Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why would Vancouverites (or residents of any other city) want such ugly concrete monstrosities in the middle of their beautiful city? To only have to spend millions of dollars to tear them down later?
Many cities get rid of them now. They are a thing of the past. Not a good time for you to promote them. Even Seattle is trying to get rid of them, which is not an easy (and not cheap) thing to do.
In fact, your pictures showed again how ugly and destructive they are. These structures totally destroy both natural and urban beauty of the area. They make the area look like a waste, an urban blandness.
It's not worth it, any way you look at it.
I don't like the waterfront freeway because it's really ugly, but I don't mind I-5.
I don't like the waterfront freeway because it's really ugly, but I don't mind I-5.
I think, once they build the waterfront park, Seattle waterfront will look amazing! I'm really looking forward to it.
Seattle has a great potential with it's Sound, beautiful hills, lakes, mountains, three (!) national parks and gorgeous geographical location. Seattle has it all to be the most beautiful city in the US.
Last edited by movingwiththewind; 03-30-2013 at 12:59 PM..
I like that they are destroying the 99 bridge because it was super ugly under it. They are replacing it with a tunnel and they will most likely build a waterfront park. The Seattle waterfront will significantly improve. But I don't see anything wrong with I-5 in downtown because half of it is a tunnel and the other half a bridge.
Are we talking about the same Seattle? The tunnel is short, most of the freeway is in a gully, at least through downtown.
That's mostly a bridge, there are roads under the freeway or overpasses over it when there is no bridge or a tunnel. You have roads crossing the freeway on almost every block. It doesn't matter I never noticed the city is divided before reading the posts here. Also, without this freeway Seattle wouldn't have the same economy because if you look at the map there is no other place for a freeway. Seattle is surrounded by water (the Puget Sound and Lake Washington) on west and east. Traffic would've been 50 times worse than now without a freeway. But I completely agree about the 99 bridge which shouldn't be there. It is the ugliest part of the city and I can't wait when they improve the waterfront.
You can't cross the freeway only from Marion and Columbia Street in the downtown area, and you have to go to Cherry or Madison. http://goo.gl/maps/hZYi1
Last edited by Botev1912; 03-30-2013 at 03:46 PM..
Neil Goldschmidt, Portland's mayor of a generation ago, led an effort to remove an elevated expressway separating its downtown from the banks of the Willamette River. The mayor and his allies argued that the quality of life and property values would improve if the road were removed and replaced with an avenue and a park. They won the argument, and their prediction came true. Property values are up dramatically, and the park along the river is now one of the most popular gathering spots in Oregon.
That's not really the whole story though, because the reason Portland was able turn Harbor Drive from a freeway to a waterfront park and blvd, was due to the fact that two other freeways were built--I-5 N directly to the east on the other side of the Willamette River and I-405 that looped around downtown and the two freeway bridges over the river completing the loop. The construction of those freeways meant that Harbor Drive was basically obsolete as a highway. Waterfront Park was a great decision at the time, and it replaced a highway with a nice civic space. But Portland put in a new freeway after that in the 1980s--I-205 which was designer to be a loop around the east side of the metro and a bypass to the heavy traffic going through the center of town for those going north to Washington.
Quote:
San Francisco, Portland, New York, and Milwaukee all are deconstructing freeways.
Portland isn't deconstructing any freeways these days--we're just not building any new ones. I-5 North was widened because of traffic over the Columbia to Washington State and the biggest issue now is how to build a new and larger bridge over the Columbia River--the biggest traffic bottleneck on the I-5 corridor. We sort of have to freeways going through Portland at some point because we're on the main transportation route for the entire West Coast.
Vancouver reminds me of San Francisco's location, where getting north to the Golden Gate Bridge basically means cutting through Van Ness Blvd or Golden Gate Park for anyone coming up off the freeways from the south or east. San Francisco and Vancouver has both made choices to avoid building a direct route to the bridge to the north via highway--it's fine, you get used to it, but it doesn't make traffic any better. Instead it just means people drive through increasingly crowded surface streets rather than increasingly crowded highways. It's fine as far as urban development goes, it just usually means a slower drive if you get stuck on some of those routes out of town.
Vancouver reminds me of San Francisco's location, where getting north to the Golden Gate Bridge basically means cutting through Van Ness Blvd or Golden Gate Park for anyone coming up off the freeways from the south or east. San Francisco and Vancouver has both made choices to avoid building a direct route to the bridge to the north via highway--it's fine, you get used to it, but it doesn't make traffic any better. Instead it just means people drive through increasingly crowded surface streets rather than increasingly crowded highways. It's fine as far as urban development goes, it just usually means a slower drive if you get stuck on some of those routes out of town.
It's a bit different though, because the Transcanada from the south leads directly to another bridge, the Ironworker's Memorial Bridge and they can all just cross there instead, so unlike the Golden Gate there's a viable and convenient alternative.
It's a bit different though, because the Transcanada from the south leads directly to another bridge, the Ironworker's Memorial Bridge and they can all just cross there instead, so unlike the Golden Gate there's a viable and convenient alternative.
Your last post says it's quoting me, but it's not mine. Just to clear the record Hmmmm. Now when I posted this it shows Deezus being quoted when it's you...somethings up with CD.
I would like freeways in Vancouver. Yes, the freeways will encourage more people to drive downtown, but right now, the only reason people don't drive to work is because its not really possible. The city streets are always clogged and it is too hard to find parking. The city doesn't realize that some people will just not bike or take transit downtown. And metro Vancouver is mostly growing in Langley, Abbotsford and Surrey. So a freeway would help them a lot. Taking transit from those suburbs would take way over an hour, which is not worth it. What robynator said about destroying historic neighbourhoods should not be an issue. Between the Grandview Highway exit of the TCH and downtown is mostly industrial. That would be the ideal place for a freeway. All over metro Vancouver industrial is being redeveloped. They could tunnel below commercial drive for a short distance. Hastings Street is not an option because there ARE historic buildings there. But next to the train tracks south of Chinatown there are no historic buildings except for Pacific Central Station. The freeway could then connect to the viaducts or go underground into the downtown core. As much as I would love to have highway 99 extended into downtown, its not very possible. I suppose they could make it go up Oak Street, but only a 4 lane highway could fit there. I am in favour of freeways in Vancouver. Freeways make cross-city travel so much easier. You can also drive without having to worry about cross-traffic, pedestrians or traffic lights. People say that Vancouver is a small city that doesn't need freeways, but there are 2,300,000 people in metro Vancouver. Burnaby has almost 250,000, Surrey has about 400,000 and Langley has about 50,000 and is growing rapidly, Abbostford has 150,000. Thats a lot of people that would take Highway 1 into the city. Look at American cities with the same or lower population: Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Portland, Sacramento, Las Vegas, Cincinnati, Cleveland, St. Louis, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Charlotte. They all use their freeways, plus, most of these cities, with the exception of Cleveland and Milwaukee, have suburbs spread equally around the downtown. Freeways prove useful in those cities. Vancouver has most of its residents east of the city, probably about 70% of metro Vancouver's population are living in a place that would use the TCH to get downtown. A lot of these residents live too far away to bike or take transit downtown.
Who cares about ripping neighbourhoods apart, the most important thing is a city that functions properly, and commuting doesn't function properly in Vancouver. Look at that study about how long it takes to commute in rush hour vs without any traffic. They rated the big cities around North America. 1. Los Angeles 2. Vancouver. Now, L.A. has freeways, but they just have too many cars, and it is too spread out to not have freeways. Obviously Vancouver is doing something wrong if their commute times are so long. There is always going to be people driving. Just because the cities wants everyone to take bikes or public transit, IT IS NOT HAPPENING!! And also, if you say that it is people`s own fault for living out in the suburbs, houses cost AT LEAST $400,000 in the worst part of the city. Mostly, the houses are around $1,000,000. Out in Langley, the same sized house would only cost around $600,000.
I think, once they build the waterfront park, Seattle waterfront will look amazing! I'm really looking forward to it.
Seattle has a great potential with it's Sound, beautiful hills, lakes, mountains, three (!) national parks and gorgeous geographical location. Seattle has it all to be the most beautiful city in the US.
Seattle is like Vancouver with an actual economy!!!
Seattle is like Vancouver with an actual economy!!!
Thats hilarious...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The tunnel is short, most of the freeway is in a gully, at least through downtown.
