Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[Vin]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Damn. And here I was hoping for some 900ft fluorescent dog turd that could finally make Vancouver a world class city.

Oh well I guess this city will just continue to be awful.

We can finally have some "900ft dog turd" if they get rid of more viewcones.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm glad you get it now.


Back in 2015:

Originally Posted by logan5

Maybe explain to me how height restrictions are restricting density. What type of density are you contemplating for Vancouver developments?

[logan5]

You never gave me an answer on what type of density. If it's a lower density figure, then height restrictions would not matter. But, again, you gave me a smart ass answer. And here you are trying to misrepresent my posts, like a little weasel.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

You never gave me an answer on what type of density. If it's a lower density figure, then height restrictions would not matter. But, again, you gave me a smart ass answer. And here you are trying to misrepresent my posts, like a little weasel.

Your recent comments answered your previous question. Like I said before, I am glad you get it now. FYI, I don't need any "weaseling".

[Alex Mackinnon]

So. This is huge news.

I think this whole view cone stupidity may have finally suffered a significant blow with the province's new density around skytrain legislation. Most of the view cones from the south side of false creek, (aside from the ones right up at the seawall) are going to going to be behind the Broadway Corridor, which will soon be a wall of tall buildings.

The stupidity of having a viewcone facing city hall and limiting the built form adjacent to the Canada Line stations will basically be gone.

Anyone else still unwrapping the implications of the provinces new legislation?

[Metro-One]

I’m surprised no one has did this until now.

It was my first thought too, “Does this mean 20 story towers on and around the Cambie / Broadway exchange? Completely eliminating those view cones?

I didn’t see anyone say this so I thought maybe I’m understanding it wrong.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I’m surprised no one has did this until now.

It was my first thought too, “Does this mean 20 story towers on and around the Cambie / Broadway exchange? Completely eliminating those view cones?

I didn’t see anyone say this so I thought maybe I’m understanding it wrong.

I was lying in bed this morning when I realized this. My partner was confused when I just randomly started laughing. The province's authority superecedes the city, so if they require everything around the station to be zoned and allowed to go up to 20 floors, that's the law. At least that's my understanding of the situation.

[Migrant_Coconut]

It’s basically only City Hall and QE Park. Council already wants to axe the former, and the latter will likely just be raised a few floors and kept as-is.

Anybody care to do the math and see how much extra height downtown gets? I’m guessing it’s not much.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It’s basically only City Hall and QE Park. Council already wants to axe the former, and the latter will likely just be raised a few floors and kept as-is.

Anybody care to do the math and see how much extra height downtown gets? I’m guessing it’s not much.

It will make it overall more streamlined though, and any additional height in these areas, the better. Also, it may only be 20 floors along Broadway, but further away in the downtown peninsula that height may be much higher now by default? That’s what really interest me is the potential affect this has on the same view cones as they extend over downtown.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Like I said, somebody else’ll have to run the numbers for downtown, and I’m guessing it’s still not much. The current cap on Broadway is 12-13 floors, so an extra 7-8 floors on Broadway translates to…?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Okay, here's the QE viewcones. Looks like 20 floors only affects 3.1 (the bottom line), not any of the 3.2s - in other words, no change to downtown's height limit.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

The BALD-FACED HUBRIS of having a viewcone facing city hall and limiting the built form adjacent to the Canada Line stations will basically be gone.

Fixed that for ya.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Okay, here's the QE viewcones. Looks like 20 floors only affects 3.1 (the bottom line), not any of the 3.2s - in other words, no change to downtown's height limit.

It looks like a chunk is going to get taken out of 3.2.4 on the east side. The height of the Independent is pretty indicative new limit for Mount Pleasant. The west side is pretty well toast though. The King Edward Station area will put towers basically up to (or above) the height of the lookout. The area around city hall will take out the lower portions. I'm not sure what will do downtown, but I can't help but imagine it will remove some of the restrictions.
QE Park

The Olympic Village G1/G2 cones will likely see chunks removed as well. This is doubly true if we expect Hastings to get rapid transit in the future. There's not much point in protecting view cones that will be dismantled with the implementation of the mid-term transit plans of the city.
Olympic

Parts of Granville St. will likely be removed as well. The west side of the street is pretty close to the station, and currently heavily restricted.
Granville St

Commercial Drive's is likely mostly toast. This looks like it would keep the entire area around the transit hub to mid-rise. Parts of Trout Lake facing NW will also likely be affected by the Commerical-Broadway area impinging.
Commercial
Trout Lake

Main St. looks mostly unaffected given the hill.

I think its enough that this whole policy will get shaken up.

[Jimbo604]

From the minutes of the approved motion: staff to report back on preliminary assumptions and scope of work by Q4 2023. Followed by full report Q2 2024.
Link: https://council.vancouver.ca/20231004/documents/pspc20231004min.pdf

Wake me up when the scope of work comes out, supposedly by end of year? We are just beating around the bush hypothesizing until then.

City hall isn't known for getting things done in the month of December, though, as I understand it.

[Sheba]

BC government's new transit-oriented development legislation might not override Vancouver's view cones

Much has already been said about how the Government of British Columbia’s new transit-oriented development (TOD) legislation could be a game changer for Metro Vancouver’s public transit hubs, including SkyTrain stations and major bus exchanges.

...

Where the transit-oriented development legislation could particularly make an impact is within Vancouver, where a number of SkyTrain stations are surrounded by low-density, single-family neighbourhoods, including the original Expo Line stations of Commercial-Broadway, Nanaimo, and 29th Avenue, and the Canada Line station of Langara-49th Avenue.

For some of the SkyTrain stations within the Cambie Corridor Plan and Broadway Plan, the City of Vancouver’s currently prescribed building heights and density for the areas surrounding Olympic Village Station, Broadway-City Hall Station, and King Edward Station are well below the provincial government’s prescribed TOD allowances.

...

Some of the most significant obstacles imposed by the municipal government with achieving greater heights and densities at some of the SkyTrain stations are the protected mountain view cones and building shadowing regulations.

As it turns out, it is uncertain whether the provincial government’s TOD legislation will override Vancouver’s uncompromising view cone and shadowing policies.

When asked whether the TOD legislation would overturn the view cones and shadowing policies within the transit-oriented development areas, the provincial government was unable to provide a clear answer but suggested this could be left to the municipal government to determine.

...

The City of Vancouver has put its view cone policies on the highest pedestal of urban planning and design considerations ever since the regime was first created in 1989.

If a high degree of flexibility were provided to the municipalities, Vancouver’s view cone regime could remain largely or even fully intact within the 800-metre transit-oriented development radius around areas near SkyTrain stations and impacted by view cones.

During the press conference in early November 2023 announcing the TOD legislation, provincial leaders asserted it was a mistake that the tallest buildings in the area of King Edward Station reach a height of no more than six to eight storeys, based on the City’s Cambie Corridor Plan.

But the ability to reach at least 20 storeys around King Edward Station or even 12 storeys for areas slightly further away is impeded not only by the unambitious prescriptions of the Cambie Corridor Plan but also by View Cone 3.0 emanating from the top of Queen Elizabeth Park.

...

If the view cone and shadowing policies and other municipal regulations do not become subservient to the TOD legislation, the provincial government’s stated intent and goals of its new approach could be significantly diminished within Vancouver.

Furthermore, Vancouver City Council recently directed City staff to perform a detailed study of the view cone regime to analyze its impacts on potential housing supply and economic development, but it is only expected to weed out obsolete view cones, such as view cones that are already obstructed — not the panoramic view cones like those emanating from Queen Elizabeth Park and Trout Lake.

...

[logan5]

Mayor Ken seems eager to go higher than the ridiculously low 8 stories right at King Edward Station, so there seems to be a willingness to protrude into the QE Park viewcone.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

Mayor Ken seems eager to go higher than the ridiculously low 8 stories right at King Edward Station, so there seems to be a willingness to protrude into the QE Park viewcone.

It may be an 8 storey building at King Edward Station, but it's also 4.6 FSR, so there would have been very few additional units if the building had been built at the Provincial proposed density.

[logan5]

“We only need to look at Burnaby, that’s right Burnaby… We’re looking at Burnaby as a role model, they’re doing a lot of great things. They’ve been able to successfully marry densification and homes around their SkyTrain stations. So when we think about it, it makes a lot of sense. More homes surrounding SkyTrain stations means a smaller carbon footprint for people that live near the area. It also means a more interconnected city.”

Sim also criticized the mid-rise buildings at King Edward Station, where buildings in the immediate area around the station are limited to up to six storeys in accordance with the Cambie Corridor Plan, with the exception of the eight-storey building built directly above the subway station entrance building.

“At the end of the day, we need more housing. We look at King Edward… seven or eight storeys on the northwest corner of that street above Canada Line. It seems quite ridiculous, and so that’s a lost opportunity,” said Sim.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skytrain-transit-oriented-development-towers-vancouver

Sim's mindset is to build Burnaby type towers around Skytrain stations, so he will likely exceed what the Province has mandated. That would include King Edward Station, as he has made an example of that station being way underbuilt.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skytrain-transit-oriented-development-towers-vancouver

Sim's mindset is to build Burnaby type towers around Skytrain stations, so he will likely exceed what the Province has mandated. That would include King Edward Station, as he has made an example of that station being way underbuilt.

Maybe, but we don't know if a majority of Council like Burnaby-style towers yet either; but changes on that scale wouldn't be just because of the Provincial push for changes to plans around stations. The City's viewcone review doesn't involve any changes to the viewcones from QE Park, so any policy changes come around King Edward station apparently won't be because of revisiting those viewcones.

In any case, there are very few sites (and most quite small plots) that haven't already been developed around that station already. Not requiring parking might allow some greater height and density on the few lots remaining, if developers are willing to build with less parking. But the lots aren't nearly as big as typical Burnaby tower lots.

[giallo]

Originally Posted by logan5

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skytrain-transit-oriented-development-towers-vancouver

Sim's mindset is to build Burnaby type towers around Skytrain stations, so he will likely exceed what the Province has mandated. That would include King Edward Station, as he has made an example of that station being way underbuilt.

While Sim recognizing that King Edward Station is under built is nice to hear, um......what about Commercial/Broadway? That's a far better example of wasted development potential.