Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by squeezied

Right, because tall buildings equal progress.

Repealing stifling artificial prohibitions on height and density would be a step forward for this city.

And ironically, building taller, bolder structures would actually be a return to Vancouver's golden past, a time when the city was ambitious in spirit, when erecting some of the tallest buildings in the British Empire with historical landmarks like The Dominion Building, The Sun Tower and The Marine Building was the norm. Wouldn't it be exciting (to people young in spirit, at least) if Vancouver was allowed to rediscover its spiritual roots and build 21st century tributes to those pioneering towers and reclaim its original architectural liberty and imagination?

[Vin]

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!

I can't see the mountains standing immediately south of your home, hence we should demolish it.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Klazu

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!

All the newer 50-60 storey towers will create another flat top. Now we need to aim for 80 stories. Build the new 50-60 at OV or something....

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

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.

Just to show that Vancouver residents will sue the City:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Mount+P...rotect+mountain+views/9583743/story.html

Even for a relatively short tower just outside downtown, like Rize's Independent that you mentioned:
http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2...ity-over-tower-at-main-and-broadway.html

You have to remember that Trump is located only on one of the handful of selected sites for taller towers. It is not even practical to build tall towers on some of the sites because of other constraints and at least couple of them require relatively large existing towers to be demolished first. Currently, most of these sites are already accounted for, so what's next if Vancouver wants a whole new generation of taller towers? Where can we find space for those buildings?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vin

Just to show that Vancouver residents will sue the City:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Mount+P...rotect+mountain+views/9583743/story.html

Even for a relatively short tower just outside downtown, like Rize's Independent that you mentioned:
http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2...ity-over-tower-at-main-and-broadway.html

You have to remember that Trump is located only on one of the handful of selected sites for taller towers. It is not even practical to build tall towers on some of the sites because of other constraints and at least couple of them require relatively large existing towers to be demolished first. Currently, most of these sites are already accounted for, so what's next if Vancouver wants a whole new generation of taller towers? Where can we find space for those buildings?

Excuse me, Vin, but I don't think Vancouver wants "a whole new generation of taller towers." Most of the desirable areas in the CBD are built-out, anyway, and the city isn't big enough to be a vast sea of buildings like São Paulo.

Also, I think 80 storeys, in a non-head office town is pretentious. Sure go with 50 or 60 soreys a bit more, to "crown" downtown, but 80 stories in an
office building is 900 pushing 1000ft, and that, IMHO, is excessive; rather like adolescent swaggering; uncool and rather embarrassing.

[officedweller]

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.

That should read: the more likely they are to die [if they have] a heart attack.

The same way you'd probably die if you had a heart attack while hiking on the North Shore...

[Vin]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Excuse me, Vin, but I don't think Vancouver wants "a whole new generation of taller towers." Most of the desirable areas in the CBD are built-out, anyway, and the city isn't big enough to be a vast sea of buildings like São Paulo.

Also, I think 80 storeys, in a non-head office town is pretentious. Sure go with 50 or 60 soreys a bit more, to "crown" downtown, but 80 stories in an
office building is 900 pushing 1000ft, and that, IMHO, is excessive; rather like adolescent swaggering; uncool and rather embarrassing.

The proposed taller towers downtown are mostly in the 50-60 range now. For the skyline to improve, we need a couple of 70-80 storey towers to highlight the skyline, in my opinion. They would look great for this city, especially with the mountain backdrop.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vin

The proposed taller towers downtown are mostly in the 50-60 range now. For the skyline to improve, we need a couple of 70-80 storey towers to highlight the skyline, in my opinion. They would look great for this city, especially with the mountain backdrop.

"There is no dispute in taste" .... so I won't argue. But look at Seattle's skyline profile. IMHO I think it's jarring and ugly, for the most part.

[s211]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

"There is no dispute in taste" .... so I won't argue. But look at Seattle's skyline profile. IMHO I think it's jarring and ugly, for the most part.

Honest? Their office product leaves us eating their dust.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by officedweller

That should read: the more likely they are to die [if they have] a heart attack.

The same way you'd probably die if you had a heart attack while hiking on the North Shore...

The study also found that once you are above the 16th floor, your chances of surviving cardiac arrest are virtually zero (0.9%), and once you are above the 25th floor, your chances are actually zero (0%). So, unless one proposes limiting heights to 16 floors, limiting tower heights on the grounds of cardiac arrest survivability is absurd and futile.

Source: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/highrise-heart-attacks

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Repealing stifling artificial prohibitions on height and density would be a step forward for this city.

And ironically, building taller, bolder structures would actually be a return to Vancouver's golden past, a time when the city was ambitious in spirit, when erecting some of the tallest buildings in the British Empire with historical landmarks like The Dominion Building, The Sun Tower and The Marine Building was the norm. Wouldn't it be exciting (to people young in spirit, at least) if Vancouver was allowed to rediscover its spiritual roots and build 21st century tributes to those pioneering towers and reclaim its original architectural liberty and imagination?

So what's progress to you? Height or density? A neighbourhood doesn't need to be tall to be dense.

Architectural liberty and imagination? There are a lot more substantial factors impacting that than height.

Building above our tabletop skyline isn't progress, it's just ego. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by s211

Honest? Their office product leaves us eating their dust.

There are some nice projects in Seattle (Union Square 2), but the skyline profile IMHO is what is jarring and harsh. Maybe the interiors are better, but height for height's sake? No thanks.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by squeezied

So what's progress to you? Height or density?

Progress would entail the liberalization of artificially low limits on height and density (as well as paternalistic constraints on form and style) in our urban core and along our established commercial corridors. A progressive environmnet is a liberal environment, and in a liberal environment Vancouver would be free to build to heights and densities (and according to diverse forms and styles) that are determined by Vancouver's actual economic needs and unfettered creative aspirations, not the arbitrary limits of politicians and personal tastes of design panels.

Originally Posted by squeezied

Architectural liberty and imagination? There are a lot more substantial factors impacting that than height.

Yes. The city is guilty of stifling architectural liberty and imagination in numerous ways. How is that a justification for artificial contraints on height? An advocate of architectural liberty and imagination calls for the liberalization of all artificial contraints; he does not attempt to justify one infringement by pointing to the existence of others.

Originally Posted by squeezied

A neighbourhood doesn't need to be tall to be dense

But a neighbourhood needs to be tall if it is going to be as dense as it could be. If you doubled the height of every building along the Broadway Corridor, ceteris paribus, then the Broadway Corridor would be twice as dense. Once you choose your floorplate size and number of units per floor, then every floor you add necessarily increases density. This is a vital fact to keep in mind for a severely land-contrained environment like Vancouver. And even if we had to choose between tall and slender or short and fat, then achieving density targets through tall and slender buildings is much more effective in preserving open spaces, views and mitigating shadowing, which are professed objectives of the city.

[Vin]

I rather be in a tall building with nice views with the next building further away than being in a short stout one looking out into the bedroom of my neighbour. On paper, you can get close to similar densities, but you take a dip for the quality of life when the shorter buildings are too compact, as in the case of OV.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

There are some nice projects in Seattle (Union Square 2), but the skyline profile IMHO is what is jarring and harsh. Maybe the interiors are better, but height for height's sake? No thanks.

I think Seattle has a fantastic skyline. Below is from 2012 and much has changed since then.

[csbvan]

I quite like Seattle's skyline, and it is getting better all the time. That being said, it looks like a generic American city. I can fully understand why people wouldn't care for it.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by csbvan

I quite like Seattle's skyline, and it is getting better all the time. That being said, it looks like a generic American city. I can fully understand why people wouldn't care for it.

Thank you for that feedback. It has a "raw" quality that Vancouver has managed to avoid.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Thank you for that feedback. It has a "raw" quality that Vancouver has managed to avoid.

Indeed. I think that it is a common element in US cities...it seems as though a cluster of tall office buildings arise out of what is otherwise a fairly suburban setting: highways, low-rises and parking lots.

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

"There is no dispute in taste" .... so I won't argue. But look at Seattle's skyline profile. IMHO I think it's jarring and ugly, for the most part.

Really? I think Seattles skyline trounces Vancouvers. Thats not easy for me to say, but its the truth imo.

The only thing Vancouver wins at is density or just more buildings in general. Though they are much much shorter and narrower. Seattle manages to achieve a much more big city feel. Much mnore so then the actual difference in population.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

Really? I think Seattles skyline trounces Vancouvers. Thats not easy for me to say, but its the truth imo.

IMO, Seattle may 'trounce' Vancouver in height and scale, but Vancouver 'trounces' Seattle in urbanity, refined-lookingness, and just plain ol' being pretty. That counts, too ...IMO.