Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[nova9]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Says who? Who are they to dictate what is "right" for the city? What right do they have subordinating property rights, growth and development to their aesthetic preferences? Who are they to hold free people down for the sake of a few arbitrary vantage points?

Uhhhh.....we elected them to represent us so that's why they have "the right". Otherwise, we should have direct democracy.

Anyway, I don't agree with council at all. I always cringe whenever there is too much public consultation because then we always end up with the same result. Ugh.

(and yes, I'm aware how the second statement stands against the first statement, )

[jlousa]

They were elected by the voters, and were actually listening to voters concerns, if you look at the breakdown of the consultations, the majority did not want the view cones changed.

Presented with the current and two conceptual view
protection guidelines, residents are most accepting of
the current guidelines. The existing guidelines were
endorsed by seven in ten residents (based on ratings
of 6 or greater), with a mean rating of 7.1 and just
over half (55%) rating the current guidelines as highly
acceptable.

Source:http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/capacitystudy/pdf/dec09feedbacksummary.pdf

[flight_from_kamakura]

disappointing. who was it that introduced the motion, i wonder? that npa broad? and the results, was it close? did the vision caucus break up at all? pretty tough blow for toderian, he really took the lead on that one, and it was far less ambitious that he seemed to have hoped. i bet there are mouths a-chattering at city hall tomorrow. and though i'd have loved for it to go through, i have to smile at how hard holbornworld must be taking the vote result; if they're still solvent in 2011, i bet they cut a big cheque to the npa. hm, and since the burrard site change has the least impact on the views, i wonder if that'll be coming back up.

also: much lol at the remark about "who is the elected council to decide on these things?"

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by jlousa

They were elected by the voters, and were actually listening to voters concerns, if you look at the breakdown of the consultations, the majority did not want the view cones changed.

jlousa, while I always respect your viewpoint, apparently the City of Vancouver also commissioned a public opinion poll on the matter confirming that 53% of Vancouverites approved of the 4 towers according to the Vancouver Courier.

I have not seen the public opinion poll, but I also understand that the pollster was Synovate. Typically, when 53% state that they approve of a matter in a public opinion poll, there is also a chunk of voters who state that that 'don't know/no opinion' and then the rest 'disapprove' with the usual margin of error.

And public opinion polls are the 'coin of the realm' in politics.

[jlousa]

The 53% vote in support of the taller towers is in the same document I linked to, but please note the complete context and not just the newspaper headline.

The concept of including 3-4 towers into protected
view cones through an expansion of the higher building
policy was endorsed by roughly half of the population
polled (53%). Residents tended to have greater
tolerance for adding tall buildings into the skyline than
they did for inserting them into specifc view corridors.
While roughly six in ten individuals would accept these
taller buildings into the skyline, less than a majority
found them acceptable when considering the impact
on each of four specifc views.

I'm glad people on the forum question me from time to time, as it's a lot better then the alternative.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by jlousa

They were elected by the voters, and were actually listening to voters concerns, if you look at the breakdown of the consultations, the majority did not want the view cones changed.

I see. An apparent majority wants to dictate what others do with their own property and impose their aesthetic sensibilities on their neighbours. In other words, rights can be violated when done so by a mob. That's your argument? Shameful.

My point was that no one (neither a minority nor a majority) has the right to violate another person's property rights. The freedom to build is the fundamental right of property. Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (Whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell).

Stop violating persons' rights. The fact that you belong to a mob does not (and will never) make it right.

[jlousa]

What are you going on about? We have never had complete freedom to do as we please with our own property (and I'm thankful of that).
I'll let someone schooled in legal matter bring up the details concerning private property rights in Canada.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by flight_from_kamakura

much lol at the remark about "who is the elected council to decide on these things?"

Much lol at the notion that a council is entitled to violate rights because it is elected.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by jlousa

What are you going on about? We have never had complete freedom to do as we please with our own property (and I'm thankful of that). I'll let someone schooled in legal matter bring up the details concerning private property rights in Canada.

My point was much deeper than the law. But since I am schooled in that area as well, then let me inform you that centuries of Anglo-Canadian common law hold that you do not have a right to the free flow of light across your property and, therefore, that a neighbour cannot be stopped from erecting a tall building because it will disturb your view (see: Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc.). The decision in Fountainbleu is right, however, not because it happens to be the law, but because it is the only result consistent with a rational conception of rights.

[flight_from_kamakura]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Much lol at the notion that a body is endowed with the right to violate rights just because it was elected.

oh man, i can see this thread heading to the shitcan at warp speed.

[WBC]

Ah don't worry to much about this guys. As soon as a developer shows up with a platinum LED design and offer city a public plaza with a fountain in exchange for height restriction removal the taller buildings will be built. This way the city council can extort more from a developer for lifting a restriction in each particular case.

[Metro-One]

While I do support viewcones to a degree, ours are far to rigid, and these potential height increases only had one tower that was truly "tall." Having a couple 200m + towers could not hurt Vancouver, in fact it would benefit the city.

I just love how on the news they say "4 massive tower height limits rejected" Since when are 3 towers under 200m (I believe one of them, if not 2, sorter than the new Fairmont Hotel).

Vancouver really needs to keep things in perspective. The term massive should not even be considered until a tower is 250m (unless it has a gigantic floor plate).

I honestly think it is misrepresentation in the media that causes such public backlash, for when one hears 4 massive towers, the mind wonders to the behemoths of New York, Dubai, etc... not mere 130m to 200m towers that exist everywhere in the world.

[EdinVan]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

I'm certainly not impressed with council's decision based upon the following two over-riding factors in favour:

"Vancouver’s director of planning says the proposal to allow four new extra-tall buildings in downtown Vancouver would enhance the city’s skyline and not undermine the long-standing policy of protecting views of the North Shore mountains."

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/h...ore+says+city+planner/2443134/story.html

I'm not sure I'd use the word over-riding. During his presentation to Council, Mr. Toderian kept reiterating that if Council chose to do nothing, he'd be fine with that decision.

[EdinVan]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

But since I am schooled in that area as well...

I wish people would stop saying things like that. Good arguments should be able to stand on their own merits without the need to make pretentious references to our background.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by EdinVan

I wish people would stop saying things like that. Good arguments should be able to stand on their own merits without the need to make pretentious references to our background.

I agree. But in this particular context jlousa appealed to someone with legal knowledge. And rightly so, because the argument being made was a legal one. Unlike a normal argument based on natural reasoning from common knowledge (which we can all judge for ourselves), evaluating the soundness of a legal argument requires special knowledge of law and legal principles. Thus, just as it is relevant to a layman whether a person making claims about medicine is a doctor, so it is relevent to him whether a person making claims about law is a lawyer. Hence, the reference to my legal background. When viewed in proper context, therefore, such a reference is not pretentious but only logical.

[red-paladin]

My opinion is that Downtown can't grow too much larger. I mean the area with high rises can't grow too much larger in Vancouver. All of the rest of the city is supposed to stay single family dwellings. So at some point, the peninsula will be 'full' of buildings, and there will be high rises east to the DTES. But I don't think the city of Vancouver would rezone Strathcona or even the Broadway corridor for high rises. So that means eventually taller buildings will be inevitable unless no new buildings will be built.

Of course most of the other metro van cities have lots of space for tall buildings.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

My opinion is that Downtown can't grow too much larger. I mean the area with high rises can't grow too much larger in Vancouver. All of the rest of the city is supposed to stay single family dwellings. So at some point, the peninsula will be 'full' of buildings, and there will be high rises east to the DTES. But I don't think the city of Vancouver would rezone Strathcona or even the Broadway corridor for high rises. So that means eventually taller buildings will be inevitable unless no new buildings will be built.

Of course most of the other metro van cities have lots of space for tall buildings.

Who says the rest of Vancouver is supposed to stay single family dwellings. It may not happen in my life time. But I can see Vancouver as a whole being one vast area of condo towers and townhouses.

I'm also expecting Strathcona and Broadway to get a much higher density and taller buildings.

[s211]

Originally Posted by jlousa

They were elected by the voters, and were actually listening to voters concerns, if you look at the breakdown of the consultations, the majority did not want the view cones changed.

This is the same council that ignored the recommendations not to mess with the NE False Creek configuration.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I see. An apparent majority wants to dictate what others do with their own property and impose their aesthetic sensibilities on their neighbours. In other words, rights can be violated when done so by a mob. That's your argument? Shameful.

My point was that no one (neither a minority nor a majority) has the right to violate another person's property rights. The freedom to build is the fundamental right of property. Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (Whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell).

Stop violating persons' rights. The fact that you belong to a mob does not (and will never) make it right.

Too much time spent at the Pivot Legal Society, me thinks. The centuries-old maxim you quote above has been tamed by precedents and civil codes.

[Hed Kandi]

..