Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[christmas]

Has any governor at least proposed to repeal the view cone policy before?
I feel like many Vancouverites now want the policy to be abolished judging by internet comments in the media. It's worth a try at least.
Someone on this forum should run for office!

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by christmas

Has any governor at least proposed to repeal the view cone policy before?
I feel like many Vancouverites now want the policy to be abolished judging by internet comments in the media. It's worth a try at least.
Someone on this forum should run for office!

Don't assume that what a few skyscraper fans on a pro-development IBB are representative in any way of the public at large.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Don't assume that what a few skyscraper fans on a pro-development IBB are representative in any way of the public at large.

Which sort of begs the question: how do Vancouverites - those living in the City proper - feel about the view cones? What percentage is FOR them as is, what per centage
wants them totally LIFTED, and what per centage wants them EASED / MODIFIED?

[jlousa]

The view cones aren't going anywhere, they just engaged in a study a few years ago and even with a very biased report trying to exploit the weaker cones they were met with heavy resistance from the public. I get a laugh of people thinking the view cones are in any way limiting supply or driving up prices. Drop additional density outside the core. The explosion of density nodes in the suburbs isn't a bad thing and should continue to help feed multi-node commuting patterns.

[Marshal]

It may or may not be a waste and or green. It is just a reality. Tearing down 4 story walk-ups for towers is not different in kind to tearing down 20 stories for something larger. And please note: I did not say towers or taller buildings - just larger ones (though smaller could also replace larger).

As for being a waste, two things: if you know and believe LEED, there are a number of situations in which replacing is not only not a waste (the old being excessively wasteful in material upkeep, energy use and poor performance for its use), it is the better choice. Secondly, cities grow and change. Any division between what is 'small enough' and what is 'too large' to face demolition/replacement will be arbitrary and involve the same kind of personal preference masking as objective distinction as Heritage definitions do now.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Drop additional density outside the core.

Any proposal for density outside the core gets heavy resistance as well, so what does the public know? Listening to the public just creates gridlock.

Any extra homes that can be built utilizing extra height should be welcome.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The view cones aren't going anywhere, they just engaged in a study a few years ago and even with a very biased report trying to exploit the weaker cones they were met with heavy resistance from the public. I get a laugh of people thinking the view cones are in any way limiting supply or driving up prices. Drop additional density outside the core. The explosion of density nodes in the suburbs isn't a bad thing and should continue to help feed multi-node commuting patterns.

To further your point in building outside the core, apparently 76% of the city's land doesn't allow anything denser than single-family homes. There's a group that is acting liking a reverse-NIMBY group, advocating for more density. http://www.abundanthousingvancouver.com/

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Marshal

It may or may not be a waste and or green. It is just a reality. Tearing down 4 story walk-ups for towers is not different in kind to tearing down 20 stories for something larger. And please note: I did not say towers or taller buildings - just larger ones (though smaller could also replace larger).

As for being a waste, two things: if you know and believe LEED, there are a number of situations in which replacing is not only not a waste (the old being excessively wasteful in material upkeep, energy use and poor performance for its use), it is the better choice. Secondly, cities grow and change. Any division between what is 'small enough' and what is 'too large' to face demolition/replacement will be arbitrary and involve the same kind of personal preference masking as objective distinction as Heritage definitions do now.

In downtown Vancouver, it's not just about tearing down 4 storey walk-ups, but also taller concrete buildings (Landmark Hotel, 1550 Alberni, etc), as well as heritage structures (the old catholic building, Exchange, St Paul's, etc). There was even a suggestion to put tall buildings in Sinclair centre. Many of the heritage buildings are "defaced" in order to accommodate the newer buildings. If keeping all the old buildings is indeed not green like you said, then perhaps European cities must be completely wasteful. To my knowledge, they are the pioneers of what it means to be green, so your argument does not hold water.

Originally Posted by jlousa

The view cones aren't going anywhere, they just engaged in a study a few years ago and even with a very biased report trying to exploit the weaker cones they were met with heavy resistance from the public. I get a laugh of people thinking the view cones are in any way limiting supply or driving up prices. Drop additional density outside the core. The explosion of density nodes in the suburbs isn't a bad thing and should continue to help feed multi-node commuting patterns.

Viewcones policy not a bad thing? It is a bad thing, otherwise the saner municipalities would've adopted it long time ago, and we wouldn't be seeing nice new skylines developing outside Vancouver. However, this is not justified as many parts of Vancouver are simply rotting away. Look around many neighbourhoods in Vancouver now and they are like movie sets straight out from the 60s and 70s.

Viewcones IS limiting supply in downtown Vancouver, be it affordable housing, condos, mall/retail space, etc. If not why would the other municipalities be getting such a building boom? Wouldn't more people be wanting to work/live in the Vancouver proper and be closer to cultural and recreational amenities? To limit building tall to a small area is also bad. Spending all the energy to tear down completely good concrete buildings, and creating all the waste will take away any LEED implementation benefits for decades. Wouldn't retrofitting an existing building to meet more LEED requirements be a much better choice?

We wouldn't even need a multi-node coummuting node in the first place if Metro Van wasn't built with the typical North-American style sprawl. Densifying Vancouver and Burnaby itself would probably have limited our urban built-up footprint to the north side of the Fraser River, freeing up more land for agriculture, etc.

[WarrenC12]

I don't know enough about the viewcones to form a detailed opinion, but I suspect there are probably some great ones in there that should remain, and some others that could be adjusted or removed.

But to jlousa's point, viewcones are a small piece of the density puzzle. The giant swaths of SFH zoned land in Vancouver, primarily on the west side, are what is holding the CoV back from increased density.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Vin

...
Viewcones policy not a bad thing? It is a bad thing, otherwise the saner municipalities would've adopted it long time ago, and we wouldn't be seeing nice new skylines developing outside Vancouver. However, this is not justified as many parts of Vancouver are simply rotting away. Look around many neighbourhoods in Vancouver now and they are like movie sets straight out from the 60s and 70s.

Other areas don't have Vancouver's spectacular setting. I suppose you could argue Hong Kong comes close, but nobody i know from HK wants to recreate that density nightmare here. It's one of the reason they leave!

Originally Posted by Vin

Viewcones IS limiting supply in downtown Vancouver, be it affordable housing, condos, mall/retail space, etc. If not why would the other municipalities be getting such a building boom? Wouldn't more people be wanting to work/live in the Vancouver proper and be closer to cultural and recreational amenities? To limit building tall to a small area is also bad. Spending all the energy to tear down completely good concrete buildings, and creating all the waste will take away any LEED implementation benefits for decades. Wouldn't retrofitting an existing building to meet more LEED requirements be a much better choice?

We wouldn't even need a multi-node coummuting node in the first place if Metro Van wasn't built with the typical North-American style sprawl. Densifying Vancouver and Burnaby itself would probably have limited our urban built-up footprint to the north side of the Fraser River, freeing up more land for agriculture, etc.

Take a look around! The City of Vancouver has a huge (over)building boom going on. Take a drive down Cambie, Hastings, Granville, SE Marine. There are condos going up at a rate far exceeding demographic requirements.

It's a myth that Vancouver is some SFH paradise:
...A century ago, Vancouver was seen as a utopia of single-family homes with lots of space to spread out.

Now, it’s becoming a city where many of its residents are shuffling in together and squeezing in at a steady pace.

The region has the lowest proportion of single-detached houses of anywhere in Canada, with only 29 per cent of the nearly million homes in the Lower Mainland in that category. A study from Toronto’s Neptis Foundation has shown that, for every 1,000 new people who arrive in the city, Vancouver uses half the space Toronto does and a quarter of Calgary....(bold mine)
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri...rs-of-increasingdensity/article35703889/

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Many of the heritage buildings are "defaced" in order to accommodate the newer buildings. If keeping all the old buildings is indeed not green like you said, then perhaps European cities must be completely wasteful. To my knowledge, they are the pioneers of what it means to be green, so your argument does not hold water.

Keeping the exterior while gutting the inside is commonplace all over the developed world. Building a high-rise on top is a typical North American compromise between old and new... whereas Europeans ban all growth inside the historic areas of the city and build a downtown core somewhere else, which is completely unworkable for Vancouver.

Originally Posted by Vin

Viewcones policy not a bad thing? It is a bad thing, otherwise the saner municipalities would've adopted it long time ago, and we wouldn't be seeing nice new skylines developing outside Vancouver.

They don't have Vancouver's viewcones because they don't have Vancouver's views. It's that simple.

Originally Posted by Vin

Viewcones IS limiting supply in downtown Vancouver, be it affordable housing, condos, mall/retail space, etc. If not why would the other municipalities be getting such a building boom?

Because the other municipalities want some of downtown Van's property tax money for themselves? It's not exactly a secret. At any rate, it works out for the best - it transforms our transportation system from an outdated spoke-and-hub into a proper grid.

Originally Posted by Vin

Wouldn't more people be wanting to work/live in the Vancouver proper and be closer to cultural and recreational amenities? To limit building tall to a small area is also bad. Spending all the energy to tear down completely good concrete buildings, and creating all the waste will take away any LEED implementation benefits for decades. Wouldn't retrofitting an existing building to meet more LEED requirements be a much better choice?

A) Not when the majority of skyscrapers are condo buildings, which happen to be completely out of your average resident's price range. The view-cones definitely need to be reduced, but rezoning SFH areas to affordable townhomes, rowhouses and duplexes works infinitely better than building slightly higher towers.

B) Marshal's point is that downtown Vancouver can't run out of room - just replace the high-rises with higher-rises.

Originally Posted by Vin

We wouldn't even need a multi-node coummuting node in the first place if Metro Van wasn't built with the typical North-American style sprawl. Densifying Vancouver and Burnaby itself would probably have limited our urban built-up footprint to the north side of the Fraser River, freeing up more land for agriculture, etc.

"Multi-node" means that the metro is decentralized, rather than having a single downtown core and suburbs. Size and density are irrelevant.

[ryanmaccdn]

Why does everything in Vancouver have to be difficult. Why are we reinventing the wheel. Downtown = high as fuck buildings with density reducing outwards.... just like every other fucking city.

This multi node bullshit/new policy stuff is what is driving up prices. Jeeze

[Marshal]

[QUOTE=Vin;7869684]In downtown Vancouver, it's not just about tearing down 4 storey walk-ups, but also . . .
/QUOTE]

Vin, is it so hard to read carefully. You drive me nuts. I simply stated that sometimes it can be a good move, or sometimes it may happen even though its not the best move. I said sometimes it is better for the environment, sometimes not.

So, "if keeping older buildings is not green like you said" well, I didn't. I said 'sometimes.'

And, to bring up the holy European cities, again paints an all or nothing scenerio. I said sometimes its possible.

And, " my argument doesn't hold water": well, putting European cities on the table is not an argument. Plus - I am not 'making an argument.'

And, saying other city's are sane, and therefore they have the correct position, is not an argument either. Not to mention, do you know how to measure the sanity of municipal government? Pur gold if you do.

And, "completely good concrete buildings" - I suppose you have a measuring stick for this too, and then an inventory . . . or you are just hot air.

And, " Wouldn't retrofitting an existing building to meet more LEED requirements be a much better choice?" Well, yes sometimes, but always? No, not always
.

Just read my last few posts and discuss things. I don't know why you are hopping up and down with so much bluster.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by ryanmaccdn

Why does everything in Vancouver have to be difficult. Why are we reinventing the wheel. Downtown = high as fuck buildings with density reducing outwards.... just like every other fucking city.

This multi node bullshit/new policy stuff is what is driving up prices. Jeeze

"Every other f*cking city"? I take it you've never been to Europe.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by ryanmaccdn

Why does everything in Vancouver have to be difficult. Why are we reinventing the wheel. Downtown = high as fuck buildings with density reducing outwards.... just like every other fucking city.

This multi node bullshit/new policy stuff is what is driving up prices. Jeeze

Vancouver is like every other city, of a type, and as far as you can overlook all the differences in that type. It is also unique in a number of ways. Everything in Vancouver seems difficult until you work in other cities and you find out how difficult (sometimes in similar ways) things are there. San Francisco and Vienna are two very different cities - both are very hard to navigate as an architect or a project initiator. I could say the same for dozens more.

One thing I don't see is Vancouver trying to invent the wheel. Nor is there an overbuilding boom. The city is growing and following/instigating current urban planning thinking. This is no different in kind (though perhaps by degree) from anywhere else. To describe what's going on as "This multi node/new policy bull shit" is awfully dramatic. I don't know what people think is going on. All cities s behave like this: Copenhagen does all sorts of stupid shit, but also things that work very well. St. Petersburg led the world in advanced planning once - different times, but no historian would look back at their innovations and cry "bullshit!" I won't even go into Haussmann's Paris reno.

All I am saying is Vancouver is not the special case everyone who is excited, is excited about. It is doing specific things "like every other fucking city," but it is doing what every (and I mean every) other city has done across time: its changing and using the knowledge of its time to try to govern those changes relative to its unique issues and geography.

Two post notes:
1. Our multi-nodal regional concept is one of our best planning achievements. (I would need facts and reasoned argument to think otherwise.)
2. Our viewcones are stupid, both in concept, and practice.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Other areas don't have Vancouver's spectacular setting. I suppose you could argue Hong Kong comes close, but nobody i know from HK wants to recreate that density nightmare here. It's one of the reason they leave!

I personally love this one: Either Vancouver clings on to its viewcones or it will become Hong Kong (or Dubai). You know, just like all the other North American cities that don't have viewcones.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I personally love this one: Either Vancouver clings on to its viewcones or it will become Hong Kong (or Dubai). You know, just like all the other North American cities that don't have viewcones.

Then there's the option of tweaking the viewcones for more height, less "dumbing down," allowing a classier, more spectacular skyline without it becoming overdone. 'Middle ground'

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I personally love this one: Either Vancouver clings on to its viewcones or it will become Hong Kong (or Dubai). You know, just like all the other North American cities that don't have viewcones.

What North American city has the same setting as Vancouver? Viewcones have no use in places like Toronto or Winnipeg where there really is no view to protect.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

You know, just like all the other North American cities that don't have viewcones.

But many cities have maximum heights, for reasons that might not always be apparent, such as "too high" as was the reason given for Seattle capping its downtown heights for several years in the 90s, something like 450 feet IIRC. I also understand that cap was also removed several years later.

[Caliplanner1]

Montreal's downtown building height restrictions are meant to reserve the perceived dominant beauty of that city's Mount Royal: https://www.reddit.com/r/montreal/comments/2d2srs/buildings_downtown_cant_be_taller_than_mountain/