Vancouver view cone review

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It's presumably the Director of Planning who will report to Council. Unfortunately the previous Director had her contract 'concluded' in mid September, and there is still no replacement.

And we / others are still meeting with Staff on these view cones. I was told changes wouldn't even happen / be enacted until 2025.

[Jimbo604]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It's presumably the Director of Planning who will report to Council. Unfortunately the previous Director had her contract 'concluded' in mid September, and there is still no replacement.

Indeed. Let's hope they get around to finding someone before end of Q2 2024. In the meantime, CityHallWatch has an interesting timeline and history of past COV City Planners.
Edit: too snarky to say that it looks like CHW invoked MS Paint for a very short time to make this graphic?


Src: article below

Url: https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/...nning-archive/

"THERESA O’DONNELL (“appointed” with no search 18-Apr-2021, “concluded” 18-Sep-2023) No search was conducted. An internal appointment by City Council was done in camera under section 560 of the Vancouver Charter, which states: “The Council may appoint a Director of Planning, who shall have such duties and powers as the Council may from time to time prescribe.” Her original appointment was announced publicly on 28-Apr-2021, after having served Vancouver two years (hired by Gil Kelley in March 2019 as deputy director of planning). Despite having, to our knowledge, no Canadian certifications related to planning or architecture, and only two years in Vancouver, she had very limited knowledge of the planning history or culture of Vancouver, her appointment during the COVID pandemic after the sudden departure of Gil Kelley gave her the power to preside over some of the most significant planning decisions in generations, including the Vancouver Plan, Broadway Plan, and Missing Middle/Multiplex Rezoning policies. And then she was gone."

[GenWhy?]

"she had very limited knowledge of the planning history or culture of Vancouver... Gil Kelley gave her the power to preside over some of the most significant planning decisions in generations, including the Vancouver Plan, Broadway Plan, and Missing Middle/Multiplex Rezoning policies."

No wonder we got so much done.

[LeftCoaster]

Haha no kidding. She was a very by the book planner but didn't have the baggage of many of the past seat holders.

[officedweller]

Note the subtle subversive downward trend of that line.

[jollyburger]

Former City Planner now at an urban planning firm on the view cones.

As a Planner II that led public engagement and analysis for the City of Vancouver on View Corridors in 2009 I have strong feelings about the view corridors: rescind most of them, introduce flexibility for buildings to project into them, and keep only a small number intact.

Vancouver has probably over-prioritized the mountain backdrop and shape of the skyline at the expense of housing and growth. If I had to look back and have a change of heart on a planning policy or framework this is the one.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/colto...93952256-waiH/

[jollyburger]

They must smell blood in the water the view cone protectors are coming out again

“So, one building is going to be in the middle of the view corridor, blocking out all the view,” he says. “Not only are you taking that view from thousands and giving it to a few rich people, but you're not getting very much for it,” says Beasley. “Let's say you get five floors of affordable housing, five units per floor. That's 20 units of affordable housing at the cost of hundreds of units that lose their quality, that lose their value, because they no longer have a view. I just don't think that's a very good cost benefit in the equation.”

Any review, he says, “has to be a really strong, rigorous analysis of cost benefits. And it has to have a strong analysis of the implications for the economy, for tourism, for our civic brand, for our image in the world... We've got to see whether removing corridors is taking away from that objective.

“And then finally, and probably most importantly, we all must be involved. There has to be wide public engagement as wide or wider than we did back in 1988 or '89. We have to talk to tens of thousands of people. Maybe it's even a vote, I don't know... but it has to be a community discussion.”

https://storeys.com/vancouver-view-c...match-density/

[GenWhy?]

The arguments are so weak too:

"“What it means is instead of a whole city jammed with a concrete jungle, we have these slots through the city, and that means more sunlight and air can go through the city, which is better for everybody,” says architect James Cheng, who’s designed more than 50 towers in the downtown peninsula. He’s well-versed in designing a tower to fit around a view cone, and his glass towers define the city’s skyline."

Tower separation requirements will remain.

If the whole peninsula was 3-soret buildings there would be the same amount of wind and sun.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

The arguments are so weak too:

"“What it means is instead of a whole city jammed with a concrete jungle, we have these slots through the city, and that means more sunlight and air can go through the city, which is better for everybody,” says architect James Cheng, who’s designed more than 50 towers in the downtown peninsula. He’s well-versed in designing a tower to fit around a view cone, and his glass towers define the city’s skyline."

Tower separation requirements will remain.

If the whole peninsula was 3-soret buildings there would be the same amount of wind and sun.

Thank god viewcones allow more sunlight, that's because they all face south towards where the sun is, and not where the mountains are, right?

[GenWhy?]

Lol omg Cheng then defending views from inside an apartment (if you can afford one downtown), but not defending viewcones that anyone could access on public space?

"“We need to protect some views, but it's gotten crazy. They even have a view cone for somebody walking on the Cambie Bridge…Why do we need a view from one stationary point in the middle of a bridge? That’s all kinds of stupid,” he says."

Are not all viewpoints for the viewcones sationary? From arbitrary locations? JFC

[GenWhy?]

Last one for my rage typing from Beasley:

"That's 20 units of affordable housing at the cost of hundreds of units that lose their quality, that lose their value, because they no longer have a view. I just don't think that's a very good cost benefit in the equation.”"

Current viewcones chop premitted zoning heights killing rental projects.

[jollyburger]

When was he engaging with 10,000 people to enact the view cones? It's easy to protect views of the mountains when there's zero economic interest in building in those areas.

They already faced the practical issue downtown with viewcones limiting development and they accommodated it with the Higher Buildings Policy. If anything it's just a continuation of the can of worms they opened up. The only aesthetics urban planning policy that will ever survive (until a giant earthquake) is the protection of heritage buildings.

[Jimbo604]

If I remember correctly in reading some of the Tod mandated changes from yesterday’s council a view come in one of the Tod areas is on the chopping block?

When oh when will we get the city wide view come review, as well…

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

When oh when will we get the city wide view come review, as well…

It’s supposed to be this summer.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

If I remember correctly in reading some of the Tod mandated changes from yesterday’s council a view come in one of the Tod areas is on the chopping block?

When oh when will we get the city wide view come review, as well…

Just this I think from the recent TOD changes in COV

Provincial regulations may permit heights that extend into Council protected views (for example, Trout Lake View Cone 27). Most sites would not be impacted; however, a small portion of RM-4 zoned properties in the south-east corner of the Commercial-Broadway Station Precinct will be limited by Trout Lake View Cone 27. Staff are currently reviewing the View Protection Implementation of Transit-Oriented Areas (New Provincial Legislation: Bill 47) Page 11 RTS 16268 Guidelines. Any potential future changes to this specific view would require Council endorsement.

https://council.vancouver.ca/2024062...ents/cfsc1.pdf

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by madog222

It’s supposed to be this summer.

We should see something next week.

[BaddieB]

City Hall Watch and Hardwick are going to be in shambles

[Migrant_Coconut]

Doesn't the province's 20-floor tower mandate already block a large part of the lower QE viewcone? Removing that part would just be a formality... unless they move the goalposts to "obstructing views of Broadway."

[Feathered Friend]

The view cone report is out, it's suggest that 14 should be eliminated, with another 11 adjusted (some substantially, but mostly in name only).

https://council.vancouver.ca/2024071...ents/pspc1.pdf

Here's a list of ones that could be eliminated.

Laurel Landbridge - C1, C2.1, C2.2
Cambie Bridge - E1, E2.2, E3)
Choklit Park - F1.1, F1.2 F1.3
Queen Elizabeth Park - 3.1, 3.24a
Cambie Street - 9.2.2
Granville Bridge - 12.1
Granville Street - 20.2

[logan5]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Last one for my rage typing from Beasley:

"That's 20 units of affordable housing at the cost of hundreds of units that lose their quality, that lose their value, because they no longer have a view. I just don't think that's a very good cost benefit in the equation.”"

Current viewcones chop premitted zoning heights killing rental projects.

If you look at it as a 3 dimensional space that stretches km's, it's a lot more than 20 units.