Vancouver view cone review

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

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

No one said anything to the contrary, my esteemed friend.

[logan5]

So with QE Park 3.1 being eliminated, what are the new height limits for Broadway? Anybody able to figure that out?

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by logan5

So with QE Park 3.1 being eliminated, what are the new height limits for Broadway? Anybody able to figure that out?

I mean along Broadway you can look at the rezoning submissions I think to get a general idea. Here's the MEC/Reliance site. It will be more pronounced the further you get away ie downtown though it's bisected by other viewcones..



https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/mec-...owers-approved

[logan5]

This link was posted, but it's hard to get exact numbers, and I'm not sure if they mean additional stories here...

https://council.vancouver.ca/2024071...c1.pdf#page=94

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

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.

Those NIMBY arguments are why it got thrown out the first time. Best not to give them free ammo unless you're counting on four more years of ABC majorities.

Libraries and community centres are free of charge - it's specific amenities inside which are booked for a fee. If we want the tower to pay for itself, I suggest we go full Space Needle and stick a radio antenna and restaurant on top.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Those NIMBY arguments are why it got thrown out the first time. Best not to give them free ammo unless you're counting on four more years of ABC majorities.

Libraries and community centres are free of charge - it's specific amenities inside which are booked for a fee. If you want the tower to pay for itself, maybe go full Space Needle and stick a restaurant on top.

Or perhaps more usefully, underneath. Although that might upset Seasons in the Park. I don't know if concessions in parks have a promise of exclusivity within a certain distance.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I mean along Broadway you can look at the rezoning submissions I think to get a general idea. Here's the MEC/Reliance site. It will be more pronounced the further you get away ie downtown though it's bisected by other viewcones..



https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/mec-...owers-approved

If Council adopt the new guidelines, it would seem that the eastern tower is too tall to fit under the revised QE view cone?

EDIT I just checked the meeting minutes, and the twin towers were roughly 325 ft tall in that image, and not approved. Instead a revised version with towers that do match the revised view cones were approved, with the taller west tower at 307 ft (so under 100m). So if the render is accurate, that seems to about the height towers could achieve in general along this stretch of West Broadway (less to the east).

[logan5]

You can see City Hall in that picture, which is 98 meters tall. The new view cone limit looks like it would be able to accommodate 1 more City Hall height, so Broadway and Cambie should have a height limit of around 200 meters. I think.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Changing City

If Council adopt the new guidelines, it would seem that the eastern tower is too tall to fit under the revised QE view cone?

Ah the diagram was the 2022 rezoning.

2022: East 328 feet/30 storey West 325 feet/29 storey
2023 East 235 feet/21 storey West 307 feet/28 storey

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Ah the diagram was the 2022 rezoning.

2022: East 328 feet/30 storey West 325 feet/29 storey
2023 East 235 feet/21 storey West 307 feet/28 storey

Thanks. I edited my comment already to note that. Looks like Council already had the revisions to view cones in mind when they approved the Reliance towers.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

You can see City Hall in that picture, which is 98 meters tall. The new view cone limit looks like it would be able to accommodate 1 more City Hall height, so Broadway and Cambie should have a height limit of around 200 meters. I think.

You're not seeing all of City Hall, only the tower. And it's not 98m tall, it's 98m above sea level to the top. It's only 12 storeys tall. You might get close to 100m under the view cone, if the towers are shown at 325 ft tall.

[logan5]

Yeah, I screwed that up. It looks more like an increase of about 40 meters give or take. Or 325 feet. Whatever. lol

[jollyburger]

Noting the caveats outlined in Section 2 below, staff estimate that the recommended amendments may result in an additional development capacity of between 10,000,000 sq. m (108,000,000 sq. ft.) and 20,000,000 sq. m (215,000,000 sq. ft.).

The development floor area estimates are intended as general reflection of order of magnitude, and do not reflect a comprehensive analysis of the actual development capacities in the relevant areas. These estimates do not consider current
improvements on the relevant lots, the condition or value of any existing buildings or
other development policies that may otherwise limit or shape development on these
parcels.

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

[Changing City]

It's hard to be certain, but it appears that the Bay Parkade may no longer be limited to 297 ft by the Cambie Bridge view cones.

However, it doesn't qualify as an Exceptional Downtown Site, as it doesn't meet the proposed site size threshold. (Neither does The Bay, but heritage policy already allows that site to be considered for the sort of intervention already proposed).

There's no obvious existing policy door for the site to be redeveloped to the height that the MAD designed scheme was proposing in 2016, or OMA in 2020, and there's also a totally different economic climate now. Given the ownership, it wouldn't be surprising if they didn't wait another 18 years before anything happens. (At least - that's how long they've taken to do anything on Little Mountain - and they haven't done that yet).

[csbvan]

Bay Parkade won't redevelop unless policy changes. With consolidation, it's practically a city block. Staff say 100% office/employment uses. Given the office market currently and in the medium-term, the site will fester in its existing state. It is perhaps the prime site that shows why inflexible early 2000s thinking cannot be sustained in a post-covid 2020s. A real shame, given the cultural district forming in the area.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by csbvan

Bay Parkade won't redevelop unless policy changes. With consolidation, it's practically a city block. Staff say 100% office/employment uses. Given the office market currently and in the medium-term, the site will fester in its existing state. It is perhaps the prime site that shows why inflexible early 2000s thinking cannot be sustained in a post-covid 2020s. A real shame, given the cultural district forming in the area.

There's existing policy from as long ago as 2006 that allows some residential use, recognising that there's a 162 bed SRO in a heritage building on the site. At the time Holborn had Henriquez design a project with minimal commercial space (2 FSR) and Council confirmed that the development would have to include the base commercial zoning. Beyond that the report at the time said that in exchange for the offered rebuilt heritage SRO the site could accommodate a total of about 10 FSR. Presumably that could be more without the height limit.

To consolidate, the City would have to sell the lane. Holborn is also required to replace the parking for The Bay (as part of the conditions of purchase that they agreed to). That's presumably an additional cost of development, and they would probably want parking of their own, although these days they aren't required to provide it.

[officedweller]

Deletion of the Chiklit Park view cone would allow the Four Season site at Pacific Centre to go tall (ie 500ft within the Scotia Tower's view shadow).
Old discussion here:
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...97987&page=205

[officedweller]

The most significant changes may be the areas shown in gray marked "No longer under a view cone".

Here are the relevant ones:

Much of Anchor Point is clear of view cones (and the old Kettle of Fish):

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

I think the large block on Beach Ave. is Beach Towers:

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


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

[Vin]

The Viewcones have been costing all parties tremendous amount of time, manpower and financial resources over the decades. They create an unnecessary heavy yoke for everyone and a huge price to pay for developments, and have been driving away great business investments.

I say get rid of them!

[GenWhy?]

I'd also like to clearly point out that the areas in green, and the "additional stories" listed do not equal what you can now build in these areas.