Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Turn it around - what is so great about taller towers? NYC is full of buildings taller than Vancouver's, most of them so banal that if you were shown a picture in isolation you wouldn't be able to identify where they were, much less what the name of the building was.

Vancouver's unique selling proposition is the mountains, there are literally a handful of cities in the world that combine an ocean setting with tall mountains. Why obscure that for private profit and make no mistake, that is what it boils down to. No developer is building with a goal of leaving some outstandingly beautiful tall building as a legacy for the ages, they're doing it to line their pockets.

If you have been through Asia, or South America, a city among both mountains and the Ocean is not as rare as one might think (even Seattle is pretty much in the same boat as us, yet with taller far more iconic pinnacles among the skyline)

And no, it is about more than profits. The city of van should build up as much as possible, especially around transit hubs if it wants to be a “green” leader.

Ironically arbitrarily stunting towers to retain views of the mountains from very specific nearly random points leads to further fueling housing sprawl up the sides of those very mountains.

And how are tall tower developments any different than townhouse or suburban sprawl developments when it comes to motives from the developers?

I far prefer a city of tall “bland” towers as you call them that encourages public transit use than a never ending suburban sprawl of bland.

[logan5]

And no, it is about more than profits. The city of van should build up as much as possible, especially around transit hubs if it wants to be a “green” leader.

Towers are hardly energy efficient. The most energy efficient building would be stacked townhouses. Not only would they be more energy efficient, they would cost a lot less than a high-rise unit.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by logan5

Towers are hardly energy efficient. The most energy efficient building would be stacked townhouses. Not only would they be more energy efficient, they would cost a lot less than a high-rise unit.

They become energy efficient when they house the maximum amount of activities (living, working, commercial, entertainment) within walking distances to major transit hubs while simultaneously having the benefit of occupying the least amount of land. (Therefore reducing energy spent on commuting and reducing land wasted to development).

People who only look at the direct figures often make the wrong conclusions.

Process A uses twice the energy per unit as process B, guess process B is the answer. (Yet process B requires 3 units to produce the same results as one unit of process A)

These direct interpretations of basic figures is how people come to such silly conclusions as LRT down Fraser Highway (or even Broadway) being a superior choice to Skytrain.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by logan5

Towers are hardly energy efficient. The most energy efficient building would be stacked townhouses. Not only would they be more energy efficient, they would cost a lot less than a high-rise unit.

They're still fairly energy efficient. It mostly depends on the construction though.

Biggest factor for high rises being efficient is that they're compact in footprint and all the infrastructure around them can be proportionally more compact. When a city is compact, then it is generally much more energy efficient. "Vertical sprawl" is much more energy efficient that actual sprawl.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Because a taller building can literally be more building for the same site without increasing the floor plate. Granted, I also like large floor plate buildings.

The point of a tower is that it provides space on a small footprint. That utility of that purpose grows with how much space can be efficiently provided on a small footprint (without having all sorts of terrible windowless interior spaces).

If you're designing a building, and there is demand for more of that building, why not construct it larger on one site instead of spreading the demand around over many rezonings, many excavations, and many land parcels. Would you rather have 400 people take the benefits for living on a site or 600 with marginally more work?

A tall, dense tower is the definition of an efficient urban packaging. The farther away you get from that, the more everyone has to pay for the inefficiencies.

Our view cones basically say that X parcel of land can only be this useful because someone doesn't like looking at a city. In my opinion people who don't want to live near downtown should move to the burbs or any other area in our generally rural province. If you live near the one dense city in this province, you probably should have decided that you like being near a dense city.

Large floorplates sounds like a recipe for recreating Toronto

Zoning restricts usage all the time. Wouldn't you want tall dense towers surrounding you in Strathcona? That's probably the closest SFH neighbourhood to the downtown core, should we just level all the wood frame buildings for highrises?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Large floorplates sounds like a recipe for recreating Toronto

Zoning restricts usage all the time. Wouldn't you want tall dense towers surrounding you in Strathcona? That's probably the closest SFH neighbourhood to the downtown core, should we just level all the wood frame buildings for highrises?

But nobody's talking about levelling SFH zones for highrises. We're talking about existing highrise zones being castrated and reduced because hippies and NIMBYs and mansion owners want to keep "Vancouver, the Podunk" (TM).
Strathcona'll probably end up being mostly townhouses sooner or later - and yes, it'll be flanked by towers. I'd argue that it'd have a nice Central Park vibe to it.

What's wrong with Toronto? Only the larger floorplates need is a higher glass/concrete ratio, maybe a few structural holes to let the sun in.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Turn it around - what is so great about taller towers? NYC is full of buildings taller than Vancouver's, most of them so banal that if you were shown a picture in isolation you wouldn't be able to identify where they were, much less what the name of the building was.

Vancouver's unique selling proposition is the mountains, there are literally a handful of cities in the world that combine an ocean setting with tall mountains. Why obscure that for private profit and make no mistake, that is what it boils down to. No developer is building with a goal of leaving some outstandingly beautiful tall building as a legacy for the ages, they're doing it to line their pockets.

And NYC is one of the most visited, cultural, interesting, diverse and vibrant cities in the entire planet. Do you think people go there for the low-rise Bronx?

Similarly, way more visitors come to downtown Vancouver than anywhere in the mountains.

From Oregon to Yukon, there are numerous cities and towns with mountains as the backdrop, but only a couple with a nice skyline and mountain backdrop. Let Vancouver be the one on the West Coast.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

Towers are hardly energy efficient. The most energy efficient building would be stacked townhouses. Not only would they be more energy efficient, they would cost a lot less than a high-rise unit.

Concrete towers ARE the most energy efficient. I pay an average of $30 Hydro bill for my unit. How much do you pay living in a wood-frame house, townhome or low-rise?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

But nobody's talking about levelling SFH zones for highrises. We're talking about existing highrise zones being castrated and reduced because hippies and NIMBYs and mansion owners want to keep "Vancouver, the Podunk" (TM).
Strathcona'll probably end up being mostly townhouses sooner or later - and yes, it'll be flanked by towers. I'd argue that it'd have a nice Central Park vibe to it.

What's wrong with Toronto? Only the larger floorplates need is a higher glass/concrete ratio, maybe a few structural holes to let the sun in.

Why not? If views which can be enjoyed by everyone can be infringed upon, why should SFH neighbourhoods survive adjacent to the downtown core? If the argument is the density is needed, then isn't it needed more than some quaint old houses?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Vin

And NYC is one of the most visited, cultural, interesting, diverse and vibrant cities in the entire planet. Do you think people go there for the low-rise Bronx?

Similarly, way more visitors come to downtown Vancouver than anywhere in the mountains.

From Oregon to Yukon, there are numerous cities and towns with mountains as the backdrop, but only a couple with a nice skyline and mountain backdrop. Let Vancouver be the one on the West Coast.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Vancouver is nowhere near comparable to NYC in terms of culture and attractions, the view is the reason people come to visit.

[Feathered Friend]

For those asking how to voice support in favor of the proposals / building heights at NEFC, here's the links / instructions.

How to Have Your Say
If you want to speak in person register here.

http://vancouver.ca/your-government/speak-at-city-council-meetings.aspx

Otherwise, you can use the instructions below to send your comments to city council: (Note, all personal information, aside from your name and comments, will be redacted by the city clerks).

Include your name (anonymous comments aren’t shared with Council).
The deadline to send your comments is 15 minutes after the speaker’s list closes.
If you send your comments during the meeting, use a maximum of 1,500 words.
Comments are posted on the City of Vancouver’s website.

Email: [email protected]

Mail: City Clerk’s Office, City of Vancouver, 453 West 12th Ave, Vancouver, BC V5Y 1V4

*If you want to submit a response to council, and need more instructions, let us know, and we’ll do our best to give you some added guidance.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Why not? If views which can be enjoyed by everyone can be infringed upon, why should SFH neighbourhoods survive adjacent to the downtown core? If the argument is the density is needed, then isn't it needed more than some quaint old houses?

The poor guy living south of you can't see the mountains from his window. Perhaps your house should be torn down, and a tent erected?

It's all relative, buddy.


Many people love seeing beautiful skyscrapers more than mountains.

As for smaller heritage building protection:
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/01/01/saving_torontos_heritage_buildings_the_smart_way.html
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/heritage/external/!publish/web/DynamicDowntownsWorkbook_Final.pdf

[Vin]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Vancouver is nowhere near comparable to NYC in terms of culture and attractions, the view is the reason people come to visit.

And Vancouver will never reach the cultural and attraction levels of NYC if more locals, such as yourself, fear change, big buildings and skyscrapers, and the loss of mountain views from some arbitrary points . Single family home neighbourhoods are just culturally-dead urban sprawls.

[GenWhy?]

Tall buildings do not make a city nor culture.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Vin

Concrete towers ARE the most energy efficient. I pay an average of $30 Hydro bill for my unit. How much do you pay living in a wood-frame house, townhome or low-rise?

I guarantee you you're paying more than someone who lives in a townhouse because you're also paying for the electrical and mechanical for the common areas, elevators, water-pumps, and everything else that comes with towers.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Why not? If views which can be enjoyed by everyone can be infringed upon, why should SFH neighbourhoods survive adjacent to the downtown core? If the argument is the density is needed, then isn't it needed more than some quaint old houses?

A) Damn straight. The closer Vancouver gets to 3-4M residents, the more we're going to start seeing 500+ square metres for one household as a giant waste of space.

B) More like "views that can be seen from one specific part of QE Park or the seawall, or in the middle of traffic." Hardly a national treasure, nor do ten extra floors block much of anything that the traffic lights already do.

Originally Posted by whatnext

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Vancouver is nowhere near comparable to NYC in terms of culture and attractions, the view is the reason people come to visit.

Again, that's why we need to develop the city so that it's as attractive as the country surrounding it. New York wasn't built in a day.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Vancouver is nowhere near comparable to NYC in terms of culture and attractions, the view is the reason people come to visit.

Yeah, and where do they go to see those views? They go to the Seawall around Waterfront and Coal Harbour, they go to Stanley Park, they go to the mountains themselves (Grouse, The Chief, Whistler, etc...), they take snaps while riding the ferries in the middle of the Georgia Straight, etc... They don’t travel to Vancouver just to stand in the middle of Cambie to gaze at the mountains, they don’t flock to City Hall in droves to go sightseeing, and the residents around Queen Elizabeth Park sure made it clear that tourists coming there to see mountain views are unwelcome when they fought against the observation tower and won.

Also, ironically, looking at pics of Van on the internet and having seen droves of tourists taking pics of the city from the North Shore / on top of Grouse, from Granville Island, etc... it seems that the urban built tower form gets just as much interest and attention as the mountains themselves.

Also, if your intent is unobstructed mountain views, you don’t go to a city for that sole intent, you go to the wilderness. Perfect example, the Rocky Mountains.

Again, the mountains are so prominent around Van building taller towers will not make them disappear from the Vancouver experience. The same way taller towers have not diminished the spectacular setting of Hong Kong.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Tall buildings do not make a city nor culture.

Such a straw man argument.

The exact same logic can be made in reverse. Having mountain views from Cambie Street does not make a city nor culture.

[Feathered Friend]

Yet for all the talk of supporting tall buildings Downtown and bashing the viewcones, the BC Place Tower only has 3 letters in support and over 70 against.

No real mention of support for the height of the Plaza of Nations site either.

Venting on here is fine, but it would be easy to copy and paste those feelings/frustrations into a submission to City Council and have them actually count for something.

[Metro-One]

Writing my letter after work today