Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[raggedy13]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Imagine a city where that breathtaking glimpse of the mountains when you come down Granville Street heading downtown is obliterated.

Now I realize I'm not speaking for everyone, but for me the greatest part about speeding over the Granville Street Bridge is the experience of diving into this dense wall of towers that seem to rise up out of nowhere. I've heard this experience referenced several times by locals, tourists, and at least one travel article, and the awe-factor always seems to be the cityscape as opposed to the mountains. Not to say that people don't love and speak highly of the mountains in other contexts though.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by raggedy13

Now I realize I'm not speaking for everyone, but for me the greatest part about speeding over the Granville Street Bridge is the experience of diving into this dense wall of towers that seem to rise up out of nowhere. I've heard this experience referenced several times by locals, tourists, and at least one travel article, and the awe-factor always seems to be the cityscape as opposed to the mountains. Not to say that people don't love and speak highly of the mountains in other contexts though.

But you are speaking for everyone who loves the glory of human creation, and within whom the spirit of ascent lives, and has the vision to see that mountains and skyscrapers--the natural and the man-made--can and ought to soar together.

[delboy]

Originally Posted by whatnext

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.

I agree....one of the neat things about this city is how the north shore mountains peek between buildings as you amble around the city. Anytime i have out of town guests here, they often pause and marvel at the views.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

But you are speaking for everyone who loves the glory of human creation, and within whom the spirit of ascent lives, and has the vision to see that mountains and skyscrapers--the natural and the man-made--can and ought to soar together.

Yes, absolutely they should complement each other. Now the mountains make our buildings appear taller than they are IMHO, they draw the eye up.

I've never seen an ugly mountain, but I've seen a lot of ugly architecture. And mountains never go out of style, or fall victim to fad and fashion. That's why they should tread very carefully when reviewing the view cones.

[Millennium2002]

Doesn't the UDP board look out after those architectural concerns nowadays? Then again, tastes do change quite often... e.g. I'm not a big fan of dark brown glass on some Downtown skyscrapers... but those were probably built years before I was born. =O (upcoming renovation, anyone?)

[logan5]

Originally Posted by whatnext

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.

There are potentially a million view cones in the city, with the vast majority of them being far nicer than the ones at south False Creek, or the very limited view from the Granville St. Bridge.

If intruding on a view cone affords us the opportunity to add much needed rental stock, or more social housing for the working poor, I'd say that's a good trade-off.

By allowing the Capitol Residences to rise to 42 floors, the city gained a 20 million dollar expansion of the Orpheum Theatre.

If allowing developers to build 450' towers in the DTES means, because of density bonuses, new, safe housing for addicts and other hard to house, then I say go for it. Couple that with the much needed density that is needed to rehabilitate the area.

A few view cones seem trivial compared to other issues facing the city.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by logan5

There are potentially a million view cones in the city, with the vast majority of them being far nicer than the ones at south False Creek, or the very limited view from the Granville St. Bridge.

If intruding on a view cone affords us the opportunity to add much needed rental stock, or more social housing for the working poor, I'd say that's a good trade-off.

By allowing the Capitol Residences to rise to 42 floors, the city gained a 20 million dollar expansion of the Orpheum Theatre.

If allowing developers to build 450' towers in the DTES means, because of density bonuses, new, safe housing for addicts and other hard to house, then I say go for it. Couple that with the much needed density that is needed to rehabilitate the area.

A few view cones seem trivial compared to other issues facing the city.

I totally disagree. As delboy pionts out, views like the one from the Garnville Street bridge are "wow" moments that impress not just locals, but tourists who provide a lot of the city's economic activity.

And there are 101 different mechanisms the city could have created to gain expansion of the Orpheum.

I'm not sure why we'd try high rise low income housing in the DTES, when that method of social housing has spectacularly failed in "projects" across North America. Mid-rise has proven to work, and even better would be to build stock outside the toxic environment of the DTES.

Demolishing view cones for "much needed rental stock" sounds nice, but in reality we all know it would just go for more high-priced condos.

Taking your argument to the extreme, why not just build on Stanley Park to provide much needed rental stock and social housing? After all, Vision's STIR program is halfway there already, shortchanging amenities and future livability to calm the rental stock chicken littles.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I totally disagree. As delboy pionts out, views like the one from the Garnville Street bridge are "wow" moments that impress not just locals, but tourists who provide a lot of the city's economic activity.

A 1-minute view while crossing the Granville Street bridge - or anywhere else - does not provide the city with "a lot of the city's economic activity."

Hardly anyone notices, except for the odd NIMBY's and die hard naturalists.

And there are 101 different mechanisms the city could have created to gain expansion of the Orpheum.

City taxpayers?

Taking your argument to the extreme, why not just build on Stanley Park to provide much needed rental stock and social housing? After all, Vision's STIR program is halfway there already, shortchanging amenities and future livability to calm the rental stock chicken littles.

The extreme isn't quite the same, apples and oranges. Building in an urban park vs. protecting "precious" mountain views?

[delboy]

Originally Posted by mr.x

A 1-minute view while crossing the Granville Street bridge - or anywhere else - does not provide the city with "a lot of the city's economic activity."

Hardly anyone notices, except for the odd NIMBY's and die hard naturalists.





City taxpayers?





The extreme isn't quite the same, apples and oranges. Building in an urban park vs. protecting "precious" mountain views?

Nobody notices????????? that's why i moved here! Vancouver and moutain views goes together like crackers and cheese....without the views, vancouver is a very average city...Vancouver is not renowned for night life or culture or great buildings, its how the city is sinced with its outstanding surroundings....or I may as well move back to manchester..........

At the end of the day it comes down to finding balance....I think the city is moving in the right direction.

[jlousa]

When I was younger I was anti viewcones, now that I'm older I'm a stout supporter. Even the sliver ones that seem useless still slice a path across the core letting sunlight reach the ground plane. It still surprises me walking the streets how much daylight we get ( even under overcast skies). Even our walls of glass which appear mundane help reflect sunlight everywhere. As mentioned by Delboy I don't get the appeal of Seattle, I enjoy I time there but it doesn't feel nearly as vibrant. I do notice that the streets of d/t Seattle do not seem to get the amount of light ours do.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by delboy

Nobody notices????????? that's why i moved here! Vancouver and moutain views goes together like crackers and cheese....without the views, vancouver is a very average city...

What Vancouverites may term as "major increases in height" aren't going to kill these "precious" mountain views the city is known for....perhaps at some very few and extremely arbitrary view points that few people really care about. On the other hand if we're building a wall of 1,000 footers along the entire length of Robson Street, that's another story.

The economic vitality of the city has been hindered from nonflexible height restrictions and view cones for far too long.

Vancouver is not renowned for night life or culture or great buildings, its how the city is sinced with its outstanding surroundings...

And I wonder why...

[Canadian Mind]

Maybe more reflective glass and less transparent seafoam green would help with ground-level lighting as much as height restrictions?

[logan5]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I totally disagree. As delboy pionts out, views like the one from the Garnville Street bridge are "wow" moments that impress not just locals, but tourists who provide a lot of the city's economic activity.

And there are 101 different mechanisms the city could have created to gain expansion of the Orpheum.

I'm not sure why we'd try high rise low income housing in the DTES, when that method of social housing has spectacularly failed in "projects" across North America. Mid-rise has proven to work, and even better would be to build stock outside the toxic environment of the DTES.

Demolishing view cones for "much needed rental stock" sounds nice, but in reality we all know it would just go for more high-priced condos.

Wow moments are a subjective thing. Something that the city can provide just as much as the mountains, as was said 4 or 5 posts ago. Has the view cone on the Granville St. Bridge been "demolished" as you say, or has a new one been created?

As for the DTES, I was suggesting that the city parlay height allowances on market housing into amenities for DTES residents. With proper housing for the poor, and an influx of new residents from diverse backgrounds, the toxic nature of the neighborhood would be greatly reduced.

I think it somewhat cruel to evict these people from a neighborhood where they feel safe, where they have help nearby from people they know and trust.

[jlousa]

Do you have any examples of the economic vitality of the city having been negatively affected by height restrictions?

I can think of multiple office towers that were not built to their maximum height allowed because there wasn't the demand for space to warrant building higher. There have been many things that have held Vancouver back economically over the years, height has not been one of them.

[usog]

Originally Posted by logan5

As for the DTES, I was suggesting that the city parlay height allowances on market housing into amenities for DTES residents. With proper housing for the poor, and an influx of new residents from diverse backgrounds, the toxic nature of the neighborhood would be greatly reduced.

I think it somewhat cruel to evict these people from a neighborhood where they feel safe, where they have help nearby from people they know and trust.

That implies DTES residents would want an influx of new residents in all these shiny new developments, which if I remember was very much false.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by usog

That implies DTES residents would want an influx of new residents in all these shiny new developments, which if I remember was very much false.

Being segregated like some leper colony is surely not the answer.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by usog

That implies DTES residents would want an influx of new residents in all these shiny new developments, which if I remember was very much false.

What the DTES residents have gotten, they have received...short of endless handouts and free social housing for everyone.

Those "shiny new developments" will rejuvenate the area...unless you're still for keeping it as a slum. The fabric that keeps the DTES together needs to be torn, a negative environment does not breed positivity whatsoever - therefore, the status quo remains. It has been a vicious cycle.

[usog]

Originally Posted by logan5

Being segregated like some leper colony is surely not the answer.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have a greater variety of people in the DTES, I'm just saying that the people currently living there have been very resistant to 'outsiders' or 'gentrification' if I remembered right, no?

[jlousa]

That is correct, they prefer the status quo. I don't think tall towers are the answer within the dtes anyways (I know the hypocrisy). The area certainly needs more market density and needs to protect existing non-market density. The planning dept's plan allowed for both while being respectful of the existing built urban fabric. Hopefully it will still go through in time.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by usog

I'm not saying we shouldn't have a greater variety of people in the DTES, I'm just saying that the people currently living there have been very resistant to 'outsiders' or 'gentrification' if I remembered right, no?

I guess it's not so much that they don't wan't outsiders, maybe it's the fear of being forced out by some Yaletown types.

I believe the city owns more than a few properties in the area for the purpose of maintaining housing for DTES residents. So I don't know what they really want. Maybe they don't know either.