bath, Toledo (Spain—El Greco’s town), Pienza, most of Renaissance & Baroque Rome, 19th century anywhere, and a scant few but surprisingly good contemporary models.
Dude, it’s like coke and pinot noir.
39 Roger Kemble // Jul 27, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Lewis @ #38
You sound like your immediate ancestor the Graf Spee . . . boom . . . boom . . . boom and then you pulled your own plug and . . . glug . . . glug . . . glug!
40 brilliant // Jul 28, 2012 at 8:25 am
@Don 34-Interesting, so Concord is paying Beaseley’s bills. The same Concord who has been dragging their ass onCreekside Park, but has now become a convert to more park space? Or did they have inside information not to proceed with Creekside in case somebody proposed removing the viaducts? And what’s to stop them from pulling an Aquilini and depriving the city ofmillions in CACs after we’ve footed the bill to hand them a nice big development site?
41 Mira // Jul 28, 2012 at 10:38 am
Michelle #24 & Don #34
Well said.
brilliant #40
Right on. Also remember the “SOLEfoods” BS article that they are displaying on one of their properties right now? Property tax deferrals anyone?
I also see Waltyss is at it again… no big surprise there
IMHO, Robertson and Meggs are pulling the Good Cop – Bad Cop routine on Vancouver. If it turns out ok Mayor looks good, if it turns out bad Meggs was leaving anyways… can anyone spell “Con Men”?
42 Mira // Jul 28, 2012 at 10:43 am
Forgot to throw in the link:
http://m.thetyee.ca/News/2012/07/09/Solefood-Rising/
Throw some dirt over the pavement, bring some plastic bags and manure, call it urban farming , hire a few unfortunate SOLEs pay them in lettuce and carrots … save hundreds of thousands in taxes… good deal, the Mayor can claim another 5 “green jobs” invented over three months of summer… what a crock, what acomplete joke!
43 waltyss // Jul 28, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Sorry , Mira. I hate to rain on your diatribes, I really do. And I appreciate facts are of absolutely no interest to you. So this is not directed to you (or brilliant not, for that matter). So just turn the page to dream your next diatribe.
However, it is not the city who determines the tax rates for the properties that developers hold and allow for market gardens. In fact the city has tried to stop or at least reduce them because they decrease the tax base.
Okay, Mira, you can come back now and hiss something at me or anyone else you disagree with.
44 CityGirl // Jul 29, 2012 at 8:58 am
I live in this area, overlooking the viaducts and have followed this process very closely.
At Larry Beasley’s presentation of his teams’ proposal which has become the City’s transportation plan, he did admit that he is a paid consultant for Concorde and they sponsored his re:connect proposal. Thus, that is why you see only their towers in his proposal. It is a fantasy rendering of Concorde’s current 5 tower proposal and park land everywhere else. When the reality will be residential towers anywhere they possibly can.
My concern is the lack of consultation and the attitude that this is already a done deal, so now we’re only discussing the details.
The re:connect competition also asked for ideas of how to better utilize the land with the viaducts in place. I see lots of potential, from open air covered markets to artist stalls where the current Police impound lot, to housing or retail opportunities. SoleFood’s garden is coming along nicely, but it is temporary. This could be transferred to the grass areas that currently have very little use. The use of light and brightly coloured paint under the viaducts can make this area come alive. No one is even considering these options, which of course the developers and City aren’t encouraging.
I also have grave concerns about their “Grand Pacific” road. A six lane street will be death to pedestrians and cyclists and it will create gridlock with all the traffic lights needed to cross over to Gastown/Chinatown, the very area they want to “re-connect”. Honestly, living here, I have not found it hard to get to either areas.
Their plan to put commercial on Main St won’t work without on-street parking. The current businesses along the west side of Main do very little business because of this.
While the Mayor’s current statements are encouraging, Mira #41 statement makes a lot of sense.
Before taking anything down, why not get the Malkin Connector started and wait for the Evergreen line to finish so we can see that impact. In the meantime, beautifying and re-purposing the space underneath will take minimal cost and could actually be a good thing.
45 Adam Fitch // Jul 29, 2012 at 7:14 pm
A few points. The “super road”, which you can see in the designs in the slide show and the City’s presentation, is mostly 3 lanes wide in each direction, with some wider sections at intersections for left turn lanes, etc. So it is not wider than the current pacific boulevard and expo boulevard combined.
I do not see why it is being called a super road, and I do not see why some fear it being an uncrossable road. Look at Pacific Boulevard west of the stadium. It is not uncrossable. As one goes further west, it is quite attractive and pleasant.
46 Adam Fitch // Jul 29, 2012 at 7:16 pm
I disagree with those who say that the Evergreen line will make much difference to peak traffic on the viaducts. Why should it. In the peak hours, commuters from Port Moody and Coquitlam can already take the West Coast Express to commute downtown. It is faster than skytrain. If they do not take the WCE now, why would they take the Evergreen Line in the future?
47 Adam Fitch // Jul 29, 2012 at 7:20 pm
My biggest question is: what will happen to the area west of the stadium if this plan is impemented? It means more roadspace to bring Expo Boulevard south of the stadium, and a reconfiguration of roads around the north end of the Cambie Bridge. not shown in these plans, but necessary for the traffic system to work.
Also, what will happen to the segment of Expo Boulevard north of the stadium. the plans indicate that it will stay open, but the traffic on it will be less.
There seems to be an oportunity there. It is horrible for pedestrians and cyclists currnently. Like riding/walking in a highway tunnel.
48 David // Jul 30, 2012 at 1:20 am
The plaza overtop Expo Blvd creates the ‘tunnel effect’. When opened in 1983, this was two way…for years motorists didn’t realize it was now one way. http://goo.gl/maps/eB3IR
49 David // Jul 30, 2012 at 1:27 am
Original Viaduct… When built there was still inlets of False Creek underneath, filled in by 1946 http://vintageairphotos.com/bo-46-146/
50 Tessa // Jul 30, 2012 at 6:06 am
@Adam Fitch #46
Because the Evergreen Line will come every few minutes all day long instead of every half hour during peak periods only (good luck if you miss the train), and it will cost less than half the price, and it will stop in many more convenient locations than simply Waterfront station downtown.
51 Tessa // Jul 30, 2012 at 6:09 am
For those predicting traffic chaos, Vancouver is not the first city in the world to remove a viaduct (See Seoul, San Francisco, Portland, etc.) and traffic chaos has not been their experience. It’s an easily managed situation that can improve the situation for everyone while building a true neighbourhood with more parkland.
Will it cost money? Yes. So does anything worthwhile. But it will also save money in maintaining the existing viaduct as it continues to age to the end of its expected lifespan. And it could hypothetically also pay for itself in new land available for development, if that’s the route council chooses to go. Or it could free up space for affordable housing.
52 IanS // Jul 30, 2012 at 7:35 am
@Tessa #21:
“For those predicting traffic chaos, Vancouver is not the first city in the world to remove a viaduct (See Seoul, San Francisco, Portland, etc.) and traffic chaos has not been their experience.”
I don’t know if that’s accurate or not, but, in any case, wouldn’t it depend on the circumstances of each city? The amount of traffic, the alternative capacity, alternative transit etc?
And, FWIW, there are plenty of bad traffic outcomes which fall short of “traffic chaos”. There was a report not long ago which cited Vancouver as being most congested city in Canada (IIRC). Again, I don’t know if that’s entirely accurate and reliable, but I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the viaduct removal will result in less congestion. IMO, based on what I’ve seen, removal of the viaducts will make an already pretty bad downtown traffic situation worse.
“It’s an easily managed situation that can improve the situation for everyone while building a true neighbourhood with more parkland. ”
I’m curious to know your qualifications for making that assessment. I very much hope you’re correct, but I’m skeptical. The traffic analysis presented by the City, surely the most optimistic possible presentation, looks pretty ominous to me.
53 jolson // Jul 30, 2012 at 10:34 am
Hi #49
Your photo reference is not the viaduct……. but the old Cambie Bridge, Yaletown and the Roundhouse can be seen in the foreground.
54 Sean Bickerton // Jul 30, 2012 at 11:50 am
Really pleased to see Mayor’s sensible stance.
Larry Beasley’s plan won the hearts of the city for many different reasons, but city’s proposed direction tramples on very important aspects of that plan. Most importantly the Malkin connector mentioned by Mayor Robertson.
No one is going to be willing to make the difficult compromises necessary unless we’re assured in advance that the ultimate plan is something much closer to the Beasley team’s award-winning proposal embraced by large majority.
55 West End Gal // Jul 30, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Sean #54
“Really pleased to see Mayor’s sensible stance.”
Sorry to disagree with you… Robertson has nor the background , nor the knowledge to make any stances or give any advice other than what the “shadow” cabinet behind him tells him to say/ do.
Period.
Audience… meet the marionette show.
Same go for Tessa, who seems to have all the answers. As per Ian S … “I’m curious to know your qualifications for making that assessment. “
56 Victor // Jul 30, 2012 at 4:08 pm
I hate to throw cold water on this very worthwhile and heated discussion, specially where some excellent questions are being presented about the real need to remove the viaducts – like…what’s the reason? Well, we all know the answer to that one!
But if $100 mill is so easy to come by, why isn’t the disintegrating Burrard Street Bridge being repaired at supposedly far less cost?
Take a walk over it soon. Observe the crumbling balustrades, rusting rebar and spalling concrete. Surely fixing that major connector before the next earthquake is a much more sensible plan than pulling down the viaducts?
But then again guess not much of the land around the sides of the bridge is owned by V V donors. Oh and the South end is owned by the Squamish. Once they get cracking to develop that land they will not be keen to allow cranes etc in for needed upgrades and repairs. So better get on with the work soon.
What is wrong with these Cllrs that they cannot figure out the correct order of the city’s priorities?
57 Julia // Jul 30, 2012 at 4:33 pm
wonder how many miles of cracked and heaving sidewalks could be repaired for 100 million!
58 brilliant // Jul 30, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Or how many parks $100 mil could create in the real East Van, instead of gifting yet another park for yuppies on the shores of False Creek.
59 gman // Jul 30, 2012 at 5:58 pm
I bet if there were no viaducts they would be telling us we need to build viaducts,screw the cost buy the cat another canary.
60 Frances Bula // Jul 30, 2012 at 10:13 pm
@Michelle. Just FYI, Holborn does not own any property in this neighbourhood.
61 David // Jul 31, 2012 at 1:00 am
@Jolson 53, click on the photo, you can see the Hart McHarg Viaduct north of the Connaught bridge. http://vintageairphotos.com/bo-46-146/
Tessa’s right, not everybody gets up every morning at the alarm clocks warning and takes the 8:15 (the last WCE train from Coquitlam) into the city.
Julia… agree, if there isn’t $100,000 for the Historic Streetcar, how can there be $100,000,00 for destroying the viaducts, for what.
@Victor… what to do about the crumbling balustrades on the Burrard bridge evokes protests from heritage preservationists. Maybe we should hold a plebiscite like in 1982, should we build a new Cambie bridge, or squeeze another 30 years out of the Connaught Bridge and let the people of 2012 deal with it http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ADFlAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RIwNAAAAIBAJ&dq=harry%20rankin%20commercial%20cambie%20bridge&pg=5917%2C93046
62 jolson // Jul 31, 2012 at 11:46 am
Thanks David,
I see some buildings under the original viaducts as well as the old coal gasification plant which gave us some of the most polluted ground water and soil to be found under a park anywhere in the City.
63 teririch // Jul 31, 2012 at 1:55 pm
@Victor #56:
Thank you! I have been ‘harping’ on the decay of the historic Burrard Street Bridge for months now and have tweeted many of the pics I have taken over the course.
Today CBC posted an article surrounding the mess the cobble stone streets of Gastown have become. The patchwork mess they are.
I see city haller Kevin Q is defending the lack of general upkeep of our parks, roads and boulevards by tweeting that a recent poll showed that 82% of Vancouverties said the ‘city’ was doing a good job on garbage collection.
Well yipee!
How he connects the two or considers that a remotely suitable answer makes zero sense.
This city is a ‘visual’ mess. It is becoming an embarassement when you consider the level of tourism that travels through here.
It is about time dollars be directed to the ‘needs’ first, and all the ‘wants’ after that.
There are pot holes on West 4th at Arbutus that could swallow a small child.
64 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 31, 2012 at 10:25 pm
I hate to throw cold water on this very worthwhile and heated discussion, specially where some excellent questions are being presented about the real need to remove the viaducts – like…what’s the reason? Well, we all know the answer to that one!
Victor 56
Do we? I mean, if there was an earthquake Victor would you prefer to be
(a) on the Viaducts; or
(b) under the Viaducts?
Those things have not been seismically upgraded since they were built… and way back in 1970 we didn’t have an earthquake code.
65 Joe Just Joe // Jul 31, 2012 at 10:50 pm
The structures meet the design and loading standards at the time of construction, but do not meet current seismic design standards. Having said that and due to the nature of the structural system (girders built into pier caps), the structure should perform relatively well in an earthquake. A summary of the anticipated costs to maintain the structure are provided below:
Yearly maintenance costs ~$25, 000 per year
Short Term retrofits ~$200,000
Maintenance required in next 5+ years ~$1 million (barrier rehabilitation)
Maintenance required in the next 15+ years – $3 million (deck and joint rehabilitation)
Seismic upgrades ~$5 million
If the viaducts were retained it is estimated with the above maintenance they would have a remaining service life of 40+ years.
Think I’d take my chances that the viaducts would survive a quake. Seems that the cost of keeping the viaducts for 40 more yrs is a token of the $80M to take them down, let alone build the super road.
66 Joe Just Joe // Jul 31, 2012 at 10:51 pm
Sorry forgot the source, it’s from the original report to the city.
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20110726/documents/ttra2.pdf
67 Don // Aug 2, 2012 at 12:54 am
Joe Just Joe: Thanks.
68 Don // Aug 2, 2012 at 12:57 am
Lewis N. Villegas: You are trying to blow smoke up our … whatever … how about some intellectual integrity?
69 Bill Lee // Aug 2, 2012 at 1:14 pm
from the Frances Bula of Toronto, Siri Agrell
Toronto’s Underpass Park aims to turn neglected space into community hub
by Siri Agrell – Urban Affairs Reporter
The Globe and Mail Published Thursday, Aug. 02 2012, 3:03 PM EDT Last updated Thursday, Aug. 02 2012, 3:10 PM EDT
Political harmony can occasionally be found in unexpected places – in Toronto on Thursday it happened under the Gardiner Expressway.
The official opening of Underpass Park, a unique community space complete with basketball courts, play structures and a public art piece carved out beneath a highway off ramp, was attended by Mayor Rob Ford, along with representatives of three levels of government….
The park is the first of its kind to be built beneath an underpass in Toronto, and John Campbell [ of Waterfront Toronto ] said it is an example of his agency’s “novel approach to smart, sustainable city building.”
In addition to the mayor, the park’s ribbon cutting was attended by Member of Parliament Peter Van Loan, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, city councillor Norm Kelly, and provincial MPP Soo Wong, of Scarborough-Agincourt.
Located beneath the Eastern Avenue and Richmond/Adelaide overpasses in the West Don Lands, Underpass Park is at the centre of development in preparation for the 2015 PanAm Games.
The athletes village will be located nearby, and the presence of federal, provincial and local politicians seemed to indicate a renewed commitment to the Waterfront Toronto’s vision and timeline.
Mr. Van Loan made a joke at the expense of Waterfront Toronto, which was given long-term jurisdiction over the city lakefront lands as a way to mitigate cross jurisdictional issues and disputes. He said they came up with a way of dealing with intergovernmental bickering over the waterfront by “creating yet another level of government.”
Underpass Park is indicative of the support the Conservative government has given to municipal infrastructure projects, he added, noting that the federal coffers offered up $9-million of the project’s $9.5-million budget.
Constructed in two phases, the first completed sections of the park sit between St. Lawrence Street and Bayview Avenue. Visitors can access the completed portions of the park from River Street, south of King Street. Phase two of Underpass Park, located west of St. Lawrence Street to Eastern Avenue, is expected to open in spring 2013. The completed project covers a total of 1.05 hectares, or 2.7 acres.
“This park is a lynchpin,” said architect and urban planner Ken Greenberg. “It’s actually things like this that are the glue, that hold it all together and make it a real place.”
The design of the space is simple and welcoming. There are basketball courts and a skate park, which was in use “even before the fences came down,” according to Mr. Campbell.
And on the underside of the actual off ramp, Toronto artist Paul Raff has installed a public art piece called Mirage, which uses mirrored stainless steel panels suspended from the overpass to reflect and bounce light within the space.
“It’s about how it reflects and transforms the place,” said Mr. Raff, who attended the opening with his young daughter. “I’m happy now that I’m seeing mothers with strollers and children roaming through the place.”
David Leinster, a landscape architect with The Planning Partnership who conceptualized Underpass Park along with urban design firm Phillips Farevaag Smallenberg, said the space was meant to make the neighbourhood feel more accessible, to lighten the area beneath the highway and draw people from one side to the other.
“It’s amazing seeing it come to realization,” he said. “This area has been so under-serviced, it’s in a real transition into a mixed use community.
70 David // Aug 5, 2012 at 12:48 am
A Sun article noted that a 4 metre rise in ocean level would result in False Creek returning to its 19th century shoreline…. http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/uploads/r/null/1/1/1106042/6e6a18a8-ac11-4592-b154-91838be22f1d-A20894.jpg
71 Frank Ducote // Aug 5, 2012 at 6:55 pm
David – For a moment there I thought you meant that False Creek’s water level was 4m higher in the 19th century. Say it ain’t so!
72 David // Aug 6, 2012 at 1:19 am
False creek shore was up to 4m lower? (Figure 3) http://www.btaworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/BTAworks_Local-Effects-of-Global-Climate-Change-Community-Toolkit-and-Atlas_FINAL.pdf
73 gman // Aug 6, 2012 at 12:01 pm
OH MY run for your lives!!!!! http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=822-071
74 David // Aug 6, 2012 at 9:57 pm
I’m actually equally skeptical, gman. I’d be more concerned about the Cascadia quake…. though it’s only been 312 years since January 26, 1700. We should be good..
“Local Indigenous American oral traditions describing a large quake also exist, although these do not specify the date”
(Perhaps they did make note of the date, it just didn’t refer to Janus, or Jesus)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1700_Cascadia_earthquake#Future_threats
75 gman // Aug 7, 2012 at 10:14 am
David I agree we are faced with things like earthquakes that are based on much better science and plans should be in place to deal with these realities instead of wasting money on scary modeled projections.North Carolina just passed a law,and rightly so,to wait four years and do more research rather than blindly go ahead with very expensive projects and laws that would have a negative effect on them financially. Its got a lot of attention from comedians and enviro groups, but it really is a more level headed approach. http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2012/aug/02/2/wsmet01-new-law-temporarily-bans-use-of-science-pa-ar-2487728/
Leave a Comment