Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[Migrant_Coconut]

Covered Broadway last page. Long story short, the only QE cone that needs to be raised to get 30-40 floor towers is 3.1.

And yes, prices and property values south of False Creek are currently lower than downtown proper, and the Broadway Plan alone is set to add ~30,000 units to the market; no viewcones gets you 1k extra at best.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Your opinion about viewcones is as valid as anybody else's opinion, and last time Council carried out a review of whether the public still supported their continuation as policy, a majority appreciated them.

Calling Larry Beasley's opinion on viewcones 'smug' and 'dumb' doesn't advance any debate on their merits, or the impact they might have on other aspects of housing, like the amount being built, or affordability.

In relation to those aspects, I would characterize any argument that getting rid of Downtown viewcones would create more housing (overall), or cheaper, as equally 'dumb'. ....

So just to recap,....

- My opinion about viewcones is as valid as anybody else's opinion.
( Thanks for confirming that. I didn't realize it)

- We shouldn't call Larry Beasly's opinion on viewcones 'smug and 'dumb' (even though that's what it comes off as to me), because, it doesn't advance any debate on their merits (I think that's what that article was supposed to be about, and he didn't do a very good job on it, ....hence my 'opinion'....but we'll circle back to that), or the impact they might have on other aspects of housing (he doesn't actually address the viewcones impact on housing until someone else brings it up and then he does so in a very hand-wave-ey fashion suggesting that all we need to do is bring architects and urban planners into the process as if they aren't already), however,....

- Any argument or opinion suggesting that getting rid of Downtown viewcones would create more, or cheaper housing is "equally dumb" (even though we've just established that we shouldn't call Larry Beasly's opinion "dumb", ..... because that kills debate and discussion.
But other people's opinion of his opinion, however ? Fair Game.
Got it!)

I can only speak from my own personal experience (which my 'equally dumb' opinion is based on) having worked on a project proposal in Downtown Vancouver which couldn't go forward because the developer couldn't get the extra density (i.e. height) they needed to make the rental component of the project (which included affordable rental units) work with the numbers to make the project viable, .....thanks to one of these viewcones.
That's a real world project that was impacted by a viewcone that was going to bring additional housing to the market including more affordable rental that now isn't happening. In the sort of location where people who can't afford to live in Downtown but work there and have to commute instead would have greatly benefitted from living in.

I can't speak to the experience or reasons for all those other developers or projects you seem to reference that justify your argument. But I'm sure they're valid.

It's also worth noting and pointing out that that wasn't the justification for his argument for keeping them.

One last thing:
When was that last time that Council carried out this review of whether the public still supported the viewcones?
Is Vancouver still the same now as it was then in terms of the housing situation?

Beasly mentions one that was carried out in the early 2000's.
I'm not sure if that's the same one that you're referencing.
Even if it isn't, it would be pretty surprising to find if a majority of that 'majority' actually felt the same way about them now as they might have felt then.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

One last thing:
When was that last time that Council carried out this review of whether the public still supported the viewcones?
Is Vancouver still the same now as it was then in terms of the housing situation?

Beasly mentions one that was carried out in the early 2000's.
I'm not sure if that's the same one that you're referencing.
Even if it isn't, it would be pretty surprising to find if a majority of that 'majority' actually felt the same way about them now as they might have felt then.

I was actually just looking that up and found the 2010 report referenced previously. I guess it's when the "General Policy For Higher Buildings" term got added to the viewcone debate.

Before the change Vancouver House and Beach Avenue would have been limited to 225/185 feet. Does the existance of Vancouver House and the future Beach Avenue better society? Did they ruin Vancouverism?

The report has some more up to date images on how view corridors impact development in the downtown core. But it would be nice to have this in other areas as well.

"However, if approved by Council, the recommendations regarding higher buildings could potentially generate approximately 0.9 million square feet of additional density beyond current zoning and policy."

It would be interesting to see this figure on a more broad basis for each view cone and not just inside the downtown peninsula.

https://vancouver.ca/docs/planning/final-council-report.pdf

"Extensive public consultation"

The consultation on creating additional opportunities for higher buildings in the Downtown built on the earlier, extensive public consultation around protected public views and higher buildings that was conducted over an 18-month period during the Vancouver Views Study.

Staff also made efforts to engage as many land owners of significantly impacted properties. Over 500 people participated at three open
houses at the Central Library, the Pacific Centre Mall rotunda, and the Roundhouse Community Centre, while additional meetings were held to solicit feedback from specific interest groups, where possible (e.g. Downtown Vancouver BIA).

And they get 72 people to give feedback on comment sheets.

Even if they gauged the 500 people it's pretty worthless in my books if you are going to say Vancouverites are for or against how view cones are implemented.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Covered Broadway last page. Long story short, the only QE cone that needs to be raised to get 30-40 floor towers is 3.1.

And yes, prices and property values south of False Creek are currently lower than downtown proper, and the Broadway Plan alone is set to add ~30,000 units to the market; no viewcones gets you 1k extra at best.

So if you maxed out every residential building (to a height that makes economic sense for a developer) in the Broadway Plan study area (2125 acres) you only end up with 1000 units that might encroach into the existing view cones?

2520 Ontario is 14 storeys rental with 152 units. And it's at the max height for view cone 3. If the economics worked on doubling it to 20 something or 30 then you would magically have 100 or 150 units of your 1000 "extra" units on a 1,499.1 sq.m site?



https://syc.vancouver.ca/projects/broadw...irections-views-and-heights-fairview.pdf

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

- snip -

I could've phrased that better, so one more time: ditch the viewcones, and downtown gets ~1k more units (e.g. 20 units x 50 projects); Fairview/Mount Pleasant gets you maybe another 10k.

Run the Broadway Plan as-is, viewcones included, and that gets us 30k (to say nothing of the Cambie plan, Making Home or the province's new bills). Seems more productive to go after the 90% of Vancouver that isn't high-density than quibble over the 10% that is.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I could've phrased that better, so one more time: ditch the viewcones, and downtown gets ~1k more units (e.g. 20 units x 50 projects); Fairview/Mount Pleasant gets you maybe another 10k.

Run the Broadway Plan as-is, viewcones included, and that gets us 30k (to say nothing of the Cambie plan, Making Home or the province's new bills). Seems more productive to go after the 90% of Vancouver that isn't high-density than quibble over the 10% that is.

But the 30K number I assume is the full build out after developers spend years acquiring projects/developing business plans/waiting for market cycles. So the incremental (in Mount Pleasant and other areas closer to viewcone viewpoints) is more material to new housing if you could add 30-40% more units to projects that are somewhat ready to advance. Of course there are other considerations in how they want towers to be built along the corridor but framing it through only the "view cone" debate of maximizing development.

Politicians are politicians and they'll still face more pushback over single family home development (maybe views are changing ). They don't really care about the 10% zone being maximized or even development attached to the Broadway Plan but they'll go mental over the remaining 90%.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Assuming, of course, that said viewcone-free towers all get built out immediately (instead of being party to the exact same long dev cycle); it's not like Council drops the height limits and every site under them immediately becomes a shovel ready 40-floor project.

Seeing as Vancouver has already legalized laneways, fourplexes and massive amounts of upzoning, and yet even now isn't sure about ending the viewcones? My money's on the 90% caving first.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

I can only speak from my own personal experience (which my 'equally dumb' opinion is based on) having worked on a project proposal in Downtown Vancouver which couldn't go forward because the developer couldn't get the extra density (i.e. height) they needed to make the rental component of the project (which included affordable rental units) work with the numbers to make the project viable, .....thanks to one of these viewcones.

That's a real world project that was impacted by a viewcone that was going to bring additional housing to the market including more affordable rental that now isn't happening. In the sort of location where people who can't afford to live in Downtown but work there and have to commute instead would have greatly benefitted from living in.

That sounds like a developer who had unreasonable expectations of profits, or paid too much for their site. The viewcones have been around since 1989. They haven't got shorter. Their potential impact on a site hasn't been hidden. And the site that wasn't developed because the developer couldn't make it work is still available to be developed, but presumably with the number of units that fit under the viewcone (and that the site value should reflect).

The housing market for new apartments has held up surprisingly well, so developers have continued to propose, and build new towers throughout the past few years when higher interest rates, and policy designed to prevent second homes and short-term rentals has been reported to have impacted demand.

Amacon just started construction of Block on Robson. Bosa are building 1515 Alberni and Anthem are excavating for Park on West Georgia. The two towers of Landmark are just completing on Robson, with a podium on non-market rental on the lane. Bosa and Kingswood dropped their pair of Barclay Street condo and rental towers, and have switched them to taller, 70% rental. Bosa4Rent are building two rental towers (with below market units) on Harwood where they originally planned a mix of condo, and rental. Butterfly includes a non-market block. Curv includes a non-market podium.

All of those sites are being developed with the viewcones in place, mostly at densities far higher than you'll find in any suburban municipalities (however tall the towers might be in those municipalities).

It's fine to argue that the viewcones limit the height of towers, and so alter the way Downtown might look, but the 'we're in a housing crisis' case is unconvincing. So far viewcone policy hasn't impacted the overall delivery of units, (only limited the numbers of units provided on sites where height has reached the viewcone).

We're still many years from 'total buildout', and developers have bought, but not yet developed, many sites, and there are more to acquire. Concord have land for at least 12 more towers Downtown, and there are 12 more towers approved by other developers but not yet developed, including the Granville Loops sites.

I can also identify 22 more West End towers already approved or submitted, and six more acquired sites, and there's also Concord's St Paul's Hospital. In addition, much of the West End has been retained at its current densities to protect the older, less expensive, mostly rental stock of buildings - that could change if we ran out of locations where more housing could be built.

[jollyburger]

If that was true then they wouldn't create exceptions to the view cones. But because the architecture looks nice or you get more CEC money they magically add new areas where higher buildings are allowed.

That's why the whole super tall skyscraper going into view cones is a red herring. The top floors of high end skyscrapers have the least number of units since they are the most premium. The super talls where they are permitted will get built regardless of any view cone (see the higher building policy).

You can say they are leaving nothing on the table because there is plenty of development happening and there are lots of sites left to develop. But you can equally put forth the argument that the city is leaving CAC money on the table or restricting projects in and outside the downtown peninsula.

Also, the view cone debate isn't just about the impact of the zones on housing affordability. Look at the Granville Connector project. They'll finally make Granville a more enjoyable walking experience but are they going to leave the viewcone on the opposite sidewalk just because...? The view cones if they are actually useful shouldn't be these peek-a-book squint to see a mountain view. Or ignore the trees and signs blocking the view.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Seems more productive to go after the 90% of Vancouver that isn't high-density than quibble over the 10% that is.

Yes, the vast swaths of Vancouver that are SFHs should be densified.

But the entire length of Broadway is incredibly accessible by transit (and will only become moreso) in a way most of Vancouver (even parts of the West End) are not. Who knows if they would pencil out in our current high interest rate environment, but developers should be free to build 50 story towers along Broadway from Alma Street to Commercial Drive without considering view cones.

[jollyburger]

Also, is the FSR comparisons between a downtown Vancouver project and something in Coquitlam/Burnaby/Surrey a by-product of land values? ie. a suburban project can get away with huge podiums while most projects downtown do similar sized projects on smaller land plots?

[jollyburger]

More on that recent talk about view cones. (I don't think you can drive down any corridor and see The Lions with any of the existing view cones)

Preserving Vancouver's vista: Insight into the city's view protection policy

Have you ever found yourself driving, walking or cycling northbound down a major corridor in Vancouver, only to pause to look at the mountain peaks, famously known as “The Lions” to the First Nations people?

There is growing concern these unobstructed views may be in jeopardy, framed as a false choice by the City of Vancouver between affordable housing or preserving views, said Larry Beasley a former co-chief planner for the City of Vancouver, the founding principal of Beasley and Associates and a ‘distinguished practice’ professor of planning at the University of British Columbia.

“It’s fundamentally wrong to say the answer to affordability is to give up quality of life,” Beasley said, who urged citizens to write postcards to the city. “We need a strategy for secure housing.”

He was one of the speakers during an event hosted by Simon Fraser University’s City Program and Urban Studies department coined Vancouver’s View Protection Policy — How it Developed and Was Implemented. He was joined by Peter Busby, a principal with Perkins & Will in Vancouver, who described the approach taken by city planners and architects including the creation of a comprehensive 3D model of Vancouver that included “view cones” to showcase lines of sight to notable landmarks.

Many may not realize the city’s view stems from a policy drafted in the late ‘80s, the result of a rigorous consultation process.

Beasley emphasized the policy’s importance in preserving spaciousness and a connection to nature and pointed out how it ensures scenic views are accessible to the broader public, not just to a few residing in luxury highrises.

“There is tangible financial as well as experiential value to the view corridors and there is important value for our economy because it sets the very image of our city,” he said.

Beasley noted the absence of a permanent director of planning with the city is also cause for concern. His remarks were particularly poignant given the event’s timing, coinciding with Mayor Ken Sim’s controversial decision to dissolve the park board.

He offered alternative solutions to preserving views while accommodating urban growth. He emphasized the need for innovative thinking beyond simply adding more buildings to the already dense downtown core.

One geographical solution he proposed involves the area west of Clark Drive, characterized by sloping land currently occupied by warehouses. Beasley suggested this area could be transformed to mixed-use highrise buildings, potentially housing up to 12,000 people.

“We have this idea that anything that’s industrial, even if it’s in the heart of the city, has to be preserved,” he said. “I just think that has to be thought about more intelligently with all the other needs we have.”

He also proposed an organizational approach inspired by a model in Madrid and similar to Whistler’s Employee Restricted Housing Program with some key differences.

This involves a non-profit home ownership program, designed to help residents build equity and legacy for their families. The model would require a collaboration between government and private sectors, offering a gateway into home ownership. Participants could build enough equity to eventually enter the regular housing market. This approach, Beasley argued, could provide a sustainable solution to the housing affordability crisis, while preserving the city’s architectural heritage and views.

The concept of affordability through security was also discussed, emphasizing the need for government funding. One example cited was the Great Northern Way area, a city-approved proposal that focuses on creative worker housing, offering rental options to maintain a level of affordability.

City councillor Pete Fry, who had previously voted in favour of refining the View Protection Policy, expressed his belief that completely scrapping the policy would be a regressive step for the city.

“I’m a big believer in making things less bad and figuring out how we can find compromises,” Fry stated. “So, when they come back with a proposal to pick option A, B, or C, what does a less bad option look like? Are there some views that we should sacrifice, or should we adopt a blanket approach because we have to recognize the practical implications?”

In response, the two-man panel cautioned against precipitous decisions regarding the policy, especially when there is the added pressure of two big development proposals waiting for the city to eliminate the view protections in order to greenlight those projects.

Instead, Beasley and Busby advocate for an exhaustive review, emphasizing the importance of considering long-term impacts on Vancouver’s landscape.

“It should be in parallel with another study, which shows what density and height opportunities are available outside the corridors, like the False Creek Flats and Broadway corridor,” said Busby. “There is an awful lot of potential that could probably tell you where a quarter million people could be housed.”

https://canada.constructconnect.com/joc/...ht-into-the-citys-view-protection-policy

[jollyburger]

I don't think this one where James Cheng advocates for view cones was posted?

“If we don’t have any view cones, you could have a building 20 feet (or) 50 feet away from you as a neighbour,” he said. “But because of the view cone, all of a sudden you gain more light and air. You open up more oblique views, through the view cone. That benefits a lot of buildings that are in the second or third row back (from a taller building).”

James Cheng trying to combine tower separation and view cones... Or how his design got better because of view cones. New bylaw that every tower must have a triangular cutout at the top please.

Vancouver architect makes the case for why 'view cones' matter

As the architect for Vancouver’s tallest building, the 62-storey Living Shangri-La hotel and residential tower, James Cheng had to deal with an unusual problem: slicing part of the project off at an angle to protect the view of “The Lions” mountain peaks on the North Shore from Leg-In-Boot Square on the south shore of False Creek.

Preserving the “view cone” meant the front of the Shangri-La had to be built at an angle on Alberni Street, while the backside on West Georgia Street could be flush to the sidewalk.

Article content
Article content
To some, this might sound a bit crazy. But Cheng thinks it made for a more interesting building.

“As designer, I don’t mind it,” he said. “Because our city would be very boring if every building is four-square and a flat top. It’s really up to the people designing it: Can they take advantage of a situation and make it unique?

“So the triangular view cone allows the Shangri-La hotel to be unique, because it takes on that shape.”

View cones have recently become a hot issue, after ABC Coun. Peter Meiszner put forward a motion to review and potentially eliminate some of them.

Meiszner has come under some heat from people who think he wants to eliminate all view cones. But he said that isn’t the case.

“This is not about eliminating view cones,” he said. “It’s about potentially eliminating some of the lower-priority view cones that we have.”

It’s a complex issue. The City of Vancouver has 26 “protected view corridors,” which are based on the view from 16 sites. Some view cones look south to north, others look west and east. Some have a panoramic view that looks north, west and east.

Several are near False Creek, but there are also view cones from Cambie, Granville and Main streets, as well as from Commercial Drive, Queen Elizabeth Park and Trout Lake.

Several potential development sites could be dramatically impacted by view cones. The current St. Paul’s Hospital site on Burrard Street, for example, has five view cones passing through it.

According to the city’s Downtown Official Development Plan, towers can be built to the height of 91.4 to 137.2 metres (300 ft. to 450 ft., or approximately 30 to 45 storeys).

The West End Community Plan allows up to 167.6 metres (550 ft., or 55 storeys) “for rezoning applications subject to approval by Council.”

But the view cones limit the height.

An email from the city states that, “For most of the site, maximum heights are limited to approx. 51 m (168 ft.) to 65 m (213 ft.). At the northwest corner of the site, heights up to approx. 105 m (345 ft.) are achievable.”

Concord Pacific paid $850 million for the St. Paul’s site in 2021. So there will be pressure to build higher than what’s allowed under the current view cone policy.

The city started looking at view cones in the 1970s and brought in specific rules in 1989.

“Vancouver was one of the first cities in the world to think about having a view protection policy,” said retired Vancouver planner Sandy James.

Article content
“If you take a look at our architecture, it’s not terribly stunning. But what is stunning, and why people move here, is the access to nature, and the idea that you are just a stone’s throw from being on the water, or being in the mountains.

“So for us, it’s the setting that’s important. One of the things about living in Vancouver (is) it’s always easy to have good way-finding, because you can always see the mountains, and the mountains are north.”

Cheng thinks the idea of view cones is “very noble” and has benefits that many people may not realize.

“If we don’t have any view cones, you could have a building 20 feet (or) 50 feet away from you as a neighbour,” he said. “But because of the view cone, all of a sudden you gain more light and air. You open up more oblique views, through the view cone. That benefits a lot of buildings that are in the second or third row back (from a taller building).”

That said, he thinks the city should revisit some of the view cones, particularly the ones that have been added over the years.

“You start piling on, and nobody checks to see if the old ones are still good and if we should get rid of some,” he said.

He offers the “momentary view cones” on the Cambie and Granville bridges as an example.

“The reason I think that should be looked at is that view cone is only looking towards the mountains, let’s say The Lions,” said Cheng. “If you’re on the Cambie Bridge, the best view is not the Lions — you have to find it, it’s like a needle in a haystack to see where the Lions are. The best view is to your right, when you look at the whole False Creek flats, and there’s mountains there, there’s a whole city there.

“That is the better view. So why are we fixated on (a view of) 10 seconds or whatever, (and) ignoring all the tremendous views that we have?”

The view cones that will stir up the most controversy are the ones on building sites downtown. Meiszner argues view cones sometimes constrain development at a time when the city needs more housing.

In a Sept. 28 Postmedia story, Meiszner used the example of a 41-storey social housing tower at 508 Drake that had to be sliced into a triangular shape to fit into a view cone. Meiszner said this resulted in the loss of one-third of the potential building, and the loss of housing units.

But it isn’t that simple. The site at Drake and Richards streets is quite small, and was previously zoned for a maximum height of 36.5 m (120 ft.), which is about 12 storeys.

But because it was a social housing project, the city allowed it to go much higher to 125.2 m (411 ft.), or 41-storeys.

The triangular shape also makes it distinctive. Like Cheng’s Shangri-La design, it’s unique.

https://vancouversun.com/news/vancouver-architect-makes-the-case-for-why-view-cones-matter

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Your opinion about viewcones is as valid as anybody else's opinion, and last time Council carried out a review of whether the public still supported their continuation as policy, a majority appreciated them.

Source?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

... But the entire length of Broadway is incredibly accessible by transit (and will only become moreso) in a way most of Vancouver (even parts of the West End) are not. Who knows if they would pencil out in our current high interest rate environment, but developers should be free to build 50 story towers along Broadway from Alma Street to Commercial Drive without considering view cones.

Except the Broadway Plan already caps development at 40 floors on the arterials and 6-20 on the side streets; the QE viewcones allow up to 11-13 floors, and industrial Mount Pleasant is likely zoned for even less. So yeah, they take a fair chunk out of the Cambie office district, but it's not like it's a free-for-all without them. Raise 3.2.4 up a little to comply with the province's 20-floor minimum, call it a day.

The City Hall ones OTOH definitely need to go.

[GenWhy?]

"Have you ever found yourself driving, walking or cycling northbound down a major corridor in Vancouver, only to pause to look at the mountain peaks, famously known as “The Lions” to the First Nations people?"

Distracted driving. Not safe. Ban the viewcones!

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Except the Broadway Plan already caps development at 40 floors on the arterials and 6-20 on the side streets; the QE viewcones allow up to 11-13 floors, and industrial Mount Pleasant is likely zoned for even less. So yeah, they take a fair chunk out of the Cambie office district, but it's not like it's a free-for-all without them. Raise 3.2.4 up a little to comply with the province's 20-floor minimum, call it a day.

The City Hall ones OTOH definitely need to go.

Isn't the 40 storeys just a few towers next to the stations?

[GenWhy?]

"“We have this idea that anything that’s industrial, even if it’s in the heart of the city, has to be preserved,” he said. “I just think that has to be thought about more intelligently with all the other needs we have.”"

Also not to mention that since the 90s he tried to get rid of the industrial in False Creek Flats, which to me says a lot about bad urban planning. At his book launch when pressed about the housing crisis he kept saying Coal Harbour and Yaletown are great successes (and they are), but he dismissed his actions affecting today's planning as "up to those in change today".

So eff you Larry, we're getting rid of the viewcones and keeping jobs in the city. You're retired.

Imagine having a giant shunting yard and thinking this is a great place for a residential neighbourhood.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

"“We have this idea that anything that’s industrial, even if it’s in the heart of the city, has to be preserved,” he said. “I just think that has to be thought about more intelligently with all the other needs we have.”"

Also not to mention that since the 90s he tried to get rid of the industrial in False Creek Flats, which to me says a lot about bad urban planning. At his book launch when pressed about the housing crisis he kept saying Coal Harbour and Yaletown are great successes (and they are), but he dismissed his actions affecting today's planning as "up to those in change today".

So eff you Larry, we're getting rid of the viewcones and keeping jobs in the city. You're retired.

Imagine having a giant shunting yard and thinking this is a great place for a residential neighbourhood.

Transcript of an interview with him from October:

https://www.vancouverrealestatepodcast.c...l-stature-and-future-with-larry-beasley/

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Source?

https://council.vancouver.ca/20100126/documents/rr2b.pdf

• The public strongly values maintaining a framework for view preservation;
• Just over half (53%) of respondents regard the mountains as the most important component of the view;
• Over three-quarters of respondents agree that downtown development is contributing to the loss of some important views and that stronger action needs to be taken to protect them;
• 74% of respondents felt view loss should be replaced with new view protection;