Quote:
Originally Posted by NewWester
Viewcone idea: do you think we would see as many developments at once if there was no height limit, or would we see far fewer, taller projects? If say, the commercial market is building to meet a certain demand, isn't it better for the CoV that the new capacity is spread out over many sites instead of a single one? Viewcone arguments always boil down to "big buildings are cool" and "I like views" (and sometimes the very astute "but the trees are growing"), but incentivizing broader development are important aspects of the policy too.
|
I am doubtful about the value of responding, since the fact you believe arguments against viewcones boil down to "big buildings are cool" demonstrates you have made little effort to understand the numerous substantive arguments against artificial height restrictions.
Ironically, one of the most important arguments against artificial height restriction is
economic. That is, the viewcones actually
disincentivize development because they make development less economically efficient and more expensive to build.
To understand this basic fact you need only remind yourself why the city imposes height restrictions in the first place. The city imposes height restrictions because the city knows that in the absence of such restrictions, developers would in many cases build higher. Why would developers build higher? Because in many cases building higher is the more economcially efficient (i.e., more profitable) thing to do.
This fact is implicitly conceded by every proponent of viewcones. Since we all agree that developers are guided by economic efficiency and profit maximization, no proponent of viewcones can coherently argue that we need height restrictions while simultaneously denying that it makes more economic sense to build higher than the restrictions allow. For if it did not make more economic sense to build higher than the viewcones allowed, then the need for viewcones would cease to exist and the arguments in favour of them would be unintelligible.
How viewcones create substantial economic ineffficiencies and extra expenses is not difficult to see. Take the construction of one 60-storey building versus the construction of two 30-storey buildings. Having to purchase two sites to house the same number of people is more costly and less efficient than having to purchase only one; having to begin excavation twice is more costly and less efficient than having to begin excavation once; going through two lengthy approval processes is more costly and less efficient than going through just one, etc.
Who do you think absorbs all these inefficiencies and extra costs? Not the developer. He passes them on to the purchaser in the form of higher prices. Passing the inefficiencies created by the viewcone regime on to the purchaser puts the price of downtown real estate out of the reach of many working professionals in Vancouver. In other words, the market for downtown real estate is not as great as it would be if developers were permitted to build as efficiently as possible and pass those savings on in the form of prices that many more Vancouverites could afford. Thus, demand is not static. Just as prices are affected by demand, so demand is affected by prices. The lower the price for downtown real estate, the greater the potential market for it would be. Thus, in the absence of viewcones (and the economic inefficiencies and higher prices they entail), we would not only see taller towers but more of them.
Prev
Linear Mode
