Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments - Page 20

trofirhen · #**381** Posted **Jan 18, 2011, 3:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by phesto

Interesting memo posted by the City today with height increase implications:

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20110120/documents/penv5YellowMemo2.pdf

Sounds Hopeful. Vancouver enters the 21st Century ... 40 years late, but better late than never.

jlousa · #**382** Posted **Jan 18, 2011, 6:00 AM**

21st century started just over a decade ago, pretty sure we entered it at the same time everyone else did. How's Paris coming along with it's heights, I hear they might allow more the 8 stories again, which century are they entering?

Seriously people adding a few extra stories isn't going to put us on some world stage any more then Paris being height limited keeps them off it.

Anyways went to the meeting tonight, it was well put on, having a facilitator onhand kept things on track. I think the city did a good job of correcting the misinformation out there. The presentation is expected to be online tomorrow.

Don't forget to email council with your thoughts before the 20th.

officedweller · #**383** Posted **Jan 18, 2011, 6:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by phesto

Interesting memo posted by the City today with height increase implications:

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20110120/documents/penv5YellowMemo2.pdf

Much much better "plain english" read of the Higher Buildings Policy in that it says "up to view corridors".

That reverses the 'lip-service' aspect (wrt 600ft) that I've always viewed the Higher Building Policy as presenting.

It should be clearer to the public that it's not a slippery slope.
It does, however, expose how the previous "lip service" description may have been broadly framed to appeal to developers (despite the reality).

Spork · #**384** Posted **Jan 18, 2011, 6:24 AM**

Does anybody know if they have considered allowing greater heights for office buildings on the same sites where residential is allowed? Does this even make sense, or am I going crazy?

Metro-One · #**385** Posted **Jan 18, 2011, 6:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

21st century started just over a decade ago, pretty sure we entered it at the same time everyone else did. How's Paris coming along with it's heights, I hear they might allow more the 8 stories again, which century are they entering?

Seriously people adding a few extra stories isn't going to put us on some world stage any more then Paris being height limited keeps them off it.

Anyways went to the meeting tonight, it was well put on, having a facilitator onhand kept things on track. I think the city did a good job of correcting the misinformation out there. The presentation is expected to be online tomorrow.

Don't forget to email council with your thoughts before the 20th.

Paris has 14 towers over 150m tall, with 2 more currently U/C (2 of the completed over 200m). There are 5 more proposed over 200m, 4 of those over 300m (the tallest two 323 meters tall). Of course if they get built is not certain, but at least the proposals are there. Most of these buildings are also more visually stimulating IMO than what we build here. So it looks as if Paris knows how to do old world charm and modern marvels

jlousa · #**386** Posted **Jan 18, 2011, 6:56 AM**

That would be La Defense which is an inner suburb of Paris not Paris directly.
Believe it falls in Ile-de-France region and under the departement Hauts-de-Seine, perhaps Trofirhen can chime in as he would know better then any of us. I do know that La Defense is not admired by most Parisians but sneered at from my time there.

Metro-One · #**387** Posted **Jan 18, 2011, 7:07 AM**

I've been to paris as well, and many of the people I talked to are actually proud of that district (but then again, maybe i was talking to like minded people). One guy was urging me to go there, haha. This was back in 2008.

trofirhen · #**388** Posted **Jan 18, 2011, 10:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

That would be La Defense which is an inner suburb of Paris not Paris directly.
Believe it falls in Ile-de-France region and under the departement Hauts-de-Seine, perhaps Trofirhen can chime in as he would know better then any of us. I do know that La Defense is not admired by most Parisians but sneered at from my time there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I've been to paris as well, and many of the people I talked to are actually proud of that district (but then again, maybe i was talking to like minded people). One guy was urging me to go there, haha. This was back in 2008.

OK; I'll "chime in."

In its earlier stages, La Défense was pretty nondescript, with bland towers, and ones that TRIED to be avant-garde, but somehow fell short of that quality and ended up looking a bit hokey.
At present, there is sort of a "second generation" of towers planned or being built, and not only are they rather daring in design, but big, too, with one expected to clock in at over 300 metres, as Metro pointed out.
*
La Défense is just on the other side of the River from Neuilly, an adjacent -and extremely wealthy - district, contiguous with the city of Paris. The transportation to La Défense is good (Métro, RER 'A', tramways) and the road system serving it is labyrinthine.

My only beef with it looking at it from the city is that the buildings mess up that classic view looking down the Avenue des Champs, and clash with the Arc de Triomphe.
However, what I do in fact dislike about La Défense is that, as it has no roads going through it, only under and around it, it's only busy during office hours and is a near-ghost town at night. That, combined with all the empty buildings, gives somewhat the effect of the world after a nuclear war: rather desolate and univiting.

As far as Parisians liking it or not; most seem indifferent, and tend to have a building or two that they like. In general though, it seems to create little reaction, as it is outside the city proper, and offers virtually no night-life.
*
In answer to Jlousa's question, there are few tall buildings in the city proper, except one about 20 stories which I believe is part of the Sorbonne, and of course the Montparnasse Tower, at 59 storeys (210m), which is next to Gare Montparnasse in an ugly concrete precinct.

wrenegade · #**389** Posted **Jan 18, 2011, 6:18 PM**

Getting back on topic here......

I too was at the presentation last night and thought that Brent and Kevin did an excellent job of both correcting misinformation and politely rejecting ridiculous concerns/criticisms. I would say the majority of the people there were against the height increases but hopefully the real radicals will have their outrageous claims silenced by the clear facts.

I urge all of you to write a short and concise letter to council to let your voice be heard. Surely the vocal minority will be heard like a majority if we do not.

[email protected]

EastVanMark · #**390** Posted **Jan 18, 2011, 8:25 PM**

Paris is a city that was designed centuries (plural) ago. It is also home to some of the world's most famous and beautiful buildings. So they are not going to all of a sudden build supertalls right next to them. In Canadian terms, it would like building a very tall building in Ottawa right next to the historic, and iconic parliament buildings. Comparing Paris to Vancouver is comparing apples to oranges and frankly is laughable.

trofirhen · #**391** Posted **Jan 18, 2011, 10:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Paris is a city that was designed centuries (plural) ago. It is also home to some of the world's most famous and beautiful buildings. So they are not going to all of a sudden build supertalls right next to them. In Canadian terms, it would like building a very tall building in Ottawa right next to the historic, and iconic parliament buildings. Comparing Paris to Vancouver is comparing apples to oranges and frankly is laughable.

Thank you for that! Right on. Exact. The only major "faux pas" they made in Paris, in my opinion, was back in 1973, when they built the 210m, 59 floor Tour Montparnasse smack in the middle of the Left Bank. It has an ugly concrete precinct surrounding it, although the view from the top is magnificent.

wrenegade · #**392** Posted **Jan 19, 2011, 12:52 AM**

Last night's presentation has been put online here.

Millennium2002 · #**393** Posted **Jan 19, 2011, 2:57 PM**

Not bad. It only touches areas that were already under redevelopment plans... although I'm pretty sure that people will still blast it as "urban sprawl" and "heritage loss" anyway.

Sounds like it's time to see the monstrosity that is the council meeting (for the first time) and see whether Council gets bullied by the vocal minority to stay its unsustainable course. =O

jlousa · #**394** Posted **Jan 19, 2011, 3:06 PM**

Final push guys, meeting is tomorrow. Make sure you email mayor and council with your support today. Anyone that can attend the meeting tomorrow make sure you register today. If you can't make it tomorrow, or it's important that you do email mayor and council at the below address, even if it's a simple one liner stating that you support both reports.

[email protected]

Canadian Mind · #**395** Posted **Jan 19, 2011, 4:55 PM**

Noticed the new F1 viewcone has a gap over the Sears site.

I know it's speculation, but wouldn't precedence of other view cones just have another "step" over the TD building, vice outright splitting the viewcone in 2? Could they be trying to lay the groundwork to make room for a tower at Sears site 20-30 years down the road?

wrenegade · #**396** Posted **Jan 19, 2011, 6:14 PM**

Just want to reiterate Jlousa's point about letting council know your opinions and support. They do hear it, I got two responses back from Suzanne Anton and Raymond Louie.

quobobo · #**397** Posted **Jan 19, 2011, 7:13 PM**

Emailed, thanks jlousa and awvan for the info.

Smooth · #**398** Posted **Jan 19, 2011, 8:58 PM**

I also sent an email.

Anyone see the Frances Bula blog re: "Brigade of academics petition city hall not to raise heights in DTES, Chinatown"?
http://www.francesbula.com/

wrenegade · #**399** Posted **Jan 19, 2011, 9:31 PM**

The comments for that letter sway me much more than the letter itself.

mr.x · #**400** Posted **Jan 19, 2011, 9:32 PM**

Just sent a email......a went a bit into my whole "while the 'natural' should be preserved, there needs to be a greater emphasis on expanding what's man-made" argument.