The Ultimate Vancouver Rumour Thread!

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I keep hearing that it's not economically feasible to build taller. Yet Calgary, Edmonton, seattle etc seem to have no problem building higher office towers than we do. Is it because those cities allow larger floor plates than vancouver does?

So if there were no height limits developers would still only roughly build up to 140 meters? Because anything taller wouldn't be ecomincally feasable?

It not being economically feasible is yet another Vancouver based myth that gets perpetuated on this site. As you so correctly pointed out, it seems that no other major city in North America suffers from this affliction, yet in Vancouver we just can't seem to figure it out.

The truth of the matter is the city is to blame. One of the only things stated in this thread that has even a measure of truth to it is that if your floorplate is too small, just building higher (especially in commercial properties) makes little to no sense and at a certain point are actually counterproductive. However, it is the city who is to blame for this as they have a long, stupid, irrational fear of larger floor plates. They allow for some taller heights in select spots, yet the floor plates remain relatively small. Larger floor plates are reserved for shorter buildings since the city has a myriad of BS policies that stymie larger (and taller) buildings.

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Wasn't the law courts downtown originally going to be built in a 200 meter plus tower. I don't think you can say it's not feasible to build taller. It is interesting to see what the variables are.

Feasible and optimal are not the same thing as was just pointed out.

Regardless, how can you reference a building that wasn't built 50 years ago (with public money no less) to advance an argument about development economics here today?

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

It not being economically feasible is yet another Vancouver based myth that gets perpetuated on this site. As you so correctly pointed out, it seems that no other major city in North America suffers from this affliction, yet in Vancouver we just can't seem to figure it out.

The truth of the matter is the city is to blame. One of the only things stated in this thread that has even a measure of truth to it is that if your floorplate is too small, just building higher (especially in commercial properties) makes little to no sense and at a certain point are actually counterproductive. However, it is the city who is to blame for this as they have a long, stupid, irrational fear of larger floor plates. They allow for some taller heights in select spots, yet the floor plates remain relatively small. Larger floor plates are reserved for shorter buildings since the city has a myriad of BS policies that stymie larger (and taller) buildings.

Oh my god, the hyberbole just won't stop. The City made a conscious decision to try and implement a high density urban form that preserves light and views at the street by encouraging smaller floor plates for residential. It was so successful that this form of development has been exported around the world. It is not an "irrational fear" it was a rational decision. There is no maximum floor-plate for commercial. The City does regulate FSR, as every major city in the developed world does. That's how they manage the location of the density so that the infrastructure and services that are provided can accommodate the amount of development that occurs.

Agree or disagree with the decisions, but at least recognize that the "City" isn't just a bunch of idiots sitting trying "stymie" anything. Municiplaties are responsible for providing services and regulating land -use. That is why they exist.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

Feasible and optimal are not the same thing as was just pointed out.

Regardless, how can you reference a building that wasn't built 50 years ago (with public money no less) to advance an argument about development economics here today?

Lol. Ok. I could reference the dozens of buildings that are built in countless other cities that are taller than 200 metres that seem to get built without any economic issues


Point being, It's not strictly economics that restrict building height/floor plate. As you pointed out in your last post

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Lol. Ok. I could reference the dozens of buildings that are built in countless other cities that are taller than 200 metres that seem to get built without any economic issues


Point being, It's not strictly economics that restrict building height/floor plate. As you pointed out in your last post

But is economics in many cases that restricts the size of a building. The vast majority of buildings in Tokyo are 12 - 20 stories for instance. Is it is fair to say that we would have a few more buildings over 200m if they City would allow them? Of course it is. But not every building on every site would necessarily be more profitable if it was taller.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

Oh my god, the hyberbole just won't stop. The City made a conscious decision to try and implement a high density urban form that preserves light and views at the street by encouraging smaller floor plates for residential. It was so successful that this form of development has been exported around the world. It is not an "irrational fear" it was a rational decision. There is no maximum floor-plate for commercial. The City does regulate FSR, as every major city in the developed world does. That's how they manage the location of the density so that the infrastructure and services that are provided can accommodate the amount of development that occurs.

Agree or disagree with the decisions, but at least recognize that the "City" isn't just a bunch of idiots sitting trying "stymie" anything. Municiplaties are responsible for providing services and regulating land -use. That is why they exist.

Oh my god, the myth perpetuating just won't stop either. The oft repeated "been exported around the world" is a stretch and was originated and then repeated by Vancouver based sources. Dubai copied parts of the coal harbour plan (then improved on it) and yet somehow this equated to "been exported around the world." Hyperbole indeed.

Nowhere do I say their is a maximum floor-plate for commercial. You just added that yourself.

And yes every city does regulate FSR's; thanks for the update. Unfortunately, that does nothing to explain why Vancouver's are so small. Our FSR ratios are weak when compared to other major cities (especially in our central business areas). As for how the city has "managed" density; it hasn't. Its policies have kept buildings from reaching their true potential. Remove all the onerous restrictions and lets see where the market take us. If developers still only build stubby, smaller towers on key commercial sites, then so be it. Until then, the city gets the blame.

Finally, no I will not agree that the city aren't idiots as sadly, I have had to deal with these morons personally in the past for much smaller projects so I can only imagine what its like for those pursuing something much more grandiose.
If you can come up with any logical (pay close attention to that word) reason why the city feels the need to control the height, look, style, lighting feature, signage (both in height and style), tint of the bloody glass of a tower, I'm all ears. Until then - idiots that stymie and stomp out any and all creativity and/or variance that does not conform to their personal tastes charge remains

[Vin]

If developers/builders in other cities and parts of the world would not consider height as a barrier and dare to build taller, what makes their peers in Vancouver so timid that they would stick to around 30 floors? Jlousa, what you said regarding the economics could be right (but statistics do not always agree), but don't tell me that the mentality of builders here are starkly different from those in Hong Kong, Toronto, New York, Chicago, Dubai or Shanghai, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, etc.? If you don't think so, then you also mustn't discount the fact that there are other factors at play, such as the viewcones plus other city restrictions to prevent buildings from going higher up here?

p.s.: WarrenC12 perhaps you can enlighten us too?
Jlousa, and by the way, except for Logan, no one here implies that the City shot down the Melville project, most are merely saying that it can go up taller.

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

It not being economically feasible is yet another Vancouver based myth that gets perpetuated on this site. As you so correctly pointed out, it seems that no other major city in North America suffers from this affliction, yet in Vancouver we just can't seem to figure it out.

The truth of the matter is the city is to blame. One of the only things stated in this thread that has even a measure of truth to it is that if your floorplate is too small, just building higher (especially in commercial properties) makes little to no sense and at a certain point are actually counterproductive. However, it is the city who is to blame for this as they have a long, stupid, irrational fear of larger floor plates. They allow for some taller heights in select spots, yet the floor plates remain relatively small. Larger floor plates are reserved for shorter buildings since the city has a myriad of BS policies that stymie larger (and taller) buildings.

Exactly, if you spread enough fable or half-truths, people start believing them. In this case, the truth can't be more obvious.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Wasn't the law courts downtown originally going to be built in a 200 meter plus tower. (and we got Robson Square instead){sic].
Henbo, Vancouver doesn't like large floor plate buildings. It has little to do with our blocks.

Osirisboy, is that largely because Vancouver is not, in fact, a major HQ city with a bigger economy and higher $$$ city GDP?
There was once, somewhere, a fleeting and fanciful remark posted as making Vancouver the HSBC hq & constr a new hq building normally a "given".
Imagine the banking centre the city would have become !! So many other banks joining in! A bit the way Charlotte NC became a major banking city, Vancouver would be a Canadian/American/Asian/maybe UK and European centre. (hey this is the ultimate rumour thread ...)

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Oh my god, the myth perpetuating just won't stop either. The oft repeated "been exported around the world" is a stretch and was originated and then repeated by Vancouver based sources. Dubai copied parts of the coal harbour plan......

*>> All this stuff is kind of a mantra, I know, but I think that most of all, the "exported around the world" refers mostly to the livable town centre scheme combined with a lot of downtown living. That's what's being exported, not so much about CBD height restrictions and such... /)

Nowhere do I say their is a maximum floor-plate for commercial. You just added that yourself.

And yes every city does regulate FSR's; thanks for the update. Unfortunately, that does nothing to explain why Vancouver's are so small. /*) Remove all the onerous restrictions and lets see where the market take us. ....

*>>That is precisely what the city does not seem to have the courage to do.

Finally, no I will not agree that the city aren't idiots as sadly, I have had to deal with these morons personally in the past ....

If you can come up with any logical (pay close attention to that word) reason why the city feels the need to control the height, look, style, lighting feature,......I'm all ears. Until then - idiots that stymie and stomp out any and all creativity and/or variance that does not conform to their personal tastes charge remains

EastVanMark, you nailed it it. At the end of the day, stuff has to conform to the tastes and wishes of a committee of individuals whose tastes tend to be marked by a self-imposed, for varying reasons, set of regulations that often end up with an insipid, limited product that could have made a better statement if rules had been lifted.
The social and psychological origins of some of their decisions often baffle and intrigue me.

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Oh my god, the myth perpetuating just won't stop either. The oft repeated "been exported around the world" is a stretch and was originated and then repeated by Vancouver based sources. Dubai copied parts of the coal harbour plan (then improved on it) and yet somehow this equated to "been exported around the world." Hyperbole indeed.

Nowhere do I say their is a maximum floor-plate for commercial. You just added that yourself.

And yes every city does regulate FSR's; thanks for the update. Unfortunately, that does nothing to explain why Vancouver's are so small. Our FSR ratios are weak when compared to other major cities (especially in our central business areas). As for how the city has "managed" density; it hasn't. Its policies have kept buildings from reaching their true potential. Remove all the onerous restrictions and lets see where the market take us. If developers still only build stubby, smaller towers on key commercial sites, then so be it. Until then, the city gets the blame.

Finally, no I will not agree that the city aren't idiots as sadly, I have had to deal with these morons personally in the past for much smaller projects so I can only imagine what its like for those pursuing something much more grandiose.
If you can come up with any logical (pay close attention to that word) reason why the city feels the need to control the height, look, style, lighting feature, signage (both in height and style), tint of the bloody glass of a tower, I'm all ears. Until then - idiots that stymie and stomp out any and all creativity and/or variance that does not conform to their personal tastes charge remains

You said:

...they have a long, stupid, irrational fear of larger floor plates.

so there's that.

Dallas, San Francisco, San Diego, Melbourne, Sydney Abu Dabi, Beijing, Shanghai, and Toronto have implemented Vancouverism. Some quite literally (though none as literally as Dubai).

Name one city in a fully developed country that doesn't have design controls for major development.

Do you honestly that Vancouver would be better off by giving developers carte blanche? Really? Can you imagine what Onni would build? or Concord? It would be a freaking race to the bottom.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

But is economics in many cases that restricts the size of a building. The vast majority of buildings in Tokyo are 12 - 20 stories for instance. Is it is fair to say that we would have a few more buildings over 200m if they City would allow them? Of course it is. But not every building on every site would necessarily be more profitable if it was taller.

Those majority 12-20 storey buildings in Tokyo ARE the equivalent of our 1-2 storey single family homes.

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by Vin

Those majority 12-20 storey buildings in Tokyo ARE the equivalent of our 1-2 storey single family homes.

Sure but that doesn't change the fact that it was the most cost effective form of development.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

Do you honestly that Vancouver would be better off by giving developers carte blanche? Really? Can you imagine what Onni would build? or Concord? It would be a freaking race to the bottom.

Controls and bylaws are important, but in Vancouver somehow officials seem to have their priorities wrong. For instance, the Mark would still look very good even if it were 20 stories taller, and that no additional mountain views are blocked. However, it looks terrible with those random ugly spandrels that differed from the original design, which is accepted by City inspectors. The City enforced on the height but then forgot about about how ugly the top floors turned out. I call that misplaced priority.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

You said:
so there's that.

Dallas, San Francisco, San Diego, Melbourne, Sydney Abu Dabi, Beijing, Shanghai, and Toronto have implemented Vancouverism. Some quite literally (though none as literally as Dubai).

Name one city in a fully developed country that doesn't have design controls for major development.

Do you honestly that Vancouver would be better off by giving developers carte blanche? Really? Can you imagine what Onni would build? or Concord? It would be a freaking race to the bottom.

So there's what? In what version of the English language does what I typed (they have a long, stupid, irrational fear of larger floor plates) mean a maximum floor-plate for commercial? Because in most people's version, it doesn't.

Can you provide any links (other than Vancouver ones) where Dallas, San Francisco, San Diego, Melbourne, Sydney, or Shanghai, implemented Vancouverism?

Name one major city that clamps down on design for major projects as much as Vancouver does.

First off, I nor I believe anyone else called for carte blanche being given to anyone. That's is a gross exaggeration. I just called for more market forces deciding how large/tall buildings are in a given area. Besides, I only mention that since some on here are convinced its the developers who are deciding such things, and that is just plain wrong. To repeat, I believe nobody is calling for the removal of any control over what gets built, we just want more input and oversight, less "we know whats best for everyone so our personal tastes equal good taste," BS certain parts of 12th & Cambie seem to want to do. For example, just who (or what) is the city protecting by allowing only a limited color pallet for windows of its taller buildings? The Wall Centre changed the tint on their windows and yet the sun still came out the very next day. Another example; the Shangri-La can't have a sign (no matter the type, size, brightness level, or color on top of their building (as is the practice in virtually EVERY major city on planet earth. Is that not taking things a little too far? Why must the city insist on holding their thumb on such a trivial thing? Not allowing any signage is saving us from what exactly? Answer: nothing. Just someone (or in this case a group with WAY too much power) forcing their personal tastes upon the rest of us. That makes it illogical, irrational and just plain stupid.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by logan5

@Prometheus

Your expert witness has spoken.

Once again you have failed to read someone's post properly. If you cared to pay more attention, you would have grasped that jlousa's comment about development economics in general is perfectly consistent with his statement regarding the development economics of 1133 Melville in particular, the case we were discussing. Let me repeat that statement:

Originally Posted by jlousa

I'm certain that they would've calculated the best footprint to land the maximum FSR onto the site. Going taller might have lead to smaller floorplates...

As I said before, I think it is likely that the developer believed the city would not support his desired FSR if he proposed to build any taller. The developer probably figured the proposed height was the most likely to garner from the city the best FSR he thought possible. Had the developer believed the city would allow him to build taller with any FSR he desired on a site which allows for large, economically efficient floorplates, then his economic calculus regarding the building's optimum height would likely have changed.

If you think otherwise in light of the physical dimensions of this particular site and the city's philosophy regarding the relationship between height and FSR, then try making a compelling case instead of random utterances.

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

So there's what? In what version of the English language does what I typed (they have a long, stupid, irrational fear of larger floor plates) mean a maximum floor-plate for commercial? Because in most people's version, it doesn't.

Can you provide any links (other than Vancouver ones) where Dallas, San Francisco, San Diego, Melbourne, Sydney, or Shanghai, implemented Vancouverism?

Name one major city that clamps down on design for major projects as much as Vancouver does.

First off, I nor I believe anyone else called for carte blanche being given to anyone. That's is a gross exaggeration. I just called for more market forces deciding how large/tall buildings are in a given area. Besides, I only mention that since some on here are convinced its the developers who are deciding such things, and that is just plain wrong. To repeat, I believe nobody is calling for the removal of any control over what gets built, we just want more input and oversight, less "we know whats best for everyone so our personal tastes equal good taste," BS certain parts of 12th & Cambie seem to want to do. For example, just who (or what) is the city protecting by allowing only a limited color pallet for windows of its taller buildings? The Wall Centre changed the tint on their windows and yet the sun still came out the very next day. Another example; the Shangri-La can't have a sign (no matter the type, size, brightness level, or color on top of their building (as is the practice in virtually EVERY major city on planet earth. Is that not taking things a little too far? Why must the city insist on holding their thumb on such a trivial thing? Not allowing any signage is saving us from what exactly? Answer: nothing. Just someone (or in this case a group with WAY too much power) forcing their personal tastes upon the rest of us. That makes it illogical, irrational and just plain stupid.

Your inference with the term “irrational fear” was that they were somehow restrictive on floor plates which in commercial they are not. Unless they are paralyzed by fear yet still approve large floorplates?

If the city isn’t to regulate “height, look, style, lighting feature, signage (both in height and style), tint of the bloody glass” or inferred from you previous statement density (via size of floor plate), how exactly are they regulating development? What is left to regulate?

As to Vancouverism abroad, here is a handy infographic:



As to the last paragraph, you are kind of jumping around a bit: Who is this group exactly? The planners? The democratically elected Council? The volunteer panel of industry professionals that is the UDP?

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Once again you have failed to read someone's post properly...

It's hard to take you seriously now. After I responded to one of your posts, you later went back and edited it. You then tried to belittle me knowing full well i was responding to your original unedited post. Hard to respect somebody who pulls a cheap maneuver like that.

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

The vast majority of buildings in Tokyo are 12 - 20 stories for instance.

This is inaccurate, I'm not sure what you're basing that on. Aside from some central neighbourhoods, Tokyo is predominantly low and mid rise buildings. See Google Earth for confirmation, or visit and walk around any neighbourhood that isn't a central business district.

Japanese land use regulation is a *lot* more flexible than ours in many ways, but height is mostly limited according to road width and setbacks.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

Your inference with the term “irrational fear” was that they were somehow restrictive on floor plates which in commercial they are not. Unless they are paralyzed by fear yet still approve large floorplates?

If the city isn’t to regulate “height, look, style, lighting feature, signage (both in height and style), tint of the bloody glass” or inferred from you previous statement density (via size of floor plate), how exactly are they regulating development? What is left to regulate?

As to Vancouverism abroad, here is a handy infographic:

As to the last paragraph, you are kind of jumping around a bit: Who is this group exactly? The planners? The democratically elected Council? The volunteer panel of industry professionals that is the UDP?

They do not approve larger floor-plates for taller buildings. Repeat, they do not. In more recent times, they have allowed for larger floor-plates for shorter buildings, but once you get to a certain height, the floor-plates shrink- considerably. Most of that is due to viewcones (another city created obstacle, but that story is for a different time).

Whats left to regulate? Really? Oh I dunno, only the 100 or so things that other cities do. For example, they can regulate building glazing so that nobody inscribes inappropriate messages on/within them, however deciding a shade of blue is too dark for your own personal tastes is taking things much too far. Again I ask, just what is 12th & Cambie protecting when they don't allow a simple sign to be placed atop the Shangri-La? Or the tint of the Wall Centre? Why do other cities not take such a "father knows best" approach? You still haven't answered that. I'm guessing its because there is no logical explanation for it.

As for the oversized visual; that's a blog. Not exactly a reputable source. Anybody can write anything on a blog. Besides, even if it was an actual source all it points out is some local people (architects) designed a few buildings in other cities. Hardly an endorsement of a whole city embracing "Vancouverism." which if you've ever been to Dallas for example you would see it has not. As a side note, even on that blog the author does go on to describe the flipside to "Vancouverism" quite well actually. (Guess you left that part out )

Regarding the final paragraph I apologize for not being more clear. Yes, I blame them all. The planners, city staff, the democratically elected council, and last but certainly not least UDP.

[WarrenC12]

The UDP had openings last year, I posted about it in here... did anybody apply to be a member? They have at least 2 people from the general public on the panel.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by logan5

After I responded to one of your posts, you later went back and edited it. You then tried to belittle me knowing full well i was responding to your original unedited post. Hard to respect somebody who pulls a cheap maneuver like that.

What on earth are you mumbling about? Oh, you must be referring once again to this mythical post which you responded to 30 minutes later and quoted in its entirety and yet somehow is still identical to your quote because according to you I magically edited your quote in addition to magically editing my own post without leaving any record of editing it. LOL!

Originally Posted by logan5

Just noticed you edited your previous post which you said something far different than what is there now. Though I had already quoted it before you edited it, but somehow the quote in my post was edited too. How did you do that?