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

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

UDP had nothing to do with this height reduction and often advocates for higher buildings.

You really need to do some more homework on the UDP.

Maybe read some minutes of meeting rather than just reacting.

May I ask a question? Who / what in fact DID order the height reduction of 1500 West Georgia? Under whose jurisdiction was that?

[LeftCoaster]

The view cones are civic bylaw. They were enacted by city council as a reflection of the desires of the citizens of Vancouver, not of the planning department.

The only group that can allow a development to project into them is council itself, or perhaps the DP board, though I'm not sure on that last part.

This differs from something like density or built form where planning has discretion to increase or decrease as they see fit (to an extent). Planning, including Gil Kelly himself, have no authority over view cones.

[Feathered Friend]

Meaning, once again, you get what you put in.

If people want taller and/or more attractive buildings, they have to let council know there's support for them. That's why the efforts of the people that wrote in on this project paid off. While Councillors Affleck and Carr expressed dismay that the West End Plan "snuck these heights in at the last minute" (rough quote).

Others, likes Councillors Stevenson and Bremner, came out in support of the added heights. Councillor Bremner even went as far as to state that "we must shift the priority of our planning and our acceptance of projects towards, are we creating the homes for the people that need them, or are we protecting a conceptional umbrella.. the idea of the dome Downtown" (exact quote).

Furthermore, I highly suggest people take a look at this exchange between a city councilor and a member of the planning department at the 1:18:00 - 1:19:00 mark of the video.
http://civic.neulion.com/cityofvanco...id=3496078,000

[Metro-One]

Exactly, I have made it a point to directly support these projects and so far it actually seems to be helping.

If I was in Vancouver I would attend the open houses personally.

[excel]

What I don't understand is how a high level project such as this can go through years of architectural design specific to its location and somehow be 20 meters above the height limit. Wouldn't this be one of the first things they would have wanted to consider?

[red-paladin]

Title height corrected, sorry for the continuing confusion.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by excel

What I don't understand is how a high level project such as this can go through years of architectural design specific to its location and somehow be 20 meters above the height limit. Wouldn't this be one of the first things they would have wanted to consider?

maybe hoping the amazing design and a push to allow it to go higher future council might be more open to it? since it takes years, by then who knows who will be in office and what they will be open to.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by excel

What I don't understand is how a high level project such as this can go through years of architectural design specific to its location and somehow be 20 meters above the height limit. Wouldn't this be one of the first things they would have wanted to consider?

If you read the earlier parts of this thread, you'll see that the initial taller tower (from 2015) was never an application. You'll also see a comment from ex Planning Director Brian Jackson that the City would have to check to make sure it met the various policy filters. The application in January 2016 was at the 134m height which was what policy allows. That tower was then initially rejected by the UDP, and was further refined (but not made any shorter) in the subsequent design that was supporteded this week.

There are design development requirements that a DP will have to meet, when it's submitted, but they shouldn't see any significant difference unless the developers are looking to value engineer any aspect of the design - which seems to be very unlikely. Anything that strays too far from this version is likely to get rejected - so don't expect random seafoam spandrel.

[Graham_Yvr]

Originally Posted by Changing City

If you read the earlier parts of this thread, you'll see that the initial taller tower (from 2015) was never an application. You'll also see a comment from ex Planning Director Brian Jackson that the City would have to check to make sure it met the various policy filters. The application in January 2016 was at the 134m height which was what policy allows. That tower was then initially rejected by the UDP, and was further refined (but not made any shorter) in the subsequent design that was supporteded this week.

While not disputing this, wasn't the original concept designed to the max height of 550' allowed in this area under the new West End Plan? I can't help but think, even if they knew a view corridor restricted this height, that the quality and silhouette of the tower at that max height might actually get passed through? Seems a waste of effort to purposely design something that would have no chance of being build as designed. That original concept height was not arbitrary. The newer, squatter design loses some of the elegance the original concept showed. That said, I'm thrilled this is moving forward.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Graham_Yvr

While not disputing this, wasn't the original concept designed to the max height of 550' allowed in this area under the new West End Plan? I can't help but think, even if they knew a view corridor restricted this height, that the quality and silhouette of the tower at that max height might actually get passed through? Seems a waste of effort to purposely design something that would have no chance of being build as designed. That original concept height was not arbitrary. The newer, squatter design loses some of the elegance the original concept showed. That said, I'm thrilled this is moving forward.

I can't recall how high the first version was - but the West End Plan doesn't allow 550' here. It's in Area B of the Georgia Corridor which allows a maximum of 500 feet (152m). But the paragraph on height is very clear, and not in small print or hidden in a footnote. "Georgia Corridor - Building heights should not exceed view corridor limits (except in accordance with the General Policy for Higher Buildings). However, where not restricted by view corridors, building heights can be considered up to a maximum of:
- Area 'A’: 117.3 metres (385 feet)
- Area ‘B’: 152.4 metres (500 feet)" ... etc

[officedweller]

Here's the list of relevant view cones from the Rezoning Application.

What's interesting is that the one highlighted in red - the QE Park viewcone - is the one used as the limiting height.
HOWEVER, under the Higher Buildings Policy, that is the only view cone that can be relaxed.
HOWEVER AGAIN, the C1 Laurel Landbridge view cone appears to still limit height 0.5 m above the QE Park viewcone.
So it appears that the developer did not want to fight the City on getting a 0.5 m relaxation.

.. and maybe because the City wants the flatiron building at 1445 West Georgia to dominate the area?


http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applica...rgia/index.htm

[Vin]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

The view cones are civic bylaw. They were enacted by city council as a reflection of the desires of the citizens of Vancouver, not of the planning department.

The only group that can allow a development to project into them is council itself, or perhaps the DP board, though I'm not sure on that last part.

This differs from something like density or built form where planning has discretion to increase or decrease as they see fit (to an extent). Planning, including Gil Kelly himself, have no authority over view cones.

Viewcones not part of the UDP you say? That's even worse because it was made by a tiny outspoken minority from the 80s perhaps? It's 2018 now and it's high time for another round of active discussion and review, nevermind that this was also reviewed a decade ago. Having the bylaw in existence is itself a scourge because it means that it's ALWAYS an uphill battle for those who desire to see taller towers. The naysayers can always use it to oppress those who want the talls and use these policies to stifle others, and say "it's the will of the people". We all know it's not.

Like how many of us actually go to the Laurel Landbridge to enjoy mountain views? Why should a single viewcone restriction from there stifle a building that can house so many more businesses, households, retail podium densities, etc? And that is not even including the millions spent on extra consultation fees for such stupidity, in order to have a short building constructed.

Whether the viewcone policies are dictated by the UDP or not isn't important, the fact is that the City causes heights to be curtailed. The UDP just adds other dumb decisions of their own to the mess.

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

Meaning, once again, you get what you put in.

If people want taller and/or more attractive buildings, they have to let council know there's support for them. That's why the efforts of the people that wrote in on this project paid off. While Councillors Affleck and Carr expressed dismay that the West End Plan "snuck these heights in at the last minute" (rough quote).

Others, likes Councillors Stevenson and Bremner, came out in support of the added heights. Councillor Bremner even went as far as to state that "we must shift the priority of our planning and our acceptance of projects towards, are we creating the homes for the people that need them, or are we protecting a conceptional umbrella.. the idea of the dome Downtown" (exact quote).

Still bothers me greatly that our central business district density is determined by a handful of individuals who are not really in tune with urban planning and liveability.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Vin

Viewcones not part of the UDP you say? That's even worse because it was made by a tiny outspoken minority from the 80s perhaps? It's 2018 now and it's high time for another round of active discussion and review, nevermind that this was also reviewed a decade ago. Having the bylaw in existence is itself a scourge because it means that it's ALWAYS an uphill battle for those who desire to see taller towers. The naysayers can always use it to oppress those who want the talls and use these policies to stifle others, and say "it's the will of the people". We all know it's not.

Like how many of us actually go to the Laurel Landbridge to enjoy mountain views? Why should a single viewcone restriction from there stifle a building that can house so many more businesses, households, retail podium densities, etc? And that is not even including the millions spent on extra consultation fees for such stupidity, in order to have a short building constructed.

Whether the viewcone policies are dictated by the UDP or not isn't important, the fact is that the City causes heights to be curtailed. The UDP just adds other dumb decisions of their own to the mess.



Still bothers me greatly that our central business district density is determined by a handful of individuals who are not really in tune with urban planning and liveability.

You have made your opinions clearly known on this forum, but what have you done to affect change at the City? Did you participate in the View Cone Review process in '09? Have you written to Council to express your views when the view cones impact rezoning proposals? Have you written to the General Manager of Planning, Urban Design, and Sustainability? Have you considered running for a seat on Council in the November election?

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

You have made your opinions clearly known on this forum, but what have you done to affect change at the City? Did you participate in the View Cone Review process in '09? Have you written to Council to express your views when the view cones impact rezoning proposals? Have you written to the General Manager of Planning, Urban Design, and Sustainability? Have you considered running for a seat on Council in the November election?

Of course he hasn't.

He just moans and whinges from behind his keyboard but does nothing proactive whatsoever.

I've told him and countless others before I'd gladly support any effort they want to embark on to change some of the viewcones, but nothing is ever done.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Of course he hasn't.

He just moans and whinges from behind his keyboard but does nothing proactive whatsoever.

I've told him and countless others before I'd gladly support any effort they want to embark on to change some of the viewcones, but nothing is ever done.

OK, what if everyone on this thread wrote in (politely) stating their objections to the viewcones; maybe asking for them to be "tweaked."
Would that help? To which address should they write?

[LeftCoaster]

Write it to mayor and council.

It can't hurt... but no one will. We've been down this road dozens of times on this forum over the years. There's only a small handful of people who are actually active in the city. The rest are blowhards like Vin who complain on the internet but don't do a damn thing.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Write it to mayor and council.

It can't hurt... but no one will. We've been down this road dozens of times on this forum over the years. There's only a small handful of people who are actually active in the city. The rest are blowhards like Vin who complain on the internet but don't do a damn thing.

I wouldn’t say no one does. My self and a few others on here write to and attend meetings regularly (obviously in Japan I can only write emails)

I have done so for several towers this past year (including this one), the GMB, the SFPR upgrades and Broadway Skytrain.

I have also written against the Surrey LRT.

But it is true, more on here just have to send an email. (A constructive email).

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by Vin

Like how many of us actually go to the Laurel Landbridge to enjoy mountain views?

Fun fact/rumor.
One member of the applicant team went down to the Landbridge and took photos showing the view is already blocked by trees. Even with this in hand, city staff were unable to accommodate the extra height because of how strict policy is (or at least so I've heard).

Originally Posted by trofirhen

OK, what if everyone on this thread wrote in (politely) stating their objections to the viewcones; maybe asking for them to be "tweaked."
Would that help? To which address should they write?

For general issues you can write the members of government through their civic emails:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

For the Mayor:
http://vancouver.ca/your-government/...robertson.aspx

For specific items at a public hearing you should write:
[email protected]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Write it to mayor and council.

It can't hurt... but no one will. We've been down this road dozens of times on this forum over the years. There's only a small handful of people who are actually active in the city. The rest are blowhards like Vin who complain on the internet but don't do a damn thing.

I'm also hearing rumors that some poor saps who go down to every open house will soon be starting a blog, with the intent to try and get people more active and informed... no word on who, or if it's even true though
Either way I'm not going anywhere, no one get's free from my ramblings that easily

[EastVanMark]

Yes, because Vancity council's track record with listening to peoples viewpoints other than those conforming to their own, is so great and all, writing a letter or email will have absolutely zero impact other than to perhaps make the author feel better about themselves.

Sad to say, it but its true.

The only way to get your voice really heard is if you mobilize a large group of people and go to the press. That tactic has shown to be effective once in a while.

[phesto]

I'm all for writing Staff, the Mayor and Council in support of relaxing the view cones and have done this myself in the past.

My personal opinion is to not bother this year. It's an election year and there will be very little appetite to open up this issue, especially with so many other pressing issues.

Note that the last review was first started in 2009 and went into 2011 - also an election year. As you'll recall, the view cone policy was not substantially changed save for a few sites. The director of planning at the time was Brent Toderian who was fired less than a year after the view cone review was completed. I think for real change the whole view cone policy will need to be completely overhauled and there will have to be a very strong director in place to oversee something like that. I think the jury is still out on Gil Kelley, but at the very least he has his hands full with other planning challenges at the moment.

These types of policies always seem to get revisited in 10-15 year cycles when enough change has occurred both in terms of the built environment/other policies and staff/council turnover to warrant a review.