July 21, 2014

Barcelona 4 – Glòries Transformation (3)

As a junction for traffic and rail, the Plaça de les Glòries Catalanes was a major interchange in the city – but not a great place for people.  Eventually the railways went underground, the roads were elevated, and a park was placed in the centre of a giant roundabout – the view still shown in Google Maps, from above:

.

Glories 5

.

And on Streetview:

Glories elevated

.

It could have been worse:

Glories future

.

And it almost was:

Glories past

.

Before they came up with this:

Glories roundabout

.

And now, as of July 2014, that’s almost gone – another part of the transformation of Glòries.

???????????????????????????????

.

Add it to the list of Freeways without a Future – at least in its elevated form, taking up too much public space and deterring the development of too much real estate.  So the city is in the last stage of drilling it apart and pulling it down:

.

???????????????????????????????

???????????????????????????????

.

 Already it’s apparent how much space is now available, unencumbered by concrete:

???????????????????????????????

.

What’s to come?  It’s hard to be sure, given the financial constraints and changing plans of the city, but I’ll go with this rendering of 2012:

new-plan-for-glories_www-ara-cat

.

Very close to the Cerda vision for the new centre of Barcelona, c. 1860 – a century and a half later.

.

UPDATE: Robert Salvatella Santana has news on the competition winner for the redesign of Glòries

The City Council promoted in February 2013 an international competition for the selection of the team of architects for the project of urban space of the square of the Glories of Barcelona, ​​with the aim of transforming this space of 13 hectares and end the character of road junction …

1st Place Contest Prize: Urban canopy

Urban Canopy (UTE Agence Ter & Ana Coello Llobet) was the proposal chosen by the jury in the restricted competition for the Plaza de las Glories Catalanes:

.

Glories winner

.

More here.  Plus, a video in Catalan of the winner, and drawings from all the finalists.

Centro Comercial Glòries
Centro Comercial Glòries

Posted in

Support

If you love this region and have a view to its future please subscribe, donate, or become a Patron.

Share on

Comments

  1. Yes, the Georgia and Dunsmuir Viaducts come to mind and the sooner the urban design and park design studies are completed, the sooner Vancouverites can reclaim this area for the downtown’s most significant new Open Space, linking presently separated neighbourhoods and False Creek Seawalls to the downtown core. We should all follow this progress keenly to ensure energy and effort is not diverted from it for whatever reason. How about September, 2016 for a speeded up ribbon-cutting on the new Park, with viaducts gone? After all, in North False Creek and Coal Harbour, the waterfront parks were put in place first, ahead of all the condo developments, with the developers recognizing the marketing advantage of pre-selling units from presentation centres looking out onto completed Parkland rather than elevated freeways.

    1. On the ground level streets, along with all the other users of the new roads – pedestrians, cyclists, cars, transit buses, urban delivery trucks.

  2. Ralph – I couldn’t agree more about the need to deliver this park once and for all. Long overdue and, I would say, an embarrassment for both the City and Concord Pacific.

    As for Pacific and Expo Boulevards, by all means combine them into one more beautiful one designed by, say, our favourite guru Allan Jacobs. Also, as for the form of development, I truly hope there is no condo creep eastward toward Main Street to simply replace one minor and low wall with a vastly bigger and privatized one.

    But as a long-term resident of the area adjacent to the viaducts, I can assure you and others that these “bridges” are no more of a blight on our ‘hood’s livability than are similar adjacencies to the other bridges spanning False Creek. Trafficwise, we suffered through their closures during the 2010 Olympics, and the spectre of many thousands of vehicle trips (trucks and buses and, yes, cars) being permanently transferred to surface streets is enough to scare the daylights out of me, if the Olympics were but a pale and time-limited indication of this hellish future.

    One practical and relatively cheap reconfiguration I could support is to bring the viaducts down to grade west of Main Street, in order to provide needed open space and possibly social housing in the former Hogan’s Alley area east of Main. (Jimi Hendrix Park, anyone?)

    My apologies for the purple prose but I truly feel it is warranted here. I wish somebody running for Council could see that this is a much bigger and costlier issue to vastly more affected people and taxpayers than undoing West Point Grey greenway is. Alas, it doesn’t seem to be happening.

  3. Thankfully urban design studies are only studies. The City is actually constructed by the economics and politics of its citizens. I would wager that most citizens do not support the demolition of expensive infrastructure with 40 years of good service life still remaining, just to provide front yards for private development.

    Removing the viaducts does not a park make but does relocate all that viaduct traffic to the pedestrian environment on the ground plane where grid lock is sure to produce more GHG emissions than ever.

  4. Thomas & Frank; First… “where do the cars go?” Without getting into the 14 pages + appendices in the Transportation section of Council Report (and indeed, it is a complex issue), with targeted but modest upgrades to a few streets, in addition to the combined surface boulevard (Pacific + Expo), Engineering’s prediction (and Engineering has a deserved reputation for stating absolute worst-case in its forecasting!) is that traffic counts in the area will slightly diminish. You’ll have to go to the Report for the full rationale but this conclusion has been borne out in every case where a city took down (or an earthquake took down!) elevated roadways. The car traffic situation does NOT get worse, it improves. So, forget about Viaduct half measures – Take’em down, every linear foot of them.
    Frank, the vision for the two City-owned blocks, Quebec-to-Main and Main-to-Gore is to provide lots of social housing, rental and yes, a percentage of market, self-owned housing (condos) in a decidedly mid-rise form – 4-storeys, 6, 8 and some 10 storey heights, with lots of family units along with the needed amenities. And the gap on Main St. created by the Viaducts is finally repaired.
    But I agree, Frank, with your last paragraph. Let’s keep the politicians, whoever they may be, focussed on this complex but rare opportunity.

  5. Amen, brothers for good urban design, Ralph and Jeff.

    I’m pretty sure Gord will be raising this issue in another posting at some opportune time. I just wish it was in order to raise it as an election issue this time around. Hint hint!

  6. Engineering has a deserved reputation for blindly following trends in other cities which have nothing to do with Vancouver. That is why we have the Viaducts in the first place.

    The Plan B argument that this project is somehow about social housing is nonsense. Just a few blocks away, the City owns over 7 acres of unencumbered land between Terminal and Industrial Avenue just East of Main. This is a great location for housing right next to a Skytrain Station.

  7. J Olson – A few points that I hope will turn you from a naysayer into a fan of removing the viaducts (I have faith in your ability to see the light).
    While it’s true the viaducts have service life remaining, a pragmatic comparative analysis of the short, mid and long-term economics of leaving the viaducts (thereby saving the one time estimated $80m demo cost but acknowledging ongoing maintenance and seismic reinforcing costs) VS. the value of 10 acres of found, high amenity downtown land put to various uses of our choice (parks, housing of all description and tenure, commercial, public facilities, etc.) and the conclusion by professionals of all pedigree and numerous other interested Vancouverites is a no-brainer. To continue to devote this strategically positioned land for a use (elevated highways through the heart of a city) whose rationale has long-since been completely de-bunked is economic nonsense. If your worried about the one-time demo cost…well, Vancouver’s recent (the last 25 – 30 years) history of having developers (much to their chagrin) pay for much, if not all such costs will certainly play out in this instance since the benefits of removal to them, not to mention to all Vancouverites, is quite clear. Mid and long-term, the property taxes and economic activity from new development on this found land will provide new revenue for the city and others. None of this does an accounting of the negative drag that these lugubrious structures exert physically and psychologically on the their surrounding people and places VS. the profound urban design potential for a vastly improved city environment, the quality of which illustrations to date (just google “vancouver viaducts plan”) only scratch the surface.
    Your assumption that viaduct removal will create more traffic mayhem at grade is incorrect. You should give more credit to the City’s new breed of transportation engineer – the old regime that loved the viaducts and the philosophy that cities should be designed to suit cars rather than people – is long-since gone. Notwithstanding, I do not rely solely on their analysis for my confidence that the load carried by the viaducts will not simply plunk down to the immediate streets at grade. Give some credit to those drivers who will remain in their cars to find better outlying routes. Several other factors will contribute to this diminishment in car counts. And I do think there is merit in noting San Francisco’s experience with this phenomena.

  8. Ralph Segal

    Onward to Plan C?

    If you are saying that there will be 10 acres of found land…….then you are a magician indeed! All the land under the viaducts is already zoned for commercial and park uses.

    As for the argument that professionals and others find demolition a “no-brainer”…….certainly this is an assertion not based in fact.

    Regarding “negative drag that these lugubrious structures exert physically and psychologically”…………… surely this is your opinion alone as I have not heard such colorful language elsewhere.

    My issue is with the utter and complete waste of resources, the increase in carbon emissions that will result from these proposals and the failure of the urban design community to integrate existing structures with new works.

    And for the record, I did not state that there will be traffic mayhem. The traffic consultants have already stated that commute times in and out of the core will increase including public transit commute times. What they do not tell us is the additional environmental impact (GHG emissions) that this proposal will mean for the “Greenest City on the Planet”.

    But more to the point is the failure to take the long view because this issue is after all about planning. The 100 year design life of projects needs to take into account what a coastal city is likely to look like in 100 years. Bridges in and out of the core will be much more important than they are today because sea levels are rising.

    I am afraid that there is no light to be found in demolition. There is nothing to be found in beguiling illustrations of fanciful ideas. Remember that this whole idea began with a declaration of ugliness. This is a bit like declaring City Hall an eyesore and then imagining a new park on that valuable piece of turf.

Subscribe to Viewpoint Vancouver

Get breaking news and fresh views, direct to your inbox.

Join 7,284 other subscribers

Show your Support

Check our Patreon page for stylish coffee mugs, private city tours, and more – or, make a one-time or recurring donation. Thank you for helping shape this place we love.

Popular Articles

See All

All Articles