Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[Canadian Mind]

Considering that all there is above Scotia Tower is airspace, could one argue that the shadow completely blocks the intended view, and thusly removes any rational for the view cone arc to extend that far to the right?

Also, Harbour Center view shadow?

[officedweller]

Nope - the sky is part of the protected view.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

but in all fairness Vancouver is not Paris and is arguably not living up to its potential as the premier city of western Canada. A few 900 foot office or multiuse towers would do wonders to the city image, workforce, economy and would ENHANCE the mountain views from the southside rim. (ala hong kong). Put a 1000 footer on the waterfront then we can affirm Vancouver's place as a world class city skyline.

I have to agree with some height limits on residential towers, but not for the sake of a few select viewcones, but because these shit-pile res towers have overrun the downtown peninsula and even intruded into the CBD where they don't belong. The cities best architecture are the office towers located in the CBD, and they are slowly but surely being swallowed up by sea-foam green towers.

At this point, there is so little room left for office development in the downtown peninsula, if someone proposes an 800 foot office tower that intrudes on the midway across the Granville street bridge viewcone, then so be it.

[Klazu]

I am one of the view cone supporters and love those skyline + mountain views that the view cones have helped save from False Creek bridges and few other places. I am lucky enough to see the North Shore Mountains from my apartment without anything blocking my view, but I do also love seeing them from those selected locations. I am sure many of you would also miss the now familiar views if view cones would be removed and some Toronto-style tall but mediocre residential towers would block the view. The mountains are not going anywhere, but if you can't see them from anywhere south of Downtown, they are kind of missing from our world famous city skyline and that would be a shame.

I don't quite understand the outcry for height, as I thought the new West End community plan offers a nice amount of new areas where tall towers can be built (see page 5). If we could just get all those new 50-70 floor towers built, the skyline would be a killer.

Despite being fine the with the plans, I think there should be one 250m landmark tower around Burrard and Georgia to break the pattern and really be the crown of Downtown.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Klazu

........
Despite being fine the with the plans, I think there should be one 250m landmark tower around Burrard and Georgia to break the pattern and really be the crown of Downtown.

I think that the best location for such a building would be AT Burrard and Georgia; right where the Burrard Building now stands.

[officedweller]

and now residents are seeking views as of "right". Ugh.

Mount Pleasant residents sue city to protect mountain views
By Gerry Bellett, Vancouver Sun
March 5, 2014

VANCOUVER -- Mount Pleasant residents concerned that their views of the North Shore Mountains could be obstructed have launched a lawsuit to block Vancouver City from narrowing the view corridors of the mountains.

The suit was filed Tuesday in B.C. Supreme Court by the Residents Association of Mount Pleasant. The lawsuit claims the city has recently reduced the Main Street View Cone 22, set up in 1989, from a width of 33 degrees to 22 degrees. The cones were implemented to constrain the height and location of buildings in order to protect the view for residents, the suit claims.

Yet, the lawsuit, alleges, “no decision of council nor enacted bylaw of the City of Vancouver ever has legally changed the View Protection Guidelines” for Cones 22 or 20.

It calls for the court to quash a decision of council on Oct. 23, 2013 that confirmed the changes to the Main St. view cone, arguing that was a “miscarriage of the legislative procedure, natural law, standards of disclosure and procedural due process.”


....

He said changes to the view cones would raise the allowable height of future buildings by over 100 feet and would impact the views of residents living in East False Creek adjacent to Science World and in the west side of the city.

...

He said the residents association was concerned that city hall was pursuing a policy to privatize the public views of mountains and to facilitate land speculation by removing protections such as view corridors.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Mount+P...rotect+mountain+views/9583743/story.html

[mcminsen]

I wasn't sure where to post this but thought this thread might work for discussion about urban design panels and view cones and the public discourse and politics over the quality of architecture.

I just watched a video of a lecture by Rafael Vinoly from a link posted by NYguy in the New York forum. I was mostly interested in Vinoly's explanation of the design process for the 432 Park Avenue tower but what really struck me was the last 11 minutes (~55:45 to the end). There are so many things he touches on that made me think of things in Vancouver like towers getting a "haircut" after going throughout the approval process and especially the need for public education (starting even at a young age) about what is private space and what is public space and the need to participate in decision making. He doesn't mind getting yelled at by someone who doesn't like a design. He seems to relish the challenge of working with difficult people. I'd love to see him do a project in Vancouver.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by officedweller

and now residents are seeking views as of "right". Ugh.



http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Mount+P...rotect+mountain+views/9583743/story.html

Seriously? What's the legal precedence here OD?

I was under the impression that when you purchased a property, you owned the dirt you were sitting on and limited air rights above, nothing below ground. Those fell to other entities which control/own those rights.

So, how would anyone have a right to a view? If you have limited air rights above your property, how would you have rights to air rights km away outside your property boundaries?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Seriously? What's the legal precedence here OD?

I was under the impression that when you purchased a property, you owned the dirt you were sitting on and limited air rights above, nothing below ground. Those fell to other entities which control/own those rights.

So, how would anyone have a right to a view? If you have limited air rights above your property, how would you have rights to air rights km away outside your property boundaries?

Under common law, there is no right to light (or a view), so I don't know what the basis might be.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Under common law, there is no right to light (or a view), so I don't know what the basis might be.

I think the basis is Council pandering to the demands of a minority but loud group for fear of losing votes. I reckon if we make council know that many in the city want viewcones abolished, and be loud about it, then perhaps one day the policies will really be gone.

But seriously, how should one go about doing it? Go around and get signatures?

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Vin

I think the basis is Council pandering to the demands of a minority but loud group for fear of losing votes. I reckon if we make council know that many in the city want viewcones abolished, and be loud about it, then perhaps one day the policies will really be gone.

But seriously, how should one go about doing it? Go around and get signatures?

Pretty much but good luck getting people to turn out for taller buildings. Most people don't care about the issue THAT much. Conversely the anti-everything crowd in Vancouver makes a career of opposing things, are well organized, and even in some cases, well funded.

Besides, even if you could get enough support, you're still up against a city that is against such a change and will largely ignore you like they did when they conducted an open house years ago at Library Square and found that in fact most people who responded were actually okay with some view cone relaxations. They then went on a campaign to vilify higher buildings in a campaign that the tobacco industry would call unfair, until they got the response they needed from the public.

The only way to rectify this situation is to make it an election issue. But that is a risky proposition since the public has been conditioned to think that even the loss of one view immediately equals the construction of about fourteen 1200 ft buildings across Georgia Street that will block all views. As of now, nobody's been able to tackle it

[Vin]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Pretty much but good luck getting people to turn out for taller buildings. Most people don't care about the issue THAT much. Conversely the anti-everything crowd in Vancouver makes a career of opposing things, are well organized, and even in some cases, well funded.

Besides, even if you could get enough support, you're still up against a city that is against such a change and will largely ignore you like they did when they conducted an open house years ago at Library Square and found that in fact most people who responded were actually okay with some view cone relaxations. They then went on a campaign to vilify higher buildings in a campaign that the tobacco industry would call unfair, until they got the response they needed from the public.

The only way to rectify this situation is to make it an election issue. But that is a risky proposition since the public has been conditioned to think that even the loss of one view immediately equals the construction of about fourteen 1200 ft buildings across Georgia Street that will block all views. As of now, nobody's been able to tackle it

Thanks! Making it an election issue sounds good to me. Maybe link it to how unaffordable our homes here are. Simple math and logic would tell us that the shorter the structure, the less units with good views and recreational ground space can be squeezed into this land-locked city. Also, higher density neighbourhoods justify better transportation systems. If the city really wants to go green, these are issues that cannot be ignored. I think people need to be educated about them.

I would suggest creating view-cone corridors and dropping the old ones:

New viewcones:
*Spanish Banks.
*Coal Harbour.
*UBC.
*Stanley Park north face.

These areas combined are way bigger than the current 5-6 viewcone areas. Essentially, I'm saying that no tall structures can be built on the waters of English Bay and Burrard Inlet that would block the views of the northshore mountains.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vin

Thanks! Making it an election issue sounds good to me. Maybe link it to how unaffordable our homes here are. Simple math and logic would tell us that the shorter the structure, the less units with good views and recreational ground space can be squeezed into this land-locked city. Also, higher density neighbourhoods justify better transportation systems. If the city really wants to go green, these are issues that cannot be ignored. I think people need to be educated about them.

I would suggest creating view-cone corridors and dropping the old ones:

New viewcones:
*Spanish Banks.
*Coal Harbour.
*UBC.
*Stanley Park north face.

These areas combined are way bigger than the current 5-6 viewcone areas. Essentially, I'm saying that no tall structures can be built on the waters of English Bay and Burrard Inlet that would block the views of the northshore mountains.

A novel idea! Agreed +1

[Canadian Mind]

Vin, I wouldn't advocate eliminating all of the current ones, some of them certainly make sense. Scaling some down was a step in the right direction; but, I'd argue that the majority of the ones that were scaled down could be eliminated entirely without much irrevocable loss.

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Pretty much but good luck getting people to turn out for taller buildings. Most people don't care about the issue THAT much. Conversely the anti-everything crowd in Vancouver makes a career of opposing things, are well organized, and even in some cases, well funded.

Besides, even if you could get enough support, you're still up against a city that is against such a change and will largely ignore you like they did when they conducted an open house years ago at Library Square and found that in fact most people who responded were actually okay with some view cone relaxations. They then went on a campaign to vilify higher buildings in a campaign that the tobacco industry would call unfair, until they got the response they needed from the public.

The only way to rectify this situation is to make it an election issue. But that is a risky proposition since the public has been conditioned to think that even the loss of one view immediately equals the construction of about fourteen 1200 ft buildings across Georgia Street that will block all views. As of now, nobody's been able to tackle it

You nailed it with that statement, in my opinion. I see that view represented even within this forum. Suggest some relaxing of viewcones, get responses such as, we dont need supertalls in Vancouver (while talking about a building of 500 to 600 feet). You want Vancouver to become Dubai? Sure lets block out the mountains completely. The level of exaggeration is mind blowing (in my opinion). I honestly don't understand if these statements are made by people believing them to be true, or if they are aware of the ridiculousness of them. Logically I think they cant be serious, but who knows maybe they are?

[yogiderek]

West end network which seems this groups arch enemy is already gearing up too fight the application for the new building at Pendrell near Denman. Posting crap posters all over the west end complaining that it should only be zoned for 6 floors, etc.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Vin, I wouldn't advocate eliminating all of the current ones, some of them certainly make sense. Scaling some down was a step in the right direction; but, I'd argue that the majority of the ones that were scaled down could be eliminated entirely without much irrevocable loss.

Which current view cone is "good" and makes sense? I would certainly like to hear it. Agree that scaling down gradually would appease most individuals, whom I think are just too jittery about losing views of the mountains without trying to know how ridiculous the policies are. Ultimately, however, I don't see how any of the existing viewcone view points are beneficial at all.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by yogiderek

West end network which seems this groups arch enemy is already gearing up too fight the application for the new building at Pendrell near Denman. Posting crap posters all over the west end complaining that it should only be zoned for 6 floors, etc.

Should we add a "0" after the 6 every time we see a poster? Please do so.

I wonder who gives them the right to determine how tall a site should be zoned for. Do these people pay property taxes at all?

[yogiderek]

Originally Posted by Vin

Should we add a "0" after the 6 every time we see a poster? Please do so.

I wonder who gives them the right to determine how tall a site should be zoned for. Do these people pay property taxes at all?

well those residents in the sandpiper condo up the block are complaining of course about view loss. The people in the sundowner rental don't want the view loss either or the NOISE from Construction. I wish they would tear down the piece of crap beside it. Plus that god awful hotel on denman.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by yogiderek

well those residents in the sandpiper condo up the block are complaining of course about view loss. The people in the sundowner rental don't want the view loss either or the NOISE from Construction. I wish they would tear down the piece of crap beside it. Plus that god awful hotel on denman.

I think many fight for stuff like this even though they know deep down that they don't have the right to. Well, the system encourages them (what with view-cone nonsense in place, etc.), and they know that they have nothing to lose and it's always worth a shot. I think supporters for urban renewal and taller structures need to make their voices be heard too.

I do see that there is a gradual increase in West End projects being implemented now, and I'm sure this momentum would ensure that those ugly structures would be torn down soon.