Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Vin

https://www.biv.com/article/2016/1/office-market-soaring-along-burrard-street-new-sur/

Looks like viewcones and height/other restrictions are solely to blame on why we can't have more office towers, especially the tall ones, and also why rents are so expensive. Our potential to grow as an international city is heavily curtailed.

The same theory can be applied to other commercial spaces like retail as well as residential.

Vacancy rates are increasing and rents are slipping yet you think viewcones are restricting office development?

[jlousa]

Yeah I'm sure the view cones have stopped Washington DC from building office space too... oh wait they haven't. Where there is demand they find a way to build.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Vin

https://www.biv.com/article/2016/1/office-market-soaring-along-burrard-street-new-sur/

Looks like viewcones and height/other restrictions are solely to blame on why we can't have more office towers, especially the tall ones, and also why rents are so expensive. Our potential to grow as an international city is heavily curtailed.

The same theory can be applied to other commercial spaces like retail as well as residential.

Do you think with your brain or with your emotions?

Please stop making ridiculous conclusions.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Yeah I'm sure the view cones have stopped Washington DC from building office space too... oh wait they haven't. Where there is demand they find a way to build.

Washington DC isn't landlocked like our downtown, or our north shore. Also, like Ottawa, it's a political centre, and I don't see why it needs a lot of office spaces when there are so many large cities around it.

Originally Posted by squeezied

Do you think with your brain or with your emotions?

Please stop making ridiculous conclusions.

If ever there is a genie, I would make the same three wishes, that you would disappear.
And oh yeah, my wish came true! You're now on my "ignore" list.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Vacancy rates are increasing and rents are slipping yet you think viewcones are restricting office development?

Yup, I think so. No other North American cities would even have so many office buildings built in the suburbs like ours. Our height restrictions actually favour the growths of suburban cities.

Vacancy rates increasing and rents slipping are a result of sudden availability of office space due to the completion of a few new office towers. Soon the vacancies are going to be occupied and the rates readjusted. Unless there is a catastrophic collapse in the economy, you will see rent rates going up again.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by Vin

Yup, I think so. No other North American cities would even have so many office buildings built in the suburbs like ours. Our height restrictions actually favour the growths of suburban cities.

Vacancy rates increasing and rents slipping are a result of sudden availability of office space due to the completion of a few new office towers. Soon the vacancies are going to be occupied and the rates readjusted. Unless there is a catastrophic collapse in the economy, you will see rent rates going up again.

Actually many North American cities, including New York, watched for decades as businesses left the downtown for the suburbs in massive migrations.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Vin

If ever there is a genie, I would make the same three wishes, that you would disappear.
And oh yeah, my wish came true! You're now on my "ignore" list.

You mean to tell me you won't respond to my posts and therefore less ridiculous inane posts coming from you?

Yup, I think so. No other North American cities would even have so many office buildings built in the suburbs like ours. Our height restrictions actually favour the growths of suburban cities.

Vacancy rates increasing and rents slipping are a result of sudden availability of office space due to the completion of a few new office towers. Soon the vacancies are going to be occupied and the rates readjusted. Unless there is a catastrophic collapse in the economy, you will see rent rates going up again.

Surprise surprise… more flawed reasoning from you.

This you how you think:
1. Come up with a thought that generates a lot of emotion and passion - “Tall buildings are good therefore viewcones are bad”
2. Blindly come up with any reasoning, no matter how flawed, that justifies your hatred for viewcones.

With the downtown core located in the northwest corner of the region, Metro Vancouver never had one main area of employment but consisted of one metro core and a number of town centres across the region. Viewcones came after and had nothing to do with this fact. Like any metropolitan region, suburbs grow faster than the central city and build new office space, independent of viewcones. You erroneously view the correlation in the growth of suburbs and the implementation of viewcones as causation.

Yea downtown office rates are likely to go as new vacancies are absorbed. So what? That's the market responding. With the somewhat recent trend and desire to work in compact amenity-rich areas, employers want to be in downtown and the market is responding to that which is one reason for the recent boom in downtown office space that is still continuing into the next few years. Claiming that viewcones are the sole reason as to why office rates are so expensive and there aren't more office space is one of the most ridiculous things coming from you.

People would respect your views if you think rationally without any emotional bias.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Vin

Washington DC isn't landlocked like our downtown, or our north shore. Also, like Ottawa, it's a political centre, and I don't see why it needs a lot of office spaces when there are so many large cities around it.

Very true. Washington DC is completely different than Vancouver. Washington purposefully doesn't allow for taller buildings in order to highlight some of the most famous buildings on the face of the earth. Ottawa follows similar policies. When we get the type of iconic buildings that city has, then we can review our height policies.

Both cities have similar office situations as occupancy is almost a shoe in due to the plethora of government agencies and affiliated companies who absolutely need to be in those respective cities. None of that exists here and to compare the cities is ridiculous.

[Krissy]

Originally Posted by squeezied

You mean to tell me you won't respond to my posts and therefore less ridiculous inane posts coming from you?



Surprise surprise… more flawed reasoning from you.

This you how you think:
1. Come up with a thought that generates a lot of emotion and passion - “Tall buildings are good therefore viewcones are bad”
2. Blindly come up with any reasoning, no matter how flawed, that justifies your hatred for viewcones.

With the downtown core located in the northwest corner of the region, Metro Vancouver never had one main area of employment but consisted of one metro core and a number of town centres across the region. Viewcones came after and had nothing to do with this fact. Like any metropolitan region, suburbs grow faster than the central city and build new office space, independent of viewcones. You erroneously view the correlation in the growth of suburbs and the implementation of viewcones as causation.

Yea downtown office rates are likely to go as new vacancies are absorbed. So what? That's the market responding. With the somewhat recent trend and desire to work in compact amenity-rich areas, employers want to be in downtown and the market is responding to that which is one reason for the recent boom in downtown office space that is still continuing into the next few years. Claiming that viewcones are the sole reason as to why office rates are so expensive and there aren't more office space is one of the most ridiculous things coming from you.

People would respect your views if you think rationally without any emotional bias.

I see what Vin is getting at. Say hypothetically if you impose a 1 story height limit, then you've essentially stymied growth and that growth will go elsewhere like the suburbs.

Of course the viewcones aren't this extreme and still are able to provide sufficient room to accommodate growth. Has it prevented additional floors in some towers? Yes. But those potential floors wouldn't have gone to the suburbs. If it did, it would only be so negligible. If people want to work or live in downtown, developers aren't going to start building in the suburbs because the buildings in downtown are short. There'll just be more buildings elsewhere in downtowns.

In any case I do wish there was some relaxation in the viewcones. I wouldn't abolish them as they do have their merits. But some of them are quite petty.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Very true. Washington DC is completely different than Vancouver. Washington purposefully doesn't allow for taller buildings in order to highlight some of the most famous buildings on the face of the earth. Ottawa follows similar policies. When we get the type of iconic buildings that city has, then we can review our height policies.

Both cities have similar office situations as occupancy is almost a shoe in due to the plethora of government agencies and affiliated companies who absolutely need to be in those respective cities. None of that exists here and to compare the cities is ridiculous.

LOL, you realize we purposefully don't allow for taller buildings in order to highlight some of the most spectacular urban vistas on the face of the earth, don't you?

I'm pretty sure it's more difficult to construct new mountains than to construct famous buildings.

[trofirhen]

Surely a compromise is possible here, with the powers that be, about the view cones.
Looking at Vancouver from Kits Beach or Fairview Heights you can see the mountains in all their splendour.
From many places in the CBD and West you can't see them at all, except maybe a sliver of mountain at the end of a street.
It seems to be an "all or nothing" argument. Surely, at least in the CBD, an "easing up" of then view cones would again be possible. The problem seems that they are just too strict.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Krissy

I see what Vin is getting at. Say hypothetically if you impose a 1 story height limit, then you've essentially stymied growth and that growth will go elsewhere like the suburbs.

Of course the viewcones aren't this extreme and still are able to provide sufficient room to accommodate growth. Has it prevented additional floors in some towers? Yes. But those potential floors wouldn't have gone to the suburbs. If it did, it would only be so negligible. If people want to work or live in downtown, developers aren't going to start building in the suburbs because the buildings in downtown are short. There'll just be more buildings elsewhere in downtowns.

In any case I do wish there was some relaxation in the viewcones. I wouldn't abolish them as they do have their merits. But some of them are quite petty.

Agreed. Vin is just upset that Vancouver doesn't fit his ideals of some megacity with towering skyscrapers. When people obsess about things, they go extreme lengths to justify their theories at the expense of rational thinking.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by csbvan

Actually many North American cities, including New York, watched for decades as businesses left the downtown for the suburbs in massive migrations.

For decades, American cities failed to put high density residential buildings in their downtown core, and people moved to the suburbs, and hence businesses followed suit. Many downtown cores still consist primarily commercial buildings. That itself is already a huge constraint that created such a phenomenon. Other North American cities like San Francisco have space constraints, hence Silicon Valley or Oakland are booming.

Throughout the world, big international cities built to the brim and maxed out in densities, like Tokyo, NY, HK, Rio De Jeneiro, also see people and businesses expanding outwards organically. However, you do notice that for such cities, there are hardly any density gaps, ie. Vancouver's "High density - single family - High density" type of development as you expand out to the burbs. It is high density all the way.

Vancouver has both natural and artificial contraints that force people and businesses to move out of the city. In recent years, viewcones and other restrictions add to our natural constraints, promoting suburb cities to grow so fast.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Krissy

I see what Vin is getting at. Say hypothetically if you impose a 1 story height limit, then you've essentially stymied growth and that growth will go elsewhere like the suburbs.

Of course the viewcones aren't this extreme and still are able to provide sufficient room to accommodate growth. Has it prevented additional floors in some towers? Yes. But those potential floors wouldn't have gone to the suburbs. If it did, it would only be so negligible. If people want to work or live in downtown, developers aren't going to start building in the suburbs because the buildings in downtown are short. There'll just be more buildings elsewhere in downtowns.

In any case I do wish there was some relaxation in the viewcones. I wouldn't abolish them as they do have their merits. But some of them are quite petty.

Most level-headed answer yet to the support as well as the relaxation of viewcones! They do have those 1-storey height limit zoning areas downtown, like along Denman Street! So if I were a retail developer, I would rather invest in the suburb than a money-losing venture along any of the height-restricted areas in Vancouver. Hence the West End has so many old wooden shacks pretending to be high-end retail stores. I do like the City eventually relaxing the rules on a few selected spots, like the Alexandra development on Davie street, which has brought about some urban renewal. However, that is the exception rather than the rule. More can be done.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by whatnext

LOL, you realize we purposefully don't allow for taller buildings in order to highlight some of the most spectacular urban vistas on the face of the earth, don't you?

I'm pretty sure it's more difficult to construct new mountains than to construct famous buildings.

Well, the thing is, how do you justify that for views to be protected from a handful of spots, many potential projects have to be scrapped or dumbed down because of them? BC is a province full of mountain views, and downtown is but only one tiny speck. 99% of Lower Mainlanders don't even benefit from those vantage spots most of the time. Say, on top of Queen Elizabeth Park: I wonder if many go up there to enjoy the mountains directly behind downtown. The mountains are already partially obscured by the treeline. Everytime I'm there, I wish they remove those trees so I can see the downtown skyline rather than the mountains behind it, especially when it gets darker. There are wide expanses of mountain views on both sides of the city core to enjoy anyway.

There are also a million other spots to enjoy mountain views in this city. That's why we have Jericho Park, Spanish Banks and Kits beach, and pretty much anywhere else except Fairview Slopes.

I did mention before that if the city is really interested in preserving the mountain views, they should have an 80 storey building erected downtown and force the developer to provide a couple of viewing galleries on top, free admittance for the public to enjoy spectacular mountain views. Win-win situation here.

Other small town BC also have plenty of mountain views. The only nice view we lack in this province: an awesome city skyline with a couple of 70-80 storey towers.

[squeezied]

Lol Vin, still not giving up?

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by squeezied

Agreed. Vin is just upset that Vancouver doesn't fit his ideals of some megacity with towering skyscrapers. When people obsess about things, they go extreme lengths to justify their theories at the expense of rational thinking.

Seems to me Vin is in a thread about vancouvers viewcones, and is discussing the topic. I understand what he's saying fine. You using words like "mega city" and "towering skyscrapers" seems to me like you are the one guilty of what you are accusing vin of doing.

When 27 story office towers are deemed to tall for the cbd then (in my opinion) there needs to be some tinkering done with the rules.

Also I feel like sometimes people forget where they are. This is skyscraper page. Of course there are going to be people on here that like and want tall(er) buildings built, because lets be honest Vancouver has a lot of squat buildings (it is getting a bit better).

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

Seems to me Vin is in a thread about vancouvers viewcones, and is discussing the topic. I understand what he's saying fine. You using words like "mega city" and "towering skyscrapers" seems to me like you are the one guilty of what you are accusing vin of doing.

When 27 story office towers are deemed to tall for the cbd then (in my opinion) there needs to be some tinkering done with the rules.

Also I feel like sometimes people forget where they are. This is skyscraper page. Of course there are going to be people on here that like and want tall(er) buildings built, because lets be honest Vancouver has a lot of squat buildings (it is getting a bit better).

I don't have any issues about discussing about viewcones in a rational and logical manner. It's when people make unfounded claims backed up with extreme and flawed reasoning. It's tiring reading how he claims the implementation of viewcones and the growth of suburbs as causation rather than mere correlation. Other members have countered his point only to be bombarded with more flawed reasoning.

I recognize this is a skyscraper page, that's the main reason why I (and almost everybody else in the forum) joined. However there's evidently a stark difference between appreciating skyscrapers and obsessing about skyscrapers at the expense of pretty much everything else. This forum is very much a forum about skyscrapers as well as urban design, transportation, etc.. To blindly think that skyscrapers can and should go anywhere and everywhere (as some forumers seem to think) is naive. Is a 27 story office too tall (or short even) in the CBD? That depends where, not only because of viewcones but how it relates to the urban fabric. Does a proposed building cast shadows on a prominent area such as Robson Street? Does the scale (height and girth) of a proposed building overwhelm the surrounding buildings? For instance the scale and proportions of the MNP tower compliment and does not overwhelm the Marine building even though the MNP tower is significantly taller.

Just because people here argue against the removal of viewcones does not mean we don't want taller buildings. I'll admit that a few viewcones are a little too stringent and could be removed. But I'm fine with keeping the majority of them. But frankly what's more important isn't how a building is viewed 3km away, rather it's how it's viewed 3m away. Vancouver won't ever win the biggest and baddest skyline award nor should it ever feel the need to try to, but it's the envy of most cities for its urban sphere and fabric. I'd take the latter a hundred times over the former.

[Krissy]

Originally Posted by Vin

Most level-headed answer yet to the support as well as the relaxation of viewcones! They do have those 1-storey height limit zoning areas downtown, like along Denman Street! So if I were a retail developer, I would rather invest in the suburb than a money-losing venture along any of the height-restricted areas in Vancouver. Hence the West End has so many old wooden shacks pretending to be high-end retail stores. I do like the City eventually relaxing the rules on a few selected spots, like the Alexandra development on Davie street, which has brought about some urban renewal. However, that is the exception rather than the rule. More can be done.

Now wait that's not true. There's no 1-storey height limit zoning along Denman Street. Every zoning bylaw has height restrictions regardless of whether it's in downtown or in the suburbs and regardless of whether it falls under a viewcone or not.

[logan5]

I would be supportive of a no height limit rule for all office developments. There would never be enough built to block a lot of views, but the few that would get built would do wonders to contrast the oppressive amounts of seafoam glass.

I hope that casino is fairly visible from the south because its copper glazing will look fantastic against a backdrop of seafoam green. These new towers going up around false creek should give some badly needed contrasting style to this condo heavy part of downtown.