Just in case you’d forgotten this, the city is moving ahead with the plan to look at removing, replacing, reconfiguring or something the 1970s era viaducts that bring commuters into the downtown across the filled-in False Creek basin.
If you want your say, you could try bidding on this but I think you have to have an engineering degree. Here’s the request for proposals.
18 responses so far ↓
1 boohoo // Sep 16, 2010 at 7:33 am
Tear down that viaduct.
A relic of 1950′s style infrastructure born out of horrible planning that has no place in the downtown core.
Too bad the Province doesn’t see it that way anywhere else–here’s an interesting overlay of the future Cape Horn interchange on Granville Island. I wonder why that’s ok for the ‘burbs…
http://www.southfraser.net/2010/09/cape-horn-interchange.html
2 MB // Sep 16, 2010 at 8:30 am
I would hope they could amend the RFP to include keeping one or two deteriorating remnant columns (preferably in a park setting) to symbolize the fundamentally anti-urban and inhumane mentality of the last half century of city building.
3 Tiktaalik // Sep 16, 2010 at 9:14 am
MB that’s a neat idea.
4 IanS // Sep 16, 2010 at 9:17 am
Aren’t you guys supposed to be at least pretending to await the results of the study?
5 Joe Just Joe // Sep 16, 2010 at 9:19 am
I would hope that they could amend the RFP to allow the winning proponent to write the report w/o using the assumptions issued by the city. If you read the rfp there are assumptions that auto trips will continue to decline over the next 3 decades. It could very well happen, but why assume that, and why would you expect the report writer to include that data set in the report. To me it just smells of commissioning a report which will provide the outcome you desired. Also expecting the report to be completed Jan 4th after choosing the winner in Mid-Oct seems like a pretty short timeframe especially over the holiday season. Perhaps they wish to act on the report while they have a chance.
6 IanS // Sep 16, 2010 at 9:44 am
Yeah, the terms of the RFP does kind of dictate the outcome, at least in part. No surprise there, I guess.
However, if the data underlying the stipulated assumptions is publicly available and the analysis of that data is part of the report, it should be possible to make some kind of objective assessment of the report.
7 Chris Keam // Sep 16, 2010 at 9:49 am
I hope that ‘High Lining” the viaduct (assuming it becomes car-free) is given serious thought. It could still be a useful link from the East side to downtown in terms of pedestrians and cyclists.
http://www.thehighline.org/
8 Glissando Remmy // Sep 16, 2010 at 10:26 am
The Thought of The Day
“The only future I see for the BC Liberals and for their Junior – Vancouver Vision…is in Plastination.”
Of course, that if we’ll still have a Science World sphere by then.
The way things are done in this City and Province, is similar to that of two carpenters working side by side. One is nailing a piece of wood, nail after nail, while the other is taking out the nails, nail after nail, right after the other finished nailing them in.
Build a brand new skating rink at Robson Square for the Wasteful Games.
$$
Currently under ‘demolition/revamping/beautifying/upgrading/maniacal-ego-satisfying.
Put in bike lanes on the Dunsmuir viaduct. $$$$
Study, Aim, Shoot it down.
Propose building a new Vancouver Art Gallery. Someone’s wet dream? You bet.
$$$$$$$$
Wait for it.
Raise a new retractable roof at BC Place, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Currently under future ‘Tear it down after it’s built’ program.
For future reference, I strongly advocate that Orange Suits accessorized with Shackles shall become the BC politician’s uniform of choice. They are Easy to Maintain, and the Bling is simply great. I’m not just saying that.
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
9 Mark Allerton // Sep 16, 2010 at 10:28 am
IanS: I believe private citizens still have the right to express an opinion about the viaducts even in the absence of a detailed engineering report. Shocking, I know.
10 Mark Allerton // Sep 16, 2010 at 10:33 am
..and it’s worth pointing out that many people I’ve encountered who are in favour of keeping the viaducts are not only happy to express that opinion forcefully before any report has been done, but would also prefer that the City not spend money on a report.
11 IanS // Sep 16, 2010 at 10:59 am
@Mark: Of course, people are free to (and will no doubt) express their opinions, both pro and con. My comment was made in the context of the subject matter of the thread, which is the RFP for the study.
@Chris: That “High Lining” looks neat. From my quick scan, however, I don’ t think it is set out as an option in the RFP. Also, given that at least one of the purported rationales (to my understanding) for proceeding with the study is to make land available for development, I’m not sure that option is really on the table.
12 Bill Lee // Sep 16, 2010 at 11:51 am
This tear-down the 1970s viaducts has been a pet project of (Not-the-Peter) Meggs for years.
The Viaducts there replaced a 1926 set that had streetcar tracks and reached from the Downtown esparpment to the Main Street wall at Keefer (aha!) over the tidal extension of False Creek that came up to Chinatown’s Pender Street.
They are still needed to get people in and out of Downtown, (through to North Shore) as only the “Elites” use the Burrard Bridge etc.
13 gmgw // Sep 16, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Given that this whole proposal is evidently meant by Meggs to be a special birthday gift for Terry Hui, it’s a shame that the surprise has been spoiled by all this public discussion.
gmgw
14 West End Gal // Sep 16, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Glissando says: “The only future I see for the BC Liberals and for their Junior – Vancouver Vision…is in Plastination.”
Amen, Brother!
15 Agustin // Sep 17, 2010 at 3:12 pm
@ Joe just Joe, #5: I don’t see where the RFP says to assume that vehicle traffic will continue to decline over the next three decades. The closest I could find is Part 3, Schedule 1, Deliverable 3, (i): “Based on history of increasing trips but reduced vehicle traffic
volumes entering the downtown and a shift to transit, develop forecasts of volumes by transportation mode and link for future forecast years of 2020, 2030 and 2040″
This says that the successful bidder will make their mode volume forecasts based on historical data and existing municipal transportation policy. If the forecast then says that vehicle traffic will climb at some point, then that’s what the forecast will say.
As well, two months doesn’t seem that unreasonable to me to complete this work. As a consultant, I would always accept a longer time frame, but time constraints are the nature of the game.
16 MB // Sep 17, 2010 at 3:38 pm
I think a little research by the consultants into the anticipated worlwide decline of cheap oil will underpin the assumptions that vehicle traffic into downtown Vancouver (and just about everywhere else) will decline further.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,715138,00.html
17 MB // Sep 17, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Re: “Gift to Tery Hui” According to Vanmap, the viaducts are located mostly over their own public road allowance. Perhaps this land should form part of a linear park or possibly a streetcar route should the viaducts come down. That is, remain publicly-owned and publicly-used.
18 spartikus // Sep 17, 2010 at 3:59 pm
To add to MB’s #16 link, the U.S. military is also planning for the end of of the oil era (PDF)
Leave a Comment