Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[vanman]

Originally Posted by Vancity

Thought I'd never see the day that Vancouver would have 700' towers.

I've always had this sneaking suspicion since the Shangri la was first approved that Vancouverites and the city would gradually warm up to taller buildings. 700ft is only roughly 50ft higher than the Shangri la. Once a 700fter is finally built I have no doubt that another developer down the line will push for a 750ft-800fter and so on and so forth. It will take time but I think eventually the skyline will rival Seattle.

[dleung]

To maintain the scale of Vancouver's downtown, these 700'+ buildings better have the proportions of a supertall, and have best architecture possible. They better be at least nicer than Shangri-la or Wall Centre. The Toyota proposal doesn't fall in that category.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves

First Canadian Place in Toronto at 1,171ft, unless you count the 1,815ft CN Tower.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Canada

We counting masts and antennas now? Then I guess Harbour Centre is Vancouver's 2nd tallest at just under 600' then.

[wrenegade]

Went to the open house earlier this evening. Wow. Never have I seen so many angry residents. Time for bed now, I'll comment more later. Residents are very very opposed to the Granville Street changes.

[squeezied]

I was there too... a lot of vocal nimbys.

-There were concerns of higher buildings casting shadows on Granville Street in the late afternoon(when Granville is suppose to become busy)
-One woman somehow deduced that a higher building would house 2000 people.
-The same woman complained that new condos blocked her view and that proposed higher buildings would further obstruct her view
-One man complained that Vancouver is like Hong Kong and that council is jam-packing people like rats.
-Concern that the view cone policy/higher buildings only crater to the public viewing from the south and not to the concerns of downtown residents(shadowing, traffic, etc)
-Issue that council would pass higher building policy regardless of public input

Overall it seems that the opposition isn't stressed too much on height as opposed to increased density.

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by squeezied

I was there too... a lot of vocal nimbys.

-There were concerns of higher buildings casting shadows on Granville Street in the late afternoon(when Granville is suppose to become busy)
-One woman somehow deduced that a higher building would house 2000 people.
-The same woman complained that new condos blocked her view and that proposed higher buildings would further obstruct her view
-One man complained that Vancouver is like Hong Kong and that council is jam-packing people like rats.
-Concern that the view cone policy/higher buildings only crater to the public viewing from the south and not to the concerns of downtown residents(shadowing, traffic, etc)
-Issue that council would pass higher building policy regardless of public input

Overall it seems that the opposition isn't stressed too much on height as opposed to increased density.

1. I wonder if that's somehow the same one I heard from It's such an absurd argument.

2. Well, we know what Gregor thinks of his subjects opinions already. But I'd look the other way this time.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by squeezied

I was there too... a lot of vocal nimbys.

-There were concerns of higher buildings casting shadows on Granville Street in the late afternoon(when Granville is suppose to become busy)
-One woman somehow deduced that a higher building would house 2000 people.
-The same woman complained that new condos blocked her view and that proposed higher buildings would further obstruct her view
-One man complained that Vancouver is like Hong Kong and that council is jam-packing people like rats.
-Concern that the view cone policy/higher buildings only crater to the public viewing from the south and not to the concerns of downtown residents(shadowing, traffic, etc)
-Issue that council would pass higher building policy regardless of public input

Overall it seems that the opposition isn't stressed too much on height as opposed to increased density.

Has he been to Hong Kong?

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Has he been to Hong Kong?

Anybody who makes that argument has never been to Hong Kong, or possibly even stepped outside of their apartment in Vancouver.

Vancouver = Hong Kong because we have mountains and oceans and "outrageously" tall buildings

And I guess some Chinese people add to the effect. How could you even tell us apart

[Metro-One]

I hope those forum members who were there spoke in favour of them.

Dont worry though, there are always way more people against then in favour of a proposal at public meetings. Again, when and where is the next open house?????? If I knew about todays I could have gone.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

1. I wonder if that's somehow the same one I heard from It's such an absurd argument.

Well he was a white man wearing a black suit with a purple tie if that helps

Some other tibits from my conversation with the presenter:
-the university club site / 1021 west hasting office building was initially rejected because it was lacking architectural quality. The idea was to keep the building subtle and not outshine the Marine building, but the panel wanted some more "pizzazz"
-the Burrard building is perfectly function and we won't be seeing the demolishing it and the replacing with a 700' building anytime soon. The presenter further mentioned that 20 years down the roadwould be more realistic. Apparently the owner of the site came to one of the earlier presentations.
-if I understood correctly the two 425' buildings that straddle the Granville Street bridge would be connected by a podium under the bridge. The podium would house retail or maybe a market of some sort.
-lots of office planning currently in the works, including the ones we already know and ones not made public yet.

[wrenegade]

Originally Posted by squeezied

I was there too... a lot of vocal nimbys.

-There were concerns of higher buildings casting shadows on Granville Street in the late afternoon(when Granville is suppose to become busy)
-One woman somehow deduced that a higher building would house 2000 people.
-The same woman complained that new condos blocked her view and that proposed higher buildings would further obstruct her view
-One man complained that Vancouver is like Hong Kong and that council is jam-packing people like rats.
-Concern that the view cone policy/higher buildings only crater to the public viewing from the south and not to the concerns of downtown residents(shadowing, traffic, etc)
-Issue that council would pass higher building policy regardless of public input

Overall it seems that the opposition isn't stressed too much on height as opposed to increased density.

It's kind of funny, the city has done so many of these open houses for all sorts of different types of development, yet they come so unprepared for questions sometimes. The women who thought the buildings would house 2000 people arrived at that thought because one of the planners was trying to do a calculation in his head and screwed up. They should have already known an estimate on how many people would live in a 425' residential building (roughly around 400). Even though he corrected himself, the damage had kinda already been done.

There were a couple people complaining about the loss of their views, 100% nimbyism, but should we be surprised at that? Those and many others complained about how the density was making it so loud. Obviously this is ridiculous, these people don't seem to understand that downtown is noisy.

However, some of their objections were well founded. Many complained that the Hornby bike line was rammed through no matter what they thought or how they felt, and that it has made traffic horrible in the neighbourhood (I don't disagree). They wondered what all this extra density would do for traffic, parking, etc. They also worried about amenities for the area. Where will all the schools, community centres and parks go! Obviously 1500-2000 more people don't necessitate all of those things, but the area is lacking amenities. Again, I blame the city a bit here. It comes across as if they are increasing density and hight just for density's sake (not that there is anything wrong with that). They didn't bring up CACs (I did). Most residents didn't even know what they were. I think that whenever the city is proposing these types of changes it should be an integral part of the presentation that this further development (if approved) would provide the city with cash to build/improve community centres, schools, the ancient bunker-like Aquatic Centre for instance. If I didn't bring it up it likely would not have been mentioned.

The rest of the hight increases seemed to go over pretty well. I didn't really see/hear a peep about the changes downtown, except the fact that the Burrard building might be heritage (it's not on the register). Even at 700' I doubt the economics are even close to make it worth while to demolish a perfectly good 20 storey class 'B' office building, so I doubt this is something we have to worry about. What was interesting was the proposal to increase the "shoulder" area of the CBD to include 2/3rds of the south block of Alberni from Burrard to Thurlow, and let them go 550'. The building with L'Occitane, Coach, Shabusen, Hermes, and the like, as well as the duty free/Brooks Brothers one next door. That last one is quite new, but I'm sure the economics are closer to working on that site than they are across the street at the Burrard Building. (Personally I'd love to see a 550-footer with a large multi-storey Nordstrom's in the podium. It would fit with the high-end feel of the area/hotels, but I'm still probably dreaming.)

There was some disapproval about the Pattison/Reliance site (purple tie guy called it Scandalous!), but it was quickly forgotten after the 2 425-footers at Granville were revealed. Personally, I am unsure of them myself. Obviously I want to see more density but the Granville loops area is a mess. The area really lacks commercial amenities. The Shoppers at Seymour and Drake is about it. It's quite a walk to either Choices (which is kinda lousy) or Super Valu (also kinda garbage), plus the residents here see themselves as different from Yaletown or the West End. It will be interesting to see how the neighbourhood changes when the Mark and the Rolston are complete.

[Hot Rod]

Originally Posted by Vancity

^we do have some of the worse kind of buildings around.

But I guess every city has some pretty bad designs.

I was looking at the tallest towers (link provided by invisibleairwaves - thank you, btw!) in Canada, and realized that Toronto has like the top 4 tallest towers in the nation. Among the the top ten, none of Toronto's seven towers are shorter than 50 floors (the shortest tower out of the top ten that belongs to Toronto is the Bay Adelaide Centre, which stands at 218 metres, 715 feet, 50 floors, completed in 2009). By comparison, our tallest tower is roughly 600'. Wow.

It's about time this city has some towers that'll stand 700 feet. Too many of them are too short!

Just a point of clarification, Vancouver has a 659 foot building now. Just sayin.

I think we should go to 850, as we saw, 659 feet isn't that much higher than 489.

[Prometheus]

Here is a brief but piercing article by Scout Magazine about the "six species of arm-chair urban planner" in our city:


Getting To Know The Six Species Of Arm-Chair Urban Planner
October 28, 2010 by Scout Magazine

by Scott Daniel

A recent post on the Waldorf reno sparked one of the great, unnecessarily polarizing Scout Magazine Commenter Debates on gentrification. It got me thinking about how overbearingly preoccupied Vancouverites are with housing, real estate, and development issues. And it made me think about Derek Hayes’ Historical Atlas of Vancouver. The book does a really good job tying the entire history of this place to one big idea: speculation.

Everyone’s been a part of the game, buying, selling (or at least renting) a vision of how the city should, could, and will look. Naturally, this week’s “Burrard Gateway” proposal inspired Vancouver’s inner political manimals. Forget the Vision, NPA and COPE nonsense, this city is one giant urban design panel made up of opinionated constituencies and their sloganeering. The following groups are invariably heard from whenever a new development proposal comes out…

The 6 Species Of Vancouver’s Arm-Chair Urban Planners

1. Smarmy City 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵!
No one can live here. Another high-end condo will just continue to force normal folk out of town.

2. Resort City 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵!
All anyone does is live here. We need more offices and jobs.

3. The City is an Extension of my Ego!
A world-class city requires a grand statement to inspire [our journey over the Burrard Bridge]. And it’ll make the car ads better.

4. Table Top City 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵!
We, the Skyscraper Nerds, call for an end to monotonous rows of mid-rise, cookie-cutter buildings and demand taller, architecturally expressive, “signature” towers.

5. That thing’s gonna block the 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 view!
Nimbys and View Coners united will never be defeated.

6. Where’s Everyone Going to Park?!
These are the “think of the children” people when it comes to urban planning.

It all seems pretty superficial. That’s the curse of living in such a new, urban environment. When you step out of the building – the one Bob Rennie’s peeps so endearingly christened AzüRE – you get the feeling you’re walking around in a vacuous architectural model. But I guess that’s also the interesting part of living in an evolving city: the contest over how it gets filled with meaning is still going on.

http://scoutmagazine.ca/2010/10/28/on-the-6-species-of-vancouvers-arm-chair-urban-planners/

------------------------------

I think each of us can see a part of ourself falling within one or more of the six species (2 & 4 probably apply to me).

It makes you wonder if the author is a reader of this forum.

And Vancouver really has cornered the market on car television ads these days!

[Millennium2002]

OMG. Absolutely brilliant! It explains our urban development issue so well... as well as all the debate that surrounds it as a result. xD

[Some guy]

Have the adjustments to the CBD been approved or are they likely to be approved soon?

[phesto]

Originally Posted by Some guy

Have the adjustments to the CBD been approved or are they likely to be approved soon?

City staff will submit a report to council in either December or January which will likely be approved either as is, or modified from the proposed changes.

[vanhattan]

Originally Posted by awvan

There were a couple people complaining about the loss of their views, 100% nimbyism, but should we be surprised at that? Those and many others complained about how the density was making it so loud. Obviously this is ridiculous, these people don't seem to understand that downtown is noisy.

However, some of their objections were well founded. Many complained that the Hornby bike line was rammed through no matter what they thought or how they felt, and that it has made traffic horrible in the neighbourhood (I don't disagree). They wondered what all this extra density would do for traffic, parking, etc. They also worried about amenities for the area. Where will all the schools, community centres and parks go! Obviously 1500-2000 more people don't necessitate all of those things, but the area is lacking amenities. Again, I blame the city a bit here. It comes across as if they are increasing density and hight just for density's sake (not that there is anything wrong with that). They didn't bring up CACs (I did). Most residents didn't even know what they were. I think that whenever the city is proposing these types of changes it should be an integral part of the presentation that this further development (if approved) would provide the city with cash to build/improve community centres, schools, the ancient bunker-like Aquatic Centre for instance. If I didn't bring it up it likely would not have been mentioned.

The rest of the hight increases seemed to go over pretty well. I didn't really see/hear a peep about the changes downtown, except the fact that the Burrard building might be heritage (it's not on the register). Even at 700' I doubt the economics are even close to make it worth while to demolish a perfectly good 20 storey class 'B' office building, so I doubt this is something we have to worry about. What was interesting was the proposal to increase the "shoulder" area of the CBD to include 2/3rds of the south block of Alberni from Burrard to Thurlow, and let them go 550'. The building with L'Occitane, Coach, Shabusen, Hermes, and the like, as well as the duty free/Brooks Brothers one next door. That last one is quite new, but I'm sure the economics are closer to working on that site than they are across the street at the Burrard Building. (Personally I'd love to see a 550-footer with a large multi-storey Nordstrom's in the podium. It would fit with the high-end feel of the area/hotels, but I'm still probably dreaming.)

There was some disapproval about the Pattison/Reliance site (purple tie guy called it Scandalous!), but it was quickly forgotten after the 2 425-footers at Granville were revealed. Personally, I am unsure of them myself. Obviously I want to see more density but the Granville loops area is a mess. The area really lacks commercial amenities. The Shoppers at Seymour and Drake is about it. It's quite a walk to either Choices (which is kinda lousy) or Super Valu (also kinda garbage), plus the residents here see themselves as different from Yaletown or the West End. It will be interesting to see how the neighbourhood changes when the Mark and the Rolston are complete.

I have lived in the Granville Loops area for several years now. I was stupid to believe the city at their word when they promised the under the Granville bridge redevelopment that was to have been finished three years ago. Now they don't even mention it at all. While I am generally thankful that the city finally got rid of the noisy Busters Towing Lot from under the bridge over a year after the replacement lot was built btw. I am rather pissed that yet once again there is more density to the neighborhood (Mark V, social housing on Seymour and Richards and now 2 more 450 footers planned, etc. and my only nearby options for any real shopping is 5+ blocks away at Choices and 4 blocks away for Shoppers. I am all for density but when nothing is provided for residents other than more residents it leaves me wondering why I want more density?

I was sad to have missed the opens. In the end however they will do what they please.

Actually I have loved the area but it will now be another 5-10 years at least before the city gets off its 🞵🞵🞵🞵 to bring some retail into this isolated sub area. Sad. For me, I am seriously thinking of moving out to a more livable neighborhood as there is really nothing to look forward to for retail and on the other hand just more construction of towers that will go on for another 5+ years.

[Prometheus]

Does anyone have a good link to details regarding the city's recently proposed changes to the height zoning in downtown? The proposed changes were released at the time the Burrard Gateway project was announced.

[wrenegade]

October 2010 Open House Boards

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by awvan

October 2010 Open House Boards

Thanks. That's exactly what I was looking for, but could not find.