Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments - Page 17

Alex Mackinnon · #**321** Posted **Jan 9, 2011, 10:29 PM**

Does anyone want to go watch? I had fun when me and the GF went to the BARSTA meeting. Definitely had some good laughs.

Millennium2002 · #**322** Posted **Jan 9, 2011, 10:45 PM**

Village Vancouver? like... seriously... i should mention in the council meeting that these people are all wanting to keep their little piece of "paradise"...

Mininari · #**323** Posted **Jan 9, 2011, 11:02 PM**

Vertical Sprawl.
er...uhm...uhh.... yeeeaahhhh.

Who ARE these people???
This is easily matching up nicely with the big ridiculous arguments made during the Obama healthcare bill debate.

Its akin to "Keep your government hands off my medicare!"
Or the "death panels."

Maybe that'll be next:
"Stop the viewcone death panels from killing my village!"

racc · #**324** Posted **Jan 10, 2011, 12:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr.x

"Vertical sprawl"?

I give up.

Don't give up, get mad and get in action. A message to the mayor and council is always a good idea. Speaking at the public hearings is another.

[email protected]

Locked In · #**325** Posted **Jan 10, 2011, 2:02 AM**

^ I'll second that. These people sound like loonies, and their arguments are nonsensical, but they sure are vocal. It will be that much easier for council to ignore them if they can point to widespread support for increased density and greater building heights - as shown by supportive emails from you and me. If you care enough to read this thread, take 5 minutes and email council endorsing the recommendations in the report.

I might swing by the library on the way home from work Tuesday to witness this ridiculous spectacle firsthand.

jlousa · #**326** Posted **Jan 10, 2011, 2:20 AM**

Here's a couple of the presentation to council if anyone is interested and hasn't seen it yet.

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/capacitystudy/pdf/10dec16councilpresentation.pdf

Mininari · #**327** Posted **Jan 10, 2011, 2:29 AM**

Everything in that presentation is presented clearly, and makes complete sense.
Of particular interest to me are the three sites identified in the CBD. Pending proposals for office space development (one of them is the former AMACON proposal site), why would they reject these?

They also remind us that council voted to NOT allow buildings to intrude into viewcones in January 2010, but to explore other opportunities. Well, here they are, and they ALL look really good.

Be reasonable!

Canadian Mind · #**328** Posted **Jan 10, 2011, 3:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

Here's a couple of the presentation to council if anyone is interested and hasn't seen it yet.

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/capacitystudy/pdf/10dec16councilpresentation.pdf

Nice! Thanks for the link.

Overall I'm happy with the plan. Looks awesome.

The only questions and suggestion(s) I have are, why not extend the Southwest shoulder across from Alberni all the way to Robson street? Whats wrong with having a 550'+ building on the north corner of Burrard and Robson streets?

Further, based on where the currently suggested sites are, what is the likely hood of further blanket height increases being applied to the CBD, or specific sites being given height exceptions? I bring this up because, with the Shangri-la to the northwest at 659', a site to the southeast earmarked for 700' (770' max?), and 550' to the southwest (605' max?), wouldn't it be plausible that the Grosvenor site could support a 750' (825') or higher tower without sticking out due to the inherit step-up of the skyline?

Prometheus · #**329** Posted **Jan 10, 2011, 3:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mininari

Who ARE these people???

This is easily matching up nicely with the big ridiculous arguments made during the Obama healthcare bill debate.

Its akin to "Keep your government hands off my medicare!"

I'm afraid you've got that backwards. The viewcone restrictions are a form of government control over property development, namely height. Thus to oppose the viewcone restrictions is to oppose a form of government control. It's akin to "Keep your government hands off my building height!"

The supporters of viewcone restrictions, by contrast, are usually left-leaning, welfare state "liberals" who advocate greater state control over our lives and who oppose individual liberty and economic freedom, from property development to healthcare.

Thus, if anything, it is those who support greater government control over healthcare (e.g. the Obama healthcare bill), not those who oppose it, that are the ones who are intellectually and politically related to the anti-building crowd.

Spork · #**330** Posted **Jan 10, 2011, 4:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I'm afraid you've got that backwards. The viewcone restrictions are a form of government control over property development, namely height. Thus to oppose the viewcone restrictions is to oppose a form of government control. It's akin to "Keep your government hands off my building height!"

The supporters of viewcone restrictions, by contrast, are usually left-leaning, welfare state "liberals" who advocate greater state control over our lives and who oppose economic freedom, from property development to healthcare.

Thus, it is those who support greater government control over healthcare (e.g. the Obama healthcare bill), not those who oppose it, that are the ones who are intellectually and politically related to the anti-building crowd.

That's insane, and the same kind of partisan speak that leads to the vast divide in the US. I support the healthcare bill AND higher building heights. You're putting people into buckets and saying that they think in a certain, easily defined manner. Sounds like a Poli-Sci student. I would be more inclined to say that these people are more similar to those that are opposed to change in general.

racc · #**331** Posted **Jan 10, 2011, 5:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I'm afraid you've got that backwards. The viewcone restrictions are a form of government control over property development, namely height. Thus to oppose the viewcone restrictions is to oppose a form of government control. It's akin to "Keep your government hands off my building height!"

The supporters of viewcone restrictions, by contrast, are usually left-leaning, welfare state "liberals" who advocate greater state control over our lives and who oppose individual liberty and economic freedom, from property development to healthcare.

Thus, if anything, it is those who support greater government control over healthcare (e.g. the Obama healthcare bill), not those who oppose it, that are the ones who are intellectually and politically related to the anti-building crowd.

Note sure if it is that simple. Dunbar and Point Grey are fairly conservative. No one even dares to mention towers there these days. Conservative rich people don't like their views blocked and are scared that density might attract the "wrong type of people". The difference is that, if they are in the industry, they don't mind making money off building towers in someone else's neighbourhood. They also mistakenly think that density means crime. People all across the political spectrum are scared of change.

Prometheus · #**332** Posted **Jan 10, 2011, 2:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by racc

Note sure if it is that simple. Dunbar and Point Grey are fairly conservative. No one even dares to mention towers there these days.

What planet do you live on? The West Side is not politically conservative. I grew up in Point Grey and the members of that highly-affluent, highly-educated, privileged, elite community are no different than the members of most other highly-affluent, highly-educated, privileged, elite communities in North America: that is, they are overwhelmingly "liberal" in their political philosophies and recoil at anything so "crass" as an unregulated, free market. Vancouver Quadra, for instance, has voted for the Liberal Party in every federal election since 1984.

wrenegade · #**333** Posted **Jan 10, 2011, 9:00 PM**

That cityhallwatch.ca website is absolutely outrageous. Seriously beyond belief.

Edit: I just spent 20 minutes or so of my lunch looking a little more into his site. The guy is a full-on nutbar. He turns 70 storeys into "80 or 90 storeys" with absolutely no basis, he totally made up that banner image of the north shore and doesn't allow comments on any of posts! I may drop by the forum tomorrow at the library. It could be a lot of fun. Ha!

punface · #**334** Posted **Jan 11, 2011, 2:52 AM**

That presentation to council posted above seems extremely tame to me, so I am not sure what these people would be happy with. In general I can respect NIMBYs even when I disagree with them, as long as they are clear about where they expect development to go instead. No such luck with cityhallwatch.ca, as they seem to mention every central area of Vancouver (and others) as being off-limits for densification, which makes them suburban-sprawl-advocates even if they won’t say it.

Miss604.com had a poll today with those agreeing to taller buildings ahead by a bit: http://www.miss604.com/2011/01/vancouver’s-tallest-buildings.html

Anyway I will check out their forum tomorrow and report back if I see anything interesting/funny.

Canadian Mind · #**335** Posted **Jan 11, 2011, 4:16 AM**

What an idiot. I don't understand how a person of sound reasoning thinks they can control sprawl by attempting to limit density. It's like trying to drive a car in reverse down a freeway. Unless you have a Lamborghini, you ain't gonna be able to do it.

jlousa · #**336** Posted **Jan 11, 2011, 4:32 AM**

Don't mistake height with density they do not mean the same thing, one can be pro density while being anti height. Paris is quite a bit denser then even downtown south w/o anymore then 8 stories. There are lots of arguements for extra height but density is a relatively weak one.

Mininari · #**337** Posted **Jan 11, 2011, 5:02 AM**

Given that the report presented appears to respect all viewcones, AND presents some opportunities for higher buildings in key locations that look really nice... what are the chances that city council will approve this?

Canadian Mind · #**338** Posted **Jan 11, 2011, 5:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

Don't mistake height with density they do not mean the same thing, one can be pro density while being anti height. Paris is quite a bit denser then even downtown south w/o anymore then 8 stories. There are lots of arguements for extra height but density is a relatively weak one.

I suppose you are correct. But I like to see the two go hand in hand. Aside from an aesthetic standpoint, I feel that height has no other purpose than to add density. So if you aren't adding density by building taller, why not stick to 8 storey structures?

Locked In · #**339** Posted **Jan 11, 2011, 5:20 AM**

^ One reason: higher units are generally pricier, which means the land lift is greater if higher buildings are allowed - the city can recoup part (well, most) of this increase for community amenities.

There are probably some shadowing advantages as well to 3-4 storey podiums and slim point towers relative to uniform 8 storey street walls.

dleung · #**340** Posted **Jan 11, 2011, 6:06 AM**

It's not mutually exclusive. Manhattan has been building skinny 30-40 storey point towers on top of 12-15 storey streetwalls for generations...

If we do that, we'll have an interesting skyline, better animated streets, AND a mix of affordable and exclusive housing options

Love the graphic on the propaganda website:

http://cityhallwatch.files.wordpress.com