The first open house for the viaducts (4-7 Tuesday in the Woodward’s atrium) was packed. Another one today and then Saturday.
Here’s what the proponents are saying that taking down the viaducts will do: create one great street instead of two half-used semi-highways, improve the park space, bring a grand ceremonial street (Georgia) down to the waterfront, provide two more blocks of (city-owned) land around Main to reconstitute housing that was once part of Chinatown, and not block any views.
I know not everyone agrees with that. I heard there were some rumblings of discontent at the open house. The floor is yours.
154 responses so far ↓
1 jesse // Jun 7, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Tear them down. Think big. This is the last chance Vancouver will have of creating awesomeness from scratch.
2 Tiktaalik // Jun 7, 2012 at 1:08 pm
I think the plan is brilliant. It’s everything I wanted really.
One feature I really like is that the park design is based around a big, open field. There’s far too many Vancouver parks that are divvied up into narrow uses and the downtown could really use a big open space that is flexible enough to be used for any sort of activity.
3 IanS // Jun 7, 2012 at 1:20 pm
I’ve stated my opinion on this in other threads and won’t repeat myself here, but I did read in another publication that the goal is to direct the majority of the traffic down Expo and onto Pacific.
As someone who lives on Pacific, I can’t help but wonder how that amounts to a desirable result. Essentially, they’re diverting traffic from a viaduct through a largely residential neighborhood. Pacific is already pretty bad at times, particularly during big events such as hockey games and concerts, but it’s going to be much worse once the viaducts are gone. The fact that the City is serious going to spend money to bring about such a result is very frustrating.
Having said that, we were planning to downsize in 4 or 5 years, so, hopefully, we can get out of the area before the real damage done. Still, it’s disheartening to see the City undertake such a self-destructive move.
4 Bill Lee // Jun 7, 2012 at 1:29 pm
Go New Jersey Devils!
And here we are in June 2012 and we haven’t had a riot yet on our “grand ceremonial street (Georgia)”
———
Do those saying tear them down work downtown and live east of Main? How do they get home?
And while there was a protest on the viaduct on Tuesday? (poorly reported other than something vague on radio traffic reports), have they considered how the East Side can be blocked, Cordova, Hastings etc. with protests for several hours.
And I know that the City Traffic department still has the drawings for tearing down just 23 homes and putting a freeway along Venables-Williams Streets to the 401.
Councilor Meggs will be far away by the time the viaducts are dealt with.
5 IanS // Jun 7, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Here’s my proposal: before making any final decisions as to the removal of the viaduct (yes, I appreciate that the final decision was likely made some time ago, but still…), let’s shut it down for a month of two and see what happens. Heck, let’s make it bike only for a while.
If, after that, removal seems like a good idea, then so be it.
6 Roger Kemble // Jun 7, 2012 at 2:05 pm
This is, indeed, not a brilliant plan, Tiktaalik @ #2. It is a further replication of the lack lustre amorphous, David Lam and George Wainborn, chunks of green surrounded by Vancouver’s, oh so repetitively, familiar gray blocks.
Gosh, can’t we come up with something better than this? When it comes to urban sensibilities Vancouver just hasn’t got it.
Read my book . . . http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Canadian-City-St-Johns-Victoria-Roger-Kemble/9780887722226-item.html?cookieCheck=1
. . . to learn how to design an inner city lest Vancouver becomes a town of country yokels.
And, yes of course, get rid of the viaducts. Put the land under those horrible dingy arches to better use.
As for the traffic! Well it’s about time drivers get to know their time is up . . . the sooner the better.
7 Agustin // Jun 7, 2012 at 2:36 pm
@ IanS,
I can see what you are trying to say but the idea is flawed. The proposal is not to just shut down the viaduct and replace it with nothing, but to replace it with something better.
It would be like saying to a hockey player, “you think that other hockey stick is better? How about you try playing a period without your stick and see how it works out for you?”
8 Tiktaalik // Jun 7, 2012 at 2:50 pm
@Roger Kemble #6
Actually George Wainborn Park is the counter example to what I’m thinking of. Have a look an Google Maps Satellite and you’ll see that the open play area is oddly broken up by pillars and rocks. One of Vancouver’s better parks in contrast, Maclean Park in Strathcona has a nice simple open square that’s perfect for pick up games of soccer, rugby and whatever you like.
As one gets closer to downtown these sort of open park spaces are actually quite lacking. I do recognize there are existing “official” astroturf soccer pitches just north of here, but those are often used by leagues.
Have an idea of another approach you’d rather the city use? Provide a short summary instead of citing your book.
9 Frank Ducote // Jun 7, 2012 at 2:55 pm
IanS@5 – they did do a trial run, it was called the Winter Olympics. While city officials think that test was a roaring success and they could therefore proceed with the removal of the viaducts, as a resident of the immediate area I beg to differ.
Traffic on my street (Abbott) went up significantly and for longer periods over a 24-hour day during the 2010 Winter O. I’m sure other local streets and arterials in the Strathcona, Chinatown, Hastings corridor and Gastown neighbourhoods also felt such nasty increases and impacts on livability.
If one thinks of these admittedly homely structures as “bridges” serving East Vancouver, my view is we’d be less hasty to demolish them, just as wel would any of the other 4 bridges leading to the downtown peninsula.
To be fair to the current proposal, it looks like there is an attempt to provide improved connectivity through the Georgia Street ramp, as FB described. A larger park, affordable housing east of Main Street, straightening Carrall Street and providing a public beach (or green space?) south of the sseawall are all good moves, among others, as is clustering new development to the west rather than stringing it out parallel to the “demolished” viaducts that would have created just another wall between the northerly areas and False Creek.
On the negative side, the new proposed “Expo Pacific Grand Boulevard” (my name for it) would not be 2-ways west of the new Georiga Street intersection. This means that westbound traffic would be required to turn right (west) on Georgia Street. Forcing this turn makes no sense to me.
Second, the very long sloping bike facility proposed to connect the NEFC flats level with Dunsmuir Street is surely a honking intrusive thing that will have physical (i.e., columns, low headroom and tight adjacencies to existing and future buildings) and visual impacts vey close to where they are supposedly opening up pedestrian access and vistas to Fase Creek. It might be preferable to locate this facility adjacent to the SkyTrain guideway to lessen such impacts.
I believe both of these fundamental flaws need a lot more and better design attention before the affected public can fully agree to the proposition.
10 IanS // Jun 7, 2012 at 3:02 pm
@Augustin #7:
“I can see what you are trying to say but the idea is flawed.”
I see your point, but a trial run seems a lot less flawed than the destructive step they are seemingly planning to take. What happens if it’s as big a disaster as I predict? It’s not like the viaducts can be put back.
11 MB // Jun 7, 2012 at 3:11 pm
I hope they plan a big ceremony around blowing up the viaducts.
12 IanS // Jun 7, 2012 at 3:19 pm
@Frank Ducote #9:
“they did do a trial run, it was called the Winter Olympics. While city officials think that test was a roaring success and they could therefore proceed with the removal of the viaducts, as a resident of the immediate area I beg to differ.”
I know. The Halcrow Report looked at traffic flows during the Olympics. As I said when commenting earlier on that report, IMO it’s a mistake to use traffic flows and patterns during that once in a lifetime event to make future plans.
Rather, let’s give a real life try. Shut it down, and see what happens.
And, even assuming that the traffic patterns during the Olympics accurately represent traffic patters in Vancouver (does anyone really believe that?), Halcrow conclues that the 50% removal option (ie just removing the Georgia Street viaduct) is something that should be done over a 5-10 year time line, in conjunction with various transit improvements, such as Hastings B-Line, Evergreen Line and UBC line.
The Report can be found at: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/reconnect/pdf/viaductsstudy2011.pdf
13 Roger Kemble // Jun 7, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Tiktaalik @ #8
Provide a short summary . . .
I really don’t see the need for a short summary.
Check out my Mount Pleasant solution of integrating an assorted building typology surrounding and defining the urban place surfaced with paving, a water feature, and arboreal shading. It is an urban plan for urban people.
I see no such subtlety in the Beasley/Hotson plan.
There is an over supply of soccer pitches all the way west: Sunset Beach to Ceperley Park to Stanley and east Openheimer, Crab, Strathcona etc.
I don’t know how the rocks in Wainborn add to the ambience of what ever it is supposed to be.
14 IanS // Jun 7, 2012 at 3:23 pm
@Augustin #7:
To respond to your analogy:
“It would be like saying to a hockey player, “you think that other hockey stick is better? How about you try playing a period without your stick and see how it works out for you?””
No, more like “you think another hockey stick is better? How about try it out for a while, see if you like it.”
Rather than the current:
“you think another hockey stick is better? OK, use the new one and we’ll destroy very copy of your existing stick so you can’t go back to it.”
(The analogy’s stretched a bit in both cases, but I think you see my point.)
15 Agustin // Jun 7, 2012 at 4:00 pm
@ IanS, I do see your point, but unfortunately there’s no real way to see the exact effects of going through with the plan without… going through with the plan. A bit of a catch-22, but there are modeling tools that traffic engineers use to model these things. The models aren’t always right, so there is an element of risk, but every decision has.
I came across some interesting ideas recently about something called the “status quo bias”. Essentially it means that sometimes we like things to stay the same because we are used to them. All human beings are subject to this bias, as we are to other biases (see confirmation bias for another example).
The Viaduct poses a difficult example because we don’t know for sure how the changes would turn out, but we can take a shot at it.
Imagine a world where the Viaducts don’t exist, as per the design being put forward. Would you campaign to add viaducts to that scenario? Is your answer “no”, “yes”, or “yes, but it depends on the cost”? Or maybe a different answer?
Imagine a similar area in a different part of the city, where viaducts currently don’t exist. Would you campaign to install viaducts there?
Interesting thought experiment, anyway…
16 Agustin // Jun 7, 2012 at 4:01 pm
PS: I guess what I’m saying is that my hockey player analogy is no good.
17 IanS // Jun 7, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Agustin,
I see where you’re coming from and I see what you’re saying about status quo bias. There’s likely some truth there.
I guess what it boils down to for me is this: the very purpose of this plan is to direct traffic which currently goes over the viaduct onto residential streets and at grade streets. That is what it is designed to do. I’m not arguing that removal of the viaducts won’t work as planned; I’m afraid it will. I just think that the effect of moving that traffic into residential areas and at grade streets will be a lot worse than stated. Hence, my proposal. Let’s see what will happen.
On the flip side, I don’t really see much benefit in removal of the viaducts. Yes, the City has put up some pretty nice looking drawings by some talented designers showing how it might ultimately turn out in a perfect world, but I bet those same talented designers could produce some pretty nice looking drawings of the area with the viaducts in place too. I think it’s also worth noting that the skytrain will still be there at the end of all this. So, there will be a viaduct like structure there in any event. Together with a very very busy street.
Having said all that, it’s been pretty clear for some time now that Meggs was going to push this through no matter what if given the chance and the people of Vancouver voted to give him the chance, so, at the end of the day, I guess we get what we deserve.
For my own part, I plan to be well away from the affected area by the time the damage is done, happily downsized and maybe retired, so perhaps I have no right to complain.
18 Frank Ducote // Jun 7, 2012 at 4:31 pm
IanS@17 – I think you’re right on all counts. It is a done deal, the SkyTrain eyesore will remain and the direct traffic impacts will be felt on local streets.
Augustin @15 – would we think about adding a viaduct (or bridge, or overpass, or tunnel) where they don’t exist? Someone is certainly thinking about doing that on Powell Street, so I guess the answer is yes, some of the time. Gotta watch those generalizations.
19 Jonny Quest // Jun 7, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Frances, the Georgia Viaduct is part of Translink’s “Major Road Network” and was incorporateed therein circa 1999.
Once an arterial has been legally incorporated as part of Translink’s MRN, it’s next to impossible for Translink to remove same. Other municipalities have also previously attempted to remove previously MRN designations (municipal-owned) to no avail.
That means the Georgia Viaduct will remain in place in perpetuity (or until it is replaced). And that includes 3 lanes of eastbound traffic. That can’t be changed either. All part of the MRN by-law.
Why are reporters too lazy to report this?!
20 Frances Bula // Jun 7, 2012 at 5:33 pm
@Jonny. If this is true, you might ask why the City of Vancouver’s highly paid engineering staff, whose job it is to research this kind of stuff, don’t know it. Why are people always so quick to jump on reporters for not knowing everything in the world, as though we’re some kind of weird telepathic magicians.
21 Agustin // Jun 7, 2012 at 5:51 pm
@ IanS: fair play.
I’m not well enough read on this subject at the moment: I haven’t seen the info you mention about increased traffic on Pacific. Where did you find that?
I’d argue about your “right to complain”. You definitely keep it, even if you move elsewhere. If this plan will really have the effect of transforming “the heart of our city” then all Vancouverites will be affected one way or another.
@Frank: I don’t think I made any generalizations… did I?
22 Agustin // Jun 7, 2012 at 5:52 pm
@Frances,
Which adjective(s) do you deny?
23 Frances Bula // Jun 7, 2012 at 6:02 pm
@Okay, I admit, we’re weird. But not telepathic. Or magicians.
24 Joe Just Joe // Jun 7, 2012 at 6:04 pm
My thoughts on the whole thing is why?
I keep hearing how the viaducts cut of Chinatown to DT and the waterfront how does one figure that? Every street below the viaducts connects thru to the waterfront, crossing streets that are carrying less traffic today then they will be if the viaducts are removed. Chinatown connects to d/t just fine, you can even use the viaducts to get there if you’d like. The only street that doesn’t connect is Keefer, (pedestrians can climb the stairs, cars not so likely). The reason Keefer doesn’t connect is that damn escarpment, the one that isn’t going anywhere. So all this is to remove existing ramps to add a shorter steeper one? Is it to additional park space? If park space is lacking in the area perhaps Creekside Park should be pushed ahead. I really hope no one believes we’ll end up with anything that looks like the renders. The buildings will all be bulkier and taller as the city needs to recoup the cost overruns, the park space will be reduced and reconfigured and we’ll be scratching our heads wondering what happened to the Vision we were shown.
I agree the area is less then desirable today, but that’s because there is nothing there. There could be building built, park space, restaurants, the possibilities are there. We don’t even need to look at other cities, look at what’s under the south end of the Granville Bridge, seems to work quite well. Ironic that the city will be building one of it’s best buildings in a very similar environment but fails to see the same is possible here.
25 Frances Bula // Jun 7, 2012 at 6:06 pm
@Jonny and others. Here is a map (http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/bpotp/projects/roads_bridges/Major%20Road%20Network%20Map.ashx) of TransLink’s major road network. It’s so vague that it’s hard to tell which road exactly is part of the network but my bet would be that the city could make the case that, when Pacific Boulevard is rebuilt, it is equal to whatever is here. (The map weirdly already looks like the new route that’s been planned.) I would guess, furthermore, that the engineering staff, who all made it through high school and beyond, are aware of this and would make that case to TransLink.
26 Jonny Quest // Jun 7, 2012 at 6:13 pm
Frances, sorry I was not singling out you – but viaduct media stories in general.
Frances said – “If this is true, you might ask why the City of Vancouver’s highly paid engineering staff, whose job it is to research this kind of stuff, don’t know it”
From the CoV’s own MRN report (July 20, 1998):
“Cost… of the MRN to Vancouver
1. … the City would give up some control once a street is designated as a part of the MRN.
2. … once selected as a major road, both the City and GVTA need to agree if it is to be deleted.
3. … the people-carrying capacity of a major road could not be reduced without the consent of the City and GVTA… municipalities would not be able to remove existing lanes of moving traffic.”
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/980728/a11.htm
And the current map of Translink’s MRN inclusive of Georgia St./Georgia Viaduct:
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/bpotp/projects/roads_bridges/Major%20Road%20Network%20Map.ashx
Would be interesting to hear the response of Vancouver’s engineering dept. !
27 Jonny Quest // Jun 7, 2012 at 6:21 pm
PS. Here is Translink’s entire listing of the MRN inclusive of the Georgia Viaduct (page 4):
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/about_translink/governance_and_board/bylaws/54_2008_Major_Road_Network.ashx
28 Mark Allerton // Jun 7, 2012 at 6:29 pm
You can read the law Jonny refers to at: http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_98030_01#section21
The MRN thing seems to be like a rabbits foot that opponents of demolishing the viaducts hold onto for good luck, hoping for the provincial jackboot to come down and make this whole thing go away.
It seems to me that if the new configuration can be argued to be one that does not reduce “people moving capacity” (note, *not* vehicle capacity) then it’s within the CoV’s power to make this change.
You can find some discussion of how this law might be interpreted at http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/990204/csb1.htm
29 Bill Lee // Jun 7, 2012 at 7:10 pm
Right. Page 10 of
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/currentplanning/fcflats/pdf/jun2012ViaductOpenHouseBoards.pdf
says the new Expo-Pacific boulevard will connect with Malkin Avenue.
Then what?
Do you know where Malkin Street is and how it alligns and “ends”
It enters Williams Street, their long sought freeway connector.
30 brilliant // Jun 7, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Great another uninspired green space for the downtown wannabe gangsta to let their pitbulls crap all over and for the junkies to shoot up and pass out in.
And despite Constance Barnes’ inane ramblings to the contrary, the area has more than its fair share of parks. How she can defend that blithering to the people of the teal East Van who are truly short of park space is shocking.
31 Mira // Jun 7, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Tear them down, then tear down the whole city! Oh’ wait. No Vision!
32 Julia // Jun 7, 2012 at 8:51 pm
why is Concord Pacific so eager to see the viaducts come down?
Has anyone looked at the capacity of the alternate streets?
This is more about money that anyone is letting on.
33 mezzanine // Jun 7, 2012 at 9:12 pm
@Jonny:
Ownership of and operational responsibility for the MRN remains with the respective municipalities. TransLink provides funding for the operations, maintenance and rehabilitation of the MRN, and shares in the cost of eligible capital improvements.
http://www.translink.ca/en/Driving/Roads-and-Bridges.aspx
Although if you had recent examples of MRN conflict between TL and a muni, it would be interesting to review it.
34 mezzanine // Jun 7, 2012 at 9:25 pm
Well, here’s something:
once selected as a major road, both the City and GVTA need to agree if it is to be deleted.
….
Any disputes between a municipality and GVTA would be referred to a third party for binding arbitration with no provision for appeal.
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/980728/a11.htm
CoV can’t act unilaterally, but I am not sure if this is a big hurdle.
35 Frances Bula // Jun 7, 2012 at 9:36 pm
@Jonny. But do you really think they’re so dumb they haven’t thought of that?
36 Frank Ducote // Jun 7, 2012 at 9:45 pm
Augustin@21- maybe more like a sweeping statement than a generalization. It is hard to be absolutely definitive about saying would one campaign for a viaduct or not. Again, think of the plan for the Powell Street “viaduct.”
I’d really like to know who the advocates are for this expensive intrusion and also how they can justify building a new viaduct there when they want to remove existing and functioning ones elsewhere. I’m not even sure this statement is true or not, but it could be, no?
37 Jay // Jun 7, 2012 at 10:02 pm
Wouldn’t the Malkin Connector be a replacement for the viaducts?
Looking at the area where the new Malkin connector would go – you can see this area by looking on Google Earth – there is no residential whatsoever, just barren industrial land. So I think it’s safe to assume that this 1.7 km stretch would have very little signal control and do an effective job of siphoning traffic off of a new Pacific Blvd as well as replacing the function of the viaducts.
Even without a new Malkin Connector, traffic coming off of Pacific would be metered into East Van more strictly, creating better flow along 1st Ave. and other east side arterial streets. In other words, whatever time lost on Pacific will be offset by better traffic flow east of Pacific. One way or another you’re going to be stuck in traffic, it’s just a matter of where. May as well have a better urban environment to be stuck in.
Tear down the wall!
38 Declan // Jun 7, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Looks like a great plan to me.
Although I do think a one lane car ramp from Expacific up to Dunsmuir alongside the bike ramp (see page 35 of the slide show on the plan) would be useful to make use of the existing capacity on Dunsmuir.
And for Bill (comment 4) I do work downtown and live East of Main.
39 Jonny Quest // Jun 7, 2012 at 10:13 pm
The only recent portions of the MRN that have been removed are as follows:
1. Portions of South Fraser Way/River Road in Surrey; (along routing of new SFPR)
2. Portions of Westminster Highway in Richmond; (due to new Hwy 91/Nelson Road interchange)
In both cases, a SUPERIOR alternative was/will be provided along same routing. That’s the precedent.
But Pacific Blvd. is currently 3 lanes in each direction east of BC Place. A new slightly reconfigured and tweaked Pacific Blvd. will have the same relative capacity.
But removing the viaducts to Main St. will also result in 5 additional traffic lights from Georgia St. to Main St. under this new scheme with the same relative capacity.
IOW, the Georgia viaduct replacement will be an INFERIOR replacement. The whole purpose of the MRN is to act as a regional network – and that’s what the viaducts are – not local routes.
But nary a peep out of CoV officials concerning this material issue.
40 Mark Allerton // Jun 7, 2012 at 10:33 pm
@jonny – a more interesting precedent to look at would be a case where a municipality wanted to remove a road from the MRN or reconfigure it but were overruled by Translink. Are there such cases?
41 Frank Ducote // Jun 7, 2012 at 10:35 pm
Jay@37 – while I agree the proposed Malkin Connector is a great idea, especially as it can be purpose-built and is away from Strathcona residential areas (all good), I don’t buy that it would replace the viaducts. Rather, it will replace and therefore downgrade Prior Street. Again, all good.
42 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 7, 2012 at 11:15 pm
“Tearing Down the Viaducts”…
Now there is an urbanism I can throw my full support behind.
Of course, Frances is “writing” about a project that must be judged on the merit of its visual and physical impact.
As Bill Lee #29 posts, the whole story is on view at the Open House boards [—Yikes! "Open House"—the words alone conjure up the spectre of "Business as Usual" and failed urbanism…]:
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/currentplanning/fcflats/pdf/jun2012ViaductOpenHouseBoards.pdf
It doesn’t take much page-turning (scrolling) before the realization forms that this is old paradigm planning pure and simple.
Look where one may, there is not a piece of visionary urbanism to be found. Bold indeed! It’s towers, park, super-human scale, train in the sky, no sense of place, no sense of history (not even in the Hogan’s Alley resurrected as OV architecture redux), nothing.
The biggest expenditure goes to move and rebuild roads. Even the streetcar parallels—duplicates—the Expo Line,
The city we get is not the city we want.
43 Silly Season // Jun 7, 2012 at 11:25 pm
Here’s my report, FWIW, from a visit to the Creekside presentation today :
First irony: I drove down (yes, I know, my bad—spanky, spanky)—and noted that the Oly Village is starting to feel more alive, cheerful, even bustling. I can imagine Christmas down there, which is my personal civic litmus test for a “vibrant” neighbourhood. Imagine all the foodies at Urban Fare, fighting over organic turkeys!
And, I also note that it is EXTREMELY busy at 5:30 pm, with car traffic. Those folks with suites in the Village really appear to want a car as an option, I guess. Surprising with Canada Line Station relatively close, and the False Creek pedi/ bike path outside their front doors? And also surprising, because this is supposed to be ground zero for the ‘Greenest City’. Did find an Easy Park spot under the Community Centre, without any problem.
Inside: A lively mixed crowd (younger/older, urban nerds/people from the hood). I’d say close to 60. Lots of staffers to answer questions—engineering, transportation, planning, and one, who I understand has to deal with Concord Pacific on development (pass the scotch).
Second irony: Interestingly and significantly, the rooms rented for the open house face the very spot we are considering as we face an array of info boards. It certainly is not a 180 degree view that inspires, right now. In fact, it’s damn ugly, and especially so on a grey day when sitting smack in the middle of one of those most managed and planned civic spaces we have here.
Still, on an operational level, it is rush hour and the viaduct closest to our view seems consistently busy, with what appears to be to my admittedly untrained my eye, a steady flow of vehicular traffic, all shapes and sizes. I can’t help but wonder what all this traffic, including the many heavy trucks I spy, will look like in a diverted, “at grade” world on other roads around the site.
So, to the prepared presentation boards. Foregoing the lovely, clever, entertaining and artisitic window dressing (some very interesting conceptual renderings of ideas people have come up with as to what to do with the viaducts—from Hi Line gardens to activity under the existing structures to a complete redo of the area, sans viaducts) one is left with the “real” staff drawings.
There are two boards I especially note. On one, I gaze at an attractively rendered landscape of what the area could physically look like, with about a half dozen towers to the west (Concord development), and a park greenspace (about 9 acres?), sitting just to the east.
Positive: These buildings appear located to the extreme west side of the site and thus don’t seem to block the view from where I was standing. It appears to leave a pretty wide view corridor. No idea of height of the towers, of course.
To the park: as I understand it (and I know that I will hear about it if I am wrong on this), the land for that park was originally promised by Concord as part of their deal for aquiring the Expo lands in the first place. This park is part of the “original” NE False Creek Plan signed some 20 ears ago, so I am told by a City Hall staffer.
The plan to build the park is based on that agreement (and here is where it gets muddy for me) but I’m unclear if they were supposed to build the park prior to this viaducts situ—or if it has now been rolled into this issue. Building the towers we now see on these boards is at a DEFINED FSR, from the ORIGINAL NE False Creek Plan.
By the way, one gentleman standing near me swears–and complains to everyone coming up to look at that board—that some of the original wording in that original Plan has been changed with regard to Concord’s committment to the park, with an “and” being replaced to read “and/or”. Sorry, don’t know when it happened, or what section he was refering to, exactly. Intriguing. (Go, all amateur urban detectives!). Considering that the land where the park is supposed to go has lain fallow for many years, one does wonder…when, exactly is a “deal a deal?”
I did have some questions about the towers and the park.
Q: Is Concord absolutely restricted to the original FSR as defined in the original plan? If not, and additional density is sought, what else might the developer be expected to provide in the way of CAC’s? And, can the planning department define it, now? No answer on that.
Q: The park is going to be maintained, I am told, by Park Board. I do ask the poor staffer what guarantees we have of that, since all over the rest of the city, boulevards and parks and other PB maintained spaces are literally going to seed? Hey, haven’t these guys read the “broken windows’ theory? Is it my fertile imagination, or do the tall weeds attract more litter? Sheesh!
He again points out that it is up to PB to maintain. I point out that PB budgets have been chopped, and further the citizens might be more happily disposed to this plan and believe that new greenspace, with it’s fancy “rooms” will be maintained if they knew the rest of the greenspace in the city was going to be maintained. No answer for that, either.
Another Q: Is WYSIWG (really, I know the answer to this one–I just like to torture the staff!)—or are we likely to see significant change to the park area–including the potential for purpose-built affordable rental housing? He didn’t know— though he did blanch, a bit.
It’s an idea I’m not adverse to, btw, especially since this land is ceded to the City. BUT I would rather see private developers build it, because—Irony #3—I am, after all, sitting in the middle of a planned, managed and civically owned site that still owes taxpayers loadsdough.
On to my other main board, that of traffic flow— and this is where my eyes glaze over. It looks nice. There are trees planted where trees do not currently exist. I have a hard time conceptualizing current traffic offloads on changed/new routes when they are just illos on boards.
But there are questions I asked in trying to grasp what was happening on the board:
1) What about increased traffic flows down Pender and W. Hastings? (Yes, @Frank Ducote, I remember the traffic there during the Oly’s, which one staffer told me today was due to other downtown streets being closed off during that time. Hmm.).
One staffer said that a lot of traffic was coming from “the east” (unspecified) and could swing along 2nd Avenue to avoid Hastings and Pender.
The whole pac Blvd/Expo Blvd thing had me confused. The Georgia Steet ramp down to the site looked intersting. But does that mean there would be a lot of offloading from Georgia to Beatty? or?? prior to any turns onto Expo Blvd? If Georgia is ‘emptied’ heading east before the proposed ending bewteen the stadiums, where will traffic really be turning? (The Ramp to Nowhere! TM).
I also asked about traffic through Strathcona (and DTES) and was told that they didn’t see a problem.
As a lay person, I think it would be a GREAT idea to create a digital, “moving” model rendering of traffic flows as THEY COULD appear if one or both viaducts come down. give us a couple of scenarios, City Hall, both in current traffic patterns AND traffic PATTERNS that “might” appear in 15 years. Take into account increased “Gateway’ traffic, as well as the new traffic from the new towers that Concord and the Aquilinis are putting up in the area. How about some cycling numbers from the new pathways?
Then all the numbers that are bandied around, on the boards, and in casual conversation, might make sense to us lay people. Surely, there must be traffic software that can show us that? Boards don’t really cut it.
That might help everyone get their heads around what looks like an interesting project.
44 Silly Season // Jun 7, 2012 at 11:29 pm
By the way, overheard some development tittle: someone “official looking” said that Planning was not happy with the new Aquilini tower going in at the northeast-ish side of Roger’s Arena, one of two they are developing in the area around the rink.
Did not elaborate on reasons why. Anyone know whattup?
45 Everyman // Jun 7, 2012 at 11:45 pm
I really can’t see how dumping this much of the vehicle commuter flow onto streets which will presumably be residential is a “good thing”?
To be honest, I can’t even work up the enthusiasm to attend the viaduct open houses when, like Rize’s Mt. Pleasant tower and Shannon Mews before it, the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
46 voony // Jun 7, 2012 at 11:52 pm
The escarpment
It is the Achilles heel of the proposal. It is not addressed, and the “upper” chinatown (keefer-Union) is not connected to down town
Dunsmuir converted in a dead end street, will be simply dead. and don’t believe the skytrain traffic will be enough to bring life
if you are not convinced, check how Keefer performs.
If you believe the slope of Georgia street to pacific, will be a good alternative- it is because you don’t use the lift in the 10 storey buildings, don’t you? That is the elevation difference between Georgia and Pacific, and 5% slope to address 30 meter elevation is a very serious matter.
That is another issue of the proposal.
the latest one is this serpentine Boulevard: it is nicely curved Boulevard to accommodate reasonable speed traffic…very suburban…but doing so, it will be not a nice Boulevard, not pedestrian friendly (no end in sight!): it is what some Parisian urbanists could call an “emerging world boulevard” (they say that usually with sarcasm). The lining by the skytrain viaduct will not help either.
That said, the ideas for False creek and Main look good (and reflect in fact some opinion I had expressed here before).
47 A Dave // Jun 7, 2012 at 11:59 pm
“I also asked about traffic through Strathcona (and DTES) and was told that they didn’t see a problem.”
SS, despite the dismissive response toward the DTES and Strathcona “problems”, this is precisely where the whole “plan” falls apart.
What the renderings don’t show you is that 6 new freeway-like viaducts leading into the DTES/Strathcona are planned to the east over the 2km rail spur connecting the False Creek flats to the harbour. The cost will be well north of $100 million (the first one, on Powell, is costing $25 million alone).
48 jenables // Jun 8, 2012 at 12:10 am
I’m not sure how many of you are familiar with Malkin street, which intersects prior and is Jackson to the north, Malkin to the south. It is a street popular with cyclists and cabbies, but mostly the huge rigs that service the industrial area on the south side of the street. The north side is partially industrial, partially escarpment (Heh Heh) from the residential on Atlantic street and a LARGE portion is the south side of strathcona park, including the baseball diamond and community gardens. At raymur, for those who weren’t aware, is the city pound, lots of good dogs there and they rarely euthanize. You can then cross over the tracks and get through to Clark. So while it may look like it’s all industrial, it’s far from it, though the big rigs backing in to unload etc pose a huge visibility problem for increased traffic. I’m not saying it couldn’t work, but please actually come down here and observe it before declaring it a perfect diversion. It also really doesn’t address east van to downtown at all. Oh, and there is a new playing fields in that area where the press was during the olympics. Don’t think it’s permanent though.
49 John Atkin // Jun 8, 2012 at 12:41 am
It sure looks like lots more traffic is planned for Prior, not less. Once those viaducts go it would be nice to see Prior revert back to the local residential street it once was to give the residents a little bit of peace and quiet . Maybe we were just dreaming…
50 Silly Season // Jun 8, 2012 at 1:20 am
@ voony #46
@ A Dave #47
@jenables #48
@John Atkin #49
Thanks, all. As per your comments, these are the perfect examples that shows us that we need to see more sophisticated modelling.
BTW, A Dave, I didn’t take the throwaway “no problem” comment seriously, either!
51 IanS // Jun 8, 2012 at 6:33 am
@Agustin #21:
The specific publication which prompted my comments was an article in the Metro, from June 5. That’s also entirely consistent with the plan as set out in the City’s materials. I repeat, the goal of the plan is to bring the 43,000+ (not sure if that’s the correct number, as Halcrow appears to have done its assessment during the Olympics, when traffic was much lower than it is usually) and dump it onto on grade roads and surrounding neighbourhoods. As far as I’m aware, even Mr. Meggs won’t claim that the traffic will just disappear.
Once again, I urge you to go read the Halcrow Report, linked in my earlier post. That’s the firm the City hired to create the study to justify removal of the viaducts. Look at their conclusion regarding the proper timeline for removal.
52 IanS // Jun 8, 2012 at 6:36 am
@Mark Allerton #28:
“The MRN thing seems to be like a rabbits foot that opponents of demolishing the viaducts hold onto for good luck, hoping for the provincial jackboot to come down and make this whole thing go away.”
For me personally, I think the “rabbits foot” analogy is a good one. (The Jack Boot less so.) Like Frances, I can’t really believe that the City’s legal dept missed this, but it would sure be nice if it turned out that the City couldn’t do what it’s planning to do.
At the very least (and this is personal to me), my hope is that the negotiations with Translink will delay the project for several years, until I’ve downsized and moved out.
Fingers crossed.
53 IanS // Jun 8, 2012 at 7:05 am
Further to my post #51, given that Meggs is now making the long expected jump to provincial politics, my hope would that the negotiations with Translink (if necessary) would slow things down long enough for him to be out of the picture, after which, hopefully, the plan will be put on the back burner.
54 jolson // Jun 8, 2012 at 8:42 am
The Traffic Consultant Report clearly states that congestion will result if the viaducts are demolished and that transit rides will take longer. The question is what are the additional resulting carbon emissions? Or to put it another way will the traffic cops have a hay-day passing out tickets to drivers idling engines for more than 2 minutes, an enforceable Bylaw currently on the books. Is this the new green economy we are all expecting? Or is this all just another folly in pursuit of a beautiful world while we ignore the natural one all around us?
55 mezanine // Jun 8, 2012 at 9:08 am
@voony,
When I go to T&T (usu in the afternoons), keefer steps seems well used. Keefer and abbot in the past 5 yrs has become quite bustling, but that’s my anecdote.
56 Silly Season // Jun 8, 2012 at 10:14 am
PPS …bit’s ‘n pieces…
@IanS
I did see a (former?) TransLink planner yesterday.
And I was thinking the same things re: Geoff Meggs. If he wins his party’s nomination and then his seat, would there be the push to keep this project at the top of the agenda?
When I asked a staffer when this project would “start” he told me the design component wouldn’t be ready before 3 or 4 years…
And, finally, another staffer gave me the cost of $12-15 million to pull the viaducts down (and also to dispose of the rubble?).
If you believe that, I have a…er…bridge in New West I’d like ta sell ya!
57 IanS // Jun 8, 2012 at 10:21 am
@Silly Season #55,
“When I asked a staffer when this project would “start” he told me the design component wouldn’t be ready before 3 or 4 years”
Thank you for that. Makes me feel much better.
58 Silly Season // Jun 8, 2012 at 10:42 am
@Ian S
Well, remember Ian–the Hornby bike lanes were “Ok’d on one day—and physically underway the next!
Just sayin’…
59 Bill Lee // Jun 8, 2012 at 12:51 pm
@Silly Season // Jun 8, 2012 at 10:14 am #56
“If you believe that, I have a…er…bridge in New West I’d like ta sell ya! ”
A bridge in New West?
Well they are contemplating an interim ferry while they plan a high rise bridge.
“City looks at bike-friendly boat shuttle to the ‘Boro” By Theresa McManus, The Record June 6, 2012
….”Council approved a request from its transit, bicycles and pedestrians committee to direct staff to explore the boat shuttle option as an interim solution before the official Queensborough pedestrian bridge crossing is complete.”
This is a result of the New Westminster’s DAC (equivalent to community benefit monies elsewhere)
…”The DAC funding” [ from an installation from Hell] “included $10.3 million for a pedestrian crossing between Queensborough and the Quay, although city council recently agreed to reallocate an unspecified amount of that toward the civic centre project that’s underway in downtown New Westminster.”
http://www.royalcityrecord.com/City+looks+bike+friendly+boat+shuttle+Boro/6737228/story.html
Meanwhile talk of another bridge to/from New Westminster is going off the rails, so to speak.
See Bucholtz piece at the peacearchnews.com/opinion/157525945.html
60 Silly Season // Jun 8, 2012 at 2:16 pm
@ Bill Lee #59.
Indeed, Bill!
61 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 9, 2012 at 12:39 am
It sure looks like lots more traffic is planned for Prior, not less. Once those viaducts go it would be nice to see Prior revert back to the local residential street it once was to give the residents a little bit of peace and quiet . Maybe we were just dreaming…
John Atkin 49
Quite right to point out that the Viaducts are only part of the picture of bringing commuter trips into the downtown through the Historic East End, decimating residential districts along the way. Not just Prior, but Powell, Cordova, Hastings, Venables and First Avenue feed traffic into the downtown within the immediate viaducts area.
Along your same line of thinking, we have suggested here:
http://wp.me/p1mj4z-sw
That BRT on Main, and BRT on Hastings could carry most of the commuter traffic or 40,000 vpd on the viaducts.
Furthermore—keeping to existing R.O.W.—we propose a False Creek Tram that would link up to the Arbutus R.O.W. rather than duplicate the Expo Line.
Why not add an Expo Line station to service the new area instead?
Maybe we are just dreaming.
The city we get is not the city we want
62 Jay // Jun 9, 2012 at 3:25 am
Once again you’ve flown over my head. Humour the dumb guy and explain to me what you’ve just said.
Your posts are like a Rorschach test. I guess that’s what you’re counting on.
63 Roger Kemble // Jun 9, 2012 at 4:02 am
““This is one of those big, city-shaping developments that comes along only every two or three decades,” said Vancouver’s transportation engineer, Jerry Dobrovolny.” (Frances’ G&M article).
Well, errrrrr, not so if we accept the winner: the bucolic #71!
There is one submission that did not make the cut . . .
http://www.viaductscomp.ca/ . . . submission #147, because it “. . . did not meet the regular submission criteria” and I’d sure like to know why!
#147 is a truly urban solution: subtly the building form segues, following the urban geometry, from towers to low rise as it moves away from the downtown. For soccer fans there is still plenty of green space.
As for the viaducts being a part of the great freeway debate, I was there, a peripheral part of it. The two viaducts were there long before 1972. I do not remember them being built as part of the debate: the debate was over, won, long before concrete was poured on what is there now: both were there long before. The route of the proposed freeway was supposed to follow the waterfront from a Coal Harbour bridge past Roger’s sugar, east.
Out of all the designs, most here obsess over extraneous traffic issues or the fall away over the escarpment, which BTW, seems to be well handled by 147.
What I find disappointing about this conversation is the preoccupation with petty details. It’s as though everyone here is trapped by. “Status quo bias” Austin @ #15.
As for traffic patterns? Forget traffic patterns: traffic is a sunset preoccupation. Besides, I thought everyone on Bulablog were bicycle-istas!
Halcrow’s, IanS @ #12 suggestion to cut out one stretch is unprofessional: ridiculous. It will reveal nothing! “Status quo bias” may, indeed, be real but events moving forward will soon put paid to that!
“Once an arterial has been legally incorporated as part of Translink’s MRN, it’s next to impossible for Translink to remove same. Jonny Quest @ #18. Believe me Jonny, when land and money are involved mountains can be moved: you do not know Vancouver!
Submission #147: despite bureaucratic waste paper rulings, this is where that part of the city should be going for the next hundred years!
64 Norman // Jun 9, 2012 at 9:06 am
The “consultation” seems more like a propaganda campaign. I foresee a developers’ big opportunity, with the loss of a liveable community east of Main Street. It should be called an extension of Yaletown, that arid, ugly example of urban development where not a bird sings.
65 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 9, 2012 at 10:04 am
@Jay
Too much jargon, huh?
R.O.W.—right-of-way… engineering jargon for street (or in this case) rail space.
One of the difficulties with retrofitting transit into an existing city—especially rail transit—is finding the space for it. The rail has to be continuous. If you live in Vancouver, or anywhere nearby, it is an educational experience to follow the tracks from Granville Island to the Arbutus R.O.W.
BRT—Bus Rapid Transit
The Transit Commissioner from NYC gave a lecture a couple of years ago, hosted by SFU if I recall correctly, where she said that New York City was going to implement BRT rather than Light Rail Transit on the ground.
You’re a regular here, Jay, if you read Voony’s posts & blog, you can get a sense for what the French are doing with LRT in their cities, including Paris.
However, since we don’t have the budget here in the Lower Mainland, or apparently in NYC, the most reasonable option to implement transit NOW rather than sometime later is to think of BRT.
Patrick Condon at UBC has been working on this problem with his students for about a decade, so you can look at their work too.
ANALYSIS
So, that’s step one, Jay. You have to know the pieces and how the pieces fit together. Then, the next step is to understand how they may combine with buildings and neighbourhoods to produce a more livable urbanism. An urbanism less dependent on cars for everything.
The focus of the discussion is cars for commuting to work. That’s the low hanging fruit in transportation. As regions grow, commuting downtown entails paying for parking downtown.
When this is not a perk of the job package, then increasingly the equation of one monthly pass = cost of parking + cost of gas + depreciation on the vehicle.
URBANISM
The real challenge, and the piece we are not getting right, is combining all these elements together in the redevelopment of our neighbourhoods.
The scheme here seems to be too focused on False Creek, and as others are pointing out, not capitalizing on removing the viaducts as piece in a larger scheme to redevelop the neighbourhoods—and in this case the historic neighbourhoods—to add livability , and affordability.
The “Bold Move” that we really want is to remove some of the problems that were introduced with the viaducts and the freeway plan as we implement transportation (BRT) and rebuild the neighbourhoods using human-scale buildings rather than the towers visible here.
66 Richard // Jun 9, 2012 at 11:23 am
@Lewis N. Villegas
We spend a fortune on transportation in the region. Probably around $15 billion a year. The large majority of it on the least afford form of mass transportation ever invented, the automobile.
Even 10% would create a world class transit system with subways, LRT and buses. Clearly being able to afford it is not a problem. It would actually be less expensive for people and the government. It is just a matter of leadership.
Saying we can’t afford it is not helpful.
67 Silly Season // Jun 9, 2012 at 12:05 pm
@Roger Kemble #63
‘#147 is a truly urban solution: subtly the building form segues, following the urban geometry, from towers to low rise as it moves away from the downtown. For soccer fans there is still plenty of green space’
It IS an interesting submission, in that all the development (and additional development potential down Prior) comes up north of pacific Blvd. It looks varied in size. And the park and water elements are treate like part of the eco-system, rather than as a “feature”.
Now, why do you think it was it rejected as a potential? Because it overstepped the geographical parameters of the development— or because it advocated a new “forward-looking” development east of Main? Too hot a political potato?
68 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 9, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Richard, the greatest gains can be made by combining good urbanism with smart transportation—yet, surely we can’t afford to implement the key spines, all at once, as LRT (locally we have to qualify that as “surface LRT”):
Arbutus should be LRT, and the line should connect into the False Creek Flats, then return through Japantown, Gastown, and Pacific Blvd. Heading the other way it should go to Chilliwack and seed TOD all along the way.
Then, there is the matter of the east-west connections. Three are pretty clear but there is a difficult gap to deal with in the middle :
I think any reasonable contest would show that we can give over lanes to transportation in these corridors, reap the advantages of reduced vehicular volume, increased mobility, and improved livability on house lots fronting. However, it will be cheaper and faster to start with BRT and implement LRT as the benefits you identify are manifest in the community.
Rather than a single knock-out punch, let’s give them the old one-two.
Finally, the Evergreen decision makes it clear that we are not going to get good decisions on transit until Metro and Translink are joined under an elected regional government.
69 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 9, 2012 at 3:05 pm
It is with great pleasure that I announce here on France’s blog the result reported in her own story in the Globe & Mail yesterday:
70 Roger Kemble // Jun 9, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Well Silly Season @ #67 this . . .
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/reconnect/principles.htm . . . sure has me flummoxed.
I dunno, maybe #147 doesn’t meet LINKAGES: MOVEMENT & MOBILITY requirements . . .
“Proposed ideas should reflect the need to maintain a rail presence within the False Creek Flats but examine infrastructure needs to accommodate additional trips with an emphasis on walking, cycling and transit.”
Ummmm, I’ve a feeling it screws up the rail connections . . . although I cannot see how!
71 Jay // Jun 9, 2012 at 6:09 pm
Lewis said -”That BRT on Main, and BRT on Hastings could carry most of the commuter traffic or 40,000 vpd on the viaducts.”
I would hope Translink’s idea of a BRT is something more than just a B-Line, otherwise you’re not going to get car commuters off the viaducts or wherever, and on to buses similar to what we have along Broadway.
I’ve looked at Hastings St., and like Broadway, there are many pedestrian signal controls. This poses a problem for signal priority as headways get shorter, maybe not now but certainly in the future as densities along Hastings St. increase.
So you would need to build underpasses in certain sections in order to maintain a competitive average speed, and once you get downtown, you would certainly need to build a bus tunnel starting from at least Main St.
Even with the extra costs, it will still be much cheaper than Skytain, and competitive as well (30 kmh average speed vs 39 kmh average speed – shorter station spacings bring Skytrains average speed down) and it will also pave the way for an LRT upgrade.
On a side note, an edit feature in the comments section sure would be nice…
72 Max _M // Jun 9, 2012 at 6:31 pm
I’m supportive of the plans so far, but I feel it’s premature to go ahead until we know what’s going to happen with the False Creek Flats.
73 Jonny Quest // Jun 9, 2012 at 9:58 pm
@ Mark Allerton – Jun 7, 2012 at 10:33 pm
“a more interesting precedent to look at would be a case where a municipality wanted to remove a road from the MRN or reconfigure it but were overruled by Translink. Are there such cases?”
—————————————————–
After looking at the Translink website and at Canlii’s arbitration cases, no such decision exists.
However, Translink also has a corresponding major ‘Truck Route Network’ (TRN) throughout Metro Vancouver and, in that respect, some further precedent exists as well.
To wit, Surrey residents and Surrey council have previously requested the removal of 32nd Ave., west of Hwy 15, as a Translink ‘Truck Route Network’.
“In 2003, the city requested the removal of the 32nd Avenue truck route and TransLink declined.”
And even recently, Surrey city council again requested that the TRN designation for 32nd Ave. be removed.
To date, the Translink TRN designation for 32nd Ave. still stands after 9 years.
I trust that folk in Van City don’t have some arrogant conclusion that “they are special”.
Makes me also wonder – what’s up with Van City’s legal dept.?!
Read more: http://www.thenownewspaper.com/Surrey+council+letter+TransLink+little+took+long+residents/6098512/story.html#ixzz1xMYbJl4k
74 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 9, 2012 at 10:00 pm
@ Jay
Why don’t we just keep up the banter while others take care of the other business. The street section that we’re proposing for arterials is here:
http://wp.me/p1mj4z-rW
I don’t know why we would assume that putting BRT on Hastings (to replace B-Line) would keep the pedestrian signals and the rest of the laning the way it is now. The idea is to implement BRT to add transit capacity, remove cars from the road, and revitalize the neighbourhood. All three are important.
BRT implementation would involve a redesign of the road to take advantage of the fact that we would be capturing a significant amount of the low hanging fruit in the commute. The consequences for the local urbanism of significantly reducing autos—while at the same time greatly increasing trip capacity—seems to escape most commentary.
I see the impact of removing thousands of cars from the commute as more or less returning the city to the people, and making it practical to build the just-made-legal row houses fronting the new arterials. This are the game changing moves.
Then, when additional capacity is needed, the idea is to upgrade from BRT to LRT on the ground. Higher capacity trains would once again return the headway.
I don’t see the need for pedestrian underpasses. I also don’t understand the bus tunnel (in Seattle it was designed as an upgrade path to subway). The BRT routes that I am describing all intersect rail transit that is headed into the downtown. Why wouldn’t we transfer the trips to Expo, Millennium, Canada Line, and (new) Streetcar?
We also seem to be on the same page about costs for BRT over Skytrain, and in assigning some value to the option to upgrade from BRT to LRT.
Urbanism needs to be planned at the neighbourhood scale, and transit at the city-wide and regional scale.
On the one hand, the redesign of neighbourhood arterials can provide much of the functionality transit will need to operate efficiently as either BRT or LRT.
While on the other, transit implementation will do the heavy lifting of removing commuter trips from the neighbourhood.
We are really hitting on one of the key advantages of the new paradigm. The integration of all planning functions delivers results that cannot be had thinking either in terms of architecture of transit in isolation.
Visions like the one being discussed here for taking down the Viaducts ultimately fail to convince because they are solely focussed on a too small footprint in the city.
75 jenables // Jun 9, 2012 at 10:35 pm
Something to consider..I live on the east side and I work in kits, but the viaducts are by far the fastest and easiest way to get to downtown and cut to the burrard bridge. So Hastings and main brt doesn’T do it for me. Another thing is all those little businesses downtown, or families going to sporting events, etc. I would imagine coming from maple ridge etc isn’t quite as easy with kids in transit. Am truly having a hard time picturing BC place with no parking? So we can add more peoplE/condos/cars? It should be a bloody park, and you don’T hear people in BurnabY crying over the skytrain in central park, and how it hurts their eyes to look at it. ActuallY, i’m pretty sure none of you viaduct haters use them or really care about the real effects..as long as it’s nimby, right? So those of you who wanna tear then down, can you tell me where you live?
76 Jonny Quest // Jun 9, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Things now get more interesting:
FACT: The Georgia Viaduct is part of Translink’s MRN.
FACT: No MRN segment has ever been removed from Translink’s network unless a superior alternative is a replacement.
FACT: In 2003, Surrey City council requested the Truck Route Network designation removal of 32nd Ave., west of Hwy 15, from Translink and Translink declined.
FACT: Both the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts are also part of Translink’s Truck Route Network.
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/bpotp/projects/roads_bridges/Truck%20Route%20Reference%20Guide.ashx
Frances, I’m sure that your curiousity has also been piqued as well?
Why not ask both the CoV’s legal dept. as well as Translink’s legal dept. about these issues to have these matters cleared up once and for all?!
77 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 9, 2012 at 11:49 pm
“jenables”
I’ve been driving on the Viaducts since 1970—OK, as a passenger first, then with my own license.
Your commute from the East Side to Kits sounds like it may be better served by a Streetcar running on existing False Creek ROW, then switching into the Arbutus ROW.
Any of that helpful to you?
78 jenables // Jun 10, 2012 at 3:29 am
Well, i’m coming from commercial, in between venables and Hastings. So false creek is neither near nor far.
79 Frank Ducote // Jun 10, 2012 at 7:31 am
Jenables- you and I share the same concerns about loss of access for east- west travellers (for many modes) and unknown but sizable adverse impacts on local communities. I also share your supposition that many if not most “tear ‘em down” commenters will not directly feel such impacts.
Sorta makes one wish for a ward system, so there could be a truly community-based voice at Council when such radical initiatives are put forward.
80 Julia // Jun 10, 2012 at 9:54 am
Why are we assuming everyone’s primary purpose in life is to get themselves downtown? That notion might have been true in the 1970′s but I don’t think that is where the future is.
81 mike0123 // Jun 10, 2012 at 10:43 am
The concept turns Prior and Pacific into one street. By creating a normal arterial intersection at Pacific/Prior and Main, connections between Powell/Cordova-Pacific, Hastings-Pacific, and Prior-Pacific become simpler and faster. Since this new intersection will help traffic avoid Main and Terminal, which actually limits vehicle capacity, the concept could be superior in capacity terms if Pacific is taken into account. Intersections are what really constrain vehicle capacity, not the viaducts.
Because connecting Prior to Pacific normalizes the arterial network, trips from places like Venables and Commercial to Burrard and 4th, for example, become simpler and more direct. This trip would no longer take you on an indirect routing over the viaducts and through the centre of downtown because the new street network would let you go straight to the destination. This is a good example of how the concept can actually improve vehicle circulation.
82 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 10, 2012 at 11:09 am
The Commercial-Venables to Kits trip can be best understood by looking at the 1910 Bruce MacDonald map here:
http://wp.me/p1mj4z-Bx
The advantage is that the map shows or implies a functioning transit network, and development is still early enough in 1910 that we can clearly “see” the communities.
“jenables” is travelling from Grandview (no ‘Woodlands’ yet) and heading to Kits. The old guard wants her to be able to drive, or pedal, on an automobile viaduct. The rest of us have other options in mind:
(1) Ride through downtown, over the bridge, and into Kits on transit;
(2) Get down to Broadway, ride BRT/LRT, and walk to Kits;
(3) With a canal connecting False Creek to Burrard Inlet, ride Waterbus to work and enjoy every crest of every wave.
The trips available today have their pluses and minuses.
Time is one of them; transfer another. Certainty and frequency of service also loom large. If the commuter is wishing to make a stop downtown; then, the choice is clear. If the other route offers advantages in service; then, that will guide the decision.
Of course the real issue today is that neither the Hastings nor Broadway B-Lines are getting the job done. And the electronic reader boards on the Main bus stops just make one groan and wish ‘they’ had made Main Trolley our first BRT route.
Looking at it today, the best bet is to drive.
Of course, the distance is short enough that riding a bike is also an alternative with the usual impracticalities and caveats. I don’t recommend it as a safe trip; on arrival the co-workers might really appreciate if the cyclist had access to a shower; and it is going to be one soupy-wet ride most of the time in our weather piling-on to the issue of safety.
That’s our conundrum. Lofty ideas that when we stop and measure what has been put in the ground (or what is being proposed with the removal of the Viaducts)—the decisions are low quality.
Referencing the MacDonald map once again, historic analysis places the core of the city at the East End. Clockwise from the top right, Grandview, Cedar Cottage, Mount Pleasant, Fairview, Kitsilano, West End, and CPR downtown blocks form the first ring of suburbs around the place of origin. The CPR downtown has usurped the role of the core, somewhat distorting the pattern.
Travelling from one suburb to the next along the periphery will always confront us with the same choice: do we travel through the core, or skirt around the periphery to avoid it?
However, that’s not the problem facing us here.
Having built an automobile network, in considering the removal one if its critical components, we are faced with a more dire situation.
Namely, we have not really built up the network that will replace the automobile commuting trips. Therefore, basic questions of mobility arising outside the service footprint of one of the 3 rail lines, default back to the automobile.
We should tear down the Viaducts. However, driving will remain the best option between Granview and Kits.
To get both things done will take two moves, not just one.
Tearing down the viaducts is the easier and less costly of the two, providing an imbalanced advantage to the new developments in NE False Creek at the inconvenience of commuters like “jenables”.
The historic record of the past 30-years of city building make the outcome a slam dunk.
83 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 10, 2012 at 11:40 am
The concept turns Prior and Pacific into one street.
mike123
Problem is that Prior is not the same “Street Type” as Pacific Boulevard. Neither are Venables, Powell, Cordoba, and 1st Avenue for that matter.
Traffic engineers have yet to own up to the fact that the solution to not building the Downtown Freeway—in the 1960s—produced illegitimate results.
The resulting blight to the neighbourhoods should be addressed now as part of the plan for dismantling the (offending) vehicular network.
BACKGROUND
Back in the early 1970s neighbourhood streets (Powell, Cordoba, Venables, Prior and 1st Avenue) were converted into major traffic arterials causing severe impacts to fronting residential cottages. The blight from high volumes of traffic is suffered to this day.
However, the transformation took place without any ameliorating changes in design in the street & the neighbourhood.
These were the Good Ol’ Days.
Thus, single family houses fronting Powell, Cordoba, Venables, Prior, and 1st Avenue drink in the pollution from 40,000 vpd.
The one-way couplings are only blighted by traffic once a day, it is true. However, on-site analysis returns no significant difference in negative impacts to local streets from high volumes of traffic that manifest either once, or twice per day.
84 mike0123 // Jun 10, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Strathcona residents may not like that Prior is a traffic sewer, but the concept does not change that. Under the concept, Pacific will replace the viaducts as the arterial that feeds into Prior. The concept does not preclude turning Prior into a local street east of Main, with or without Malkin. By creating a normal intersection at Prior/Pacific and Main, the concept creates simpler and more direct connections between arterials on the east of Main and arterials on the west of Main. It makes trips like Commercial/Venables to Burrard/4th shorter and simpler.
85 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 10, 2012 at 1:18 pm
The difference is between looking at the viaduct site in isolation, and analyzing it for what it really is—a piece of the Freeway replacement scheme that unfavourably blighted the east neighbourhoods.
Removing the viaducts and putting 40,000 cars on the street is a non-starter.
Removing the viaducts because the 40,000 trip capacity—and more—is made available on transit (the Canada Line lesson) is the change people are waiting for, but not getting.
That requires increasing trip capacity in the east-west corridor north of Broadway. It probably necessitates dealing with Broadway as well.
I don’t get why we are so far behind in transportation implementation, but I suspect the lack of representative regional governance is a key part of that puzzle.
86 Frank Ducote // Jun 10, 2012 at 1:18 pm
For those wishing to live in an alternate universe, please follow Lewis’ wishful thinking and nostrums. For those living in this world, and particularly the directly affected communities, we need to be convinced that the proposed changes DO NOT WORSEN the livability of our communities. We’re not as ready as others to jump on the “tear ‘em down” bandwagon – or is it steamroller – as others who only have an aesthetic or philosophical stake in the outcome.
Someone suggested animated traffic modeling. This is not only entirely feasible, I’m willing to guarantee that it has been done already. So, Jerry Dobrovolny, how about posting these simulations so that the public can see the before and after situations?
Like jenables and a few others, I’d also like to hear the voices of other affected residents, rather than the repetitive musings of armchair dreamers out there, one in particular. Is that so very much to ask?
87 Richard // Jun 10, 2012 at 1:56 pm
@Lewis N. Villegas
People have plenty of options for shorter trips including walking, cycling, buses, car sharing and soon hopefully bike sharing. They are already using these modes for many of these shorter trips.
The slow streetcars that Condon is proposing would be mainly competing with other forms of sustainable transportation while not providing a reasonable alternative for people making longer trips. We need to first invest in regional rapid transit to reduce the need to drive and to reduce the long higher speed automobile travel which is the “blight” on streets around the city. Once we have a good regional rapid transit system, then lets look at streetcars around the city.
88 brilliant // Jun 10, 2012 at 4:02 pm
I’m ever so glad that Mayor Moonbeam & the Visionistas have solved all the city’s other problems and now have potfuls of money to devote to the pressing issue of viaducts removal. The beggars on every corner downtown asking me and the summer tourist throng for change must have been a figment of my imagination.
89 jenables // Jun 10, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Thanks for your input everyone. If I give you a little background as to why I make the transportation choicesI do, I hope it helps you understand that there are always other factors at play than the seemingly obvious. I used to transit and taxi before I started driving again, but, as I have stated elsewhere, I learned the hard way that the city isn’t safe for me to be out and about at night. I was leaving a friends house at about one in the morning at sixth and commercial. I am not without common sense; I tried to call translink to find out when the next #20 was going northbound on commercial. And since I hear them going southbound till the wee hours I didn’t imagine service had already stopped. One isn’t late to a night owl like myself. Translink didn’t have the text your bus stop number service in January 2005, and the automated system kept telling me “I can’t seem to find your stop”. It couldn’t find Broadway and commercial either but I just figured it was a glitch, so I went outside to wait. After about twenty five minutes I decided to walk, and when I turned away to do that one of the youths also waiting at the stop grabbed me and threatened me with a machete (a big, Rusty blade thing -machete is the best way to describe, I guess) and that pretty much changed my attitude on whether or not a little scrap like me should be putting myself into those situations. perhaps you think, get over it! In a city that purports to be so green and concerned but refuses to invest in practical, tangible efforts to reduce waste andclean the air (providing business recycling and an “everything you wanted to recycle but weren’t sure how bin” for everyone would keep SO MUCH out of the landfill, choosing parks full of carbon ingesting, oxygen releasing, shade providing, air cleaning plants instead of concrete a la grandview park and every developer whoring out a new tower, rewarding the good people like my landlady in this town who provide affordable housing without fanfare or asking anything in return, keeping people closer to their jobs, car or not) I don’t see why my Honda civic, which is under 2030 emissions targets is what needs to change. No I don’t have a shower at work and I must look reasonably put together. it takes me between 16-22 mins, usually under 20, to get to work. My parents are in north Vancouver; I can drivethere in less than fifteen. It would take at least four to six times as long by bus, and I can’t bring the dog! Traffic is not really that bad. This city keeps getting harder, why make decisions you know are going to make it worse when there are better ways to change the way people think than punishing and annoying them. You catch more flies with honey….
PS FD – seems we are still waiting for answers! Unsurprised..
90 jenables // Jun 10, 2012 at 4:20 pm
Oh, that reminds me brilliant, has anyone noticed that they have gotten rid of lots of trash cans at bus stops?? I guess if you take the bus you can also carry your garbage with you. how long doI need to walk with a bag of dog shit? Answer: until a privately owned dumpster comes around that I can stuff it in. it seems on the Eastside for a few days they decided not to have the receptacle part of the Garbage cans too, kept seeing garbage “cages” spewing crap in the street. ew. Also, would it kill them to do away with the mood lighting on a lot of streets? It’s unsafe in many ways! Try walking on the dead Block between semlin and Victoria on Napier at night. half the street is clearly unoccupied and it’s pitch black.
91 Strathcona resident // Jun 10, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Frank #85
Live 2 blocks off Prior, travel west across Main from home at least 6 times a week year round, daylight and at night. Shop for groceries at IGA/Choices, eat out, go to events downtown and swim at both Second Beach Pool and Kits Pool – I’m old, retired.
Travel east from home about once a week, if that. Use Dunsmuir for for most of the west journeys (used to use Waterfront Rd and up the convention centre elevator before that), sometimes go past Science World and up Ontario (oops, given myself away as a cyclist).
Pull down the viaducts please CoV.
92 Joe Just Joe // Jun 10, 2012 at 8:18 pm
Frank, you can add me to the list of locals that is not looking forward to the rubber stamping of the upcoming proposal.
I emailed my concerns to mayor and council almost a year ago and the only one I heard back from is Meggs, I knew then that the other Councillors would be following in lockstep. We’ve had an election since then but the results mean the outcome will be the same.
The future is easy to predict, in a decade people can point to some new park space and some towers and say it was a success and so much better then what was there before. They don’t know we could’ve still had the park space and towers and the traffic removed from the surface.
93 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 10, 2012 at 8:41 pm
People … are already [walking, cycling, buses, car sharing and soon hopefully bike sharing] modes for many of these shorter trips.
Richard 86
“jenables” is driving, if I understood the point correctly.
The slow streetcars that Condon is proposing would be mainly competing with other forms of sustainable transportation while not providing a reasonable alternative for people making longer trips.
Patrick can speak for himself. I understand his work to be pointing to 2040 or 2050. To me he sounds agnostic over the choice of technology.
The problem is that this proposal is in the “here and now”.
East of Carrall and north of Broadway, the “blight” is caused by the morning and afternoon commute to work, on weekdays, by single driver vehicles. On the weekend, the traffic is nowhere to be seen. However, the damage is already done.
Once we have a good regional rapid transit system, then lets look at streetcars around the city.
Problem we are bumping up to here is credibility.
After the Evergreen fiasco, Translink’s trust has been severely compromised. I wonder if the party that brought us ICBC in the 1970s, and Millennium in the 1990s, will bring us elected regional government with the next provincial government.
Gets my vote.
94 mike0123 // Jun 10, 2012 at 9:15 pm
The rapid transit network doesn’t have a capacity problem in Vancouver. The unused capacity in people-per-hour-per-direction terms on both the Canada Line and the Expo Line is at least equal to the number of trips in cars-per-hour-per direction terms on all the arterials on the east side of downtown upto and including the Cambie bridge. Rapid transit should be more extensive, and local transit should be made faster, more reliable, and more frequent to make it more useful to more people, but the overall capacity of Skytrain will not be an issue for the foreseeable future.
There are some barriers to cycling that are not addressed well in the concept. Why do cycling trips from Union to the South False Creek seawall (and Ontario) require a detour to Carrall? The trip from Venables/Commercial to 4th/Burrard is very flat and can be done on slow streets and separated pathways. I could do this trip in about 20 minutes without sweating. Google claims an average person could do it in 28 minutes.
In a car, the Kits/Commercial trip is made easier, not harder, under the concept. Nearly all trips from Venables/Commercial to North Van (and to Squamish) are already faster over the Second Narrows Bridge. These anecdotal examples of trips are probably not typical, but I think they show that the effect of removing the viaducts will primarily be on trips to the centre of downtown. Other trips currently taken through the centre of downtown to some other destination, including from between nearly anywhere on the east side to the West End or Kits, may be improved under the concept by the improved connection to Pacific. Trips over the Lions Gate from nearly anywhere on the east side are already faster using the Second Narrows, while trips from nearly anywhere on the west side are already faster using the Granville Bridge. That leaves trips to the centre of downtown, north of Georgia, as those that may be negatively affected under the concept.
95 Richard // Jun 10, 2012 at 9:44 pm
@Lewis N. Villegas
The only Evergreen Line fiasco is that it is a decade or two late due to inaction by the Provincial government. Either LRT or SkyTrain would be fine. For this route, SkyTrain is around 20% more expensive but it will replace a significantly more number of car trips than LRT due to the faster speed and not having to transfer at Lougheed. The decision has been made. Time to move on and encourage the province to fund badly needed transit throughout the region.
Not sure how elected regional government would help much. That is essential Toronto. Enough said.
Now, having elected officials back in control of TransLink is a good idea.
96 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 10, 2012 at 10:26 pm
… trips currently taken through the centre of downtown to some other destination, including between nearly anywhere on the east side to the West End or Kits, may be improved under the concept by the improved connection to Pacific… That leaves trips to the centre of downtown, north of Georgia, as those that may be negatively affected under the concept.
Mike0123
Add to the quote your comments that the rail lines have additional capacity. However, my point is that putting 40,000 viaduct trips on the ground is a non-starter.
My thinking is this. We should tear down the viaducts as part of an effort to move those commuter trips onto transit. Our VHQ study showed that BRT/LRT on Hastings and BRT on Main would get it done. The question to address is this…
Why wait? We argued that investment in transportation infrastructure would trigger redevelopment and private investment in the most impacted areas of our city as it has done just about anywhere else we care to look.
The only Evergreen Line fiasco is that it is a decade or two late due to inaction by the Provincial government.
Richard
I agree with you that it is late. But, it is also the wrong technology.
That “transfer” you mention may not be such a big deal afterall. I still remember the Olympic Spring… there were trains waiting to get into the stations. Transfer? No sweat.
That 20% additional cost is another story altogether… If we save 20% on every implementation (it will be more, most lines don’t have to bore a tunnel to get out of Port Moody), then every five lines we build we get to build one for free.
Representational government is necessary because we want to be able to “throw the bums out”. This should not be seen as a slur on most of our elected and hardworking public officials.
Rather, it isthe coin of the realm in democratic government. That’s why there was a guillotine set up in Place de la Concorde, a beheading in front of the Banqueting House at Whitehall, etc.
I agree with you. Toronto and other places show that it is no panacea. However, it is the best option we have.
People … are already [walking, cycling, buses, car sharing and soon hopefully bike sharing] modes for many of these shorter trips. The slow streetcars that Condon is proposing would be mainly competing with other forms of sustainable transportation while not providing a reasonable alternative for people making longer trips.
Richard
“jenables” is driving, if I understood the point correctly.
Patrick can speak for himself. I understand his work to be pointing to 2040 or 2050. To me he sounds agnostic over the choice of technology.
The problem is that this proposal is in the “here and now”.
I’ve been studying the historic quarters in our city—Gastown, Chinatown, Oppenheimer, Strathcona, and the BC Sugar district. Here, the “blight” is caused by the morning and afternoon commute to work, on weekdays, by single driver vehicles. On the weekend, the traffic is nowhere to be seen. However, the damage is already done.
Once we have a good regional rapid transit system, then lets look at streetcars around the city.
Problem we are bumping up to here is credibility. After the Evergreen fiasco, Translink’s trust has been severely eroded. I wonder if the party that brought us ICBC in the 1970s, and Millennium in the 1990s, will bring us elected regional government.
Gets my vote.
97 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 10, 2012 at 10:30 pm
Ooops…. disregard text after—“jenables” is driving—it came on the clipboard from the previous post.
98 tf // Jun 10, 2012 at 11:12 pm
Joe Just Joe #99 -
Yeah, that’s how I’m feeling about all this discussion. No matter what anyone says – the bottom line is money. Will this make money for the people who are making the decisions? If the answer is yes, it’s a go. If the people making the decisions lose money, it won’t happen.
And who knows what the citizens will say about this “it’s the last chance”, “this is the moment” city development in 40 years? Will they celebrate or curse their ascendents? We’ll just have to see ~
99 Roger Kemble // Jun 11, 2012 at 7:06 am
“No matter what anyone says – the bottom line is money.” Of course tf @ #96: tell that to Jonny Quest @ #75 . . .
The viaducts were never part of the freeway debate anyway. I was urban design consultant to engineers Swann Wooster, with Warnett Kennedy and in agreeing with Shirley Chan I soon parted company with SW/WK. Shirley made her name successfully defending her Strathcona home from that proposed freeway encroachment back in 1972. I haven’t heard much from her lately. Is she still active?
Frank Ducote @#85
Frank, As for your “directly affected communities ” nonsense, for an architect with eleven years at the planning department, to harbor such parochial musings you do no credit your former sinecure.
No one, ever, in their right minds would cross town to Kits through downtown: that is what 6th is all about.
As for Lewis. Oh dear, poor Lewis’ wishful thinking, poor little inarticulate soul he is obviously lonely. I don’t know why he doesn’t just find a job and gain the experience he so desperately needs to back up his prolix musings: maybe its too late for him now! I don’t read his verbiage anymore . . .
In perusing the . . . errrr . . . competition results over the weekend I see there are multiple winners and I am at a loss to know why Frances chose to quote Jerry Dobrovolny. Needless to say the entry conditions come with the usual disclaimers and caveats so don’t expect any of them to see the light of day, #71 is one of many mediocre, peripheral . . . http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/reconnect/winners.htm . . . winners unless of course we are seeing more, all too familiar, cronyism. But with C$10,000 in anal retentive, measly prizes who cares?
100 Richard // Jun 11, 2012 at 8:22 am
@Lewis N. Villegas
You have to look at the full financial picture for transit projects and not just focus on the capital costs. Between increased ridership revenue and decreased operating costs, over the longer term, the Evergreen Line SkyTrain will perform similarly or even better than LRT. The best metric is total cost per new transit rider and SkyTrain typically performs well as it attracts more new riders.
101 Richard // Jun 11, 2012 at 8:27 am
@Lewis N. Villegas
It was the Provincial government that made the decision to make the Evergreen Line SkyTrain not TransLink so they should be getting the credit or blame depending on your point of view.
It was not particularly a surprising decision. TransLink’s business case for LRT was a bit weak. It essentially said SkyTrain was better but we don’t have the money so lets use LRT. Problem was they didn’t have the money for LRT either so they had to go to the province which had the money so they said lets go with SkyTrain as it is better value for the money as far as reducing driving goes.
102 jenables // Jun 11, 2012 at 8:54 am
Rk #97 – I used to take great northern, 2nd, 6th every day. For years. It took longer. I drive over the viaducts, down cambie, left on Richards, right on Pacific. I take Pacific coming back to Cambie, then Georgia. You may think that’s crazy but I am totally ok with that because if you don’t believe me I can’t convince you anyways, right?
103 Roger Kemble // Jun 11, 2012 at 9:17 am
jenables @ #100 Hey no prob.
You’ve convinced me. I lived in Kits and seldom went east unless to attend a do at the Kultch.
Anyway you can still do your downtown thing even when the viaducts come down.
104 jenables // Jun 11, 2012 at 9:31 am
Oops I left out Smythe above. venables, cambie, Smythe, Richards, Pacific, burrard to work
105 JuanTijuana // Jun 11, 2012 at 10:08 am
I agree with @JoeJustJoe – it seems to me that the removal of the viaducts is a bit of a solution in search of a problem. The problem is that the NEFC waterfront area lacks as a destination, not that some imaginery boundary stops us all from reaching it (aprapo of nothing, Toronto has a similar situation with the Gardiner Expressway, but that’s for another time).
With that said, I think the Perkins & Will concept has a lot of benefits, chief among them the repatriation of several developable sites, the value of which will provide a financial backstop for the other parts of the plan (such as the park space, much of which could really have happened without changing the viaducts).
It would have been an interesting excercise to compare the proposed plan to an option that maintained the viaducts but that also included future park space and roadway linkages rather than comparing the new plan to the existing conditions.
106 brilliant // Jun 11, 2012 at 11:14 am
@Jenables 89-Abosolutely, its disgusting to see the trash heaps at bus stops. Hard to believe Vision is trying to sell this area as the “heart of the city”! The real heart of the city is Georgia and Granville, site of the embarassing mud field that is the art gallery square. How about dropping a few million there?
107 Terry M // Jun 11, 2012 at 11:42 am
Viaducts or no viaducts.
Good discussion in here, but the biggest threat to the real debate comes in the form of not having a clear direction from the leadership. Period.
Not only that, but now the person behind this game of chicken … cllor Meggs is prepping himself for an MLA job. Just great.
From the outside, the former director of planning, and thank god for that, is drumming”down with the viaducts” like there’s no tomorrow!
No Brent, they are not going to give your job back to you, if you do that, people still use the viaducts, check the statistics!
Nobody knows a damn thing. Is like the weather channel at the City Hall these days.
Prediction, sunny with periods of rain and cloudy…
108 Sean Bickerton // Jun 11, 2012 at 1:02 pm
I was really pleased our Crosstown Residents Association had first public meeting to review this plan presented brilliantly by Larry Beasley to a great turnout.
Ultimately, environmental sustainability depends on walkability which depends entirely on transit-based density.
We are going through a time of rapid worldwide change, and its time to embrace a future where the car is no longer King but pedestrians are. This has been city policy for years, and is where we’re headed and I think it’s time for all of us to embrace our future together.
Ultimately, there is no overall planning solution to NEFC without bringing the viaducts down – planners, residents and developers have fought each other to a standstill with no hope of progress – and I salute the courage of those that have taken public lead on issue to break logjam preventing completion of this crucial re-integration between old and new Vancouver.
109 Roger Kemble // Jun 11, 2012 at 1:15 pm
“We are going through a time of rapid worldwide change, and its time to embrace a future where the car is no longer King but pedestrians are.”
Well said Sean @ #105
110 Frank Ducote // Jun 11, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Sean – Well, I’m personally very happy that that competition proposal didn’t make the cut, as it included a long row of east-west towers creating a new – and symbolically even worse – wall between old and new Vancouver.
As JJJ@90 rightly notes, the waterfront park east of Carrall Street was committed to the CoV a long time ago as a condition of rezoning by Concord Pacific. Now we’re supposedly getting … a park. And CP is not-so-incidentally getting substantially more development rights, as will be Aquilini. (That’s also a done deal with this Council, IMO).
You’re gonna miss another decade and a half of construction if its true that you’re moving away from Abbott Street. Good for you, but you won’t be around to enjoy the new reality you’re supporting, without a lot of shred of supportive evidence to date about impacts, IMO.
Enough of pretty pictures. I like ‘em as much as the next person, but I think residents need to know some hard facts about what the future holds for them so they can make an intelligent decision about staying or leaving. At this point that is all we’re being offered.
111 Joe Just Joe // Jun 11, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Just wanted to clarify a point about straighening Carrall St. It’s part of the current proposal but it’s an impossibility. The reason that Carrall veers 50M to the West is not because of either viaduct but because of the dip of the Skytrain tracks. If you removed both viaducts and tried to shift Carrall east 50m you would not have the clearance to pass under the skytrain tracks. There is no current proposal to raise the tracks. The engineers that veered Carrall to the West knew what they were doing.
112 Frank Ducote // Jun 11, 2012 at 3:12 pm
JJJ@108 – “cranking” Carrall Street is more accurate to say than competely straightening it, as would be prefereable without obstacles, as at it was platted originally. Its present curved alignment is for the reason you mention – lack of vehicular clearance under SkyTrain guideway.
I was told by staff at the open house that there would be about 9′ or so headroom clearance under the guideway with the proposed cranked alignment. I think this realignment is one of the better moves in the proposal, to remove the irritating S curve in that street, which is truly suburban in character at the moment.
Further, if the proposed bike ramp to/from Dunsmuir is tucked against the guideway its visually and physically irritating freestanding “viaduct” like silhouette and appearnace might be mitigated somewhat, as I mentioned in an earlier posting.
113 Richard // Jun 11, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Glad to hear the jog in Carrall would go away. I assume the what is now rather unneeded overpass park would go as well?
114 Frank Ducote // Jun 11, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Richard@110 – a pretty safe bet that it would go as well, but you’d bettre check the plans. While doing so, I’d also like your take on the proposed and very schematic bike ramp to Dunsmuir. It’s shown where street trees would ordinarily be at the curb and about 2.5m from the facades of buildings as it rises. Yikes!
115 Silly Season // Jun 11, 2012 at 6:37 pm
@ Frank Ducote @JJJ
‘As JJJ@90 rightly notes, the waterfront park east of Carrall Street was committed to the CoV a long time ago as a condition of rezoning by Concord Pacific. Now we’re supposedly getting … a park. And CP is not-so-incidentally getting substantially more development rights, as will be Aquilini. (That’s also a done deal with this Council, IMO).’
Thanks for answering a question about the park that I had posed earlier. This is the “deal” that keeps getting extended, shuffled around, used as a bargaining chip, over and over and over again…it does everything but get built!
As I said before: When is a “deal a deal” with City Hall on the park? When in comes to Concord Pacific, just who is calling the shots here?
116 Silly Season // Jun 11, 2012 at 6:40 pm
PS. Since I pointed out that the original deal on NEFC and the park was made with a FIXED FSR at the time, it would certainly be interesting to see how that has changed.
And if it has, what other CAC’s has the City gotten for any additional FSR ? And if not, why not?
117 Frank Ducote // Jun 11, 2012 at 7:12 pm
SS – the False Creek Residents Association has been asking thse very questions for a long, long time, as I have a hunch you know.
First we had a so-called High Level Review (meaning: only big developers’ views matter), the Casino proposal, then this viaduct fiasco, which seems to be adding even more development at Rogers Arena (Aquilini proposing 3 towers with a ghosted 4th one in the mist, straddling the guideway over the “entertainment plaza”), Concord Pacific of course and also the Plaza of Nations hiding in the wings with their own mega density application on the way.I may have missed a few on this list.
There seems to be no end in sight for the amount of major development being planned – and I dare say, approved – for this little corner of Downtown.
So, if anyone wonders why I am a Doubting Thomas on the value of the viaducts proposition, look no further. I think it is a basically a real estate deal of the first order, and nothing more. Again, major local impacts and very uncertain local benefits that citizens weren’t already promised.
118 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 11, 2012 at 10:51 pm
You have to look at the full financial picture for transit projects and not just focus on the capital costs. Between increased ridership revenue and decreased operating costs, over the longer term, the Evergreen Line SkyTrain will perform similarly or even better than LRT. The best metric is total cost per new transit rider and SkyTrain typically performs well as it attracts more new riders.
Richard 100
No doubt. But we also have to look at the ability of transit dollars to act as seed money to re-develop neighbourhoods within the “pedestrian shed” or 120 acres closest to the transit turnstiles.
My focus is not the ‘capital cost’ but rather the social costs of ‘bad’ urbanism.
It was the Provincial government that made the decision to make the Evergreen Line SkyTrain not TransLink
Richard 101
Fascinating… But, it really doesn’t matter who screwed up. Look, we have a former Mayor of Vancouver singing the praises of building towers outside the downtown.
Getting elected is hardly a bona fide for understanding ‘good’ urbanism.
Given that the ‘wrong’ system is being built—and we still don’t have the numbers for the ‘over budget’ on the project—the real question is….
How can we make better decisions as a collective?
119 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 11, 2012 at 11:02 pm
I think [taking the Viaducts down] is a basically a real estate deal of the first order, and nothing more. Again, major local impacts and very uncertain local benefits that citizens weren’t already promised.
Ducote 117
Just a hair’s breadth away from “kiss-and-make-up”, Frank. (Fabula readers can exhale now…}
Agree… This is a “towers” play pure and simple.
Disagree… The Viaducts HAVE to come down.
Problem is this: Who you gonna kiss? Developers, or ‘good’ urbanism?
Well, if you are City Council—prone over the proverbial barrel—kissing may not be quite the right metaphor.
However, for the rest of us, the issue of forging the future out of the universally held principles of ‘good’ urbanism should not be an ‘option’, or an initial position to be watered down in the give and take of the rezoning or development approval process.
120 Andrew Browne // Jun 11, 2012 at 11:24 pm
I’ll take our tower vernacular over the pattern set by Olympic village “midrise” (hah) any day.
I’m curious about the implications for net development rights… I wish it was part of the open house. Presumably if add’l development rights are to be received by Concord, Aquilini, and that really generic sounding company that owns the Plaza of Nations, then CACs should be due.
I had also worried about increased volumes on the E-W arterials to the north (Hastings, Pender, Cordova) but from Frank it sounds like I should be more focused on the N-S such as Carrall and Abbott?
Does anyone know how much real estate value the City is set to bring to market after this reconfiguration?
Incidentally, one of the competition entries that evoked the strongest response for me was the one with “fingers” of intertidal and riparian marsh extending into False Creek. It was an interesting image and I think an opportunity to create a unique (for False Creek) water edge.
I ramble.
121 voony // Jun 12, 2012 at 12:25 am
Lewis, you seem to involve that “good urbanism” can’t accomodate any viaduct. Why?
I infer on the contrary, that a viaduct can be part of good urbanism.
A great part of good urbanism is to connect neighborood, and sometime a viaduct is the right answer.
how Montmartre in Paris has been made more accessible by construction of viaduct?
Check those pictures of rue Caulaincourt – opened in the 1880 (if you want to bike to Montmartre, it is your street…).
Again, people seems to underestimate the physical barrier that the escarpment is for the East-West connection especially by bike – you can’t bike straight on a 30 meter elevation change at 5% (you zig-zag, so need lot of space), Dunsmuir viaduct.
also, I have checked keefer dead end, well beside the T&T, business is not flourishing there. again good urbanism is to avoid the dead-end of major street, since they are not conducting of active street.
122 Norman // Jun 12, 2012 at 7:54 am
As I said before, this looks like a propaganda campaign. Is there a real opportunity for those who are opposed to tearing down the viaducts (and there are plenty of them) to have a say? I am uncomfortable with the city government, which is nominally democratic, pushing one idea and minimizing other points of view. I realize that the people who post here are generally of the “I’m greener than you” persuasion, but I do expect an honest dialogue with the civic government. The notion of forcing other people to one point of view, such as “getting people out of their cars”, is a lot less convincing to me than providing convenient alternatives and allowing the change to happen naturally. Better transit, especially in rush hour, would be a big incentive, and no, I don’t mean trams, which just don’t have enough capacity or flexibility.
123 IanS // Jun 12, 2012 at 8:33 am
@Norman #122:
“Is there a real opportunity for those who are opposed to tearing down the viaducts (and there are plenty of them) to have a say?”
Short answer? No.
The decision to remove the viaducts was taken a long time ago. After that, it was just a matter of time.
Slightly longer answer? Our chance was the last election. Yes, I know the NPA wasn’t much of an alternative, but anyone paying attention would have known the Meggs was going to push ahead with his plan to take down the viaducts no matter what, and (IMO) our only real chance to oppose that plan was to remove Vision’s majority on Council. We failed to take that chance and, to be frank, we get what we deserve.
124 tf // Jun 12, 2012 at 9:26 am
Does anyone remember the details of the tower development, was it Concord Pacific(?), around Georgia and the escarpment? The rezoning was approved because the developer accepted the requirement that social housing was part of the mix. They built the market towers but when it was time to build the social ones, the developer applied to the City to forego that part of the package – it was too expensive. The City let them off the hook and the social housing was not built.
With that in mind, why do we trust the City or developers to follow through on their commitments for public benefits in these development packages? As Frank says “I don’t believe them.”
125 Frank Ducote // Jun 12, 2012 at 9:31 am
Lewis@19 – let’s continue this good will tour. I am not opposed to the viaducts coming down as an aesthetic enterprise, as I have said before. But we are asked to believe beautiful renderings rather than a clearly stated set of potential outcomes. Kudos to staff and Perkins & Will for producing the materials on offer.
However, my fundamental condition is what they are replaced with must not worsen livability for people affected. Hopefuly it woule even IMPROVE neighbourhood livability and amenity. So far the facts are fuzzy and truly insubstantial. All I ask for is sufficient evidence to help the public know what’s in store for them on their local streets.
And yes, the amount of potential real estate development is quite staggering. to say the least.
126 Frank Ducote // Jun 12, 2012 at 9:31 am
Oops, that should say Lewis@119, not 19.
127 jolson // Jun 12, 2012 at 9:49 am
Roger, #147 did not meet the submission deadline.
The scheme before the public has been in the works for some time. We are in the manufacturing consent phase. Short of a public riot the Georgia Viaduct will come down, Concord will gain more waterfront and a front lawn (the park) for its condo towers. The public will get a ramp for stunt car drivers at the end of Georgia Street and six lanes of newly designed 60k roadway. East-west travelers, transit riders or drivers will go slower for a while until the hydraulic balance is restored. Dunsmuir Viaduct will likely survive as a remnant of the modernist movement repurposed as a pedestrian / bikeway by popular demand. The Mayor has to get something out of the half-life of valuable public infrastructure in spite of the maneuvers of present and past city staffers and politicians. (The viaducts are good for another 4o years)
When we start with the ugly label it’s hard to defend that electro glide sensation we all look forward to on the exit from the clamor of the downtown core. The viaducts have outlasted the rail lines and the soggy ground below that were the reason for their existence in the first place. Naked and vulnerable, any bully with enough effort can knock them down but we should not consider that to be a positive urban design act but the path of least creative effort at integrating the past with the future.
Should we wonder why the term Director of Planning has been eliminated from the lexicon at City hall? It seems to this writer that the Mayor has had the last word.
128 Joe Just Joe // Jun 12, 2012 at 11:00 am
I can’t see the large fence in the render that will be built in front of the upcoming International village school to keep the kids away from the 40K cars travelling along the new Pacific Gateway
129 Frank Ducote // Jun 12, 2012 at 11:25 am
Folks, I haven’t heard a single Councillor express any concerns at all about this endeavour, so it has to be assumed it is a done deal and that the 1/2 life – good phrase and comments, Jolson! – of usable and expensive infrastructure will be tossed away for yet another series of real estate megaprojects that will dwarf both Marine Gateway and Rize combined many times over.
Since I can’t seem to rouse my neighbours from their slumber to say or do anything to fundamentall question the wisdom of this venture, I think I’ll just shut up and admit defeat.
130 Roger Kemble // Jun 12, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Jolson @ #127
“Roger, #147 did not meet the submission deadline.”
Ummmmmm, too bad. Thanqxz J.
131 Glissando Remmy // Jun 12, 2012 at 10:31 pm
Thought of The Night
“Jolson left me speechless.”
I could not have said it better than Jolson #127.
I rarely do this but here it is:
” The scheme before the public has been in the works for some time. We are in the manufacturing consent phase. Short of a public riot the Georgia Viaduct will come down, Concord will gain more waterfront and a front lawn (the park) for its condo towers. The public will get a ramp for stunt car drivers at the end of Georgia Street and six lanes of newly designed 60k roadway. East-west travelers, transit riders or drivers will go slower for a while until the hydraulic balance is restored. Dunsmuir Viaduct will likely survive as a remnant of the modernist movement repurposed as a pedestrian / bikeway by popular demand. The Mayor has to get something out of the half-life of valuable public infrastructure in spite of the maneuvers of present and past city staffers and politicians. (The viaducts are good for another 4o years)
When we start with the ugly label it’s hard to defend that electro glide sensation we all look forward to on the exit from the clamor of the downtown core. The viaducts have outlasted the rail lines and the soggy ground below that were the reason for their existence in the first place. Naked and vulnerable, any bully with enough effort can knock them down but we should not consider that to be a positive urban design act but the path of least creative effort at integrating the past with the future.
Should we wonder why the term Director of Planning has been eliminated from the lexicon at City hall? It seems to this writer that the Mayor has had the last word.”
What Jolson said.
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
132 jenables // Jun 13, 2012 at 12:05 am
Ah, someone said it. The viaducts are beautiful to drive across, especially Georgia on the way home.
133 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 13, 2012 at 8:51 am
Lewis, you seem to involve that “good urbanism” can’t accomodate any viaduct. Why?
I infer on the contrary… people seems to underestimate the physical barrier that the escarpment is for the East-West connection especially by bike – you can’t bike straight on a 30 meter elevation change at 5% (you zig-zag, so need lot of space), Dunsmuir viaduct.
also, I have checked keefer dead end, well beside the T&T, business is not flourishing there. again good urbanism is to avoid the dead-end of major street, since they are not conducting of active street.
Voony
As a general principle, I prefer the Scalinata di Spagna (Spanish Steps, Rome) approach to designing an escarpment, to any other solution. Of course, ancient Rome had 11 acquits feeding 1 million people, and for the most part they came in above ground.
That was then…
I will resist the notion that we have to build (or keep) a viaduct to accommodate cycle traffic. That just begs the question of a better solution.
You raise the issue of the ‘worst’ urbanism in our city: the T&T boondoggle. I don’t know either the developer, or the architect… but I have an idea of what they deserve in the centre of their public square. Mockery and ridicule.
It is worse than PPG Pittsburgh, by Philip Johnson. And, that’s where we have to leave it.
Walk one block north in Pittsburgh and find yourself in—the still not well understood by the traffic engineers—Market Square.
The human experience of place must trumps it all if we want ‘good’ urbanism. Overhead systems, of whatever variety, should be a last resort.
Power poles anyone?
134 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 13, 2012 at 8:52 am
CORRECTION: aqueducts… spell check… ARRRGH!!
135 Sean Bickerton // Jun 13, 2012 at 11:22 am
A few points worth making:
Many smart, dedicated people have been beating their heads against the wall of getting Creekside Park built for years now, and we’re no closer today than 25 yrs ago.
Concord has been prevented by FCRAs action in building out Lots 5B East and West as well as the expanded casino, because the community will accept no new development without that park.
The city’s planning processes for the area have gone through three separate iterations now over 5 years of meetings, only to flounder this year into irrelevancy when staff didn’t even bother to mention to that group the new urban garden going in on Lot 6c.
So we have developers in one corner, community in another, and neither has any faith or trust in city planning staff – I’m not slamming them in saying this, just stating the truth.
We also have the most highly contaminated soils in the city under 6C that need to be remediated on Lot 9 for the park, and paid for by a province uncle to balance a budget if its life depended on it (and it does …)
If we keep the viaducts, they must be retrofitted to make them earthquake-proof – a massive expense and construction nightmare.
This lower part of Vancouver is isolated from downtown, and the viaducts isolate Chinatown from False Creek and Strathcona.
I haven’t covered all of the problems blocking movement, but that’s a brief overview.
What Larry Beasley and his team have done is offer a comprehensive vision offering nearly double the park space planned for Lot 9, and provide new housing and jobs space in a city and area in need of both.
I believe the biggest challenge is what my good friend Frank has identified, which is the lack of faith in a planning department that has at best fumbled the ball and at times outright misled resident associations, and a palpable mistrust of the developer who has at times acted in ways to inflame local residents needlessly.
Without goodwill or trust, the grand bargain necessary to get everyone on board will be much harder.
An outside broker like Larry, just might be able to pull everyone together in a way no one else has credibility to do.
136 jenables // Jun 13, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Sean I agree with some of your points, although I feel the skytrain viaduct actually is more isolating to the community, as well as the dividers in the road and awkwardness of Quebec street. maybe my angle is from more south east than yours, though. I think terminal ave creates a lot of weirdness as well…skytrain and escarpments really do take away that walkable ground level feeling.
137 tf // Jun 13, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Gotta respond to Sean -
Chinatown is not isolated from Strathcona – they are both zoned as part of the Downtown Eastside. The new City rezoning isolates Chinatown from it’s neighbours more than the viaducts ever will. The proposed wall of 17 story towers on Main between Georgia and Keefer will isolate Chinatown and Strathcona even further, preventing any “stitching of an urban fabric”. As a pedestrian, False Creek is too distant to be considered part of Chinatown.
And how can you say Larry Beasley is “an outside broker”? As a past City of Vancouver planner Beasley was a principal decision maker for development approvals; when he left, he took his reputation for development internationally. Now he’s back in Vancouver where he is Senior Development Advisor to Concord Pacific and recently was VP of Aquilini Development, the 2 land developers directly connected to the viaduct deal! How much more of an insider could you find???
Beasley is the person who talks about a vision stretching downtown all the way east to Clark Drive. I lived in the West End when it was still “Robsonstrasse” – personally I liked it better that way. Now? Too many tourists and why would I want a $30,000 designer purse? If that’s Urban Development, thanks but no thanks ~
The PR spin on this is entertaining – if you lived anywhere near the area of Main and Union you would see that the viaducts are a route to bypass traffic congestion – nothing less: not an “isolating barrier”; not an “eyesore”; not a “relic” – I’m not fooled by anything the “white guys in suits” have to say – it’s all about the bottom$ line.
138 Michelle // Jun 13, 2012 at 3:45 pm
tf #137 said:
“The PR spin on this is entertaining – if you lived anywhere near the area of Main and Union you would see that the viaducts are a route to bypass traffic congestion – nothing less: not an “isolating barrier”; not an “eyesore”; not a “relic” – I’m not fooled by anything the “white guys in suits” have to say – it’s all about the bottom$ line.”
I second that.
The BS coming from former directors of planning Beasley and Toderian are nauseating!
They are now in the business of consulting with the very developers that they worked with before. Sucking up to former masters is a well oiled routine that in some circles is called “manufacturing consent”
Boys, you lost your credibility long time ago, backing now fools like the current administration it ain’t going to bring it back. I don’t think so. Ta da.
139 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 13, 2012 at 3:48 pm
the viaducts isolate Chinatown from False Creek and Strathcona… [the new vision offers] a comprehensive vision offering nearly double the park space planned for Lot 9, and provide new housing and jobs space in a city and area in need of both.
Sean 135
I must take issue with the words “new vision” (by Frances, not Sean) and staff own “bold vision” from their open house boards.
If, like me, you think there is still an iota of a chance that Chinatown won’t go Luxury Condo, then what separates Gastown, Hastings, Chinatown & Strathcona from False Creek is this shi-shi urbanism, a more insurmountable barrier than ageing concrete structures, chain link fence and parking lots.
Carrall Street—which the proposal correctly identifies should not have a serpentine curve and be bridged over by a “park” ramp—is where East meets West in our city. It represents the open and bleeding wound of 130 years of a private drive for wealth and profits, and the public sector sitting on the sidelines looking the other way.
Even if Concord gentrifies the waterfront, the area under the viaducts ought to return to the street, block and square urbanism of Vancouver’s first, historic quartiers.
The architecture shown on two blocks next to Main—style OV Tall—is not a good fit here.
In its place, a contextual response to the architecture of the first urbanism in our city should extend the urbanism of Chinatown from the east, and the urbanism of Gastown/Hastings from the north.
Just 500 feet from that awful T&T round square we have built one of the most poorly conceived parks in our city.
Bounded by Expo Blvd., Quebec, Keefert St/Pl., \Taylor St, ‘modernized’ Shanghai Alley, the truncated CPR ROW which once joined Gastown with the Roundhouse—imagine having that now!—Andy Livingstone Park (ALP) is a parody of our urban park tradition.
I’ve been there on one or two occasions. Not family friendly. You gaze at it from Chinatown Square on a Summer Market night and wonder in bewilderment… “What a waste.”
The fake changes in levels, the chlorine smell rising from the pools, just about every bit you encounter—including the astroturf fields—smacks of our lack of investment and vision in the future.
Towers in the park indeed! Sean, you deserve a better neighbourhood than this!!
I’d rather see the the park CACs invested in a remake of ALP, and in returning shoreline to False Creek in place of the promenade-on-piles, that sad legacy of Expo ’86 that try as it may could only meet the natural edge of the land with the wonderful water ferries and implausible MacBarge.
140 brilliant // Jun 13, 2012 at 5:20 pm
@Seann Bickerton 135-Horse Hockey. Or do you also believe the Cambie St bridge should be torn down because it isolates East False Creek from West? Lets detonate Granville St bridge since it isolates Granville Island thus tendering it a desolate wasteland.
And don’t think Crosstown residents will be thrilled when 40,000 + cars start cutting through your ‘hood to avoid a clogged Pacific.
141 Frank Ducote // Jun 13, 2012 at 8:16 pm
Sean – I echo tf’s reply to you above. Don’t know where you got the outside broker notion. There is a direct interest in land development. Further, the firm that did the urban design work for the City is Perkins & Will, not the team that prepared the viaducts competition entry you refer to. Are you confused on this distinction?
142 Sean Bickerton // Jun 14, 2012 at 11:15 am
Hi Frank, I’m basing everything I’m saying on Larry Beasley’s team’s overall vision for the area, not the city’s.
And Lewis, you know my admiration for you, but the Keefer Steps our buildings pay for as a gift to the city are huge success, feeding a steady stream of foot passengers down to the businesses in this area that are booming while once they were moribund.
And for the many families that live in this area, Andy Livingston Park is a prize – it’s constantly full of people walking their dogs, people talking couples relaxing on the grass, kids playing basketball and on the monkey bars.
We take ownership of the park as a neighborhood, have met repeatedly with park department to get improvements made, and take great pride in it.
So your comments in this one item as a drive-by critic are uninformed and fly in face of community’s need for that beautiful green space.
To the others critical of money being behind developer’s motives, I have a confession to make – when I get up in the morning and go to work for my company, I am also motivated by wanting to make some money. I’ve never thought that was itself disqualifying.
In the four years I’ve focused on this particular set of problems more than any others, I’ve tried and watched others try repeatedly to forge a solution capable of breaking the deadlock only to encounter yet another aspect preventing any agreement.
Why I’ve decided to embrace Larry Beasley’s proposal – NOT the city’s which I don’t trust as worth the paper its written on – is because he alone in my experience grasped the complexity of the challenges, how interlocking they all are, and crafted a solution that meets every single challenge, presenting a blueprint on how to untie Gordian’s Knot.
Seeing his vision explained is the first time in my life that I actually got inspired and excited by what visionary planning can make possible.
And unless someone else can explain to me how Creekside Park is going to get built, let alone how to reintegrate an area destroyed as a civic space by concrete overpasses, I’m going to support Larry’s vision and push the city to do what they should have done in the first place – appoint an outside planner to come in that the community already trusts.
143 Frank Ducote // Jun 14, 2012 at 11:59 am
Sean – I am absolutely in agreement with you about the success of both Keefer Steps and Andy Livinsgton Park, being a frequent user of both. Disrespectful potshots from afar like the ones you’re responding to on these subjects irk me as well, but I find I’d have to spend more time than I care to to respond to all of them, so I have to let some of them slide, unfortunately.
People here LOVE that park, and I think Durante Kruek, the landscape architects, did a marvelous job. The metaphorical stream originating in the naturalistic uplands (with conifers) flowing to the urban grid below (with flowering cherry trees) is particularly noteworthy, as well as how they introduced sloping landforms to deal with both soil issues and to provide playful slopes for children of all ages to enjoy.
Andy Livingston Park is truly a great success in our ‘hood! I invite all Vancouverites to visit this green jewel in the inner city the next time they visit Chinatown or a nearby venue or sporting event. I look forward to the fieldhouse being adapted for artists use by the Park Board, as I understand is being considerd at this time.
144 brilliant // Jun 14, 2012 at 12:21 pm
@Sean Bickerton- In a city as wet as Vancouver what is sorely lacking is covered civic space, not yet more green fields ringing False Creek for its privileged residents. If the space under the viaducts is underutilized, blame previous Vision and NPA administrations.
145 Roger Kemble // Jun 14, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Vooney @ #121
“Again, people seems to underestimate the physical barrier that the escarpment is for the East-West connection especially by bike – you can’t bike straight on a 30 meter elevation change at 5% (you zig-zag, so need lot of space), Dunsmuir viaduct.”
Like the north end of Oak; like 10th up from Alma; like 4th cycling up to UBC; comme Se repentent de Ronsard jusqu’à l’Endroit Tertre.
You sound like a spoilt five year old whining to mommy for your comforter . . .
There is plenty of horizontal grade between the stadiums to make like easy for the cyclists!
146 Bill Lee // Jun 14, 2012 at 3:46 pm
#143 Frank Ducote // Jun 14, 2012 at 11:59 am
I have seen some people struggle with the steps and they are not nice in the rain.
There are other ways to descend and ascend and people who know take the easier, less puff-puff route. There are wheelchair routes but not particularly noted.
Andy Livingstone park (after a long-time Parks Commissioner, like the George Wainborn park near Granville Bridge) is one of the few all-weather artificial (burn your skin) grass fields and heavily used by the Field Hockey teams who also dominate the same type of field at Eric Hamber school park.
Not really public when you have people with sticks running about.
And isn’t it really temporary until Concord-Pacific can build there. Not like Victoria Park in Central, Hong Kong.
147 Bill Lee // Jun 14, 2012 at 3:58 pm
The Yorkshire Cyclist Roger Kemble // Jun 14, 2012 at 1:27 pm
True, one can wobble back and forth up a hill, especially if there are no traffic coming down, cars or bikes. But it ain’t easy.
I am surprised that people are taking the Adanac line, designed by a ruler-wielding pencil pusher when with a few quick detours along the route one can avoid the hills and the Adanac Mountain.
Some one from say, the Trout Lake farmer’s market would not go over to the Rupert Street bike path, but loop up the small hill on Nanaimo St. to 22nd and Rupert and that badly painted line on the tarmac.
VicRoads says ““Gradients steeper than 5% should not be provided unless it is unavoidable. It is most important that sharp horizontal curves or fixed objects do not exist near the bottom of hills, particularly where the approach gradient is steep (greater than 5%) and relatively straight. If a curve must be provided at the bottom of a steep grade then consideration should be given to providing additional path width, and a clear escape route or recovery area adjacent to the outside of the curve.”
The guide states that uphill travel is difficult for bike riders and cites a study and figure which indicates that riding becomes increasing difficult at grades above 3%. ”
One has to have the isoclines of the hills in mind when pedalling. I have thought that the 37th route was terrible east of Fraser.
148 Frank Ducote // Jun 14, 2012 at 4:30 pm
Bill@146 – I was talking about the passive park portion of ALP, not the playfields which, as you note, are very well used.
Take the Steps or don’t, but in the 16 years I have lived next to them, I have seen their use grow exponentially. For many of my trips they are the most direct route, so they serve that purpose. The removal of the conifer in the turnaround was good, but I would have enjoyed a great piece of public art rather than the logo-looking globe planted there in recent years. Couldn’t it at least have pivoted?
149 Bill Lee // Jun 14, 2012 at 6:05 pm
hmm.
“seen” Do you go up and down the steps daily?
Anyways good but wearying exercise.
[ Do any downtown towers have a compulsory fire drill once or twice a year where everyone has to evacuate down the stairs in five minutes?]
Ah, when I pedal buy and admire the legs of the female Field Hockey players I only notice the fields in the night lights. “Passive” bits not noticed much.
Bing.com/maps aerial or “birds-eye” shots show that you mean the little bits west of Carrall., probably more noticed from higher up.
I do agree about the art. Somehow Vancouver high schools and Emily Carr College of Art should do up a new solid piece every 5 years. Anything to stop the Biennalle Blandness of Commercial art installations.
Kevin Griffin is flogging a bike tour of Vancouver-is-Blaht on Wednesday evenings
http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Wheelers+takes+spin+past+Vancouver+public/6776679/story.html
Will we paint the viaducts in nice colours next time like ribbons? Will we encourage vast murals on the concrete?
150 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 14, 2012 at 6:34 pm
@ Frank & Sean Tag-Team
I will stand up for my neighbourhood as much as the next guy (I forgot Frank lived there)—and I applaud you for doing that.
However, I’m not exactly a ‘drive-by critic’ in this area. Using something everyday (the Keefer Steps), hardly qualifies as a recommendations. There are many conveniences that we all use daily that, though utilitarian and appreciated when well designed, hardly qualify them for ‘public space’.
The metaphorical stream originating in the naturalistic uplands (with conifers) flowing to the urban grid below (with flowering cherry trees) is particularly noteworthy…
Metaphoric? Really? I’ll give the designers this much—a good park needs about 50 years for the plant materials to mature and come into bloom.
Yet, like ourselves, there are those parks that no matter how long, will not metamorphose into an expression of the human condition that will inspire us to think differently, and reach beyond our limitations. ALP seems like one of those.
151 Lee L // Jun 15, 2012 at 12:05 am
The present ‘proposal’ for the viaducts, Georgia linking to Expo/Pacific, as explained to me by one of their transportation engineers, will not significantly disrupt traffic flow at peak hours but WILL provide 35% less road traffic capacity during peak hours ( eastbound out of downtown). He was kind of smooth, and it all sounded so good until I thought about it.
What happens to the 35% currently being carried by the viaducts? Rethink the statement.
Restated… The traffic eastbound out of downtown will be so messed up, that every THIRD CAR driver will say screw this! and use another road out of town. Hastings, Cordova and Pender ( all 2 semidrivable blocks of it) are being offered by the City engineers.
What a crock.
152 Frank Ducote // Jun 19, 2012 at 5:18 pm
Lee L – thank you for this piece of information. Some of those 1 in 3 cars will also try to rat run on small streets like Keefer, Abbott, Quebec, Carrall and Gore as well as the larger streets you note. Not an exciting prospect, I must say.
153 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 19, 2012 at 10:55 pm
What-a-crock
Lee L 151
Well put. Every time that the ‘solution’ is had ahead of the facts what we can expect is… ‘what-a-crock’.
Your objection would not materialize, I believe, if we had the transit in place. Drive or BRT? Once you add-on the price of parking, gas, and garage repairs… it’s a no-brainer.
Instead, we are given ‘what-a-crock’.
154 CK // Jul 6, 2012 at 7:40 pm
I must use my car for work to Pt Moody; Coquitlam and New Westminster. I provide outreach services in these areas and have lived in Vancouver downtown 17 years. Like many in the west end, this is my community. I use Venables Ave and 1st Ave every single working day to head to either Coquitlam/New West and Venables/Clark ave/Hastings street to get to Port Moody. I live on Davie near Cardero. There is plenty of traffic coming down Davie compared to 5 years ago-all night long. Perhaps we should have a greenway here? Traffic, especially trucks, coming off the Bridge and heading down Davie to First Ave, Granville Hwys 1 and 99.
The traffic routes are terrible , and getting worse every day as they are. There should be NO re-development of the existing routes in and out of the city- unless it improves traffic flow as unpopular to multi-million property owners buying in the Strathcona/Prior Street areas. (Ironic) Even with improved commuter options, driving and drivers will continue to increase by sheer population growth. Up to a million more people to settle in the lower mainland over the next 20 years-Please no more “gratuitous greenway areas to please the real estate sectors. To sell to foreign investors at tax payers expenses .No more bike lanes etc. We have done enough to such a small downtown core area with very little HWY infrastructure anywhere in the city to accomodate traffic. If ever there was an emergency- “The Big One” ie earth quake, fire, serious power outage, satellites went down, etc, we could be in serious trouble. We are setting ourselves up for true disaster by having so many people living in a cramped urban area with islands, bridges every few blocks, and few arteries in and out of the city. This city is a living vital city not just a green respite for the rich, the developer, the tourist, the transient politician, and the foreign investor.
Leave a Comment