Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[logan5]

Originally Posted by 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/20240710/documents/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

QE park 3.1, is that the water view one that covers east Broadway between Yukon and Main? Thats a big change if they eliminate that.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by logan5

QE park 3.1, is that the water view one that covers east Broadway between Yukon and Main? Thats a big change if they eliminate that.

The report has some really nice diagrams showing the improvements the view cone removals will have.

https://council.vancouver.ca/20240710/documents/pspc1.pdf#page=94

Deregulating the 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.4, and 3.2.4A viewcones will apparently legalize almost 10 square kilometres of floorspace.

Of note, won't this completely invalidate the new city hall planning they're doing right now? The site is currently constrained by K, E3, 3.2.3, 9.2.1, and 9.2.2, and a bunch of those are getting the axe or being modified.



(City of Vancouver)

[Migrant_Coconut]

The viewcones in question:

So that's a large number of the ones around False Creek, and the QE ones to downtown. Nothing particularly unreasonable.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by 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/20240710/documents/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

looks like they prioritized views of "top ridgeline" in each view cone, and deleted the flanking valleys and slopes that give the mountains definition. It would be truly bleak if future building heights do go right up to those yellow lines.

Would've much preferred lowering all the yellow lines and allowing increasing levels of encroachment into them based on how far the towers are from the view cone origin point, to see more of both the mountains and the layers of towers, like the bottom example below:



The top example isn't even denser; it's just the wall of buildings along False Creek blocking views of everything behind it

[mcj]

Seems like Concord will benefit from these changes, a lot eliminated that were affecting the heights for the NEFC plans. I think we might see a revision of those plans coming down the line and finally get that project (and therefore the viaduct removal) rolling.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by dleung

looks like they prioritized views of "top ridgeline" in each view cone, and deleted the flanking valleys and slopes that give the mountains definition. It would be truly bleak if future building heights do go right up to those yellow lines.

Let's take the wins where we can get them. If the view cones start looking like your diagram in 30 years, hopefully that just means more will be on the chopping block.

[jollyburger]

I think a horror scenario of the QE Park view being ruined will only come into play if they allow development around West 16th Avenue. If most of the development is happening downtown or Broadway... I could be wrong though I just skimmed the report.

[Migrant_Coconut]

You can't build over streets. There'll still be gaps in the buildings.

Besides, the silhouettes of the mountains are the interesting part, not the monotonous blueness below them. Just make an interesting skyline to substitute.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I think a horror scenario of the QE Park view being ruined will only come into play if they allow development around West 16th Avenue. If most of the development is happening downtown or Broadway... I could be wrong though I just skimmed the report.

Or we could improve the QE park view by making QE park itself taller (with a viewing deck/observation tower as proposed for years and years and years).

[Migrant_Coconut]

The last obserrvation tower got thrown out for being paid admission - make it free of charge and 99% of the (reasonable) complaints disappear.

[chowhou]

As far as I'm concerned, as long as the conservatory and aquarium have fees, there's no reason for a QE observation tower not to have a fee.

To be fair, there actually are a lot of places around the world that don't have observation towers with fees, because they, like us, do not have observation towers. Meanwhile the rest of the world accepts you have to pay for nice things sometimes.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by logan5

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

Still, his math of a few low-rise units (which the calls affordable) facing north losing their private view of the mountains at the expense of building thousands of new, mainly rental units is bad, according to him. It's bananas.

Even topping out a the existing viewcones those same views would be blocked by 15-20 storey buildings that are allowed under the Broadway Plan. The only views that are changing are if you're standing on top of QE Park with binoculars.

If he's talking about downtown specifically, those units are not affordable. And you don't own views.

[LowerLonsdaleMike]

I wonder how this impacts the overall downtown skyline. I couldnt find a rendering of the overall downtown "dome" being updated. With this revision would there now be areas downtown that have no height limits? Or perhaps at least making way to accommodate a 300m tower?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by LowerLonsdaleMike

I wonder how this impacts the overall downtown skyline. I couldnt find a rendering of the overall downtown "dome" being updated. With this revision would there now be areas downtown that have no height limits? Or perhaps at least making way to accommodate a 300m tower?

Unfortunately, Vancouver has blanket height limits separate from the view cones. They were set in the 70s and haven't been updated since. Yeah.

The leaded gasoline really fucked up people in the 70s.

In case you were wondering why we have a couple of buildings above these height limits build since the 70s, it's because Vancouver does have a policy in place to dictate how you're supposed to beg and let city hall bend you over the table in order to let you build taller.

https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/policy-higher-buildings-for-rezonings.pdf

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by LowerLonsdaleMike

I wonder how this impacts the overall downtown skyline. I couldnt find a rendering of the overall downtown "dome" being updated. With this revision would there now be areas downtown that have no height limits? Or perhaps at least making way to accommodate a 300m tower?

The view of the downtown skyline from QE Park? Or somewhere else? I thought the skyline dome was dead a long time ago?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

As far as I'm concerned, as long as the conservatory and aquarium have fees, there's no reason for a QE observation tower not to have a fee.

To be fair, there actually are a lot of places around the world that don't have observation towers with fees, because they, like us, do not have observation towers. Meanwhile the rest of the world accepts you have to pay for nice things sometimes.

I can see it both ways - the conservatory and aquarium add something that wasn't there, but the tower (depending on implementation) is kind of replacing an existing free view with a slightly pay-per-view one.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I can see it both ways - the conservatory and aquarium add something that wasn't there, but the tower (depending on implementation) is kind of replacing an existing free view with a slightly pay-per-view one.

No, the ground is still free.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Not the ground the tower would replace - it was a big boi. And if you raise the skyline, then as far as they're concerned the paid view becomes the only view.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Not the ground the tower would replace - it was a big boi. And if you raise the skyline, then as far as they're concerned the paid view becomes the only view.

No observation tower will ever have the entirety of QE park as a foundation and the skyline is a view too. None of these are good arguments, they're just NIMBY arguments.

In order to not get the rabid mods biting at our ankles, I will say that I hope all the QE park view cones get removed so that we can have an impressive skyline view from QE park.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

In order to not get the rabid mods biting at our ankles, I will say that I hope all the QE park view cones get removed so that we can have an impressive skyline view from QE park.

That's not what's in the recommendation to Council though, only the lower parts of the QE views are proposed to be dropped.