Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Vin

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.

There are not too many high end stores in the West End. Most people are happy with a neighbourhood catering to local independent businesses. High end can easily be found on other streets. Downtown has a diverse mix of retail, and that what makes it so walk-able. You can't have every street be like Robson or Alberni. Most of these higher end businesses would go bankrupt almost immediately.

[EastVanMark]

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.

Ah yes, the view of a tip of mountain from in one arbitrary spot on the south side of false creek (which is one of the view cones) is definitely worth protecting. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. There are numerous spots just as random, just as pointless.

Also can't help but notice that only certain areas get "protection" from the spectacular urban vistas, while others get zero by way of any kind of protection. Some quiet neighbourhoods have gotten their views obliterated due to some sun blocking development projects, yet nothing is done about that

I'm pretty sure that its way more difficult to protect the view of a structure that is 100 ft tall than a mountain that is 3000 feet tall

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

There are not too many high end stores in the West End. Most people are happy with a neighbourhood catering to local independent businesses. High end can easily be found on other streets. Downtown has a diverse mix of retail, and that what makes it so walk-able. You can't have every street be like Robson or Alberni. Most of these higher end businesses would go bankrupt almost immediately.

Well, we know the reason why there aren't any high end stores in the West End at Davie and Denman: there just isn't a suitable structure to occupy! The area is by no means diverse. The shops there are crumbly structures artificially kept alive due to extremely low density zoning bylaws, ie. no one wants to redevelop those lots. Low to mid-range stores can still operate at high density developments, but only if the City can further sweeten the deal by allowing developers to build profitable high-rise housing/hotel/office on top of the new retail stores. The City can also operate these new CRUs by leasing out cheaper to mid-lower end businesses. Solutions to West End's renewal abound, but view cone policies are often what's stagnating the neighbourhood. The City should be more flexible when it comes to the overall improvement of downtown.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by Vin

Well, we know the reason why there aren't any high end stores in the West End at Davie and Denman: there just isn't a suitable structure to occupy! The area is by no means diverse. The shops there are crumbly structures artificially kept alive due to extremely low density zoning bylaws, ie. no one wants to redevelop those lots. Low to mid-range stores can still operate at high density developments, but only if the City can further sweeten the deal by allowing developers to build profitable high-rise housing/hotel/office on top of the new retail stores. The City can also operate these new CRUs by leasing out cheaper to mid-lower end businesses. Solutions to West End's renewal abound, but view cone policies are often what's stagnating the neighbourhood. The City should be more flexible when it comes to the overall improvement of downtown.

South Granville is full of older, low-rise buildings and there are high end stores. Seems like its demographic based and not building based...Also, new buildings don't tend to get high end stores, unless they are on Alberni or in a designated high end area, instead they get banks and Starbucks. Higher end stores seem to like character, hence Gastown being the epicentre.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by 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.

The Casino and entertainment district development is great, except again the viewcones limit the hotel/condo heights such that the designs, being fatter, are blocking out a huge chunk of BC Place Stadium: a real pity. On Cambie bridge, you would probably train your eyes towards BC Place Stadium more than the mountains. The two hotel towers could be slimmer and taller. I do love the copper glass facade of the design, however, and agree that they do provide a nice contrast to the otherwise bland condo tower skyline of Yaletown.

Originally Posted by csbvan

South Granville is full of older, low-rise buildings and there are high end stores. Seems like its demographic based and not building based...Also, new buildings don't tend to get high end stores, unless they are on Alberni or in a designated high end area, instead they get banks and Starbucks. Higher end stores seem to like character, hence Gastown being the epicentre.

What you say about demography is right, but then again, South Granville area isn't downtown, and I suppose land cost there can justify lower density construction. There has been plenty of building renewal/ renovation and even outright re-construction of many of the shops there along S.G. Land costs along Davie or Denman must be so high that no one wants to purchase them to build short structures.

I don't think Davie or Denman should go high-end, but structures there need to be improved. There is already such a huge contrast east and west of Burrard.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Ah yes, the view of a tip of mountain from in one arbitrary spot on the south side of false creek (which is one of the view cones) is definitely worth protecting. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. There are numerous spots just as random, just as pointless.

Also can't help but notice that only certain areas get "protection" from the spectacular urban vistas, while others get zero by way of any kind of protection. Some quiet neighbourhoods have gotten their views obliterated due to some sun blocking development projects, yet nothing is done about that

I'm pretty sure that its way more difficult to protect the view of a structure that is 100 ft tall than a mountain that is 3000 feet tall

OK, say you're right. We're obviously being too selective in protecting views, therefore we should protect all of them with even stricter height limits!

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by whatnext

OK, say you're right. We're obviously being too selective in protecting views, therefore we should protect all of them with even stricter height limits!

Yes, yes, too selective. Stricter height limits is the way to go. Nothing over 2 floors anywhere, just so you can see every possible view from everywhere in the city. Definitely the way to go.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Yes, yes, too selective. Stricter height limits is the way to go. Nothing over 2 floors anywhere, just so you can see every possible view from everywhere in the city. Definitely the way to go.

TWO floors?!? How much is Concord paying you to spout this garbage? Nothing but bungalows and strip malls sprawling from here to Hope, that's the way to go!



In all seriousness, we've got some fairly big mountains; Shangri-La barely gets in the way as it is. Surely we can build a couple of 60-floors here and there, so that the skyline doesn't look like somebody used a lawnmower on it.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Yes, yes, too selective. Stricter height limits is the way to go. Nothing over 2 floors anywhere, just so you can see every possible view from everywhere in the city. Definitely the way to go.

Although your sarcasm is exaggerated (and funny), you'd be surprised how many "greenie-weenie" types think all high-rises are evil, and would love to try to keep Vancouver a quaint seaside town. Sorry Mr. and Mrs. "Pleasantville-by-the Sea," it's too late for that. Ease up and let the city go a bit more "big time" in height and scale. If not, move to Burnaby or Coquitlam, muahahaha

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

In all seriousness, we've got some fairly big mountains; Shangri-La barely gets in the way as it is. Surely we can build a couple of 60-floors here and there, so that the skyline doesn't look like somebody used a lawnmower on it.

With all the proposed and in-progress projects, that view is going to change for good. Imagine taller-than-The-Mark 1400 Howe the left side of the skyline and Burrard Gateway towering right behind it. Then there are the two 180-meter towers behind (and much taller than) One Wall Centre. Also Trump Tower in the background...

There will be lots of towers rising from the sea of towers. It will look great in just under five years!

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Krissy

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.

Vin likes to pull 'facts' out of his ass. Indeed there's no 1-story height limit along Denman Street. There is a height limit, as with any zoning in any city, stated in section 4.3 in http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/BYLAWS/zoning/c-5&6.pdf. It certainly isn't 1-story.

[Klazu]

More fuel to the fire. Not sure if this was posted in any other thread, but interesting stuff...

BIV: Vancouver needs to “grow up” with taller towers

The City of Vancouver should approve towers taller than 1,000 feet in some areas of the downtown, according to Reliance Properties Ltd. president Jon Stovell.

The move would increase the housing supply, maximize density near transit and stop pushing density further into the suburbs.

Vancouver needs to “grow up,” he told an Urban Development Institute luncheon January 21.

“Grouse Mountain is 4,000 feet high and our Burrard Place, which is the third-tallest building in the city, 550 feet tall. Why should we ever worry that tall buildings could dominate our physical environment? Let’s finally let go of our bucolic fishing-village past and embrace the reality of a city that we have become in the eyes of the world.”

Stovell told Business in Vancouver after the event that he believes that buildings that the city now approves to be 300 feet tall should be increased to be 500 feet tall.

“Exceptions would be taller buildings that go up to 1,000-feet-tall in certain locations,” he said.

Critics were quick to lambaste Stovell for his proposals.

“Tall towers have serious issues with environmental sustainability, energy efficiency, the loss of views, wind tunnel effects and shadowing,” said Randy Helten, who is president of City Hall Watch, which is a registered B.C. society that Helten describes it as being a civic watchdog.

“There’s also the problem of emergency response and the cost to taxpayers to be able to provide services to those buildings.”

Helten pointed to a Canadian Medical Association Journal study released earlier this week that found that the higher people live in condominium towers, the more likely they are to die of a heart attack.

Building access issues and elevator waits were contributing factors to that finding, according to the study.

Stovell, of course, has an self-interest in the city allowing taller towers.

Reliance is the second-largest property owner in Gastown, with a portfolio of 50 properties worth in excess of $600 million .

Reliance is also currently developing the one-million-square-foot Burrard Place in partnership with the Jim Pattison Group. That project, originally called Burrard Gateway , bounded by Burrard, Drake, Hornby and Davie streets, includes four towers including One Burrard Place, which will have 53 floors, even though it was marketed as having 60 floors.

The disparity is because the structure will not have a 13th floor nor any floor that ended with a four. The city banned that practice late last year for new buildings. One Burrard Place, however, was grandfathered and is one of the last buildings that the city is allowing to number its floors in this way even though the project has still not broken ground.

Reliance also owns land at the corner of Davie and Hornby streets, where there currently is a 7-11.

Stovell would like to build a 30-story, 300-foot-tall rental building on that site but he said that proposal has been with the city for a “long time” and is running up against obstacles.

“It’s a classic example of two public objectives in conflict,” he said.

“One is that the city says it wants developers to build purpose-built rental while the other is that they say we can’t build that building because it throws a shadow for half an hour across the intersection of Burrard and Davie [streets]. That’s enough to stop the project.”

Acting city manager Sadhu Johnston did not immediately respond to BIV's request for an interview.

There has been a leadership vacuum at the city’s planning department since former general manager of planning Brian Jackson retired late last year.

The city is currently in the hiring process for a new general manager of planning and for a new city manager.

Former chief planner for the city Brent Toderian told BIV that even though he sometimes supports tall towers, he believes that Stovell’s rationale is “ridiculous.”

“If we don’t want 1,000-foot-tall towers, we’re somehow stuck in a fishing village past?” Toderian asked rhetorically. “Come on.”

When Toderian was the city’s top planner, he led an effort to identify five locations downtown where the city would be willing to make exceptions for taller towers if the designs were exceptional.

The height exception, however, would likely be far shorter than even 700 feet tall, , Toderian said.

Council approved those locations as:

- on Seymour Street between Beach Avenue and Pacific Boulevard;
- on Howe Street between Beach Avenue and Pacific Boulevard (where Westbank’s Vancouver House tower is under construction );
- on Burrard Street between Alberni Street and Georgia Street, where there is a Tiffany and Co. jewelry store;
- on Burrard Street between Alberni Street and a lane; and
- next to the Loden Hotel between Bute and Thurlow streets on Melville Street.

Those sites were identified even though there were no proposals for those locations at the time.

“We wanted to have signature buildings in key entrance points where it could change the architectural feel of our city,” Toderian said.

“That was in part because one of the narratives about Vancouver, aside from height, is that our buildings tend to look the same. We wanted to identify key terminus points in our views of the downtown. Like in other cities in the world, it only takes a handful of exceptional buildings to change the perception of the entire skyline.”

https://www.biv.com/article/2016/1/vancouver-needs-grow-taller-towers-developer/

[Migrant_Coconut]

“If we don’t want 1,000-foot-tall towers, we’re somehow stuck in a fishing village past?” Toderian asked rhetorically. “Come on.”

I agree, that's definitely ridiculous. We're stuck in a seasideville past, at worst.

The height exception, however, would likely be far shorter than even 700 feet tall, , Toderian said.

Has he seen the skyline recently? There's room for at least 800...

[Infrequent Poster]

B..b...but I thought nobody wanted to build tall towers in Vancouver even if they were allowed to.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

B..b...but I thought nobody wanted to build tall towers in Vancouver even if they were allowed to.

This is also why I found the article interesting.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I agree, that's definitely ridiculous. We're stuck in a seasideville past, at worst.



Has he seen the skyline recently? There's room for at least 800...

Right, because tall buildings equal progress. Pretty sure it's more about ego and profits.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by squeezied

Right, because tall buildings equal progress. Pretty sure it's more about ego and profits.

I'm not saying we build high rises everywhere like Vin wants, but you have to admit that there's plenty of BANANAs coming out to oppose, well, basically everything. A couple of 700 to 800-footers in key locations would complement downtown just fine.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I'm not saying we build high rises everywhere like Vin wants, but you have to admit that there's plenty of BANANAs coming out to oppose, well, basically everything. A couple of 700 to 800-footers in key locations would complement downtown just fine.

People oppose things like condos in their SFH neighbourhoods (Collingwood Plan, Joyce Plan), or various developments that will "ruin the area" like the Rise on Main, or that 12 storey tower that was just approved in Chinatown.

I don't think many people would oppose a 1000' tower in the CBD. Was there any opposition to Shangri-La or Trump? I don't think so... just the viewcone issue and the willingness of developers. If you recall, Trump was proposed, approved, started, stalled, stopped, restarted and finally built after what feels like forever. Nothing to do with protesters.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

B..b...but I thought nobody wanted to build tall towers in Vancouver even if they were allowed to.

The debate was about the viability of taller office towers. In all likelyhood, we we be keeping pace with Toronto's tallest residential developments if we had no height restrictions.

Thousand foot towers are a sight to behold, and they would make the city more interesting. That's would be a good thing for a city with a large tourism industry.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I'm not saying we build high rises everywhere like Vin wants, but you have to admit that there's plenty of BANANAs coming out to oppose, well, basically everything. A couple of 700 to 800-footers in key locations would complement downtown just fine.

Agreed totally.