Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Really? I find that hard to believe.

viewcones are fine, but Vancouver's viewcones restrict creative buildings and height(s). I love the mountains as much as the next person, but c'mon, I love a dense city. Some asian cities are very dense, and they've got the natural beauty as well to compliment their beautiful city.

We can build taller. But perhaps that mentality will never change in this city.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vancity

viewcones are fine, but Vancouver's viewcones restrict creative buildings and height(s). I love the mountains as much as the next person, but c'mon, I love a dense city. Some asian cities are very dense, and they've got the natural beauty as well to compliment their beautiful city.

We can build taller. But perhaps that mentality will never change in this city.

That's what I'm afraid of.

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

That's what I'm afraid of.

In order for this to change, we would need leaders in government who radically thinks differently than what's been presented in leadership over the last few decades. who's that going to be?

[Vin]

Best Skylines in the World

http://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/t...ked-where-sydney-new-york-and-dubai-land

20. Shenzhen , CHINA
19. Seoul , South Korea
18. Frankfurt, Germany
17. Macau .SAR , China
16. Vancouver . BC , Canada
15. New York , NY
14. Rio De Janeiro , Brazil
13. Las Vegas , NV
12. Los Angeles , CA
11. San Francisco , CA
10. Toronto , Ontario, Canada
09. Dubai , United Arab Emirates
08. Chicago , IL
07. Seattle , WA
06. Singapore
05. Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia
04. Shanghai , China
03. Tokyo , Japan
02. Hong Kong , China
01. Sydney , Australia


Although this ranking is subjective, I do believe that Vancouver would be number 1 if the downtown viewcone policies are eradicated. Mountains and tall skyscrapers combined would create something extremely formidable. Note the top 10 city skylines: most have super tall structures.

[Klazu]

How do Tokyo and Seoul make this list? As multi-center megacities they don't have one recognized skyline as such. Same with Dubai and their several "town centers".

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by Vin

Best Skylines in the World

http://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/t...ked-where-sydney-new-york-and-dubai-land

20. Shenzhen , CHINA
19. Seoul , South Korea
18. Frankfurt, Germany
17. Macau .SAR , China
16. Vancouver . BC , Canada
15. New York , NY
14. Rio De Janeiro , Brazil
13. Las Vegas , NV
12. Los Angeles , CA
11. San Francisco , CA
10. Toronto , Ontario, Canada
09. Dubai , United Arab Emirates
08. Chicago , IL
07. Seattle , WA
06. Singapore
05. Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia
04. Shanghai , China
03. Tokyo , Japan
02. Hong Kong , China
01. Sydney , Australia


Although this ranking is subjective, I do believe that Vancouver would be number 1 if the downtown viewcone policies are eradicated. Mountains and tall skyscrapers combined would create something extremely formidable. Note the top 10 city skylines: most have super tall structures.

We'll never have a skyline with supertalls, simply because the mindset of this city is so against it. especially government. I hope it'll happen one day, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by Klazu

How do Tokyo and Seoul make this list? As multi-center megacities they don't have one recognized skyline as such. Same with Dubai and their several "town centers".

I wonder how Vegas made that list.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Vancity

I wonder how Vegas made that list.

I guess like Macau, it's photogenic with all the neon/LED lights and the themed hotels that stand out from all other cities' skylines.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vancity

I wonder how Vegas made that list.

The hotel lights, the boulevard lights, and the fake Paris village. (hmmm, still ....)

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vancity

We'll never have a skyline with supertalls, simply because the mindset of this city is so against it. especially government. I hope it'll happen one day, but I'm not holding my breath.

I don't think SUPERtalls are necessary for a finer skyline here. I'd hate to think of Burj Dubai or Petronas clones popping up anywhere in the city or region.
However, I think TALL (700 - 800) feet ok for Vancouver.
I'd like to see a real major centrepice building (perhaps eventually at Burrard and Georgia), and a few more 550 - 600 footers to fil in key places.
Many people want to keep the quaint, woodsy aspect of an earlier Vancouver.
We can't do it. But we can preserve greenspace, enhance waterfront access (and we have) and top off downtown with an array of handsome mid - high to Tall buildings. . . . Without the children forgetting what mountains look like.

[mukmuk64]

Originally Posted by Vancity

In order for this to change, we would need leaders in government who radically thinks differently than what's been presented in leadership over the last few decades. who's that going to be?

Well beyond a change in leadership, you'd need to dramatically change the opinion of the population, which is a significantly harder task.

The view cone policy is very popular. The recent review showed support for higher buildings, but if you drilled deeper and looked for the support for altering view cones or having taller buildings step into existing view cones support basically vanished. In the end council declined to support any change to view cones and in fact added more protected public views.

At this point I would say the status of Vancouver's protected public view policy is approaching being an unalterable core tenet of what Vancouver is about, similar to Vancouver's longstanding policy of providing no more room for single occupancy vehicles.

Much in the same way that the notion of a freeway into downtown has become a fringe idea, and raising the prospect of building condos in Stanley Park would have people looking at you like a crazy person, I expect that going forward protected view cones will only become more and more established to the point where developers give up even asking if they could be possibly be tweaked.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

Well beyond a change in leadership, you'd need to dramatically change the opinion of the population, which is a significantly harder task.

The view cone policy is very popular. The recent review showed support for higher buildings, but if you drilled deeper and looked for the support for altering view cones or having taller buildings step into existing view cones support basically vanished. In the end council declined to support any change to view cones and in fact added more protected public views.

At this point I would say the status of Vancouver's protected public view policy is approaching being an unalterable core tenet of what Vancouver is about, similar to Vancouver's longstanding policy of providing no more room for single occupancy vehicles.

Much in the same way that the notion of a freeway into downtown has become a fringe idea, and raising the prospect of building condos in Stanley Park would have people looking at you like a crazy person, I expect that going forward protected view cones will only become more and more established to the point where developers give up even asking if they could be possibly be tweaked.

Thank you for this instructed and factual analysis. Really. It's just too bad for me and some others that viewcones could not even be "tweaked," as you say.

[Delirium]

and that's really my only issue with our viewcones. i just wish the city would consider special considerations where the viewcones could be infridged upon.
best example is MNP tower. if only it were a mere 25 ft taller, it would have added some contrast between Shaw and the Fairmont.
i was just reading today that Telus will pay the city a measly 10K a year for the encroachment the overhangs will produce along seymour and richards. why not have a similar policy for viewcones?

i don't like this 'red line' the city has drawn with respect to this policy. instead, i would prefer they investigate the merits of each proposal and charge appropriately if they choose to go that route. some proposals warrant the discussion, at the very least.

[mukmuk64]

Originally Posted by Delirium

and that's really my only issue with our viewcones. i just wish the city would consider special considerations where the viewcones could be infridged upon.
best example is MNP tower. if only it were a mere 25 ft taller, it would have added some contrast between Shaw and the Fairmont.
i was just reading today that Telus will pay the city a measly 10K a year for the encroachment the overhangs will produce along seymour and richards. why not have a similar policy for viewcones?

i don't like this 'red line' the city has drawn with respect to this policy. instead, i would prefer they investigate the merits of each proposal and charge appropriately if they choose to go that route. some proposals warrant the discussion, at the very least.

I kind of agree the "line in the sand" approach is pretty restrictive and could have negative effects, but on the other hand I can understand the city's position here. Essentially every time they would consider tweaking the rules on a view cone this would require public engagement and potentially a nasty political fight. Is it worth it just so a building can put on another few floors? There is a quantifiable amount of money attached to public consultation so as a community do we want to waste money constantly re-evaluating everything or do we just want to set one standard and abide by it?

Even the Telus overhang which you suggest is a minor thing has still produced negative feelings from the urban planning community. Don't under estimate these issues.

[red-paladin]

I don't think that kind of overhang should be approved.
I think that every once in a while skybridges are appropriate though, and there shouldn't be a complete ban in this city. But in the Telus case, they are completely for use of the employees / occupants.

[officedweller]

In particular, I don't like the "line in the sand" approach when it serves to stifle the Waterfront Hub plan.

As between the two policies, I think the Waterfront Hub is more important than distant views from QE Park or City Hall.

[Delirium]

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

I kind of agree the "line in the sand" approach is pretty restrictive and could have negative effects, but on the other hand I can understand the city's position here. Essentially every time they would consider tweaking the rules on a view cone this would require public engagement and potentially a nasty political fight. Is it worth it just so a building can put on another few floors? There is a quantifiable amount of money attached to public consultation so as a community do we want to waste money constantly re-evaluating everything or do we just want to set one standard and abide by it?

Even the Telus overhang which you suggest is a minor thing has still produced negative feelings from the urban planning community. Don't under estimate these issues.

don't all new developments go through a public consultation process anyway? it's not like they would need to hold one specifically for view cone intrusions. it's just part of the same package.
besides, not every developer may want to go down that route. i'm just saying for those that do, it should at the very least be considered instead of this firm NO.

the city is holding a public consultation for the telus video wall which is absurd seeing no residents are affected by it. is that good use of our tax dollars? probably not but it's fair i suppose. this doesn't have to be any different.

[logan5]

Simple solution...
http://io9.com/a-1-476-foot-tower-equipped-with-its-very-own-cloaking-1300809867

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by logan5

Simple solution...
http://io9.com/a-1-476-foot-tower-equipped-with-its-very-own-cloaking-1300809867

I find this really odd. Buildings are built to be seen, not to be hidden. lol. if your going to go invisible, why even bother building it in the first place? This makes no sense. LOL.

this has to be a joke...

[Vin]

Birds and aircrafts will smash into invisible buildings. Anyway, why would we have to appease some silly policies by trying to be sillier? Just remove the viewcone policies and we should be good to go for some awesome buildings downtown.