Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[phesto]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Wouldn't be surprised to see at least one proposal for the Granville bridgehead come forward by the end of the year. Might even see a starchitect attached to a project. Of course very few things surprise me.

It would have been bizarre to see the Granville gateway sites get rejected since much of the land affected (ie. 1400 block of Howe) is (currently) owned by the City...they'd be significantly reducing the value of their own land

[punface]

Here are some poll results regarding the tall buildings issue. The poll can be found here: http://www.justasonmi.com/?page_id=178

The same poll finds 46% of Vancouver residents oppose a plan to increase the heights of downtown buildings. Three-in-ten (30%) strongly oppose. Support for increased building heights stands at 37%.

The question: “Do you support or oppose a plan to increase the heights of downtown buildings? Is that strongly or somewhat?”

This poll is the third in a regular series surveying City of Vancouver residents.

Justason Market Intelligence is a Vancouver-based market and opinion research firm

[Metro-One]

They should change the title of that article to: "Vancouver residents oppose variety"

[SpikePhanta]

I always question the polls' accuracy.
A lot of Vancouver's population just doesn't care, its just the vocal minority that spend their free time being negative. I doubt the residents of most of downtown, East van and south vancouver care about the view cones.

[jlousa]

And you wouldn't be more wrong; The last official survey that was statically sound showed over 80% support for the viewcones.

[SpongeG]

do they even understand the viewcones? i don't lol i would vote in favour of them regardless i suppose just to get rid of a pollster

[Yume-sama]

It's doubtful the majority of people actually understand the issue. It's very easy to get a majority to be against something if you have a petition about it.

Even dihydrogen monoxide (water).

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

Even dihydrogen monoxide (water).

You mean Hydric Acid?

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

You mean Hydric Acid?

Just in reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax

Various groups tricked environmentalists (including National Green Party's) to come out and sign a petition against it.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

Just in reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax

Various groups tricked environmentalists (including National Green Party's) to come out and sign a petition against it.

Thank you Yume for pointing out the obvious ways that these "polls" can easily be influenced in one way or another. Vancouver's "polls" are legendary for this. In this particular instance, the question is far too vague. From the vast misinformation out there, i.e. news, and print media to say nothing about these quacks and their various websites; people have been led to believe that if we alter the viewcones, the mountains will disappear because massive 1200 ft towers will be blocking the views. On some sites, they had World Trade Center like buildings being built on Davie & Burrard. With fear mongering like this its a surprise that even more people were opposed to it.

[Yume-sama]

When you can't be truthful, be scary!

Too much oxygen or water will kill you even! Run for the hills!

[SpikePhanta]

Originally Posted by jlousa

And you wouldn't be more wrong; The last official survey that was statically sound showed over 80% support for the viewcones.

By "don't care" I don't mean "not supporting".

I did a quick survey last year for a project at a canada line station, many people didn't even know about the official rules, but support keeping the mountain views.

Only 1 person knew that most viewcones start at south falsecreek...

[Metro-One]

Hehe, I am actually just in the middle of my analytical statistics class (2nd level) and it is amazing how one can manipulate stats to say whatever you want them to say (through misleading the sample, gathering data via an uneducated sample on the issue or simply mathematically manipulating the data)!

[Mininari]

Yes, but claiming that downtown is being filled with 1200' skyscrapers, or saying "some could reach as high as 90 storeys" is basically on the same level as saying that US healthcare reform is going to lead to "death panels." (example: a misinterpretation of the term "end-of-life decisions"). Instill fear by taking something and putting in completely out of context.

[Metro-One]

Well that is exactly what I mean, many people have been mislead by the media using such terms as "Vancouver to get supertalls!" and other such nonsense.

How many lives has the Shangri-La ruined? Has it or the new Hotel Georgia ruined downtown? Most these people have probably not even noticed their impact and the same would likely be true with these other higher tower proposals.

[officedweller]

Of interest:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nati...m=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Toron to&utm_content=1931176

Let cities reach for the sky
MARCUS GEE | Columnist profile | E-mail

From Saturday's Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Mar. 04, 2011 10:00PM EST
Last updated Friday, Mar. 04, 2011 11:12PM EST

It takes nerve to tell a Toronto audience that Jane Jacobs was wrong. The American-born thinker and activist lived here from 1968 until her death in 2006. She is revered for her insight – now conventional wisdom – that diversity is the key to a livable city. She was one of the first to see the folly of big urban-renewal schemes that destroyed lively older neighbourhoods and replaced them with bland housing projects.

But according to Harvard economist Edward Glaeser, she was wrong about at least one thing: tall buildings. In his smart new book Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier and Happier, he says that “Jane Jacobs’ opposition to urban renewal led her to a more sweeping dislike for tall buildings in general.”

Jacobs argued that high-rise residential towers isolate their residents from the street. Only by living in low-rise buildings, like her own home in New York’s Greenwich Village, could they stay connected to the bustling street life that keeps cities vital and safe.

She led famous fights against plans to drive an expressway through Washington Square Park and tear down 16 blocks of the Village for urban renewal. But her views on density and height also led her to oppose a nine-storey library for New York University. In her 1961 classic The Death and Life of Great American Cities, she argued that neighbourhoods with more than 200 households to the acre risked becoming sterile and standardized.

Anyone who has walked through Hong Kong or midtown Manhattan can see that’s mistaken. Lined with high-rise apartment towers, boasting densities many times over Jacobs’s danger mark, these streets teem with life. The same could be said of Yaletown in Vancouver or the condo canyons of downtown Toronto.

Prof. Glaeser says that as much as he admires Jacobs for her “enormous wisdom and insight,” she was also wrong when she argued in her early work that preserving older, shorter buildings would keep accommodation affordable for homeowners and entrepreneurs. “Her vision for Greenwich Village produced an area that was enshrined in amber, that was unable to produce enough supply to create affordability – and now it’s $5-million to buy a house in Greenwich Village,” he said at a University of Toronto talk this week.

Greenwich Village is a charming place, for certain. So is central Paris, where high-rise buildings are rare. But the enormous cost of residing in such places inevitably turns them into preserves of the rich. Cities that encourage high-rise living are not only more affordable, they are ultimately more livable. The population density that comes with high-rise buildings brings livelier streets, more efficient transit use, less energy consumption and healthier, less car-dependent lifestyles. The alternative to building up is building out – the curse of urban sprawl.

That lesson often seems lost on Toronto. The explosion in high-rise condo development is a great thing for the city – Prof. Glaeser says he is “exalted” to witness it – but a maze of rules about zoning, shadow impacts and densities often limits attempts to build skyward. Every time a developer proposes a tall building, local residents and politicians fight to block it or scale it down.

It is an old prejudice. Prof. Glaeser notes that when early-20th-century real estate developers were trying to build on New York’s Fifth Avenue, then a street of stately mansions, opponents wanted a height cap of 125 feet. Without it, they said, the street would become a soulless canyon and property values would crash. Today it is one of the liveliest and most valuable avenues in the world.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Of interest:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nati...m=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Toron to&utm_content=1931176

Height restrictions are really frustrating to me. Especially considering that they're there to protect views for a very small percentage of people.

Would the Woodwards project been able to achieve the economic diversity that it has without the height it has? Plus the added density that the area desperately needs to become a functional neighborhood. Yet the city wants height limits for the area far below that of the Woodwards.

As well the city has a shortage of rental units. So a developer comes up with a plan to include a couple of hundred or so rental units in its project, but then a few people in the neighborhood complain that it's too tall. The project is scaled back, and we're left with zero or very few rental units. So now the neighborhood has effectively shut out a certain segment of people.

I wonder if the Olympic Village would have the problems that it does had it been built using taller towers instead of the ten or so story buildings that it has?

To me the positives of building taller far outweigh the negatives. In my opinion, the height restrictions are stunting the growth of the city.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by logan5

Height restrictions are really frustrating to me. Especially considering that they're there to protect views for a very small percentage of people..

Untrue. View cones are situated where all members of the public can enjoy them, as they pass through them. Imagine a city where that breathtaking glimpse of the mountains when you come down Granville Street heading downtown is obliterated. Such viewscapes make Vancouver unique. Tall buildings can be put up anywhere, those mountains cannot.

That is not to say there should be a cap everywhere on building heights, but to dismiss the viewcones out of hand is not the answer.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by logan5

Height restrictions are really frustrating to me. Especially considering that they're there to protect views for a very small percentage of people.

Would the Woodwards project been able to achieve the economic diversity that it has without the height it has? Plus the added density that the area desperately needs to become a functional neighborhood. Yet the city wants height limits for the area far below that of the Woodwards.

As well the city has a shortage of rental units. So a developer comes up with a plan to include a couple of hundred or so rental units in its project, but then a few people in the neighborhood complain that it's too tall. The project is scaled back, and we're left with zero or very few rental units. So now the neighborhood has effectively shut out a certain segment of people.

I wonder if the Olympic Village would have the problems that it does had it been built using taller towers instead of the ten or so story buildings that it has?

To me the positives of building taller far outweigh the negatives. In my opinion, the height restrictions are stunting the growth of the city.

This post deserves a yellow star.

[officedweller]

I think what he means is that the viewpoints for many viewcones are arbitrary.

i.e. out of the population of Vancouver, how many people have actually stood at the viewpoint from Heather Bay? or from the Laurel Landbridge?

Far more people will have driven through the viewpoint at the crest of Granville Bridge and even more people will have seen the North Shore Mountains from Canada Place or the Stanley Park seawall - where there are no obstructions at all.