The Ultimate Vancouver Rumour Thread!

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Okay my photoshop skills were again put to the test. If you laugh at me I'll stop posting my masterpieces.

Anyways I just did some cut and pasting and I stole Scotiatower but you'll get the idea of the old renderings, I threw in a couple of large screens as well. I've even included a top view. I know it's not to scale or even the same building.

nice work bro

[Hot Rod]

I agree that perhaps it is time to modify the view cone and shadowing rules. I mean come on, how many days do we even get sun in this city?

Furthermore, if people want sun when they shop - they can go out of downtown. There are PLENTY of other areas in the city where this can be accomplished.

As for the view cones, I think we need to cut out many of them and the ones we keep, revise them all up at least 100 feet. I think it is ridiculous to hold downtown back at the sake of being able to see ALL of the mountains from central broadway.

Time to join the big leagues if Vancouver wants to be more world class of a city. Sure, we have a great city now but we have way too many rules and obstacles to making downtown truly great!

downtown Vancouver should be the exception - let the rules dominate the rest of the city!!!!

[jlousa]

Acutally I would rather we keep everything exactly like it is d/t and instead encourage development everywhere else in the city, more of d/t in Kerrisidale, Collingwood, W Broadway etc. I would love a city where you can experience the d/t life from anywhere in the city. Hopefully Ecodensity is a step in this direction.

[NewfBC]

Originally Posted by Jacques

Gastown is now turning into a self pompous spoiled child trying to suck every penny out of itself until its has a dry well emptied with little regards to the people that started the community over a decade or so, when no one dare live here, sad

Welcome to the rest of Vancouver.

Ron.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

I agree that perhaps it is time to modify the view cone and shadowing rules. I mean come on, how many days do we even get sun in this city?

Furthermore, if people want sun when they shop - they can go out of downtown. There are PLENTY of other areas in the city where this can be accomplished.

As for the view cones, I think we need to cut out many of them and the ones we keep, revise them all up at least 100 feet. I think it is ridiculous to hold downtown back at the sake of being able to see ALL of the mountains from central broadway.

Time to join the big leagues if Vancouver wants to be more world class of a city. Sure, we have a great city now but we have way too many rules and obstacles to making downtown truly great!

downtown Vancouver should be the exception - let the rules dominate the rest of the city!!!!

Wow! You should put that in bronze for posterity Hopefully with the development of Shangri-La the city will lose its silly phobia of some taller buildings. Maybe the nimby's will see that a taller building has arisen and indeed the sky has not in fact fallen as many of them feared.

[TwoFace]

[quote=Hot Rod;3263334]I agree that perhaps it is time to modify the view cone and shadowing rules. I mean come on, how many days do we even get sun in this city?

Furthermore, if people want sun when they shop - they can go out of downtown. There are PLENTY of other areas in the city where this can be accomplished.
quote]

Eliminating "view cones" could be the biggest planning blunder that the City could make. The open corridors and expansive North Shore Mountain views IS what makes this City livable and special. Take it away, and Vancouver has lost the benefit of it's location. You work with the Geography not against it.
On the other hand, I wouldn't mind seeing them approve the demolition of some of those awful older buildings in the West End and replacing them with some towers.

[leftside]

Originally Posted by TwoFace

Eliminating "view cones" could be the biggest planning blunder that the City could make. The open corridors and expansive North Shore Mountain views IS what makes this City livable and special. Take it away, and Vancouver has lost the benefit of it's location. You work with the Geography not against it.

Agreed.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by TwoFace

Eliminating "view cones" could be the biggest planning blunder that the City could make. The open corridors and expansive North Shore Mountain views IS what makes this City livable and special. Take it away, and Vancouver has lost the benefit of it's location. You work with the Geography not against it.
On the other hand, I wouldn't mind seeing them approve the demolition of some of those awful older buildings in the West End and replacing them with some towers.

Disagree. If the view from city hall is the only thing that makes Vancouver livable, then fuck this city; I'm moving to Calgary, where from a condo or house on a high hill I have wonderful views of the rocky mountains.

Seriously, there is alot more to Vancouver than the views from City Hall, Queen Elizabeth Park, and Cambie Street Bridge. Nothing wrong with not being able to see a few mountains. To me having skyscrapers taller than mountains is a sign of progress, power, and development, and as such should be considered working with geography.

Another point regarding this, wouldn't the views from condo's be what makes a city livable for the folks that actually live their? And not a bureaucrat's view?

[jlousa]

Have fun in Calgary.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Have fun in Calgary.

Oh I'm sure I will, it's got so much more to it than Vancouver's views.

[djh]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Oh I'm sure I will, it's got so much more to it than Vancouver's views.

You've changed your tune...considering you're one of the biggest "Ra Ra Vancouver" boosters on here, what happened? City lost it's shine for you all of a sudden?

[thefly]

[QUOTE=TwoFace;3266425]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

On the other hand, I wouldn't mind seeing them approve the demolition of some of those awful older buildings in the West End and replacing them with some towers.

I would love to see this as well as I live down there, however I seem to recall as proposal in council whereby like had to be replaced with like. Most of these older buildings are rentals so any development taking its place would need to have equal or greater amount of rentals making the finacial sense of this unviable from a developer point of view.

Can anyone confirm whether this was passed or was it just a proposal. Speaking of proposals - anyone hear what happened to the removal of dumpsters in alleys? I thought that was going to council in December but never heard what happened.

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Oh I'm sure I will, it's got so much more to it than Vancouver's views.

please...do go on

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Disagree. If the view from city hall is the only thing that makes Vancouver livable, then fuck this city; I'm moving to Calgary, where from a condo or house on a high hill I have wonderful views of the rocky mountains.

Seriously, there is alot more to Vancouver than the views from City Hall, Queen Elizabeth Park, and Cambie Street Bridge. Nothing wrong with not being able to see a few mountains. To me having skyscrapers taller than mountains is a sign of progress, power, and development, and as such should be considered working with geography.

Another point regarding this, wouldn't the views from condo's be what makes a city livable for the folks that actually live their? And not a bureaucrat's view?

Wow!...totally agree with your post. Just never thought anything like that would be coming from you. (Didn't you once proclaim your love for uniform shorter buildings)? Anyways, it would be great if we could take some of Calgary's buildings and transplant them here to go with our great surroundings...but remember we can build taller, nicer buildings, but Calgary can't import our natural beauty.

[TwoFace]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Another point regarding this, wouldn't the views from condo's be what makes a city livable for the folks that actually live their? And not a bureaucrat's view?

Sadly, I don't think you understand.
NOT having a "view corridor" is like sitting behind a guy with an Afro at the cinema.
As opposed to just the first tower having a view, the ones behind it also do.
People prefer panoramic views over looking at the building in front, hence the "fish bowl" dilemma.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Okay my photoshop skills were again put to the test. If you laugh at me I'll stop posting my masterpieces.

Anyways I just did some cut and pasting and I stole Scotiatower but you'll get the idea of the old renderings, I threw in a couple of large screens as well. I've even included a top view. I know it's not to scale or even the same building.

mmm...too low. i'd like to see a Two International Finance Centre type of building right there, with the underground and first five floors being part of Pacific Centre and with the remaining being office. Of course, the tower wouldn't be nearly as tall as 2 IFC, maybe 800 feet tall? the former Eatons building is on a large site that makes building a large structure viable.

the Futureshop building site across the street is a waste.....something much taller should've gone there (except a condo tower).

Seriously, there is alot more to Vancouver than the views from City Hall, Queen Elizabeth Park, and Cambie Street Bridge. Nothing wrong with not being able to see a few mountains. To me having skyscrapers taller than mountains is a sign of progress, power, and development, and as such should be considered working with geography.

after visiting Hong Kong, i couldn't agree more.

[raggedy13]

I hate to get into this debate but oh well, here I go...

I understand the benefits to the city behind both arguments but I have to come down on the side of the tall building fans. I'm not saying Vancouver should be filled with tall canyons blocking out all sunlight but I feel a few well placed, taller signature towers would add more aesthetic benefit than harm to the city and its surroundings.

Also, the current view cones seem a bit arbitrary and some are just downright ridiculous as they're tiny slivers that the majority of people will never even notice, let alone appreciate. There are still plenty of areas where the mountains are all too visible (i.e. every area of the city not immediately south of downtown). Personally, when I'm around the south shore of False Creek I realize I'd be just as happy to have a condo with a view of downtown as one with the mountains (especially if we had some sexy signature towers to look at).

Mountain views are great but if you're telling me we'd never see the mountains again with tall buildings downtown then you need to get out more, the mountains are inescapable here unless you're at Granville Island 24/7.

Nevermind, it seems mountains are even inescapable there as well...

[officedweller]

I'm not necessarily a tall building fan solely for the purpose of tall buildings, but when I see areas of the downtown penninsula restricted to relatively short towers (i.e. Freesia, Robinson Tower, H+H, etc.) with limited density, I wonder whether the density for the core has been fixed "too low". Downtown really is approaching "build-out" and the strata-titled ownership of existing buildings will mean that the current towers will not be redeveloped in our lifetimes.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by djh

You've changed your tune...considering you're one of the biggest "Ra Ra Vancouver" boosters on here, what happened? City lost it's shine for you all of a sudden?

The more obvious I tried to hint at the sarcasm, the more it appears I failed.

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Wow!...totally agree with your post. Just never thought anything like that would be coming from you. (Didn't you once proclaim your love for uniform shorter buildings)? Anyways, it would be great if we could take some of Calgary's buildings and transplant them here to go with our great surroundings...but remember we can build taller, nicer buildings, but Calgary can't import our natural beauty.

I might have proclaimed love for uniform short buildings when I was either drun posting, making a mockery of someone else, or trying to make an honest point with over-inflated levels of sarcasm... Show how ridiculous one thing is in the hopes of leading a persons opinion in the other direction.

And I wouldn't want to transplant any of Calgary's towers, lets design and build our own. Not saying Calgary's suck... It's just that they are Calgary's.

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

please...do go on

Cowgirls.

Originally Posted by TwoFace

Sadly, I don't think you understand.
NOT having a "view corridor" is like sitting behind a guy with an Afro at the cinema.
As opposed to just the first tower having a view, the ones behind it also do.
People prefer panoramic views over looking at the building in front, hence the "fish bowl" dilemma.

Then why aren't the tallest buildings at the south end of downtown, and the shorter ones at the north end, if one wants to gie the condo owners views?

[TwoFace]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Then why aren't the tallest buildings at the south end of downtown, and the shorter ones at the north end, if one wants to gie the condo owners views?

Topography