Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments - Page 18

officedweller · #**341** Posted **Jan 11, 2011, 7:42 AM**

Hmmm - that "after" shot is probably what happens if you build "out" rather than "up".

Alex Mackinnon · #**342** Posted **Jan 11, 2011, 10:10 PM**

So, who wants to meet up at this thing tonight? I'll be showing up tonight. Does anyone know which room in the library it's going to be in?

Metro-One · #**343** Posted **Jan 11, 2011, 10:23 PM**

I would love to go but I have to be at work, wish they had it on Thursday instead

Canadian Mind · #**344** Posted **Jan 11, 2011, 10:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Hmmm - that "after" shot is probably what happens if you build "out" rather than "up".

Notice he lined the top of the mountain with towers to make it look incriminating?

geoff's two cents · #**345** Posted **Jan 11, 2011, 11:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr.x

"Vertical sprawl"?

I give up.

The only context in which I've heard the term used where it actually makes sense to me is in relation to the building of enormous towers in areas that lack adequate nearby provisions - transportation, entertainment, groceries, etc. - and thus encourage/force people to drive everywhere, thus creating congestion, eroding a sense of community, etc.

Mississauga is a very good example of "vertical sprawl" in action; the condo boom south of the Gardiner in Toronto is somewhat (for many critics) along these lines; there are still condos going up all over the GTA that are effectively in the middle of nowhere, their only rationale being proximity to freeway interchanges; Surrey will have to drastically adjust its street grid along urban lines to avoid following in Mississauga's shoes.

The term doesn't strike me as relevant in the least to anywhere in the downtown Vancouver core.

mr.x · #**346** Posted **Jan 12, 2011, 1:35 AM**

loll...i hope tonight ends up on youtube.

Canadian Mind · #**347** Posted **Jan 12, 2011, 2:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr.x

loll...i hope tonight ends up on youtube.

Is it that profane?

SpongeG · #**348** Posted **Jan 12, 2011, 4:42 AM**

i ripped down about three of the posters i saw posted around the west end tonight

was that bad of me? haha

mr.x · #**349** Posted **Jan 12, 2011, 5:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpongeG

i ripped down about three of the posters i saw posted around the west end tonight

was that bad of me? haha

You did a very good thing for your city.

Locked In · #**350** Posted **Jan 12, 2011, 5:38 AM**

I went tonight. I tried to go in with an open mind, but the whole thing was just incoherent - a lot of misinformation, with a bit of paranoia and a lot of crazy thrown in.

Anyways, it was streamed online and apparently will be posted on their website if anyone else wants to lose a couple of hours they'll immediately want back.

punface · #**351** Posted **Jan 12, 2011, 5:45 AM**

The cityhallwatch.ca anti-skyscraper, etc. forum tonight was filmed by the organizers and is available online: http://www.livestream.com/chatterboxfilms/ (then click on the Tue Jan 11 2011 icons at the bottom)

I was only able to stay for about 10 minutes so I do not have many comments. A few bits of the presentation seemed pretty misleading.

Alex Mackinnon · #**352** Posted **Jan 12, 2011, 7:10 AM**

Yup. The presentation by Steve had a lot of oddities to it. Some good points, but a lot of odd. The introductory presentation also gave me a good laugh, especially when the earthquake comment was made. Honestly, wtf? High rise structures survive earthquakes better than mid or low rise structures generally.

My favorite error by far was the illustration of the shadow on Pender St. in Chinatown. The tower would have to be located right in the entrance to Dr. Sun Yat Sen Gardens. Since he went to the trouble of taking and photoshopping in a picture, you'd think he could look and realize that it's not a property thats going to get redeveloped.

All in all a lot of fear mongering. If I were you guys I'd watch the first 10 minutes then skip forward an hour. There's a lot of blah to go with the misinformation.

Locked In · #**353** Posted **Jan 12, 2011, 3:32 PM**

^
The entire set of photos Steve used was not very helpful. He was trying to illustrate that unobstructed light and shadows can have an effect on how architecture reads - fair point. But the way he did it was misleading at best, particularly since he calls himself a photographer. Every photo he used to demonstrate the effect of shadows caused by towers was so underexposed it was basically just a silhouette of dark buildings against bright sky. To show how perfect the world is without shadows, he used properly exposed photos - and voila, everything is visible again. I'm sure glad my eyes don't work like the auto setting on his camera.

Of course, this all led him to conclude that the heritage district needs to be significantly downzoned immediately to maintain it's historic character... good luck with that.

Alex Mackinnon · #**354** Posted **Jan 12, 2011, 8:50 PM**

Yup. I got a good chuckle from that too. One picture was so underexposed even the headlight on a car looked dark. Dude needs an SLR.

Canadian Mind · #**355** Posted **Jan 12, 2011, 10:02 PM**

He sounds like Matt Damon.

Wow... managed to get through an hour of his diatribe. What a tool.

Instead of using legitimate facts for his presentation, he doesn't know all the facts. He stretches the truth to suit his views.

Example: Shangri-La at 659 feet is a 10% increase over the 600 limit, so how would 10% of 700 feet correlate to 800-900 feet?

Further, even at 770 feet, based on precedence of approximately 11 feet per residential floor in tall developments, a 770' tower would have only 70 floors. not 80-100 like he suggests.

And, when people had heat of the moment questions that supported his views, he answered, but when people called his facts into question, he shot them down and told people to wait till after. 2.5 hours is a lot of waiting to ask questions, and I know I would have had over a dozen myself. It wouldn't have taken him long to spit out the height of the TD tower in Toronto.

Overall a piss poor presentation, and by the sound of some of the responses of the people in the room, he caused a lot of people to shy away from his viewpoint.

Mininari · #**356** Posted **Jan 13, 2011, 4:25 PM**

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/168986--group-protests-metro-vancouver-growth-strategy

Group protests Metro Vancouver growth strategy
Pave paradise to put up a parking lot?
Lyle Fisher Jan 13, 2011 07:41:35 AM
Be the first to Comment
0 Recommendation(s)
METRO VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - A local group says Metro Vancouver's growth strategy will hurt the local farmer.

"City Hall Watch" will be holding an emergency meeting tonight in Vancouver to raise its concerns over the region's future plan for handling population expansion. Members of the group say valuable farmland will be paved over to make way for condos and shopping malls.

One spoke with one woman who agrees, saying we need to stop the urban sprawl. "I don't think we need any more condos. I think that green space is very important. It's important for family. Green space is our livelihood. You take that away, what do we have?"

The Metro Vancouver board of directors will vote on the growth strategy tomorrow. The plan has been in the works since 2002.

#1) Pave over farmland for condos and shopping malls?
Isn't this precisely what the regional growth plan aims to avoid?

#2) "We don't need any more condos..." ????

So, where do you plan to accommodate the +70,000/yr regional growth rate then?
Condos and density are what PREVENT #1.

Twits.

wrenegade · #**357** Posted **Jan 13, 2011, 6:51 PM**

I wonder what this guy thinks of the Tsawwassen Band's plans for their land out on Hwy 17. 1 Million+ square foot traditional mall on current farmland, maybe this guy should focus his efforts elsewhere.

Him and his supports are bananas. Are they so naive to think we can just stop growth?

SpongeG · #**358** Posted **Jan 13, 2011, 8:54 PM**

some comments at miss604 - ssp gets a shout and a link...

http://www.miss604.com/2011/01/vancouver%E2%80%99s-tallest-buildings.html#comments

officedweller · #**359** Posted **Jan 13, 2011, 11:39 PM**

City Presentation from the City's website.
I hadn't realized that the 425' sites at Granville Bridgehead were the ones closer to the water and the upland 300' sites are remaining the same. I think I'd rather have the two upland sites increased and the ones closer to the water increased only to 300'.
That would reduce the "in your face" aspect of the current proposals.

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

phesto · #**360** Posted **Jan 14, 2011, 12:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

City Presentation from the City's website.
I hadn't realized that the 425' sites at Granville Bridgehead were the ones closer to the water and the upland 300' sites are remaining the same. I think I'd rather have the two upland sites increased and the ones closer to the water increased only to 300'.
That would reduce the "in your face" aspect of the current proposals.

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

Page 40 of the pdf really gives you an idea of how minor the amendments are with the new heights being proposed in the CBD.