Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[logan5]

Now, a Vancouver city councillor is proposing the view cones, along with the city’s building height policy, be reviewed with an eye to tackling the housing crisis.

Is the "building height policy" one in the same as the viewcone policy? Never heard of an official building height policy.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by logan5

Is the "building height policy" one in the same as the viewcone policy? Never heard of an official building height policy.

You never noticed the Vancouver skyline tabletop? Strictly nothing is allowed beyond 200m, and that's only for "landmark" buildings. Otherwise, here is the official downtown plan. The height limit downtown maxes out at 137.2m, and that's only if you're on the right block.

Yes, it's ridiculous. Yes, the plan was adopted in 1975 and hasn't been amended.

[Sheba]

Vancouver's scenic views could eventually be lost in favour of new housing

Vancouver council is set to debate whether some of the city’s most protected views should be scrapped to make room for much-needed housing and job space.

But past city planners who worked to protect the long-standing view corridors worry that any changes to the policy could permanently degrade the scenic landscape of the city.

...

The councillor believes there are “lower priority” view cones, along with building height limits, that are getting in the way of affordable housing developments. He also believes some view corridors are already obstructed.

“There are several view cones where trees are blocking the view, and there’s one on the seawall in False Creek where there’s a sail mast blocking the view,” said Meiszner.

...

Larry Beasley, who was the chief planner of Vancouver until 2007, does not believe removing any view cones will result in the creation of more affordable housing.

“Whenever there was an intrusion of the corridor, the city established a policy that allowed developers to transfer that density elsewhere,” said Beasley, noting that view cones limit the potential height and shape of buildings.

...

Beasley is among other former city planners who are concerned about a future change to the policy.

People in the heart of downtown can look out and see the oceans and mountains because of the view-preservation efforts, he said. “We’re known to give people living in an urban centre a better quality of life.”

Patricia French, who also worked as a city planner, worries city council could be making a rash decision if it decides to make adjustments to the policy.

“When the view cones are gone, they are gone forever,” said French, who drafted the policy following advocacy from residents who were witness to the first towers pop up beside the Burrard and Granville Street bridges.

“Back then, the public was concerned what they loved most about Vancouver — the sight of its surrounding geography — would be lost with future development.”

When the policy was publicly reviewed in 2010 over similar concerns, the city found most Vancouver residents who were surveyed were in favour of preserving the vast majority of view cones.

French said if Meiszner’s motion is approved, an “extensive” level of public consultation should be carried out before the city approves any changes.

“The view cones are not just physical, they are a value of a city’s character. You have to be sure that if you are to give some of them up for the immediate benefit of more housing, it will be worth it in the long term.”

Sandy James, who was also a planner with the city, thinks Vancouver should not bend to the will of developers who are seeking to construct bigger buildings downtown.

“Why is there not an impetus by this council to move developers to existing commercial areas and schools that desperately need new housing?” asked James.

“I believe the view cones are a public amenity the city needs to keep for future generations.”

[Vin]

If one can't even have the ability to live in this city, how can he enjoy these "scenic views"?

[logan5]

Beasley and James live in dreamland. What triggered this proposal to relax viewcones is the Broadway Subway. Limiting tower heights to 30 stories right beside a subway station limits the potential ridership. You cannot transfer that ridership and that draw of being a few feet away from rapid transit somewhere else. We should be building 60 story towers around the Broadway subway stations.

[Migrant_Coconut]

On one hand, it's awfully fortunate that all the current viewcones directly benefit the residents around City Hall and the neighbourhoods that'd been recently created, while the rest of the city gets next to nothing.
On the other, even ditching them outright will add only a little density to Broadway and a lot less downtown; overall, a very minimal impact on affordability compared to other options. It's mostly an aesthetic decision.

Whatever. Scrap them, don't scrap them, just make a freaking choice.

[idunno]

There was a good point in the article about one of the inadvertent benefits of the view cones. Parts of downtown that would have had exclusively tall towers are a mix of heights, and it lets more light in to various pockets of the city.

I'm not saying there aren't view corridors that shouldn't be removed (obviously Queen E Park for example), but it's not JUST the folks south of downtown that benefit.

Overall though, this kind of seems like a distraction from most of the rest of the city not being anything more than SFH + basement suites and laneway homes ;l Can we get back to that? (more than just multiplexes?)

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by idunno

Overall though, this kind of seems like a distraction from most of the rest of the city not being anything more than SFH + basement suites and laneway homes ;l Can we get back to that? (more than just multiplexes?)

It's the ultimate smoke screen. Removing viewcones (for the most part) do very little to add housing and office under the status quo zoning rules.

As they've yet to specify which ones. Getting rid of the viewcones is a win win by folks that want to keep density our of their neighbourhood and keep it down town, which is terrible for affordability.

[jollyburger]

They posted the motion.

4. Modernizing the City’s View Protection Guidelines to Unlock New Housing and Economic Opportunities

Submitted by: Councillor Meiszner

WHEREAS

1. In a speech to the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade in January 2023, Mayor Sim noted that the City’s view cones policy would be reviewed by his administration, given its impacts on the viability and the potential supply of new housing and job spaces in the central areas of the city, all of which are well served by public transit. Mayor Sim also noted that height restrictions due to building shadowing considerations on public parks, plazas, intersections, and retail streets would also be reviewed;

2. The downtown peninsula has limited land available for development due to its geographic boundaries. Although the City seeks to protect Vancouver's spectacular ocean and mountain views, it also promotes density in the downtown area to reduce urban sprawl in alignment with sustainability goals;

3. The City of Vancouver View Protection Guidelines, containing 26 protected view corridors, date from 1989. These protected view corridors have served since that time to determine the site location and design of buildings;

4. Every view corridor in the city – also called view cones – has a set of elements that define it. For example, the “View Extent” defines how far and wide a view corridor is while the “View Origin” establishes the view point that an average person (i.e., 5'6" tall) would have of the corridor;

5. The City has a Higher Buildings Policy which was adopted by City Council on May 6, 1997, and subsequently amended on February 1, 2011, November 20, 2013, June 25, 2014, February 13, 2018, and most recently on July 11, 2018. In accordance with the City’s View Protection Guidelines, higher buildings that do not impact the protected view corridors are considered;

6. Public benefits are the amenities a city needs such as day care facilities, affordable housing, parks, cultural facilities, and historic building restoration. Benefit capacity is a function of additional density – as approved by Council
through a rezoning – from which the City derives public benefits; and

7. The City of Vancouver is currently facing an unprecedented housing crisis, resulting in soaring house prices, an acute shortage of affordable rental units, and a significant increase in homelessness, all of which exacerbate social inequality, result in serious consequences for the well-being and quality of life of Vancouver residents, and all the while hindering economic growth, attracting talented individuals, and affecting the city's overall sustainability and liveability.

A.4
Page 2 of 2

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED

A. THAT Council direct staff to initiate a review of the City’s View Protection Guidelines to determine the amount of additional housing, job space, and public benefits that could potentially be built on sites currently impacted by view cone restrictions if various view cones deemed to be obsolete and/or no longer functionally relevant were to be eliminated, and for staff to report back on preliminary assumptions and scope of work by Q4 2023, to be followed by a full report by the end of Q2 2024;

FURTHER THAT the review and report back include a comprehensive list of all enforced framed and panoramic views and/or view cones in the city.

B. THAT Council direct staff to initiate a review of framed views that can be eliminated to unlock additional housing and job space over the immediate short term and report back by Q4 2023;

FURTHER THAT staff’s report back in Q4 2023 will specifically seek Council’s endorsement of the specific framed views to be eliminated, prior to bringing forward the necessary bylaw changes.

https://council.vancouver.ca/20231004/documents/a4.pdf

[Changing City]

I'd guess those resolutions will need some refining. Council probably shouldn't make the Chief Planner (oh sorry, the acting Chief Planner, who is actually an Engineer) guess which Cllr Meiszner thinks are the "various view cones deemed to be obsolete and/or no longer functionally relevant", and then calculate how much more could be built on the sites that result (without determining what policy limitations would still apply, if any).

In theory Council could blow off the viewcone(s) over the Bay Parkade and Holborn could build a tower 3 ft taller than the Burj Khalifa, but only Vin thinks they would. So what height / mix of uses could anyone use to guess what might be built? And do shadowing of parks still limit height? Or zoning not usually allowing residential in the CBD?

And the idea that any developer would build more office space in a building taller than the viewcones allow "over the immediate short term" is a joke. Office vacancy isn't unhealthy at 11.9%, but it's enough to almost certainly pause any further projects for several years.

The time frame in the resolution suggests Cllr Meiszner doesn't envisage much, if any public consultation. That could get interesting...

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

It's the ultimate smoke screen. Removing viewcones (for the most part) do very little to add housing and office under the status quo zoning rules.

As they've yet to specify which ones. Getting rid of the viewcones is a win win by folks that want to keep density our of their neighbourhood and keep it down town, which is terrible for affordability.

Bingo.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

It's the ultimate smoke screen. Removing viewcones (for the most part) do very little to add housing and office under the status quo zoning rules.

As they've yet to specify which ones. Getting rid of the viewcones is a win win by folks that want to keep density our of their neighbourhood and keep it down town, which is terrible for affordability.

Out of all the new homes added to the CoV, a large proportion come from the downtown area, where it is politically expedient.

Double the height limits and density along the Broadway corridor and the downtown peninsula. It's an area we can bring a lot of new units on line without delay. This is especially important when we are talking about an area that is walking distance to transit, an area that where you can bike or walk to work. It is detrimental to transfer that density to areas further away from transit and job centers. It promotes car culture.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by logan5

Out of all the new homes added to the CoV, a large proportion come from the downtown area, where it is politically expedient.

Double the height limits and density along the Broadway corridor and the downtown peninsula. It's an area we can bring a lot of new units on line without delay. This is especially important when we are talking about an area that is walking distance to transit, an area that where you can bike or walk to work. It is detrimental to transfer that density to areas further away from transit and job centers. It promotes car culture.

We just went from roughly 4-storeys to 18 in the Broadway Corridor and most of these could go higher. One viewcone was adjusted, which was great, but the new plan's height and FSR limits are more restrictive than the viewcones over Broadway. Could you double the 20 storey height limit in most of the Broadway Corridor (I know i's closer to 35 in some areas) but to double that Staff and Council would have to revise the Plan.

[jollyburger]

Beasley said this:

People in the heart of downtown can look out and see the oceans and mountains because of the view-preservation efforts, he said. “We’re known to give people living in an urban centre a better quality of life.”

If you are in the heart of downtown the only reason you can see the oceans or mountains is because of wide enough streets that extend down to the waterfront? When they built all the towers along Coal Harbour they killed more views of the mountains/ocean from downtown. The only meaningful viewcone that has protected mountain views are in Chinatown since the built structures are so low.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Just found that part after a reread. The hell? In the "heart of downtown," you'd have to lower the viewcones down to one floor to see the mountains behind them.

[vanman]

Even if the downtown core was made up of only 80 story buildings you'd still be able to see the mountains from most vantage points and you'd always have unobstrcuted views from Coal Harbour and Stanley Park.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Beasley said this:

If you are in the heart of downtown the only reason you can see the oceans or mountains is because of wide enough streets that extend down to the waterfront? When they built all the towers along Coal Harbour they killed more views of the mountains/ocean from downtown. The only meaningful viewcone that has protected mountain views are in Chinatown since the built structures are so low.

This also pissed me off. You would think a former Vancouver city planner would understand how the viewcones work.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by vanman

Even if the downtown core was made up of only 80 story buildings you'd still be able to see the mountains from most vantage points and you'd always have unobstrcuted views from Coal Harbour and Stanley Park.

But I think it's the viewcones that impact all the development that happens under 30 storeys probably has more impact than anything supertall being built in Vancouver.

And the viewcones that use telescopic lenses to somehow beautifully frame a view are just as bad as the ones that are highly obstructed by trees etc.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

But I think it's the viewcones that impact all the development that happens under 30 storeys probably has more impact than anything supertall being built in Vancouver.

And the viewcones that use telescopic lenses to somehow beautifully frame a view are just as bad as the ones that are highly obstructed by trees etc.

Viewcones isn't a single policy standing alone discouraging massive housing developments in the City of Vancouver. Together with "shadowing" and "insane traffic", it is merely one of the excuses concocted by self-conceited resident NIMBYs and their spineless City Hall political and planning supporters past and present to prevent more high-density housing and commercial spaces to be developed within the City of Vancouver. Getting rid of it is merely a start to dismantle a decades-old mentality and brainwashing ploy to push out any major development that is good for this city. These NIMBYs will show up every time there is a development announced, big or small without fail. The Viewcones policy can be seen as one of their largest achievements. We are aiming to destroy that and hopefully cause a domino-effect to happen.

[Vin]

The title of this article by Vancouver Sun is attempting to rouse the anger of NIMBYs, which has always been the case by most major media outlets here in BC.

Vancouver's scenic views could eventually be lost in favour of new housing
https://vancouversun.com/business/real-e...ntually-be-lost-in-favour-of-new-housing

"Scenic views" lost VS thousands unable to live within this City.

From the article:

He said one view cone was the reason a 39-storey social housing building at 508 Drake St. is being built as a triangle. “A third of the building got sliced off, causing the loss of scores of potential square footage.”