Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[Migrant_Coconut]

Works for me.

[jollyburger]

Maybe to get rid of this discussion that this is all about 700 foot supertalls in downtown they should restrict it through absolute height limits at a reasonable height.

Everyone seems to think the QE Park viewcone is sacrament but I think the base level of the cone should be up for discussion (especially for buildings in the downtown core since it wouldn't dominate the view. The view cones from False Creek/Broadway probably would probably take precedent over limiting height but from QE with mountain ranges 20-25km away the scale of the towers and mountain ranges isn't that obtrusive (like to the height of Harbour Centre for example)

[officedweller]

Agreed with the scale of the mountains not likely to be overshadowed by a built-up downtown. I would consider the buildings to be part of the view. (i.e. why do people go up the Eiffel Tower? It's just a view of the city)

Originally Posted by logan5

Forget the number but yeah there’s one that roughly covers Broadway between around Yukon and Main, to protect the view of Burrard inlet from QE. Buildings here are very limited.

Thanks.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Maybe to get rid of this discussion that this is all about 700 foot supertalls in downtown they should restrict it through absolute height limits at a reasonable height.

Everyone seems to think the QE Park viewcone is sacrament but I think the base level of the cone should be up for discussion (especially for buildings in the downtown core since it wouldn't dominate the view. The view cones from False Creek/Broadway probably would probably take precedent over limiting height but from QE with mountain ranges 20-25km away the scale of the towers and mountain ranges isn't that obtrusive (like to the height of Harbour Centre for example)

Originally Posted by chowhou

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.

FYI the city does have absolute height limits already and they're quite low.

[jollyburger]

That Map 4 is interesting since it does show how much it restricts development at the starting point of those viewpoints.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

That Map 4 is interesting since it does show how much it restricts development at the starting point of those viewpoints.

I dunno, when I look at that map all I see is areas that are already built with new buildings, areas restricted by tower separation policies, heritage height limits, and other policies.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I dunno, when I look at that map all I see is areas that are already built with new buildings, areas restricted by tower separation policies, heritage height limits, and other policies.

Same view cone that restricted Charleson to that sliver on the corner also crosses the St Pauls site so it'll be interesting to see what happens there. Or with any redevelopment tied to the viaducts removal.

And none of the buildings that had to work around view cones cutting across the site were mysteriously not a result of tower separation, heritage or other policies.

[jollyburger]

Similar map 1996 showing some more cones and the heights.



https://www.ibigroup.com/ibi-insights/the-value-of-view-cones/

[scryer]

Originally Posted by chowhou

You're not any better, I remember your embarassing Strathcona Park natural environment rant.

Embarassing for who exactly . It was a long time ago but I recall dropping basic definitions from Webster on some really, really stupid sacks of protein against saving the environment.

One of the many, many reasons why I lurk now. The forums lack maturity save for a couple of users who actually know how to communicate. This post is clearly not an example of it since I feel like being petty, but considering that these forums don't really hold intellectual conversations anymore, it's not like I need to deny myself a moment of catharsis. I am changing my experience of the forum one block at a time... By the way, welcome to the ignore list! Enjoy your echo-chamber digital sheeple stranger thing!

[logan5]

Now that we have shadowing rules limiting height, getting rid of or relaxing viewcones is only the first step. I wish they would have included shadowing In this viewcone study that is going to take 6 months or so to conclude. Will we be having another lengthy study on shadowing after the viewcone study? Then another study to possibly amend the Broadway Plan to allow greater densities, because with a floor plate of 6500 sq feet, you would need more density to use that extra height achieved with viewcone modification. Could be a couple years at least before we actually see taller proposals.

The Kingsgate mall site is where we could build over 2000 rental units just 50 metres from a subway station, but instead that site is limited to 30 stories (6500 sq ft floor plate limit), not because of viewcone restrictions, because there are none on this site, but because of shadowing restrictions. We are stopping 1000's of renter's who use transit more often, from living steps away from a station because the city doesn't want to cast a shadow in a tower neighbourhood. That's ridiculous.

[griswold]

Downtown needs at least 1 iconic super tall. They could increase the view cones to 800-900 feet and you would still get great mountain views from QEP. The whole thing is ridiculous in 2023 in my opinion. Great architecture attracts tourists which is something the COV seems completely oblivious to and something Vancouver is definitely lacking.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by scryer

One of the many, many reasons why I lurk now. The forums lack maturity save for a couple of users who actually know how to communicate. This post is clearly not an example of it since I feel like being petty, but considering that these forums don't really hold intellectual conversations anymore, it's not like I need to deny myself a moment of catharsis. I am changing my experience of the forum one block at a time... By the way, welcome to the ignore list! Enjoy your echo-chamber digital sheeple stranger thing!

Thank god, begone troll!

Originally Posted by griswold

Downtown needs at least 1 iconic super tall. They could increase the view cones to 800-900 feet and you would still get great mountain views from QEP. The whole thing is ridiculous in 2023 in my opinion. Great architecture attracts tourists which is something the COV seems completely oblivious to and something Vancouver is definitely lacking.

In the eyes of the CoV, Living Shangri-La and the Paradox Hotel are the "iconic super tall buildings".

[Migrant_Coconut]

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but in practice... how?

• Residential: the world's 800+ condos are almost exclusively in Dubai (where economics and planning are afterthoughts) or NYC and Indian/East Asian cities (where lack of space offsets the costs). Vancouver doesn't fit either.
• Offices: with the recent slowdown, and all the new towers coming in, I'm guessing The Stack is the tallest we'll be seeing for a while.
• Hotels: They count for both our tallest buildings, so it's not impossible, but Vancouver's still a little too undersized and pedestrian to draw the luxury tourists which justify a Burj al-Arab or Marina Bay.
• Telecoms (e.g. CN Tower): We've already got Harbour Centre for this. Might need a bigger one a few decades from now, but that's another "maybe."
• Vertical mall: Pfffft... no.

[jollyburger]

Might be nice for the CoV to present some 3D renderings of the impact changes to the viewcones would affect development/encroachments..

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but in practice... how?

• Residential: the world's 800+ condos are almost exclusively in Dubai (where economics and planning are afterthoughts) or NYC and Indian/East Asian cities (where lack of space offsets the costs). Vancouver doesn't fit either.
• Offices: with the recent slowdown, and all the new towers coming in, I'm guessing The Stack is the tallest we'll be seeing for a while.
• Hotels: They count for both our tallest buildings, so it's not impossible, but Vancouver's still a little too undersized and pedestrian to draw the luxury tourists which justify a Burj al-Arab or Marina Bay.
• Telecoms (e.g. CN Tower): We've already got Harbour Centre for this. Might need a bigger one a few decades from now, but that's another "maybe."
• Vertical mall: Pfffft... no.

All the more reason to let the market decide rather than artificially limiting projects.
If those issues above are truly present, then nobody will build anything higher anyways but how about if we try something totally crazy and let the market decide rather than a small group of special interest morons who get to decide how tall is appropriate for Vancouver

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

[*]Telecoms (e.g. CN Tower): We've already got Harbour Centre for this. Might need a bigger one a few decades from now, but that's another "maybe."[/LIST]

More so we have the North Shore mountains.

[Feathered Friend]

https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/1805-victoria-dr/application-booklet.pdf#page=19


https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/1805-victoria-dr/application-booklet.pdf#page=19


https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/1805-victoria-dr

The view cones have eliminated countless homes, hotel rooms, office space, & even impacted St Paul’s Hospital. Now the proposed renewal of Fire Hall #9, which is hidden by trees anyways, will test Vancouver council’s resolve to reform this policy.
https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/1805-victoria-dr

https://x.com/City_Duo/status/1716667746212360480?s=20

[logan5]

wow!!

[GenWhy?]

I mean... how much height and extra office floors do you think they could get on 2.0FSR?

I could be wrong but it looks like they have 3 metres to spare. I don't have time to re-review the Grandview Woodland plan for max rezone-able height in this area, but I'd assume a any social housing above the firehall and office floors to a hypothetical 6-storey maximum as per other local proposals, just wouldn't make sense with 2.0FSR.

[Jimbo604]

Src: COV

When Viewcones attack