Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[Millennium2002]

Ah... that was just what I needed too.

And now I have to say... I think we missed the chance to build a higher downtown... especially in the panoramic view cones. Like... what's with the point of protecting the view of suburbia on the mountains on the left and right of Downtown? There should be something that stipulates that the city can grow taller as the mountains get more "ruined"... maybe that'll force the North Shore from sprawling (or maybe it won't but then the city will just dominate and cover over the ruined parts anyway). =O

[jlousa]

When the city releases a report to council after business hours on a Friday especially one so close to the holidays, you know it's going to be controversial, or perhaps they were just working up till the last minute.

I recommend actually reading the whole report, I'm sure we'll get at least one forumer that will read the first page and bitch about the whole document. If you take the time you should be pleasantly surprised.

I have inlaws in town for the rest of the year so no time to summarize it this time around. W/O further ado...

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/2010...itiesforHigherBuildingsintheDowntown.pdf

[Locked In]

Think it might have been mentioned on another thread, but here's the text of the email from the city:

In response to concerns raised by members of the public about the recent release of the report on the Implementation of the Vancouver Views Study and the need for more time to consider its contents, Council has decided to defer decision and public delegations to the Planning & Environment Committee on January 20, 2011. This change will also allow Council to consider the recommendations alongside those of the closely related Historic Area Height Review. At that meeting, Staff will provide a joint presentation of the reports and Council will hear from public delegations on both reports before making a decision.

In the interim, City staff will provide Council with a brief, high-level presentation of the Vancouver Views report at the Planning and Environment Committee on December 16th and answer any immediate questions that Council may have. This is to allow clarity over the holiday season leading up to the formal consideration of the report in January. As noted above, public delegations for the report will not be received until both reports are presented fully in the New Year. We sincerely apologize if you have booked time off from other commitments to speak to this issue and hope that you will be able to accommodate this scheduling change. The Council meeting and presentation will be broadcast live at vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/mayorcouncil/councilmeetings/video.htm. I will also send out a link to the complete video as soon as it is posted on the City’s website.

Presumably email comments will be accepted until then, so I encourage people to give positive feedback - no doubt the NIMBYs will be out in full force.

[jlousa]

Not sure it's just the nimbys against this, there are a lot of people within the industry that will be speaking out against this. This will certainly be one of the most lively discussions seen by the current council.
I'm torn on it myself, there is parts of it I agree with and sections that I don't.

[dleung]

We should really scrap the domed skyline idea if we're building so tall so close to the water.

Multiple peaks.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by dleung

We should really scrap the domed skyline idea if we're building so tall so close to the water.

Multiple peaks.

Agreed. I think this is the better idea, especially in the long haul (25 years and further along)

[SpongeG]

Forum on building heights in downtown Vancouver

Some could be as high as 90 storeys

Renee Bernard Jan 08, 2011 14:00:39 PM

VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - Increasing building heights in downtown Vancouver sets a dangerous precedent, according to a neighbourhood activist. And it's the reason Randy Helten says issues need to be hashed out at a forum he's put together.

Helten, who created CityHall.ca, says the problem with discussions at the City Hall level is that they're technical and the information shared is limited.

He adds that even though the proposal would only affect seven specific sites, the impact would be far greater. "In downtown they could go 700 feet which means after developers negotiate it could be 80-90 storeys or more. There hasn't been enough public discussion about all the implications of these buildings."

...

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/166749--forum-on-building-heights-in-downtown-vancouver

[Mininari]

I had a VERY brief look at that guy's website.

Wow. What a nutcase.


"...Threats to Vancouver from extreme tall building policies in Downtown, West End, Chinatown, Downtown Eastside
Posted on January 7, 2011 by cityhallwatch"

Extreme? Really? We're not talking Burj Dubai here...

"...permit extreme building heights of 80 storeys or taller on the downtown peninsula, and significantly higher buildings in Chinatown and the Downtown East Side."

80 Stories? Yeah, ok a 700ft plus mechanical could probably sandwich 80 floors of res, but I think that site is in the CBD, and requires OFFICE SPACE.

A few taller buildings in the DTE, and Chinatown will be good for the area, as long as renovation and redevelopment of existing stock proceeds as well.

"...Issues that have not yet been adequately addressed include not only lost or eroded views, significant view changes from many locations in the City, and major changes to the skyline, but also implications for Vancouver’s livability, sustainability, affordability and gentrification, ecological footprints (buildings and the city), global warming, city infrastructure, traffic and transportation, city finances and taxes, schools, public amenities, seismic safety, fire safety, disaster response, and the very character of Vancouver."

Will a few taller buildings really do that?
Wow. What an alarmist.
Global Warming?????? Good lord. I would be willing to bet that ANY significantly tall buildings added to downtown will have to be LEED certified, and possibly even carbon neutral.

What is this guy smoking?

Granted, I do agree with his concerns on further Urban Sprawl on the North shore. The property along the slopes of Cyprus mountain will be worth a FORTUNE once developed though. Now theres something that his wacky list of concerns regarding tall buildings actually applies to.

[jlousa]

This is the chance for skyscraper lovers to unite and speak up in support. There will be many groups speaking out in opposition, so it's up to people like you to voice your opinions in support. Feel free to attend the citizens forum but don't expect to get a favourable reception there. What everyone here should be doing is emailing mayor and council and letting them know that you support the changes and why you do. If you are free to attend the council meeting later this month it would go a long way as well.

[Metro-One]

When is the council meeting? If I am free i will go.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by jlousa

This is the chance for skyscraper lovers to unite and speak up in support. There will be many groups speaking out in opposition, so it's up to people like you to voice your opinions in support. Feel free to attend the citizens forum but don't expect to get a favourable reception there. What everyone here should be doing is emailing mayor and council and letting them know that you support the changes and why you do. If you are free to attend the council meeting later this month it would go a long way as well.

You are absolutely right. Particularly, this is good opportunity to not only show support, but do it in an intelligent, and well thought-out manner (yes, I realize that I ranted a bit on my last post). A properly written letter expressing an intelligent assessment of the issue with well-supported conclusions can go a long way in outclassing the "angry, ranting, NIMBY."

Wish I could attend the meeting.

[Millennium2002]

For Metro-One and others interested, the meeting date and place is stated in the news article mentioned above:

The City of Vancouver will vote on the new height restrictions later this month. The forum will be held Tuesday January 11th at 6:30 p.m. at the Vancouver Public Library.

I'm very surprised btw about the nonsense being portrayed by the skyscraper opposition. Sheesh... and there's probably a lot of them too. (sigh)

[jlousa]

The council meeting is Jan 20 at 2pm, which makes it hard for people with jobs to attend. Hopefully a few of you can attend. If you can't you can at least email council and have your voice heard.

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/capacitystudy/

[SpikePhanta]

Would they accept a teenager going in and voicing his opinions?

[phesto]

Originally Posted by SpikePhanta

Would they accept a teenager going in and voicing his opinions?

Certainly. In fact, you should play up the fact that you represent the future of this city. Too often the NIMBY contingent is comprised largely of old people who won't even live to see the minor changes they're arbitrarily fighting against.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by phesto

Certainly. In fact, you should play up the fact that you represent the future of this city. Too often the NIMBY contingent is comprised largely of old people who won't even live to see the minor changes they're arbitrarily fighting against.

It's funny cause it's true.


Be prepared for the NIMBY who responds to this saying they want to leave a legacy for their grandkids.

[Mininari]

An easy response to that one is,

"Well then, I hope that you're mortgage free and planning to pass down at least one house per grandkid, or else they're NEVER going to be able to afford to live in Vancouver anyway."

[SpikePhanta]

Originally Posted by phesto

Certainly. In fact, you should play up the fact that you represent the future of this city. Too often the NIMBY contingent is comprised largely of old people who won't even live to see the minor changes they're arbitrarily fighting against.

Haha, thats true, like in 50 years, whether or not Surrey passes Vancouver as main financial area of the region.

Originally Posted by Mininari

An easy response to that one is,

"Well then, I hope that you're mortgage free and planning to pass down at least one house per grandkid, or else they're NEVER going to be able to afford to live in Vancouver anyway."

[racc]

Here is more info on the forum. They have invented a new term, Vertical Sprawl, to scare people about tall buildings.

Vertical Sprawl is almost as ridiculous term as Ethical Oil. They try and connect a whole bunch of issues that have nothing to do with the height of the bridging and try to represent them as problems of hall buildings.

To equate freeways with tall buildings is equally ridiculous. Tall buildings, when placed in proper locations, actually reduce the need for freeways.

Public Forum: Vertical Sprawl Threatens Vancouver's Future' on Village Vancouver!

There are two very important government policies of central relevance to Transition that will be decided in the next two weeks. This event concerns allowing vertical sprawl downtown.

Time: January 11, 2011 from 7pm to 9pm
Location: Vancouver Public Library - Downtown Main Branch
Organized By: City Hall Watch

Event Description:
City Council is on the verge of making what may be among Vancouver’s most important decisions in a generation on January 20th, every bit as important as the decision in the 1970s on whether or not to build highways through our city. On that day, Council is prepared to adopt two key policies to permit extreme building heights of 80 storeys or taller on the downtown peninsula, and significantly higher buildings in Chinatown and the Downtown East Side.
CityHallWatch is holding a public forum on Tuesday evening January 11th at the Main Branch of the Vancouver Public Library to help citizens identify and articulate key concerns that staff and Council appear to have missed and should address before any vote on this new direction for the City. Issues that have not yet been adequately addressed include not only lost or eroded views, significant view changes from many locations in the City, and major changes to the skyline, but also implications for Vancouver’s livability, sustainability, affordability and gentrification, ecological footprints (buildings and the city), global warming, city infrastructure, traffic and transportation, city finances and taxes, schools, public amenities, seismic safety, fire safety, disaster response, and the very character of Vancouver.
Join the West End Residents Association, Carnegie Community Action Project, Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver, and CityHallWatch.com in an interactive presentation and Open Space to learn about and build consensus on what this new policy might mean to Vancouver's future.

See more details and RSVP on Village Vancouver:
http://www.villagevancouver.ca/events/ev...Zg6EK7igdbbN1&xg_source=msg_invite_event

[mr.x]

"Vertical sprawl"?


I give up.