Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[jlousa]

So am I to understand that the city while conducting a random sample of 1500 people managed to contact only nimbies? The ones that attending the open houses were also nimbies too as their numbers didn't vary very much from the random sample. There were quite a few of the forumers that attended those openhouses, myself being one.
I think you need to take the hint, the majority of the citizens are against the idea. Some are more willing then others to see some changes but no one wants the view cones changed to much from where they are now.

[Spork]

If only West/North Vancouver was part of the City of Vancouver. The extra population wouldn't care if building heights are increased, because they have nothing to look at above the buildings!

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Spork

If only West/North Vancouver was part of the City of Vancouver. The extra population wouldn't care if building heights are increased, because they have nothing to look at above the buildings!

More than that, we strongly desire higher buildings because the buildings are our view.

[stevai]

I would argue that the majority of the public participants in this survey voted for keeping things the way they are, not because of nimbyism, but because there is a tendency for people to accept the status quo when it's an issue that's not really important to them - such as building heights.

I'm pretty confident that your average citizen doesn't care either way what happens in terms of building heights downtown. The thought has probably never crossed the mind of most, until this "random sample" when these participants, with no passion or intellectual insight into the issue, come up with the typical "things are fine the way they are" answer. I really see this as a mis-leading way of gathering valuable input on what should be done on issues such as this. Opinion sampling should be limited to professionals, planners, and any member of the public who voluntarily takes an interest in urban planning, the public realm and built form aesthetics of Vancouver.

In this case, I thought the public opinion was surveyed through a voluntary questionaire on the city's website, not through a randomly contacted 1500 people. If it was just the website survey, the results could be skewed in favour of keeping the status quo, because people opposed to change tend to go out of their way to make their voice heard moreso than those who have no opinion on the matter, are in favour, or aren't even aware of the issue all together/probably not caring either way what happens (the majority).

[Rusty Gull]

The view cones aren't going anywhere, and the current study will bear out the fact that the public appreciates the city's connection to the setting.

However, there should be an outcome that also meets the needs of the local economy, and enhances the architecture within the skyline. As it stands, on a relative basis, the skyline is still... as Arthur Erickson put it a few years ago, "blah". Far too vanilla.

We do need more diversity in our architecture, and more buildings that break through the tabletop skyline like the Shangri-La currently does. There's no reason why the downtown core - an economic driver of the region, and a symbol for the province - should be held back because of a handful of people (and I do mean handful, as in under 100,000) of people living on the south side of False Creek.

Heck, are we going to kill Erickson's Ritz design because a retiree living in Fairview wants to see the twinkling lights of Grouse from his bathroom?

[phesto]

Originally Posted by stevai

I would argue that the majority of the public participants in this survey voted for keeping things the way they are, not because of nimbyism, but because there is a tendency for people to accept the status quo when it's an issue that's not really important to them - such as building heights.

I'm pretty confident that your average citizen doesn't care either way what happens in terms of building heights downtown. The thought has probably never crossed the mind of most, until this "random sample" when these participants, with no passion or intellectual insight into the issue, come up with the typical "things are fine the way they are" answer. I really see this as a mis-leading way of gathering valuable input on what should be done on issues such as this. Opinion sampling should be limited to professionals, planners, and any member of the public who voluntarily takes an interest in urban planning, the public realm and built form aesthetics of Vancouver.

In this case, I thought the public opinion was surveyed through a voluntary questionaire on the city's website, not through a randomly contacted 1500 people. If it was just the website survey, the results could be skewed in favour of keeping the status quo, because people opposed to change tend to go out of their way to make their voice heard moreso than those who have no opinion on the matter, are in favour, or aren't even aware of the issue all together/probably not caring either way what happens (the majority).

The survey was actually a random sample of Vancouver residents. They were recruited to take the survey either online or by mail. Whether or not this random sample of Vancouverites really cares about the subject is debatable, but they actually had to go through the survey view cone by view cone, so some thought and consideration of the matter was required.

There was also the “opt in” survey that I’m sure some SSPers filled out. This was used as a comparison, but since it isn’t a random sample, it isn’t considered statistically significant.

Here's the polling methodology straight from the survey:

Random Polling Methodology

The Synovate market research firm was retained by the City of Vancouver to obtain the opinions of its residents regarding the City’s public views and modification of protected view corridors. A telephone recruit to an online or mail-back survey was conducted with 529 residents from June 11th to July 5th, 2009. The methodological details of the polling were as
follows:

• An initial telephone recruit was conducted with a random sample of residents within five City areas. A total of 1,500 residents were first recruited for the survey by telephone and given a choice of completing the survey online or by mail.

• Of the 529 interviews that were completed within the timeline for the survey:
- 436 were completed online
- 93 returned a survey by mail

• Interviewing occurred between June 11th and July 5th, 2009

• The random polling sample was regionally stratified to achieve roughly equal representation in each of the five areas of the city using mathematical weights to attain a distribution of the population by region, according to the 2006 Census
• The maximum margin of error for a sample size of 500 is ±4.4% points at the 95% level of confidence

• An initial telephone recruit was conducted with a random sample of residents within each of the five City regions. A total of 1,500 residents were first recruited for the survey by telephone and given a choice of completing the survey online or by mail.

[Hed Kandi]

..

[ckkelley]

Wow, I think that some people really are unwilling/unable to see the reality here - People like things the way they are. Further, that attitude hasn't changed in the 20 years between surveys.

[frank]

I was yesterday at this presentation (VIEWS ON VIEWS: Perspectives on view corridors in Vancouver; with Brent Toderian, Past City Planning Co-Director Larry Beasley and architect Richard Henriquez), and I thought some of you might appreciate a short description of what happened.

Toderian presented a short history of the view cones in Vancouver and the progress of the current study. Most of the stuff is well known, especially to those that have read the City website: http://www.vancouver.ca/views. The one piece of extra information was a glimpse into the report from the Advisory Group Review (the 4 experts commissioned by City Hall): they agree that the view cones are an essential part of what makes Vancouver special and they are worth maintaining. They also recommended allowing a few tall buildings, in order to better accentuate and anchor the Downtown skyline. I guess we'll get a more complete view of their recommendations at the open houses scheduled in about 2 weeks.

Henriquez made his opinion clear from the top: he wants the viewcones abolished - the sooner, the better. He brought a number of arguments: the fact that they are arbitrarily established (why the middle of Granville bridge, and not some other point?); they are static/rigid, they encourage the development of short, bulky buildings (that raise privacy concerns for their inhabitants- seeing as they are so close to each other). He made clear that the way forward is allowing taller buildings, with a smaller floorplates, that allow for open space around them (he gave the example of the Wall Centre as one such successful development - it is tall, is iconic, it does not intrude on the existing buildings - Electra - and it provides an open space for anyone to enjoy).

Unsurprisingly, Beasley is a strong advocate of keeping the view corridors as they are. His main argument is that Vancouverites have a special relationship with the mountains and the corridors allow everyone to maintain that connection - whether they are walking, driving, biking, living or working. He made a impassioned plea to keep the viewcones rigid - "Once we've allowed a single building, the view is gone. Forever." One of his other arguments against completely abolishing any viewcones is that a number of architects have had to work for years in order to keep the viewcones and that we owe them to keep that view for all to enjoy. His counter solution is "The downtown is beautiful as it is; it can already support more density without having to cut into the viewcones. For more developments, 'Go East' - all the way to Clark Drive".


Finally, a few of personal observations (FWIW):

I wouldn't want to be in Toderian's shoes - he has to have one of the most pressure-filled jobs in the city. He seems to be handling it well though - he's not afraid to disagree with the heavyweights; I think it's a good sign, seeing as no matter what he does, some people will be pissed with him.

I could also see why Beasley lasted so long in his position; he is more slippery than an eel dipped in oil that you're trying to handle with greasy hands. However, if "influencing people" is an art, he is freakin' Van Gogh.

I could also see why Henriquez is so popular on this forum. On more than one occasion he expounded on his main thesis on development in Downtown: "Tall = good". Well, yeah, if said tall buildings are designed by him. Good man .

[Hed Kandi]

..

[phesto]

Originally Posted by frank

I was yesterday at this presentation (VIEWS ON VIEWS: Perspectives on view corridors in Vancouver; with Brent Toderian, Past City Planning Co-Director Larry Beasley and architect Richard Henriquez), and I thought some of you might appreciate a short description of what happened.

Toderian presented a short history of the view cones in Vancouver and the progress of the current study. Most of the stuff is well known, especially to those that have read the City website: http://www.vancouver.ca/views. The one piece of extra information was a glimpse into the report from the Advisory Group Review (the 4 experts commissioned by City Hall): they agree that the view cones are an essential part of what makes Vancouver special and they are worth maintaining. They also recommended allowing a few tall buildings, in order to better accentuate and anchor the Downtown skyline. I guess we'll get a more complete view of their recommendations at the open houses scheduled in about 2 weeks.

Henriquez made his opinion clear from the top: he wants the viewcones abolished - the sooner, the better. He brought a number of arguments: the fact that they are arbitrarily established (why the middle of Granville bridge, and not some other point?); they are static/rigid, they encourage the development of short, bulky buildings (that raise privacy concerns for their inhabitants- seeing as they are so close to each other). He made clear that the way forward is allowing taller buildings, with a smaller floorplates, that allow for open space around them (he gave the example of the Wall Centre as one such successful development - it is tall, is iconic, it does not intrude on the existing buildings - Electra - and it provides an open space for anyone to enjoy).

Unsurprisingly, Beasley is a strong advocate of keeping the view corridors as they are. His main argument is that Vancouverites have a special relationship with the mountains and the corridors allow everyone to maintain that connection - whether they are walking, driving, biking, living or working. He made a impassioned plea to keep the viewcones rigid - "Once we've allowed a single building, the view is gone. Forever." One of his other arguments against completely abolishing any viewcones is that a number of architects have had to work for years in order to keep the viewcones and that we owe them to keep that view for all to enjoy. His counter solution is "The downtown is beautiful as it is; it can already support more density without having to cut into the viewcones. For more developments, 'Go East' - all the way to Clark Drive".


Finally, a few of personal observations (FWIW):

I wouldn't want to be in Toderian's shoes - he has to have one of the most pressure-filled jobs in the city. He seems to be handling it well though - he's not afraid to disagree with the heavyweights; I think it's a good sign, seeing as no matter what he does, some people will be pissed with him.

I could also see why Beasley lasted so long in his position; he is more slippery than an eel dipped in oil that you're trying to handle with greasy hands. However, if "influencing people" is an art, he is freakin' Van Gogh.

I could also see why Henriquez is so popular on this forum. On more than one occasion he expounded on his main thesis on development in Downtown: "Tall = good". Well, yeah, if said tall buildings are designed by him. Good man .

Thanks for summarizing. I was there last night as well.

Of the 3 speakers, only Toderian presented a level-headed, unbiased viewpoint on the issue; partly because he was playing more of a current policymaker's role, but also because he wasn’t involved in the previous policy development in the 80’s and 90’s like Beasley and Henriquez were.

Beasley basically suggested that the current view corridor policy was perfect and that he was shocked the City was wasting its time with the current review.

It was almost painful to watch Beasley repeatedly trying to point out flaws in the City’s current planning policy, right in front of Toderian. At times it was even inappropriate. The rest of the time was devoted to Gordon Price showering praise on Beasley, while Beasley reaffirmed his past successes and made vague reference that current planning staff can do better without offering up any tangible solutions. But I guess why rack your brain trying to solve the tough planning issues you never tackled in one city, when you can sell past successes to mayors and princes in other cities for buckets full of money?

Michael Geller got up and made probably the most logical argument of the night - basically suggesting we find some form of balance where view protection is weighed against development of the urban fabric and skyline.

At the end, the one thing I realized is that unlike Beasley, Toderian knows his role is still as staff and merely as an advisor. He takes more direction from Council than Beasley ever did. (though that was obvious as soon as Toderian started) I don't think there is really the will on Council to make any drastic changes and so, as I feared, this policy will likely remain virtually unchanged, with a few minor tweaks here and there to mask the pointlessness of the time and effort put into the review.

[jlousa]

I was there as well, we should've had coffee.
Not sure how anyone doesn't like Henriquez's work, he doesn't even have a bad build under his belt in 40yrs, that's pretty impressive. His son is off to a great start as well.
I found it interesting how near the end in question period Brent eluded to work the city is doing with Translink along the UBC line, unlike the delay in zoning along the Cambie line.
Also I'm not surprised that the revised NEFC plan has Richards fingerprints all over it.

[Rusty Gull]

Henriquez must hate living and working in Metro Vancouver. How many stunning Henriquez projects have we seen killed - across the Lower Mainland - over the years at the hands of Nimbies and Viewcone fanatics.

[ckkelley]

Originally Posted by phesto

Thanks for summarizing. I was there last night as well.

Of the 3 speakers, only Toderian presented a level-headed, unbiased viewpoint on the issue; partly because he was playing more of a current policymaker's role, but also because he wasn’t involved in the previous policy development in the 80’s and 90’s like Beasley and Henriquez were.

Beasley basically suggested that the current view corridor policy was perfect and that he was shocked the City was wasting its time with the current review.

It was almost painful to watch Beasley repeatedly trying to point out flaws in the City’s current planning policy, right in front of Toderian. At times it was even inappropriate. The rest of the time was devoted to Gordon Price showering praise on Beasley, while Beasley reaffirmed his past successes and made vague reference that current planning staff can do better without offering up any tangible solutions. But I guess why rack your brain trying to solve the tough planning issues you never tackled in one city, when you can sell past successes to mayors and princes in other cities for buckets full of money?

Michael Geller got up and made probably the most logical argument of the night - basically suggesting we find some form of balance where view protection is weighed against development of the urban fabric and skyline.

At the end, the one thing I realized is that unlike Beasley, Toderian knows his role is still as staff and merely as an advisor. He takes more direction from Council than Beasley ever did. (though that was obvious as soon as Toderian started) I don't think there is really the will on Council to make any drastic changes and so, as I feared, this policy will likely remain virtually unchanged, with a few minor tweaks here and there to mask the pointlessness of the time and effort put into the review.

But it wasn't a waste of time and resources as it re-affirmed the wishes of Vancouver residents.

Obviously there's some unhappy people here but you just can't deny those numbers - 73% measured over 20 years.

[frank]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Also I'm not surprised that the revised NEFC plan has Richards fingerprints all over it.

... and, of course, the fact that both Henriquez and Toderian said the NEFC plans are not available for public viewing kinda makes me see them even more. I think Beasley said he was impressed with those plans and challenged S Anton to move things forward (I'm sure she wasn't squirming in the seat at all ).

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

And what the hell is Beasley doing back in Vancouver? Isn't he supposed to be in the sand dunes of Abu Dhabi planning the city's billion dollar mega projects?

Was wondering the exact same thing. Beasley has no place at these meetings anymore. But then again since he hand picked his successor (still don't know of too many people that get to pick who replaces them at their job but then again this is Vancouver where back door politics rule the day). As for his stint in Dubai, after he was done recreating a coal harbour look alike over there he offered to expand his role over there and was given a hardy thanks but no thanks.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

Imagine if the city went around with another random survey, but this time asked residents if they were in favor of "Decreasing current building height limits in the downtown core" so as to provide greater views of the mountains and surrounding scenery.

What do you believe would be the majority response?

I think both you and I know that if the city left planning up to the Nimby majority, Vancouver would be completely devoid of skycrapers.

Don't forget that this "survey" had more than one option for those wanting to change the view cones while there was only the one "keep the view cones as they are" option on the other side. So it is pretty obvious what side had the upper hand. If they wanted it to be fair there should have been only 2 options not multiple choice favoring one viewpoint

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by frank

He brought a number of arguments: the fact that they are arbitrarily established (why the middle of Granville bridge, and not some other point?); they are static

Thank you for that bit of logic Mr. Henriquez. The "logic" behind some of these view cones is mindboggling. Its almost as if put a blindfold on a chimp and asked it to point to 5 areas on a map then made these idiotic nimby rules

[phesto]

Originally Posted by ckkelley

But it wasn't a waste of time and resources as it re-affirmed the wishes of Vancouver residents.

Obviously there's some unhappy people here but you just can't deny those numbers - 73% measured over 20 years.

Right, but Council could’ve asked for just the survey to determine if a review was warranted at this time. Instead they decided to follow bureaucratic protocol and are doing a full (and futile) policy planning exercise – meanwhile tying up planning staff’s time and resources, which could better be devoted to the Cambie Corridor, NEFC etc.

[EdinVan]

Originally Posted by phesto

It was almost painful to watch Beasley repeatedly trying to point out flaws in the City’s current planning policy, right in front of Toderian. At times it was even inappropriate.

If you want to take about propriety, Mr. Henriquez could be equally criticized for his hostile tone throughout the evening, including during the question-and-answer session. Yes, it's understandable that he may be very frustrated living and working in this city, but being cantankerous (which is not a synonym for passionate) during a live public forum isn't the best way to get one's point across or to get anyone to change their mind about the status quo.