Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[EdinVan]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

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.

Sorry, I must have missed his comment. However, one can still evaluate the soundness of an argument without making reference to one's background. If one has the requisite knowledge and background, it will be evident in the evaluation of the argument (eg, citation of appropriate authority, proper application of background knowledge, etc). Credentials by themselves mean little and don't carry any weight. There are plenty of people with advanced degrees, doctors and lawyers alike, who are mistaken about facts and have poor judgment (I'm not saying that about you, but rather just making the point). There are also plenty of people with little advanced education who possess tremendous specialized knowledge and who can make arguments and evaluate their soundness in a far superior fashion (a few of them even teach in universities). As far as a someone else asking for comments from someone who is schooled in a particular topic, that reflects that person's own biases about knowledge and authority and shouldn't factor into your arguments. But I digress.

[Mininari]

If the main concern of the city is (and probably for a while) downtown job development, and office space capacity, then I think a simple directive for them to follow would be to consider allowing only office towers to penetrate (a little) into a view cone. If council wants the city officials to find different sites, then fine... find those sites, but allow the extra height ONLY for office space (I suppose hotels would count as well, since they are businesses).

Really tall residential buildings only command higher prices for the premium view anyway. I'd rather hear about 40th floor (and above) office space being leased at an astronomical rate, than hear about the next MOST expensive ever condo unit that NONE of us will ever have a chance of seeing the inside of.

I've given up on any idea that Vancouver is ever going to have many taller buildings (600+). Comments regarding redeveloping single-family residential areas (especially around rapid transit stations) should definitely be in the cities, and developer's minds next. I'm sure theres a few developers out there that could afford to buy up some houses (Vancouver specials please!), and put up a profitable development.

As for height..... SURREY, don't let us down!

[s211]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Your repeated allusion to the socialism-oriented Pivot Legal Society is truly bizarre.

Pivot = libertarian.

"Give me my rights!"

[vansky]

it's funny when ppl want to protect views, when the views could be enhanced with taller buildings, it's pretty dumb...haha

i remember there was objection toward shangri-la, and then there was that shaw tower sticking up by itself, now as things got built, everything worked out ok...but imagine if things remained the same, u won't ever get a new look...but ppl r a bit conservative in this place, despite it being more creative than normal...

[trofirhen]

*sigh* I always thought that in the right location, with the right design, Vancouver could support two or three 600, 650, maybe 700 ft buildings.

The main objevtive seems to be that they don't block the view of the mountains, but with the already-intact forest of West End buildings, and several major office buildings all bunched together downtown alreday, I don't understand the irreperable esthetic harm this would do to Vancouver.

Alas, there are obviously others out there who would.

[vansky]

the thing is, we have some pioneers in this issue...hk got a superstructure, and it obviously stands out from everything else, and the skyline looks great now...u can't block everything with one or two towers, can u? i think the problems are from ppl who might have their views blocked with those towers...if the new towers blocked you, you can always live in the new towers...~~~

[Denscity]

Yeah why does Hong Kong build such high towers with mountain/island/ocean views getting blocked? Its still a beautiful city. And why can't new towers that "block" mountain views in Vancouver just wrap that part of the building with a picture of the part of the mountain that is blocked. Or at least use mirrored glass?

[vansky]

exactly, having an unique looking tower along with some mountains is also beautiful...

but if u got a dumb boring looking one, then it's not worth it...

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Denscity

Yeah why does Hong Kong build such high towers with mountain/island/ocean views getting blocked? Its still a beautiful city. And why can't new towers that "block" mountain views in Vancouver just wrap that part of the building with a picture of the part of the mountain that is blocked. Or at least use mirrored glass?

Not to mention that Hong Kong's mountains are 1/5th the height of ours, and yet...

[vansky]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Not to mention that Hong Kong's mountains are 1/5th the height of ours, and yet...

i wish they had the attitude such as if "it's gona hurt a little, why not for a greater benefit"...

[SpongeG]

Vancouver council has approved higher buildings for Chinatown

[vansky]

ha, that's like you can't have the melon...i'll give you an apple...

[jlousa]

Umm Hong Kong also has a few more people then we do, in a little less space. Once we get to the density HK is I'm sure we'll have revisted the view corridors. The fact is we do not need to intrude into the view corridors at this time. They are not holding us back, it's hard to make the argument that we need to when we still have dozens of surface lots and countless underbuilt stubs all across the core right now.

[jlousa]

So the open houses start tomorrow on the next phase of the city's capacity study.
Not many surprises on what is in it, probably more surprising is what isn't in it. Anyways I will avoid my normal commentary and just post the link to the boards that will be shown. Critic away.

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/ca...r%20Building%20Open%20House%20Boards.pdf

Warning document is 32mb so I recommend d/l it before viewing.

[navazan]

thanks for that document! currently reading.... very exciting to see this...

[Hed Kandi]

..

[squeezied]

wow so they're considering replacing the Burrard Building with a 700 footer? Isn't that going that going to be expensive demolishing an existing office building to replace with another office building? I would love to see that but I wonder how viable it would be.

[Metro-One]

of course I love these proposals, they seem like a reasonable middle ground approach in adding some taller pinnacles to our skyline, while maintaining the overall policy of the view cones. i love the gateway concepts coming in from Granville and Burrard street BRidges.

I do not see how an one could be against these.

[Locked In]

^ Agreed. The fact that the proposals respect the view cones and aren't way out of line with existing heights will hopefully eliminate a lot of the usual opposition.

[jlousa]

Just to clarify no one at this time is proposing demolishing the Burrard building for a700ft tower, what they are proposing is allowing a 700ft tower to be built at that location.
If you look at one of the boards you'll see that there were multiple locations that could've been built higher under the higher building guidelines but were not.

Hope the people that think the nimbies will shoot this down will actually attend one of the open houses.