HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Downtown & City of Vancouver


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #13101  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2016, 7:22 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 41,532
I got that card too.

*********

Prominent architects slam Vancouver’s planning and development

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/promine...planning+development/11747697/story.html
     
     
  #13102  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 2:56 AM
WarrenC12's Avatar
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 24,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
I got that card too.

*********

Prominent architects slam Vancouver’s planning and development

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/promine...planning+development/11747697/story.html
I don't get it. 50% of the people think Vancouver is stifling development and the other 50% think developers run city hall.
     
     
  #13103  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 3:02 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 17,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
I got that card too.

*********

Prominent architects slam Vancouver’s planning and development

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/promine...planning+development/11747697/story.html
As always, the comments are gold.

Seriously, i am often amazed how uneducated the average person is.

There is one guy on there convinced that the San Andreas fault runs through Vancouver... even after being corrected by another comment.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/30634635@N03/with/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0_0h9qKlhxXFxuAey_q6Q
     
     
  #13104  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 5:15 AM
Vancity's Avatar
Vancity Vancity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Richmond, BC
Posts: 1,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
I got that card too.

*********

Prominent architects slam Vancouver’s planning and development

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/promine...planning+development/11747697/story.html
I do agree that the viewcones need to be reviewed. In my mind they're a stumbling block to development in this city taking another step and level. the mountains will always be there, and i think an even better development of towers and how those towers look like will accentuate the mountains and surrounding areas even more.
     
     
  #13105  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 5:57 AM
bluefox's Avatar
bluefox bluefox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by metro-one View Post
There is one guy on there convinced [...] even after being corrected by another comment.
This sums up the Internet
     
     
  #13106  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 6:40 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
Reason and Freedom
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Vancouver/Toronto
Posts: 4,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post

Prominent architects slam Vancouver’s planning and development

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/promine...planning+development/11747697/story.html

A few choice quotes from the article:

Quote:
Vancouver’s planning and architecture have suffered over the long term from a lack of foresight by City Hall and heavy-handed management, three of the city’s prominent architects said Friday.

From a singular focus on protecting view corridors and restricting height limits downtown to the departure of experienced staff unhappy with the consolidation of power in the city manager’s office, Vancouver’s architectural and planning direction has drifted off course, said James Cheng, Richard Henriquez and Joost Bakker at an Urban Development Institute luncheon...

The trio also weighed in on the city’s long-term policy of protecting downtown view corridors from the incursion of tall buildings. Cheng said in theory it may have been a good idea, but needs to be reviewed.

Henriquez was more direct. Such policies have had a negative effect on livability downtown and have deprived the city of “billions” of dollars in development cost charges that could be used for social good, he said.

“When you are increasing density and you are not increasing the height, you are curtailing the possibility of open spaces. It compromises the livability of the downtown by not having open space and having buildings closer together without enough privacy,” he said. “There is tremendous value in the space up top. If you rezone something overheight, you can use the development cost charges for social housing or whatever. There are billions, billions of dollars at issue.”
     
     
  #13107  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 10:00 AM
Marshal Marshal is offline
perhaps . . .
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,493
Its about time that the players outside of City Hall spoke up against some of the moldy ill-thought out policies which do not deserve the reverence they have built up. The health and spatial potential of the city itself should be much more important to city hall than the views over that very same place. Henriquez is bang on here. Its time for City Hall to justify the policies which harm vital urban design in favour of secondary priorities.
     
     
  #13108  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 10:08 AM
Marshal Marshal is offline
perhaps . . .
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,493
And a thing about views, the concept which underpins 'view cones:' their definition is subjective, and as such the City has no business promoting one kind over another. Their is no way to rationally argue in favour of a view of a great skyline against the mountains over a clear view of the same mountains.

Also, if, in 300 years, Vancouver has a downtown cluster the size of Grouse Mountain, the mountains will still backdrop the city as they do today. To think we could build in competition with our mountains is a stretch. Its time to move on.
     
     
  #13109  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 11:39 AM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post

Prominent architects slam Vancouver’s planning and development

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/promine...planning+development/11747697/story.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by squeezied View Post
The market determines the rates, not your pseudo logic. I suppose you believe the densest towers are the most affordable as well.
Pseudo logic eh? Well tell that to the 3 foreign-born architects showcased in the Vancouver Sun article.
     
     
  #13110  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 1:25 PM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant - The New Downtown South
Posts: 8,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
I got that card too.

*********

Prominent architects slam Vancouver’s planning and development

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/promine...planning+development/11747697/story.html
I'm skeptical of the 3 architects motives here, unless the story didn't address any comments made by them regarding the lack of denser development in detached home neighbourhoods. Detached homes take up the vast majority of the land in Vancouver and is far more responsible than viewcones for holding Vancouver back in any way.

These comments come out just after a very prominent proposal is forced by viewcones to scale back.
     
     
  #13111  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 1:36 PM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 17,921
There motives are questionable indeed, but they do bring up good points regarding how overly restrictive the view cones are. Not fully against view cones, but they do need to be scaled back in some degree.

And yes, for me, artificially scaling back towers (especially those meant to be landmarks, and in the grande scheme of things were not proposed too tall in the first place, I mean, we are talking about 152 meters here, not 300) to protect views from a single arbitrary point (views that have changed dramatically themselves since their incarnation due to continued sprawl up the mountainside and growth of vegetation in the foreground that we all know will never but cut down in hippy central)
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/30634635@N03/with/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0_0h9qKlhxXFxuAey_q6Q
     
     
  #13112  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 4:43 PM
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,045
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
.... is far more responsible than viewcones for holding Vancouver back in any way.

These comments come out just after a very prominent proposal is forced by viewcones to scale back.
WHICH proposal, please? (I have a couple in mind, but want to be sure). Thanks
     
     
  #13113  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 5:37 PM
s211 s211 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 8,496
b-b-b-b-b-b-but wait: isn't Vancouverism the saviour for all urban centres?

How dare they speak against the gospel of social engineering.
__________________
If it seems I'm ignoring what you may have written in response to something I have written, it's very likely that you're on my Ignore List. Please do not take it personally.
     
     
  #13114  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 5:55 PM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by trofirhen View Post
WHICH proposal, please? (I have a couple in mind, but want to be sure). Thanks
Do you read the threads you comment to? You did comment to the 1500 West Georgia thread after the height reduction was mentioned, so it should be obvious what Logan is referring to. And I am not just talking about this particular case...

Last edited by Klazu; Feb 28, 2016 at 11:28 PM.
     
     
  #13115  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 9:11 PM
Marshal Marshal is offline
perhaps . . .
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
I'm skeptical of the 3 architects motives here, unless the story didn't address any comments made by them regarding the lack of denser development in detached home neighbourhoods. Detached homes take up the vast majority of the land in Vancouver and is far more responsible than viewcones for holding Vancouver back in any way.

These comments come out just after a very prominent proposal is forced by viewcones to scale back.
1. Both issues can co-exist.
2. I don't care about their motives; self-interested or not. The points they make are valid regardless. Let's discuss the content and not the psychology.
     
     
  #13116  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 10:07 PM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant - The New Downtown South
Posts: 8,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal View Post
1. Both issues can co-exist.
2. I don't care about their motives; self-interested or not. The points they make are valid regardless. Let's discuss the content and not the psychology.
The content is tainted if their motives are different from what they purport to be.

I too would like to see the view cones not just relaxed, but abolished in some areas of downtown. I just don't like this dishonest and insulting way of disputing the viewcone policy. Not a good strategy to get the viewcone policy changed imo.
     
     
  #13117  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 10:17 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by s211 View Post
b-b-b-b-b-b-but wait: isn't Vancouverism the saviour for all urban centres?

How dare they speak against the gospel of social engineering.
One shouldn't be confused about the real Vancouverism that started post world war 2 with the establishment of tall high density West End, as opposed to the boondoggles of post hippie Vancouver in the 70s and 80s. Viewcone policies do not represent the positive urban conditions that we have now. Putting many residents downtown is one of them, and that's not a new policy, but one that started more than 4 or 5 decades ago.
     
     
  #13118  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 10:21 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
The content is tainted if their motives are different from what they purport to be.

I too would like to see the view cones not just relaxed, but abolished in some areas of downtown. I just don't like this dishonest and insulting way of disputing the viewcone policy. Not a good strategy to get the viewcone policy changed imo.

Those architects who spoke out are considered pretty prominent in this city, and I trust their words more than claims from this City, especially when it comes to urban planning, architecture aesthetics and affordable housing, especially a City with no leadership in the planning department.
     
     
  #13119  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2016, 10:29 PM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant - The New Downtown South
Posts: 8,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
Those architects who spoke out are considered pretty prominent in this city, and I trust their words more than claims from this City, especially when it comes to urban planning, architecture aesthetics and affordable housing, especially a City with no leadership in the planning department.
What claims are you talking about? And "affordable housing"? That's hilarious.

There is not much planning left to be done in downtown Vancouver, so their criticism of the planning department where downtown Vancouver is concerned is unwarranted. The peninsula is almost completely built out. Having 55 story towers (or even 80 story towers) vs 45 story towers is not going to make much difference at this point.
     
     
  #13120  
Old Posted Feb 29, 2016, 12:50 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
Reason and Freedom
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Vancouver/Toronto
Posts: 4,016
Speaking of views, the City has confirmed that it will be proceeding with its plan to eliminate the mesmerizing, one-of-a-kind views (i.e., the mountains, the ocean, Burrard Inlet, English Bay, False Creek, the multiple city skylines, etc.) which millions of Vancouverites and visitors have relished for the last 84 years from one of the city's most iconic structures. In March, the city will plow forward with its surprise plan to suddenly destroy one of the most quintessential, breath-taking and famous ways to experience Vancouver's startling beauty by adding a 10-foot wall of prison-like bars along the entire length of the Burrard Street Bridge. Incomprehensibly, this is not a punishment being inflicted on the citizens of Vancouver by one of the city's enemies (jealous of its astonishing beauty and the unique way much of that beauty is experienced from its iconic urban bridges) but rather a plan initiated by Vancouver's leaders.

Thanks to Vancouver's leaders (who had no political mandate to install a view-destroying suicide cage around Burrard Bridge), the very last summer that anyone will ever have to enjoy the exquisite experience depicted in the photos below has already passed. This beloved, one-of-a-kind experience is no longer an aspect of Vancouver life anymore but rather an historical memory (to be bitterly experienced from old photographs) from this point forward.

I think this outrageous and tragic decision will come to have the same historical mystique (but in reverse) as the stopping of the 1970s inner city freeway plan has come to have. This decision will fundamentally ruin the aesthetic and spiritual experiences of millions of people and destroy one of Vancouver's aces up its sleeve. Why any Vancouver city council would want to be responsible for unilaterally destroying one of Vancouver's greatest assets and the joy of so many of its citizens and visitors is beyond comprehension:

Quote:
$35-million Burrard Bridge upgrade project to begin in March

Drivers and transit users who use the Burrard Street Bridge might want to consider using the Granville Street Bridge or the Cambie Street Bridge over the coming 18 months.

Construction begins in March on the municipal government’s $35-million project to retrofit Burrard Street Bridge deck with widened bike lanes and pedestrian pathways, widening of the north end of the bridge deck, suicide-prevention fencing, rehabilitation of the heritage concrete railings, and a redesign of the intersection at Pacific Street and Burrard Street...

Additionally, suicide-prevention fencing similar to those found on the Second Narrows Bridge will be installed along the length of the bridge. The fencing has been a cause for concern for heritage activists as it would not only eliminate the unobstructed views of the city and harbour from the bridge deck but also the iconic look of the 1932-built landmark structure.

The City maintains that the fencing is necessary, asserting that seven people have died by jumping off the bridge from 2006 to 2015, and that it has discussed with heritage activists to ensure their concerns are addressed. In contrast, there have been 33 jumpers on the Lions Gate Bridge during the same period.

Work on the bridge’s latest construction project is expected to be completed in mid-2017.

Source: http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2016/02/burrard-bridge-construction/

From THIS:


IMG_3332 by VancityAlex, on Flickr

IMG_3354 by VancityAlex, on Flickr

IMG_3316 by VancityAlex, on Flickr


To THIS:









BEFORE:






Last edited by Prometheus; Feb 29, 2016 at 4:17 AM.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Downtown & City of Vancouver
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:50 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.