Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

This discussion bores me. Everyone knows Seattle has round buildings! Mods I demand you delete all traces of this post as the topic bores me. There is a designated thread for discussing round buildings!!

Just joking. The only building sort of like that I can think of in Vancouver is the palisades on Alberni st? I think. Though I think its more of an oval.

It's 1288 Alberni, although it's apparently not the Palisades. An oval is kind of roundy. I guess that makes the Trump Tower kind of roundy too

Originally Posted by madog222

The tower at the crystal mall in Metrotown.

How did I not think of that one - I go to Metrotown all the time. The tower is more oval but the whole building there has a round thing going on.

[urbancanadian]

I'm certainly one who will be happy to keep the viewcone discussion to this thread. I think it's a topic worthy of dialogue, but kept to one place. The same thing is happening in the Canada section where most threads are bogged down in politics (though it's a bit better now). It's repelling to those who aren't interested in that.

I understand that the viewcones will impact some threads, but they tend to pivot to viewcone-only discussions. The mods will be fine if it doesn't take over:

Sam: "Hmm... interesting how the building has an odd angle on the top portion. I don't think it works with the overall design."
Kim: "There's a viewcone that bisects the site there."
Sam: "Oh ok makes sense. Think they could've been way more creative in addressing the viewcone. Doesn't look good."

But what tends to happen is different:

Paul: "New tower proposed. Cool design. Height is 450 feet, right up to the height limit."
John: "Yet again we can't have something nice because of the stupid city council and their stupid viewcones."
Finn: "Yup. They just don't get it. And they're only proposing three floors of retail. Just dumb."
John: "And like so many others it would look so much better if it were just 10 or 20 floors taller."

---------------

And those opinions are fine. But we're not talking about the tower anymore. Or we've ignored the pics someone posted just before, but they've been pushed back too far for anyone to notice.

FWIW, I'm 50/50 on the issue. I think some views have their merits. Some views are just spectacular and something that makes our city unique. But there are many I would get rid of. The Queen Elizabeth view corridor is beyond useless and should be scrapped tomorrow.

There are some tiny slices of mountain that I doubt anyone really notices anyway. And there are some views that are from totally bizarre spots. I think it was dleung that posted one view from the middle lanes of the Granville Bridge. Pointless.

I'm sure you could convince me there are a couple worth adding as well. Personally, I hope we never lose the view of City Hall from some areas. Anyway, those are just my thoughts on the issue.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

The only building sort of like that I can think of in Vancouver is the palisades on Alberni st? I think. Though I think its more of an oval.

Originally Posted by madog222

The tower at the crystal mall in Metrotown.

[WarrenC12]

501 Pacific is a bit rounded, also 933 Seymour "The Spot" is round.

Speaking as somebody who has a rounded living/dining room area, it sucks to live and put furniture in.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

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.

When something like a nasty virus is always there to screw up a design, I think there is no reason why forumers cannot talk about it. Besides, I don't think it's overly discussed in other threads. The fact that you hear so much on regular project threads prove that people feel how damaging viewcones can be to Vancouver's urban design, but I not many people out there do. There are always newcomers joining SSP, so a bit of education is always a good thing.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

501 Pacific is a bit rounded, also 933 Seymour "The Spot" is round.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Speaking as somebody who has a rounded living/dining room area, it sucks to live and put furniture in.

Yeah, we had that in One Wall Centre as well. It wastes some living space to have round walls.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Lets make this crystal clear, no more view cone talks in this thread or any other building thread. There have been a barrage of complaints from members for a while now because certain members keep bringing them up and ruining thread after thread. If someone feel the viewcone pertains to a certain project thats great, bring that up in the viewcone thread. Pretty simple. It sucks it's come to this but I can understand the frustration of the members complaining.

Back on topic. My understanding we will be seeing a new proposal submitted before the summer break, look forward to examining it.

That doesn't make much sense. If we're talking about a specific building and how the viewcones impact it then it makes more sense to discuss that in the actual building thread instead of a catch-all thread for viewcone discussion.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

501 Pacific is a bit rounded, also 933 Seymour "The Spot" is round.

Speaking as somebody who has a rounded living/dining room area, it sucks to live and put furniture in.

I thought this thread is only about viewcones?

I'm really just kidding, feel free to "complain" about a rounded condo layout.

I myself find curved layouts rather interesting features for the condo. The only layout I absolutely dislike are those triangular rooms with narrow angles. It's like if you move towards it, you might eventually get stuck.

[Klazu]

Yeah, there is a difference in discussing and complaining. Some slack is needed in letting informed discussion to take place, but some people playing the old record over and over again should be steered towards that thread.

Some forums allow admins to move individual messages to another thread, which is a good for this type of situation. Not sure if SPP makes that possible, though.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Yeah, there is a difference in discussing and complaining. Some slack is needed in letting informed discussion to take place, but some people playing the old record over and over again should be steered towards that thread.

Some forums allow admins to move individual messages to another thread, which is a good for this type of situation. Not sure if SPP makes that possible, though.

It is possible to move posts here, it has been done.

Does the Vancouver area have a specific sticky post with rules and guidelines? That might help.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Lets make this crystal clear, no more view cone talks in this thread or any other building thread. There have been a barrage of complaints from members for a while now because certain members keep bringing them up and ruining thread after thread. If someone feel the viewcone pertains to a certain project thats great, bring that up in the viewcone thread. Pretty simple. It sucks it's come to this but I can understand the frustration of the members complaining.

Back on topic. My understanding we will be seeing a new proposal submitted before the summer break, look forward to examining it.

That doesn't make any sense. I don't really care for view cone discussions either, mainly because I think they are such a ridiculously nonsensical policy. However they do impact on what gets developed and proposed etc. so like it or not they do become part of the discussion. Perhaps a more balanced approach versus trying to outright ban it would be better

[NewWester]

I don't mind the outright ban, but I do see value in talking about them within individual building threads when there is PROOF that viewcones were involved in a rejection or alteration. (Like, here where the UDP did not grant extra height because of viewcone rules.) what about this:

1. No viewcone talk in GENERAL TOPICS (like the downtown Vancouver one)

2. On specific buildings viewcone talk when it is pertinent as it applies to individual buildings/applications. Viewcone talk should be limited to the specifics affecting the given project. Talk ends when someone asks for a move on when it grinds out? A time limit? Mods calling it?

[jlousa]

The fact is the viewcone talks are ruining multiple threads because certain members keep harping on them. This has reached the point where my inbox gets several complaints from multiple members on a weekly basis, and their complaints have merit. There is a thread for viewcone discussion, it was created to discuss viewcones. No one is being censored, you can yammer away at them all you want here.
The problem is not someone stating the building is a certain height due to such and such a viewcone, think that should be obvious.
Next we might need to create a mall thread to eliminate the other problem topic that a certain member seems to be ruining multiple threads with and my inbox might stay relatively clean.

[Infrequent Poster]

I think we should be able to talk about what we want. As long as people arent behaving in a derogatory way. Clearly its an issue that people want to talk about. Its kind of crazy (in my opinion) to make like the policy doesnt have anything to do with buildings in downtown Vancouver. One only has to look at the skyline to realize it does.

Heres the thing when someone who supports the policy, jumps into the conversation (in a thread that wasnt the viewcone thread) with some sort of remark basically saying "see this building didnt get built as high as it could of" "I thought buildings were being held back by the viewcones".

Clearly this is a bit of an inflamatory (and untrue) remark. Then they get a response (and it seemed like a pretty reasonable one to me).....and shortly afterwards we get told we cant talk about the policy, even when it relates to the thread topic.

Just seems kind of weird to me. The way I see it (I'm not stating this as fact) someone who supports the policy, steers the conversation towards viewcones then (again this is only my opinion) probably complains because of the response....and the result is censorship.

This website is worse off for it. In my opinion.

And this is more drama then a reality tv show.

I just want to be free to talk and read about what I (and others) want to talk about. Personally if the topic in a thread doesnt interest me, well I skip the page (its really not that hard) or check another thread. I cant fathom making a complaint because people were talking about something I had no interest in. But thats just me....

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The problem is not someone stating the building is a certain height due to such and such a viewcone, think that should be obvious.

Okay, so what exactly is the policy then? Is it forbidden to identify and discuss the specific factors that directly explain or affect a certain project's design (something even the formal development application and open house presentation must do) in the thread relevant to that project or not?

Because this is what you said:

Originally Posted by jlousa

Lets make this crystal clear, no more view cone talks in this thread or any other building thread...If someone feels the viewcone pertains to a certain project that's great, bring that up in the viewcone thread.

[officedweller]

I wonder if the commercial strata owners at The Crystal will ever vote to sell the mall component of the project for redevelopment?

Originally Posted by Klazu

[urbancanadian]

GOOD:

Sam: "Hmm... interesting how the building has an odd angle on the top portion. I don't think it works with the overall design."
Kim: "There's a viewcone that bisects the site there."
Sam: "Oh ok makes sense. Think they could've been way more creative in addressing the viewcone. Doesn't look good."

BAD:

Paul: "New tower proposed. Cool design. Height is 450 feet, right up to the height limit."
John: "Yet again we can't have something nice because of the stupid city council and their stupid viewcones."
Finn: "Yup. They just don't get it. And they're only proposing three floors of retail. Just dumb."
John: "And like so many others it would look so much better if it were just 10 or 20 floors taller."

[Infrequent Poster]

So basically you cant say anything negative about viewcones?
Or even express your opinion on what you think could improve a buildings looks and why. Well I guess you're not really saying that. You're just saying you cant suggest being taller would improve the way a building looks?

I know I keep saying this but, sounds like censorship to me.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I wonder if the commercial strata owners at The Crystal will ever vote to sell the mall component of the project for redevelopment?

There is plenty of space for a tower or two at the northeast corner (where Sleep Country is).

What's the story behind Crystal Mall? It seems like a fairly large development, but somehow quite disconnected from the crowds. What was there before the mall?

[officedweller]

Rather, I was wondering if the owners of under performing strata units would want to cash out...
I think it was built when a lot of Hong Kong immigrant investors came over needing to set up businesses.
In effect, it's the same as the strata-titled malls in Richmond (Parker Place, Empire Centre, Aberdeen expansion).

The site at the corner are separately owned.