Vancouver Viaducts Study. We Present Our 5 Options

Vancouver Canada News Vancouver Viaducts Study. We Present Our 5 Options
May 24, 2012
Posted by | 13 »

According to the City of Vancouver’s Eastern Core study (Viaducts and False Creek Flats planning), the timeline to make a decision regarding the Georgia and Dunsmuir Viaducts is soon approaching. According to the timeline (see below) a  final decision is set to be made by summer of 2012. Of course the timing could be prolonged, however, if Vision Vancouver Coun. Geoff Meggs comments hold any merit, the viaducts are coming down. He told a forum on the viaducts at Simon Fraser University’s Harbour Centre campus May 17 , 2012 that, ”we’re very close to a historic decision.”

It doesn’t take a genius that Vision Vancouver wants to see both viaducts gone and open up the area around False Creek North and remove the barrier between the Eastern Core and Downtown Vancouver. At the very least, the Georgia viaduct will be first to see the wrecking ball as the Dunsmuir viaduct has the bike lane and may need further street alignment evaluation time.

5 Things You Can Do With Vancouver’s Viaducts

1. Leave Them Alone.

The main rationale to remove the viaducts seems to be the visual barrier they create resulting in a “dead zone” in the immediate area. However, the real reason the area is a dead zone right now is because there is nothing there. No shops, no parks (except the skate park), no housing, no office, there is absolutely no reason for someone to be in the North East False Creek neighbourhood. In the coming years all this will change as the area is expected to add 7,500 residents (See Concord Pacific’s plans for NEFC) and a new park space/beach is also planned for that area.

Further, right now 43,000 automobiles use the viaducts daily. Tearing them down will add to the traffic not only in the new neighbourhood but in Strathcona. The viaducts are the quickest, most efficient east-west connector and removing them may lead to many cars finding alternate routes, routes not built to handle the additional traffic. The only other street that could handle the capacity is Hastings and that isn’t even an option anymore as the speed limit has been reduced to 30km and you’re pretty much playing a game of Frogger with the residents of the DTES, homeless, drug dealers etc…

With respect to the visual barrier arguement many seem to forget about the elevated SkyTrain that will still run through the neighbourhood. Is that not a visual barrier?

According to a report by city hall the viaducts have 40+ years left in them. and will cost $10 million in upkeep over the course of their useful life. Tearing them down prematurely may be a financial nightmare. Although I presume developers will be injecting the necessary cash into city coffers to recuperate the costs.

2. Turn them into an elevated park like the High Line Park in NYC.

Image

This seems like a great idea. That area needs more park space and imagine the block parties you could throw on them (if the city lets them happen of course). However, if tearing down the viaducts was going to create traffic problems, keeping them and making them into a pedestrian/bike only elevated urban park will create a nightmare. Just imagine the impact it will have on traffic on Expo and Pacific boulevard.

3. Build parks and recreation facilities underneath the viaducts.

Imagine a row of lacrosse/hockey boxes, basketball courts, children’s playground and extended skate park. All of these can be easily accommodated underneath the existing viaducts and won’t take away space from potential development land.

4. Create a row of bars, restaurants and shops. 

When it comes to dining, drinking and shopping options that immediate area has very few. Considering that more residential is planned for the neighbourhood and that year round entertainment is right next door at BC Place and Rogers Arena, one would think that having more options to dine/drink before the game nearby would be made available. Keep the viaducts and zone them for retail. This has been done in many North American and European cities, why not Vancouver. For inspiration the city can look at how well the BIG Tower near the Granville Street bridge interacts with land underneath the bridge.

5. Create an “Arts Zone”

Artists in the city have been complaining about the lack of space. The city is looking at creative options to give them more space. Why not create dedicated studios and warehouses under the viaducts and create an “arts district”. The location is perfect as it sits between Mount Pleasant and Gastown and immediately to the west of Strathcona. This is where the majority of Vancouver artists reside. Give them the space and they will use it.

Funding this arts zone can be left solely to the developers. The city could grant additional density to Concord in exchange for construction of the artist space under the viaducts. It would be a win-win for everyone involved. The developer gets to sell more units and it costs us, the taxpayers nothing.

The study of the viaducts was necessary and the conclusion most would make is to keep them for the time being. We don’t have the additional transit or road capacity to deal with them once torn down. Furthermore, although there is a shift in biking culture in the city, removing the viaducts will not result in people miraculously giving up their cars and grabbing a bike.

Image

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=631940936 Shaun Smakal

    So…  Essentially you say remove them, turn them into parks, or keep them. Brilliant. Where’s the other two options?

  • Daft

    The other two options are clearly there. Retail zone or Arts zone. 

  • Melanie

    Love, love, love the idea of an artist zone underneath them. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=631940936 Shaun Smakal

    “Options” 3, 4, and 5 are just different ways of reusing the space under the viaducts, not the viaducts themselves. Thus, only three options are presented.

  • Daft

    You’re an idiot. Different ways = more options.

  • http://twitter.com/VancityBuzz Karm

    Hey Shaun, essentially yes there are only 3 options. I thought about perhaps a tunnel underground but that really isn’t feasible. However, there are 3 ways the space underneath could be used so they are technically different options for use. 

  • Chris

    I too love the idea of an artist zone underneath them. What a great idea and it really would be a win for all. If done right, which the city can make happen, this could solve the temp art space shortage problem and even use the viaducs to display artwork and maybe do some funky lighting and integrate them to the urban fabric more. 

  • Andrew Chobaniuk

    Option 1 please, when will this city council get a clue.

  • Guest

    I don’t like how whenever the demo is suggested people assume that all the traffic will go onto existing streets. Obviously there would be a boulevard or some sort of roadway mitigating and redirecting the current traffic. They just don’t want the same number of lanes, with traffic across the viaducts consistently decreasing it makes sense to take them down and have ground level traffic flow with more development and park space.

    The idea of implanting artist space and original properties in and around the existing structures is interesting though! This would really add an original and distinct area to the city and help encourage diversity and affordability. Taking them down or finding a creative way to reuse the viaducts are both ideas I would support.

  • Ryan M

    Currently its 2 in and 3 out (lanes) “Guest” so I’m surprised you think council hates the idea when basically they treat the viaducts just like any other street. There is no increased capacity and current speed limits treat it like the rest of the roadways. Me thinks people who are critical of the viaducts don’t actually use them….  

    Also the fact people use them less is because the city is discouraging people from using them…. Reduced speed limits, lanes dedicated to bikes (never being used) and road checks which all bring it to a crawl.

    And the argument it “cuts” off the area is complete BS, if the city made an effort to do something with that area it wouldn’t be such an issue. They figured they can ditch the viaducts and then make a pretty penny of sold land to developers who will do all the work for them. Also the fact the Skytrain ain’t going anywhere pretty much bunks the visual element people talk about.

    I’m all for a green city but at some point you have to realize that Vancouver is growing very fast and some execeptions need to be applied to encourage growth. 

  • slantendicular

    I really wish that vancitybuzz could find some way to edit their posts for grammar so that we don’t get lines like “imagine the block party’s (sic) you could throw”. Either get an editor or just learn about apostrophes. Because you have unique content. 

  • RB

    My sentiments exactly.  I really think keeping them is the best option.  Could the person who posted this please drop me a line on my blog – http://www.spacemakeplace.blogspot.com  Thanks!

  • UBC Professor 1

    It seems without the viaducts traffic will be much more conjested. There are individuals such as businessmen who rely on cars for transport for a daily routine. Does the city expect them to some how take several different busses and/or trains while wasting even more time to get to their destination. As the world heads on into the future, more and more people will drive cars. We must consider the population of Vancouver and surrounding cities is increasing rapidly. We need the viaducts. As for the parks, just build them around the viaducts. Just to point out, TAX PAYERS (US!) will need to pay much more to tear them down. It costs much far less to maintain them. In all, to be the most livable city in the world, convenience and accessible roads and drive ways must be kept. Vancouver is the only major city in North America that does not have a highway leading throught the city. The lack of convenience will only lead to citizens moving to somewhere else. Considering all of the flaws, it just shows that the politicians of the City’s government are not making a smart move (or they are not that smart themselves!).