Fifteen Fifteen (1500 W Georgia) | 134m | 43fl | U/C

[Vin]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

The trees were recently pruned.

That said the distance between QE park and the towers location is such that a 20 metre difference in tower height would make a barely visible difference.

The Waterfront Tower protrusion Officedweller was alluding to before was so small and from such distance the city agreed it would be imperceptible to the human eye but it could still not penetrate the viewcone because it would set a precedent.

Setting a precedent won't be a problem as ever taller buildings will be built east of Boundary Road. In Vancouver, even if buildings exceed the dumb 3.2.1 viewcones limit, they are only in front of the British Properties houses and not blocking the mountain per se. Allowing a few to stick out beyond that limit won't cause Armageddon, and since this is the dumbest policy ever, why is the City so stubborn in keeping it? OK let's move on since that was only a rhetorical question and we don't want to dwell on this topic.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

The Waterfront Tower protrusion Officedweller was alluding to before was so small and from such distance the city agreed it would be imperceptible to the human eye but it could still not penetrate the viewcone because it would set a precedent.

That is absolutely ridiculous.

[LeftCoaster]

Open house for this tower today, 5:00-8:00 PM. Head over and make your voice heard if you want to see something like this move forward (or even achieve its old proposed height!)

http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/1500wgeorgia/index.htm

Ironically the open house is being held in the Empire Landmark...

[Vin]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Open house for this tower today, 5:00-8:00 PM. Head over and make your voice heard if you want to see something like this move forward (or even achieve its old proposed height!)

http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/1500wgeorgia/index.htm

Ironically the open house is being held in the Empire Landmark...

Thank you for giving this notice. Will definitely be there after work.

[Vin]

Was at the Open House last night and encountered the typical old Nimbys from the West End, and even one who lived across the street at Alberni. They were "gravely concerned" about traffic conditions and view disappearance, etc, and hoarded around the officials standing around for a long time.

Most importantly, I also talked to someone from Bosa the developer, 2 people from Francl Architecture and 2 others from CoV Planning (juniors who only followed orders as they claimed) regarding why the building was chopped down by 8 floors from the original taller slender design envisioned by the German architect Buro Ole Scheeren.

Surprisingly, Viewcone 1.3.2 at QE Park wasn't the governing factor as to the restriction as CoV does allow certain building heights to exceed limit from there.

The real culprits were other viewcones (B & C), and get this: From Laurel Bridge (the pedestrian bridge crossing 6th Ave at Fairview slopes), and as I heard correctly, Charleson Park seawall. I find that simply ridiculous. People go to that park to enjoy the beautiful scenery of downtown Vancouver, not to see a tiny bit of Lions Peak. And just because of those viewcone restrictions, the "Jenga" portion of the design had been lowered and won't be so visible from afar, and the overall architecture aesthetics is compromised.

Here's a view of downtown Vancouver from the seawall on a typical beautiful day:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2680953,-...XdBN_TG5eCIfeJS3jE2dw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

From the bridge, totally blocked by trees anyway, and as claimed by the City, they could easily "prune" them.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.265868,-1...loeOjDBjuu3IZOZosLs5w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Here is a list of the archaic viewcones:
http://vancouver.ca/docs/planning/view-protection-guidelines.pdf

From my conversation with all these people, this occurred to me: developer and architect both wished the viewcones gone or re-reviewed. City workers were a little more diplomatic, I could see they couldn't really come up with clear reasoning as to why some still exist, or simply didn't quite understand how nonsensical they were, and towards the end, did not seem to want to continue the conversation further.

Needless to say, I wrote a harsh comment sheet to the City and talked to other people who cared to listen at the event.

[osirisboy]

omg! thank god for these view cones. Could you imagine if they weren't there? We would never see any mountains!

What an asinine policy.

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by Vin

From my conversation with all these people, this occurred to me: developer and architect both wish the viewcones gone or re-reviewed. City workers were a little more diplomatic, I could see they couldn't really come up with clear reasoning as to why some still exist, or simply didn't quite understand how nonsensical they were, and towards the end, did not seem to want to continue the conversation further.

Needless to say, I wrote a harsh comment sheet to the City and talked to other people who cared to listen at the event.

Thanks for having that conversation with city staff and submitting the comment sheet. They need to feel way more heat on this particular topic.

[Vancity]

viewcones are stupid.

it's like the "zone" concept for transit. At least revisit and have a conversation about a policy about these archaic policies that may have done the city well in the past, but c'mon, the city is growing. i hate the fact that the city has a tabletop view. it's boring, uninspiring.

but, alas, viewcones aren't going anywhere. Feel like because of that, very few people are willing to fight and force the city's hand to review, or at least have a conversation about it.

[Tfreder]

With all the talk about a lack of housing supply pushing real estate prices sky-high, you'd think that developers/ the BC Liberals would have pushed the narrative that Vision's view cone policy, designed to decrease the number of new residential units entering the market to protect the mountain views from pricey Westside neighbourhoods, is one of the contributing factors of rising housing prices. I mean, the headlines basically write themselves

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by Tfreder

With all the talk about a lack of housing supply pushing real estate prices sky-high, you'd think that developers/ the BC Liberals would have pushed the narrative that Vision's view cone policy, designed to decrease the number of new residential units entering the market to protect the mountain views from pricey Westside neighbourhoods, is one of the contributing factors of rising housing prices. I mean, the headlines basically write themselves

I question that any condo units have not been built because of the view cone policies and other height restrictions.
Even if there were condo towers that would be taller if there was no policy (big if), those units would be the most expensive in the province anyway. So they'd do nothing to help the housing issues at all.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I question that any condo units have not been built because of the view cone policies and other height restrictions.

That is absurd. This very project, which had seven floors artificially chopped-off by the city's height restrictions under its viewcone policy, is now offering substantially less condo units and public amenities than the original proposal, which was itself already artificially constricted by the city's height restrictions under its zoning policy. That is a prosaic (and publicly known) fact:

Sophie Perndl, who is a project manager at real estate consulting firm Brook Pooni Associates Inc., then contacted Business in Vancouver on January 27 in an email to say that the project has shrunk to be only 43 storeys. She said that the project would have 218 homes, not 235 as originally proposed. The project's total square footage, including retail, public amenities and residential amenity space is now 282,214 square feet, not 329,400 square feet.

Source: https://www.biv.com/article/2016/1/public-consultation-looms-proposed-tower-could-tra/

That is what happens when residential projects lose numerous floors to the arbitrary edicts of city politicians, not the logical requirements of economic reality.

Or did you think the fact that the height of 99% of major downtown residential redevelopment terminates at the precise viewcone or zoning limit was some kind of magical coincidence? Did you actually think that a set of arbitrary height restrictions concocted by city bureaucrats in 1989 just happened to perfectly correspond with the market conditions and economically optimum heights of major residential projects in 2016?

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Even if there were condo towers that would be taller if there was no policy, those units would be the most expensive in the province anyway. So they'd do nothing to help the housing issues at all.

What basics of the law of supply and demand do you not understand? Artificially restricting the supply of housing below the optimum supply (i.e., the supply that would be produced in a competitive market in the absence of artificial restrictions imposed by the city and the point at which the price of housing would equal the marginal costs of producing that housing) allows developers to charge prices far above marginal costs in perpetuity. The new units at higher elevations (i.e., units with spetacular views) would naturally command higher prices. But in the absence of those units, which the viewcone policy ensures, there is now a substantially greater number of customers competing for a substantially smaller supply of housing, which inflates the price of the remaining housing stock for everyone.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Vin

Was at the Open House last night and encountered the typical old Nimbys from the West End, and even one who lived across the street at Alberni.

Despite the unfortunate news around this project, can I just thank you for going there and voicing many of ours opinion!

[Vin]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

Thanks for having that conversation with city staff and submitting the comment sheet. They need to feel way more heat on this particular topic.

Originally Posted by Klazu

Despite the unfortunate news around this project, can I just thank you for going there and voicing many of ours opinion!

You're most welcome, someone's gotta do it, and I will do it again when I have the chance.

The architects did wish that the general public are more informed about this and voice their support to push the height limits further up, thereby increasing density and improving skyline aesthetics, and with that, question about the viewcones. Even a City planner told me there were instances when they couldn't increase the density of social housing because of viewcones. Perhaps we can get one of the TV stations to do a story: anyone in media?

With that wrapped up, let's move this viewcone conversation to the right thread should someone want to discuss further, otherwise we're all going to be lectured.

[privatejet]

Anyone have any insights on why the UDP split on this and rejected it 5-6?

[LeftCoaster]

Difficult to know until the full minutes are posted, but I would guess issues with the interaction with the plaza.

[officedweller]

October 5 UDP Minutes:

Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:

•  Consideration should be given to reducing the massing and density;
•  The two buildings, Crown Life and the proposed should either be more complimentary or contrasting in form and materiality;
•  Design development to make the building thinner and more elegant;
•  Design development to better activate the base of the building along Georgia;
•  The intent of the 6500 sq. ft. floorplate is not met well in the middle of the building;
•  Extend the brick along Georgia Street but to maintain the Georgia edge with its landscaped form;
•  Special attention should be paid to the design of the plaza to create a base for the new tower and to act as the integrating element for the composition of the two buildings;
•  Design development of the materiality and the approach to details to work with the materials of the plaza.
•  Design development to improve sustainability.

Related Commentary: The panel thought that the building is an interesting concept with a complicated context. Inserting a major building into such a prominent space is tricky, and more concern with regards to the approach to the plaza is needed. Attention should be given to clarifying the heritage and modern elements, and not blur the pieces together.

The panel generally supported the proposed height and setbacks, but noted that the building has not earned the asked for FSR yet. The building looks very bulky with the projections, and would fit better on the site if it was a bit smaller. The massing should better speak to the urban spaces along Georgia and the plaza. Currently this building does not seem to advance the story of what Vancouver’s identity wants to be.

The building looks strong on Georgia and Cardero streets, but has a lot of blank elements on Nicola Street. The ideas around the pool retention and site permeability will help to make this a valuable space with good public dialogue, and it is great that the waterfall is being kept. However, the building does not yet achieve what it purports to be doing. It wants to be complimentary to the urban context and to the adjacent building, but the architecture is more contrasting. Something should be done to make it either a more complimentary or contrasting form.

It is important that the big plaza ideas be clear with regards to how the site will hold the building. More attention should be paid to plaza programming and how it supports the space. At the ground plane it would be more successful to respect that the different elements ARE different. The urban spaces will be nice, but add more places to sit beside the pond. As well, the brick bank should be maintained to promote the vibrant use by skateboarders. More rain protection is also needed and the public space needs to maintain its generosity.

Attention should be paid to how the colour and materials are handled. A more refined pattern could be used to allow the brick to tie the building more into the plaza. Overall the materials will add to the vibrancy of the City in the rain.

Special focus should be given to building sustainability and not just the sustainability of the water feature. Currently the building only does the minimum in sustainability, and a lot more could be done to make the building speak to passive house or zero energy design.

http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/committees/minutes-urban-design-panel-20161005.pdf

[Metro-One]

Maybe they could make the tower a little thinner and more elegant if they were allowed to add a few floors? I don't know, to maybe around 152 meters.

Or, at that height, there would be no need to thin the tower to add elegance because the added height would make the tower look relatively thinner and more elegant!



Sorry, couldn't resist this one.

[Klazu]

Yeah, stupid comments by UDP. Basically they want it smaller and less noticeable. Adding spandrel should also help. Idiots...

[osirisboy]

Wtf does this mean?

"Currently this building does not seem to advance the story of what Vancouver’s identity wants to be."

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Wtf does this mean?

"Currently this building does not seem to advance the story of what Vancouver’s identity wants to be."

It means it's not bland enough.