601 W Cordova | 114m | 22fl | Proposed

[osirisboy]

Lol well I personally find this all totally absurd. Anyone can look north on any street and enjoy amazing mountain views. The granville bridge one seems especially pathetic and pointless. You could just look west and see a massive vista of mountains and ocean. But yet the city likes to make these dumb little policies up. I guess to keep things complicated

[djh]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Lol well I personally find this all totally absurd. Anyone can look north on any street and enjoy amazing mountain views. The granville bridge one seems especially pathetic and pointless. You could just look west and see a massive vista of mountains and ocean. But yet the city likes to make these dumb little policies up. I guess to keep things complicated

I really find it absurd that people cannot understand the purpose of view cones.

If there were no height restrictions, then one day in the theoretical future, *ALL* of those arbitrary views from streets from which you currently look north and enjoy amazing views would be gone. So to prevent this happening, the view cones at least preserve a small number of places from which - no matter how high the whole city grows - you will still be able to get a view of the mountains.

The positions of the viewcones may seem pathetic and pointless to you today, but they are not as random as you think. They have to take into account height restrictions of what could potentially be built in front of them, places that the public can and will have free access to, and subjective definitions of attractive views.

I bet if the city had never established viewcones and we no longer had good views of the mountains, people would be complaining that the view has been ruined by ugly development. I wish some foresight had been used over on the north shore as to how ugly the development creeping up the mountain is...

[Klazu]

I understand and support the idea of our view cones, but has it been said why we have height restrictions in the areas outside of the view cones? Sure, limit the height under the view cone, but what is the city trying to protect outside of them?

Or is there a view cone area over pretty much every piece of Downtown land?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by djh

I really find it absurd that people cannot understand the purpose of view cones.

If there were no height restrictions, then one day in the theoretical future, *ALL* of those arbitrary views from streets from which you currently look north and enjoy amazing views would be gone. So to prevent this happening, the view cones at least preserve a small number of places from which - no matter how high the whole city grows - you will still be able to get a view of the mountains.

The positions of the viewcones may seem pathetic and pointless to you today, but they are not as random as you think. They have to take into account height restrictions of what could potentially be built in front of them, places that the public can and will have free access to, and subjective definitions of attractive views.

I bet if the city had never established viewcones and we no longer had good views of the mountains, people would be complaining that the view has been ruined by ugly development. I wish some foresight had been used over on the north shore as to how ugly the development creeping up the mountain is...

1. If I stare too much at mountains from Cambie or Granville bridge while driving, I may cause an accident.

2. Not much to see from Queen Elizabeth Park with the trees/shrubs growing in front of the vantage point. And many of us go there at night to enjoy the lights of downtown buildings, because by then only a little strip of Grouse mountain can be seen. If you bring a hot date to Seasons restaurant, good luck starring at the black mountains.

3. Vancouver is often too foggy or rainy to allow the north-shore mountains to be seen.

4. Tonnes of other places to see north-shore mountains without downtown structures blocking them, eg. long expanse of Kits, Spanish Banks, UBC, Stanley Park, Coal Harbour, and pretty much anywhere higher up in West or East sides, Lions Gate Bridge, Burrard Bridge, and practically all the suburbs. So why restrict downtown building heights just to protect 5 or 6 nonsensical points, especially those of hointy nointy hoods?

5. Taller buildings = more people able to see mountains. I'm not just referring to residents/office workers/hotel guests, but visitors to public spaces like building top lounges/restaurants, viewing galleries, etc. Perhaps the City should demand such spots for really tall buildings instead of being so stubborn about viewcones.

6. How many of us work at City Hall? Please raise your hands!


For your info, arbitrary views of mountains from most streets would not be gone because the City streets are on a grid layout. Doesn't matter how tall the buildings are.

Sorry about being off-topic, but to draw in some conversation about this Cordova building, the City should demand that a viewing platform be created for the public to enjoy the views of Gastown, Burrard Inlet, and of course, the much-desired north-shore mountains. That may effectively kill off business at Harbour Centre but at least it gives them pressure to improve on the quality of their restaurant food to draw in the crowds.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by djh

I really find it absurd that people cannot understand the purpose of view cones.

Hahaha. I really hope you were being sarcastic with your post!! None of it made any sense whatsoever. Much like the view cones. Haha

And yes a viewpoint on top would be awesome! Even if it at least gets harbour centre to update itself

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by djh

I really find it absurd that people cannot understand the purpose of view cones.

If there were no height restrictions, then one day in the theoretical future, *ALL* of those arbitrary views from streets from which you currently look north and enjoy amazing views would be gone. So to prevent this happening, the view cones at least preserve a small number of places from which - no matter how high the whole city grows - you will still be able to get a view of the mountains.

The positions of the viewcones may seem pathetic and pointless to you today, but they are not as random as you think. They have to take into account height restrictions of what could potentially be built in front of them, places that the public can and will have free access to, and subjective definitions of attractive views.

I bet if the city had never established viewcones and we no longer had good views of the mountains, people would be complaining that the view has been ruined by ugly development. I wish some foresight had been used over on the north shore as to how ugly the development creeping up the mountain is...

Your point is well made, but now that much of the CBD is built out, I think it's time to ease up on the viewcones.
When I see great buildings like MNP "dumbed down," when an extra 5 or 10 floors would have given it an even more dramatic impact ...
and when we end up with the tabletop skyline we have, I get angry. Sorry if that is not Viewcone Correct.

[phesto]

This proposal is taking a lot of heat in the media now, particularly for lack of public consultation.

I think it will be back to the drawing board with this one...

[s211]

Originally Posted by Vin

6. How many of us work at City Hall? Please raise your hands!

I wouldn't under-estimate this. What other job out there gives you the ability to enforce your sense of ideals upon the populace?

[Vanelevatorman]

Originally Posted by Vin

..... but at least it gives them pressure to improve on the quality of their restaurant food to draw in the crowds.

Amen to this. I go to Top of Vancouver quite often for business related dinners/events and I must say, the food is nothing special. Sometimes I go there and I'm appalled at the quality they try to push for being billed as a "fine dining" place....

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by phesto

This proposal is taking a lot of heat in the media now, particularly for lack of public consultation.

I think it will be back to the drawing board with this one...

What are the "issues" that would cause it to be sent back to the drawing board? The pessimist in me thinks they are going to lop off another 50 feet.

[WarrenC12]

This model makes it look pretty awkward next to Waterfront Station, IMO.

http://ow.ly/i/8luD4

Sorry couldn't embed this image.

[s211]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

This model makes it look pretty awkward next to Waterfront Station, IMO.

http://ow.ly/i/8luD4

Sorry couldn't embed this image.

Perhaps more than awkward. If one could view from street level, would this building perhaps loom over Waterfront Station somewhat oppressively? I'm guessing that's where some of the opposition is coming from.

[Tfreder]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

This model makes it look pretty awkward next to Waterfront Station, IMO.

http://ow.ly/i/8luD4

Sorry couldn't embed this image.

Originally Posted by s211

Perhaps more than awkward. If one could view from street level, would this building perhaps loom over Waterfront Station somewhat oppressively? I'm guessing that's where some of the opposition is coming from.

This is why I'm pretty much torn over this development. It's an incredibly designed tower that would look amazing in Vancouver, but I really don't think the site they plan to build it on is a great place for it to be situated. From the street level renderings, it seems out of place next to Waterfront Station; in terms of the skyline, it looks awkward relative to Harbour Centre due to the proximity/ similar heights of both buildings. But of course that's just my opinion.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Tfreder

This is why I'm pretty much torn over this development. It's an incredibly designed tower that would look amazing in Vancouver, but I really don't think the site they plan to build it on is a great place for it to be situated. From the street level renderings, it seems out of place next to Waterfront Station; in terms of the skyline, it looks awkward relative to Harbour Centre due to the proximity/ similar heights of both buildings. But of course that's just my opinion.

I find your opinion very valid and pertinent in relation to the placing of this tower.
It competes too much with the Waterfront Station and with Harbour Centre, giving a sort of "out-of-whack" feeling located where it is planned to be.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

This model makes it look pretty awkward next to Waterfront Station, IMO.

http://ow.ly/i/8luD4

Yes, it does. That's precisely why the developer was willing to build the tower taller and thinner, as the Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee recommended. But we all know what frustrated that solution.

From the minutes of the Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee's meeting on November 19, 2014:

Paul Cheng, Development Planner noted that it had been discovered on November 18, 2014 that, due to a miscommunication earlier in the process, the height of the building exceeded the Council-imposed view cone by 13 metres, and that the design of the building would need to be revisited. It was further noted that due to the view cone restriction, the applicant would not be able to take advantage of the possibility of building a taller, thinner tower to reduce the impediment on the adjacent heritage building as suggested by Committee resolution on December 18, 2013.

http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/committees...ric-area-planning-committee-20141119.pdf

[WarrenC12]

I'm not sure taller and thinner would have really helped.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm not sure taller and thinner would have really helped.

You're not sure how a more slender, elegant tower with a slimmer profile would be more sympathetic to (and congruous with) Waterfront Station than a fat, bulky, top-heavy tower looming out over it, in order to maximize the reduced space the viewcones leave?

Okay.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Lol well I personally find this all totally absurd. Anyone can look north on any street and enjoy amazing mountain views. The granville bridge one seems especially pathetic and pointless. You could just look west and see a massive vista of mountains and ocean. But yet the city likes to make these dumb little policies up. I guess to keep things complicated

Exactly. City Hall does seem good at keeping things complicated. Adding height would allow for our main transportation hub to be utilized to the max, and become a defining location in our city. Instead, we have the morons at 12th & Cambie imposing their personal preferences on us once again

[Delirium]

why do people think view cones are something city hall rammed down people's throats?

here's a brief history on they came about;

In 1978 and 1979 the City conducted two surveys to capture the public's goals for Vancouver. In the surveys, residents identified their highest priorities including preserving the views of the shoreline, the downtown skyline and the North Shore.

In the late 1980s, the City began plans to develop in the south side of downtown and along the north shore of False Creek. It was possible that - without a structured approach to building height limits and location - views of the downtown, the mountains and the False Creek waters could be blocked by buildings.

In 1988, the City began the Vancouver Views study to better understand the public's perspective. The study resulted in a proposed view protection policy and established the City's protected view corridors.

----
Sounds pretty democratic to me. didn't residents vote on which view cones they wanted adopted? also, isn't it interesting that in light of height restrictions and view cones, we have one the densest downtowns on the continent? clearly these policies aren't stumping growth - residential or commercial.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Delirium

also, isn't it interesting that in light of height restrictions and view cones, we have one the densest downtowns on the continent? clearly these policies aren't stumping growth - residential or commercial.

What is interesting is that people keep repeating this myth after it has been refuted countless times. Regarding commercial, for example, the suggestion that viewcones have caused greater numbers of development is incompatible with the objective data. Please note that the following data does not purport to make a causal claim; it is simply a refutation of a causal claim.

Office towers built in the 21 years after adoption of viewcones (1990 to 2011):

Bentall Five (577,976)
Waterfront Centre (365,168)
Terasen Centre (341,470)
Cathedral Place (307,399)
Vancouver Library Square (300,000)
BC Hydro Centre (290,571)
The Shaw Tower (279,000)
Pacific Centre Tower IV (264,177)
PriceWaterhouseCoopers Place (239,440)
Amec Building 222,135)
401 Burrard Street (214,000)
Viva Tower (171,888)
1508 West Broadway (146,486)


Office towers built in the 21 years prior to adoption of viewcones (1968 to 1989):

Park Place (576,840)
Four Bentall Centre (543,454)
Bank of Montreal Tower (476,649)
Toronto Dominion Tower (471,100)
Royal Centre (433,300)
Granville Square (386,601)
Scotia Tower (385,878)
HSBC Building (383,972)
1075 West Georgia (360,000)
Oceanic Plaza (331,128)
Canaccord Tower (284,970)
1177 West Hastings (265,060)
Guinness Tower (256,128)
Harbour Centre (249,707)
One Bentall Centre (248,700)
Commerce Place (227,482)
401 West Georgia (225,250)
1050 West Pender (220,129)
701 West Georgia (215,479)
Manulife Place (213,000)
Canada Place (210,000)
AXA Centre (206,044)
Georgia Place (199,979)
The Grosvenor Building (195,102)
Scotia Trust Centre (193,200)
Crown Life Place (193,088)
Nelson Square (190,000)
Two Bentall Centre (167,828)
Clarica Building (167,087)
1166 Alberni (165,000)
Grant Thornton Place (154,495)
Sun Life Plaza (151,654)
1185 West Georgia (147,088)
1090 West Georgia (144,181)
Pender Place I (142,530)
Pender Place II (142,356)
777 Hornby (138,585)
Vancouver House (138,308)
Broadway Plaza (132,000)
1125 Howe Street (128,912)
Standard Life Building (125,405)
1111 Melville (105,372)
475 West Georgia (103,361)
1550 Alberni (100,159)

Even if you account for the last four years, it would do very little to lessen the stark disparity between the pre-viewcone and post-viewcone eras. Moreover, you would then be obliged to account for four extra years of office development (1963 to 1967) in the pre-viewcone era too.

But a discussion purely about viewcones should take place in the viewcone thread.