Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments - Page 37

Klazu · #**721** Posted **Jan 28, 2016, 2:39 AM**

Seattle's CBD is actually very small and not even that dense. Once can drive through it in just few minutes unless there is traffic. But it manages to look quite impressive from the street level with the steep hill adding to it (I am always surprised by how steep it is).

More in here.

Infrequent Poster · #**722** Posted **Jan 28, 2016, 2:47 AM**

If there was no traffic you could drive through Vancouvers cbd in 60 seconds.

Infrequent Poster · #**723** Posted **Jan 28, 2016, 2:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

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.

Fair point.

Vin · #**724** Posted **Jan 28, 2016, 5:28 PM**

Vancouver just looks better now because we have a lot more new towers that went up over the last few decades, but not Seattle or pretty much most cities in the U.S. except downtown Manhattan.

Point is, more new towers (residential or commercial) make the our city feel more urban, especially on street level. However, looking from afar, Seattle's skyline looks way better, especially now Vancouver is starting to have a flat top due to viewcones.

Vin · #**725** Posted **Jan 28, 2016, 5:30 PM**

Sad news. the proposed tower at 1500 West Goergia has been reduced to 43 floors from 53 due to view cones!

The policy has claimed yet another victim in downtown Vancouver.

Let's see the design ruined or dumbed down. Supporters of viewcones: Your wishes came true, and yeah, you win.

trofirhen · #**726** Posted **Jan 28, 2016, 8:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

If there was no traffic you could drive through Vancouvers cbd in 60 seconds.

Perhaps, but please remember: Seattle is larger than Vancouver by 1m people, and has a city GDP over the twice the size, plus has a larger, more diverse economy than we do.

Vin · #**727** Posted **Feb 9, 2016, 9:27 PM**

Agree with this:

http://truthinmedia.com/krugman-land-use-regulations-block-affordable-housing-development/

Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman, a self-described liberal, took an unexpectedly free-market oriented stance on zoning laws and land use restrictions in a Nov. 30 op-ed for The New York Times.

In his article on urban gentrification and affordable housing, Krugman asked rhetorically, “But what about all the people, surely a large majority, who are being priced out of America’s urban revival? Does it have to be that way?”

The Washington Post’s Ilya Somin pointed out the fact that a growing number of left-leaning public policy wonks are beginning to oppose overzealous zoning laws. “Libertarians and other free market advocates have criticized zoning on such grounds for decades, at least as far back as the late Bernard Siegan’s classic 1972 book Land Use Without Zoning. Present-day pro-market scholars such as Steve Horwitz and Harvard economist Edward Glaeser have continued in a similar vein. More recently, however, the critique of zoning has been taken up by prominent left of center commentators,” he wrote, listing Paul Krugman, Council of Economic Advisers chairman Jason Furman, Stony Brook University assistant professor of finance Noah Smith, and Matthew Yglesias as examples.

Somin said that he finds left-leaning opposition to zoning laws “particularly significant” because “the most liberal cities also tend to be ones with the most restrictive zoning laws” and “it would be good if more politically influential liberals become aware of the problem, and began [to] advocate measures to curb zoning.“

Quote by Krugman: "The answer, surely, is no, at least not to the extent we’re seeing now. Rising demand for urban living by the elite could be met largely by increasing supply. There’s still room to build, even in New York, especially upward. Yet while there is something of a building boom in the city, it’s far smaller than the soaring prices warrant, mainly because land use restrictions are in the way."

whatnext · #**728** Posted **Feb 9, 2016, 10:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

Vancouver just looks better now because we have a lot more new towers that went up over the last few decades, but not Seattle or pretty much most cities in the U.S. except downtown Manhattan.

Point is, more new towers (residential or commercial) make the our city feel more urban, especially on street level. However, looking from afar, Seattle's skyline looks way better, especially now Vancouver is starting to have a flat top due to viewcones.

LOL, let me get this straight: you're criticizing one policy based on aesthetics because according to your own personal aethsteics really tall skyscrapers are cool.

Klazu · #**729** Posted **Feb 9, 2016, 11:23 PM**

Well how about this one: Henriquez Partners' 2,500 feet tall future vision for Living City. A new exhibition at the Museum of Vancouver.

• Video Link

Vin · #**730** Posted **Feb 10, 2016, 12:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

LOL, let me get this straight: you're criticizing one policy based on aesthetics because according to your own personal aethsteics really tall skyscrapers are cool.

Yes, take for instance a glass building, say the MNP tower. You can have the same design, but built only 6 stories with a height limit, chopped off flat on the roof, and it would look mediocre. With the same design, extend it upwards 45 stories, and without the damn viewcones, top it up with a nice crown, and suddenly it becomes visually stunning. Maybe that's me, but I do love 'em towers tall....

trofirhen · #**731** Posted **Feb 10, 2016, 1:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

Yes, take for instance a glass building, say the MNP tower. You can have the same design, but built only 6 stories with a height limit, chopped off flat on the roof, and it would look mediocre. With the same design, extend it upwards 45 stories, and without the damn viewcones, top it up with a nice crown, and suddenly it becomes visually stunning. Maybe that's me, but I do love 'em towers tall....

Sorry, but I assume you mean upwards to 45 storeys; not an additional 45 storeys up from where it is now?

logan5 · #**732** Posted **Feb 29, 2016, 11:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marshal

This is simply incorrect. If "X" is correct, it is possible for "X" to be in someone's self-interest, and so possible for that person to espouse "X." "X" remains correct. So, ignore the voices and assess the content.

I couldn't care less about Henriquez' motives. What he said (and has said before) is an important aspect to this debate, and is an issue no one else seems to raise. It's not just about height and straight-line views, the fabric of the city itself is impacted, especially the ability to create different kinds of open space downtown. It is killing any complex creation of open spaces and hierarchies of spaces and leaving us with an evenly spaced field of modest height towers. This is the spatial corollary of the flattened skyline everyone disliked so much.

But what they are saying is incorrect. Downtown Vancouver followed the Vancouverism model (obviously), which has been successful in creating a densely populated, livable downtown core with a vast amount of park space and good spacing between buildings that protect view corridors. It's strange to hear James Cheng all of a sudden complaining about the planning policies of downtown Vancouver since he was a major contributor in how it was shaped. Now he's complaining about it. Weird.

Infrequent Poster · #**733** Posted **Mar 5, 2016, 12:54 AM**

Vancouver should take note, as to how interesting and visually appealing (in my opinion) a skyline can look when all the tallest buildings are not limited to the same height. This looks amazing. I realize this is only conceptual, but my point stands.

trofirhen · #**734** Posted **Mar 5, 2016, 1:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

Vancouver should take note, as to how interesting and visually appealing (in my opinion) a skyline can look when all the tallest buildings are not limited to the same height. This looks amazing. I realize this is only conceptual, but my point stands.

Ain't that the truth.....

Infrequent Poster · #**735** Posted **Mar 16, 2016, 2:57 AM**

How does everyone else feel about the fact we can no longer even talk about viewcones except in this thread. Even if it relates to the subject matter in another thread?

I feel its censorship myself (but thats just me)

For instance (if I'm understanding things correctly) The way the viewcone policy shaped the abomination (my opinion) of a project that is the post office redevelopment. We can no longer talk about it in the down town updates thread....That seems well to not make any sense to me.

I enjoy coming to this forum because usually I feel everyone can express their (sometimes very different) views. This kind of feels like when all discussion about the economic downturn in Alberta was being censored (around last christmas) because peoples feelings were being hurt. By facts. Left a bad taste in my mouth. This does too.

I'm not trying to work anybody up here or anything. Just saying whats on my mind. Maybe no one else cares. (probably the case)

WarrenC12 · #**736** Posted **Mar 16, 2016, 3:09 AM**

This thread was created because every new development discussion turns into an argument about viewcones and it dominates the discussion. Construction threads quickly become boring and they all end up the same. Everybody knows their are viewcones, and they limit height.

Complain to city hall, complain here, or just get over it.

Infrequent Poster · #**737** Posted **Mar 16, 2016, 3:14 AM**

The way this is set up now. There is going to be no discussion (which is probably the plan). If you isolate it to this thread. Essentially you are just creating an echo chamber, you arent going to end up with any opposing view points.

I can accept that people are pro view cones. Why cant you accept that people are against them?

A similar thing happened on reddit. They banned what they called political videos in the heavily populated R/videos subreddit. Created a new subreddit called political videos that nobody visits. In doing so they destroyed so much interesting commentary on hot button issues. The stupid thing is there is still political videos in the main video forum, but only ones mods/admins deem acceptable. A complete farce. In my opinion.

Sheba · #**738** Posted **Mar 16, 2016, 3:47 AM**

Off topic - does anyone know if there are any round buildings in Metro Van?

Seattle has hills - whoda thunk?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

Seattle's CBD is actually very small and not even that dense. Once can drive through it in just few minutes unless there is traffic. But it manages to look quite impressive from the street level with the steep hill adding to it (I am always surprised by how steep it is).