Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Writing my letter after work today

Your letter should also lead them to this discussion thread.


See what Edmonton has achieved now with it's height limits a thing of the past......

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

@wherezjeff

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

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.

And how much would that be for a 200-unit condo tower? $15 per unit perhaps?

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by logan5

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.

I'm not. I rent a 105 year old house. I know what high costs are. I frequently pay $250/mo for heat in the winter, and my room is still frigid every morning.

I know elevators and water pumps use energy. It's a given. Towers however will likely be more heat efficient.

You completely miss my point though. The infrastructure cost to the city is much lower for high density development, and the external energy costs are also much lower. Low density development has huge externalized energy costs.

Big capital items are also split many more ways in big towers, so if a builder isn't a miser, then fancy heating solutions and other things are much more financially viable. That's also efficiency.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Self interest in restricting housing supply to drive up prices and hilariously misguided attempts to preserves "public views" at the expense of density and economic efficiency.

I should give you an award just by saying that.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I'm not. I rent a 105 year old house. I know what high costs are. I frequently pay $250/mo for heat in the winter, and my room is still frigid every morning.

I know elevators and water pumps use energy. It's a given. Towers however will likely be more heat efficient.

You completely miss my point though. The infrastructure cost to the city is much lower for high density development, and the external energy costs are also much lower. Low density development has huge externalized energy costs.

Big capital items are also split many more ways in big towers, so if a builder isn't a miser, then fancy heating solutions and other things are much more financially viable. That's also efficiency.

You misse my point. I’m not talking about low density. Stacked townhouses are still fairly high density. Enough density that you will easily have a walkable neighbourhood. and I’m not sure how you think towers are more heat efficient. Glass is a terrible insulator. There must be a giant hole in your roof if you’re paying that much for heat lol.

[Alex Mackinnon]

So, you're saying that towers are a crappy built form because people like windows; and tower developments generally don't go triple pane. That is all you're saying here.

There is nothing inherent about a tower that means it has to be floor to ceiling glass. Just people spending money on that kind of thing expect it.

If you included as much window area on a townhouse, it would be even less efficient because it would lose heat out the floor and out the ceiling in addition to the exterior walls.

Also key point of a 105 year old house is that it's pretty much made of holes. Original windows, lack of real insulation, etc.

[misher]

T

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

So, you're saying that towers are a crappy built form because people like windows; and tower developments generally don't go triple pane. That is all you're saying here.

There is nothing inherent about a tower that means it has to be floor to ceiling glass. Just people spending money on that kind of thing expect it.

If you included as much window area on a townhouse, it would be even less efficient because it would lose heat out the floor and out the ceiling in addition to the exterior walls.

Also key point of a 105 year old house is that it's pretty much made of holes. Original windows, lack of real insulation, etc.

Being in the business I am going to weigh in and say that towers are much more economical. You really need 100 units+ to achieve economies of scale with regards to maintenance fees...its the buildings less than 20 units that suffer big time when say their elevator breaks down. $200,000 over 100+ units is much easier to pay then $80,000 over 20. Plus landscaping most towers is about the same as landscaping a small townhouse complex. You also get a building manager in towers which is required given the current crime situation downtown.

I'll also point out that insulation is great, but you need to beware new technology. Most new HVAC systems are crap, they don't operate according to specs. Old buildings that put a new system in tend to get screwed. I'm very disappointed that engineers have signed off on systems in new buildings they should know won't work (I suspect the developer pressured them).

Another example of poor new technology is that single pane windows tend to last close to forever (its the panes and the building that shifts and eventually causes them to need repair/replacement) but double pane windows will have the seal fail and eventually require replacement. At $300-600 a window this really adds up plus the replacement then fails and requires replacement.

Generally the more surface area you have on the outside of a building the more you pay (as you'll find in townhouses). Plus townhouses tend to be made of wood which requires constant maintenance as opposed to concrete. Finally, you can fit 100's of people in a condo building and as Alex pointed out this takes up alot less land space compared to fitting the same amount in townhouses.

[Vin]

This article neatly sums up what we have been saying all along. Loving the idea that Daily Hive reaches wide readership in Vancouver to create mass awareness.

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-view-cones-economic-potential

Hopefully one day we see really tall skyscrapers erected in Kitsilano, West Broadway, along Cambie corridor, Olympic Village, and all the way up Mount Pleasant.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vin

This article neatly sums up what we have been saying all along. Loving the idea that Daily Hive reaches wide readership in Vancouver to create mass awareness.

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-view-cones-economic-potential

Hopefully one day we see really tall skyscrapers erected in Kitsilano, West Broadway, along Cambie corridor, Olympic Village, and all the way up Mount Pleasant.

Agreed. The view cones are too picky about views that only a few people in certain areas can see, anyway. They also, IMO, have an element of "Poltiical Correctness" about them, as in:
'If you don't like the viewcones, you're an anti-nature fascist', sort of thing. Also, not only are the mountain views already blocked off in many areas of the city, but they
can be seen if one is willing to go to the park or stroll along the harbourfront. Lastly, they don't have to abolished altogether, but as the article says,
less important viewcones could be abolished, and the viewcones 'tweaked' upwards, to allow for buildings of exceptional design to poke into them.
I'm not sure I'd want really big skyscrapers everywhere, but tall buidings 35+ storeys along Broadway would be nice, as well as a homogenous height density of 30 storeys and up elsewhere. (These are just arbitrary numbers, and can be adjusted up or down, of course, depending on location. I'm simply agreeing, in general, with what you said)

[misher]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Agreed. The view cones are too picky about views that only a few people in certain areas can see, anyway. They also, IMO, have an element of "Poltiical Correctness" about them, as in:
'If you don't like the viewcones, you're an anti-nature fascist', sort of thing. Also, not only are the mountain views already blocked off in many areas of the city, but they
can be seen if one is willing to go to the park or stroll along the harbourfront. Lastly, they don't have to abolished altogether, but as the article says,
less important viewcones could be abolished, and the viewcones 'tweaked' upwards, to allow for buildings of exceptional design to poke into them.
I'm not sure I'd want really big skyscrapers everywhere, but tall buidings 35+ storeys along Broadway would be nice, as well as a homogenous height density of 30 storeys and up elsewhere. (These are just arbitrary numbers, and can be adjusted up or down, of course, depending on location. I'm simply agreeing, in general, with what you said)

Not for viewcones, but seems like we don’t have 30+ Buildings along Broadway in non viewcone areas either. I don’t think removing viewcones will help Broadway much as we don’t have the zoning to take advantage of their removal anywhere except downtown. Plus much of Broadway near the hospital is kept low because it’s a helicopter path.

Rather than say let’s remove viewcones I’d say let’s get the zoning then when viewcones are a problem we can discuss them then. Let’s not put the cart before the horse!



Also with the current volatile real estate market and anti real estate government I suspect giant towers are going to become less popular since it will be hard to get the $2500+/sqft to make them feasible. Our booming real estate market was driving the real estate construction industry.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Agreed. The view cones are too picky about views that only a few people in certain areas can see, anyway. They also, IMO, have an element of "Poltiical Correctness" about them, as in:
'If you don't like the viewcones, you're an anti-nature fascist', sort of thing. Also, not only are the mountain views already blocked off in many areas of the city, but they
can be seen if one is willing to go to the park or stroll along the harbourfront. Lastly, they don't have to abolished altogether, but as the article says,
less important viewcones could be abolished, and the viewcones 'tweaked' upwards, to allow for buildings of exceptional design to poke into them.
I'm not sure I'd want really big skyscrapers everywhere, but tall buidings 35+ storeys along Broadway would be nice, as well as a homogenous height density of 30 storeys and up elsewhere. (These are just arbitrary numbers, and can be adjusted up or down, of course, depending on location. I'm simply agreeing, in general, with what you said)

In fact, that is just double-talking. Those who support viewcone policies are indeed the real anti-nature fascists. Allowing urban sprawl by restricting growth in city centres is the reality today. City of Surrey is probably still mostly agricultural land today if we had more intense urbanity planned in the City of Vancouver decades ago.

By restricting Vancouver's mountain views to be "protected" from a few arbitrary points where the wealthy folks live, combined with other lame city centre restrictions, we are basically exporting the mountain view-blockage elsewhere, mainly to the suburb cities.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by misher

Not for viewcones, but seems like we don’t have 30+ Buildings along Broadway in non viewcone areas either. I don’t think removing viewcones will help Broadway much as we don’t have the zoning to take advantage of their removal anywhere except downtown. Plus much of Broadway near the hospital is kept low because it’s a helicopter path.

Rather than say let’s remove viewcones I’d say let’s get the zoning then when viewcones are a problem we can discuss them then. Let’s not put the cart before the horse!



Also with the current volatile real estate market and anti real estate government I suspect giant towers are going to become less popular since it will be hard to get the $2500+/sqft to make them feasible. Our booming real estate market was driving the real estate construction industry.

Without viewcones, the hospital helipads can be built on top of taller hospital buildings, essentially making the helicopter path go higher, that's all. Don't succumb your free thinking ability to the restrictive excuses of the naysayers. We already have plenty of that in Vancouver.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Vin

Without viewcones, the hospital helipads can be built on top of taller hospital buildings, essentially making the helicopter path go higher, that's all. Don't succumb your free thinking ability to the restrictive excuses of the naysayers. We already have plenty of that in Vancouver.

Oh that’s a solution, but until we get taller helipads we better keep the restructions lol.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by misher

Oh that’s a solution, but until we get taller helipads we better keep the restructions lol.

Plenty of space to build tall east of VGH towards Cambie and Main street without touching the current flight path.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Vin

Plenty of space to build tall east of VGH towards Cambie and Main street without touching the current flight path.

And west! Hopefully the broadway plan recognizes this.

Maybe once they have public engagement you can wear a tower costume with a giant east sign and I’ll do the same with a West one? We could have a skyscraper forum meetup group to represent the forum at these meetings.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by misher

We could have a skyscraper forum meetup group to represent the forum at these meetings.

Everyone has to have a tower costume though. And it has to be in the tiniest goddamn café.

[Vin]

This is an interesting read about councilor's views of the viewcones:


Survey results: Vancouver council candidates on public city views

https://pricetags.ca/2018/10/17/survey-results-vancouver-council-candidates-on-public-city-views/

The Save Our Skyline YVR advocacy group aiming to protect Vancouver’s public views and view cones issued a survey to Vancouver mayoral and council candidates to understand their positions on public views.

The future of Vancouver view cones and public views were a contentious issue during the PavCo Tower rezoning council vote this past July, and the Northeast False Creek (NEFC) Plan council vote earlier in February. The next Mayor and Council will be voting on upcoming NEFC rezonings for a Concord Pacific development, which includes buildings planned to protrude through the view cones. They can also decide to review and adjust the existing view cone policies, which was a frequently discussed topic during the debate on this topic throughout the year, as the last review was almost a decade ago.

All mayoral and council candidates were asked to participate in the survey. They were provided with all the resources and policy documents needed to answer the questions proposed. If candidates did not provide an answer, their positions based on their past voting records (if incumbent), or known public statements online or at public hearings, were included when applicable.

Any late candidate answers will be added to the website as it is received up until this Saturday’s close of polls at 8pm.

To view the candidates’ full answers to the questionnaire, click here.

SUMMARY
The survey questions aimed to learn about candidates familiarity with and positions on tower development in light of the existing policies on public views.

Understanding of the view cone policy
Whether they would review the view cone policies
How they would have voted on the PavCo Tower rezoning
Whether they would reverse the Higher Building Policy view cone protrusion allowances for three towers in the NEFC Plan
Whether they would vote for or against the two Concord Pacific towers that may protrude through view cones at NEFC, and how they would handle the benefit commitments that may be contingent on CACs from those towers within the policy context proposed by the previous administration
Whether they would allow other developers to penetrate the view cones
How they plan to work will other council members to advocate for their positions
General observations

The majority of candidates who completed the survey by the deadline are generally in favour of protecting public views. This may be because candidates who chose to complete the survey did so because they were already in favour of view cones and public views.

When asked how they would handle developer requests for projects to protrude into view cones, some candidates provided vague answers that indicate their decisions will be based on public interest and tradeoffs, such as Ken Sim:

“If public consultation demonstrated that there was interest in the project, we would look at it closely, but I would cannot comment on theoretical projects.”

Green Party’s Pete Fry was another candidate who would consider view cone trade-offs under exceptional circumstances:

“Though I would prefer not to see any future view cone encroachments, I suppose exceptional circumstances might be considerable: but the degree of public benefit would have to be commensurate to the degree of encroachment. To be clear, though, my first reaction is no, and any deviation from this would be only under exceptional circumstance and with transparent engaged process and thoroughly in the public interest.”

It is worth noting that the tradeoff argument in exceptional cases is the same argument that Vision Vancouver used to justify allowing PavCo Tower to protrude through the view cone in exchange for 100% market rentals. It could be seen as a precedent, signalled by Mayor and Council to developers, on what would need to be offered in consideration for a relaxation of the view cone policy.

Only independent council candidate Taq Bhandal was explicitly in favour of penetrating the view cones if the building was eco-friendly. However, the City already already requires view cone-protruding buildings to meet the City’s Green Buildings Policy.

On the question of whether candidates will trigger a comprehensive review of the existing view cone policies last reviewed just under a decade ago, most candidates responded that they would review the policy for the purpose of protection, further understanding, and potential expansion of its scope. COPE council candidates did not state they want to review the policies, but that they will protect existing public views.

Independent council candidate Taq Bhandal provided a significantly different answer than most candidates, stating that view cones are not a priority for her for reasons related to the environment and social justice:

“I am a 27 year old and as a social and environmental justice researcher. To be frank, I am more concerned about preparing the city for sea level rise, storm water, increased population, and affordable, safe housing spaces. I think the conversation about preserved views is lacking in an analysis of power (across ethnocultural background, gender, socio-economic status, citizenship, ability, etc.) and who gets to “see” the mountains. Environmental scientists have confirmed that high density is the best way for humans to try and live in harmony with the non-human world. High density includes tall apartment buildings in addition to low-rises (such as walk-ups in Montreal and New York).”

In contrast to Taq Bhandal‘s social justice position, other candidates argue that public views are already public benefits and public assets shared by all Vancouverites, and that the view cone policies protect those views from developers that build “luxury condo towers”:

Rohana Rezel (ProVancouver): I will protect the view cones. What makes Vancouver unique is the magnificent nature that surrounds our city. That view should be shared by all Vancouverites. It’s wrong to block those views to make room for Westbank and their ilk to build safety deposit boxes in the sky for the global rich.

Adriane Carr (Green): Yes. Our Vancouver Greens’ election platform states we will protect public view corridors as a public asset.

Derrick O’Keefe, Jean Swanson, Anne Roberts (COPE): COPE would protect the existing view corridor policies that have over considerable time proven their worth as far as public benefit but also ensured a predictable and fair environment for developers and land owners. We believe that enough density has been gifted to developers of luxury condo towers that do not provide the affordable housing we need and instead have contributed to speculative investment that has worsened the housing crisis.

Three candidates from the Green party — Wiebe, Fry, Carr —responded separately, and provided slight to large variations on their answers. For example, on their individual approaches to policy, and their positions on the view cone-protruding Concord Pacific tower proposals in NEFC Plan:

Michael Wiebe: “I don’t believe at this time that the amenities provided are enough to allow 425ft towers to penetrate the view cone. I would want a review of the view cone policy, complete understanding of the amenities provided and an understanding of the needs.”

Pete Fry: “I would challenge the assumption that this view cone encroachment is the only way to finance the NEFC Plan, and call for detailed 3rd party audited pro formas, and a line item budget to detail the extent to which we need to sacrifice developer profits or public benefits.”

Adriane Carr: “I cannot answer this question without prejudicing my ability to make a decision at the Council table on these applications. Councillors must retain an open mind on a matter before Public Hearing or else they are ineligible to vote on it.”

If a Green slate is elected, it will be interesting to see whether we will see this similar dynamic and individualism of opinion on council.

Although it’s anybody’s guess on what the makeup of the next council will be, what we do know is that the debate on view cones will not be going away soon, as there are pertinent decisions the next Mayor and Council will have to make on this issue very soon.


Results:
http://saveourskylineyvr.ca/

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Vin

This is an interesting read about councilor's views of the viewcones:


Survey results: Vancouver council candidates on public city views

https://pricetags.ca/2018/10/17/survey-results-vancouver-council-candidates-on-public-city-views/

The Save Our Skyline YVR advocacy group aiming to protect Vancouver’s public views and view cones issued a survey to Vancouver mayoral and council candidates to understand their positions on public views.

The future of Vancouver view cones and public views were a contentious issue during the PavCo Tower rezoning council vote this past July, and the Northeast False Creek (NEFC) Plan council vote earlier in February. The next Mayor and Council will be voting on upcoming NEFC rezonings for a Concord Pacific development, which includes buildings planned to protrude through the view cones. They can also decide to review and adjust the existing view cone policies, which was a frequently discussed topic during the debate on this topic throughout the year, as the last review was almost a decade ago.

All mayoral and council candidates were asked to participate in the survey. They were provided with all the resources and policy documents needed to answer the questions proposed. If candidates did not provide an answer, their positions based on their past voting records (if incumbent), or known public statements online or at public hearings, were included when applicable.

Any late candidate answers will be added to the website as it is received up until this Saturday’s close of polls at 8pm.

To view the candidates’ full answers to the questionnaire, click here.

SUMMARY
The survey questions aimed to learn about candidates familiarity with and positions on tower development in light of the existing policies on public views.

Understanding of the view cone policy
Whether they would review the view cone policies
How they would have voted on the PavCo Tower rezoning
Whether they would reverse the Higher Building Policy view cone protrusion allowances for three towers in the NEFC Plan
Whether they would vote for or against the two Concord Pacific towers that may protrude through view cones at NEFC, and how they would handle the benefit commitments that may be contingent on CACs from those towers within the policy context proposed by the previous administration
Whether they would allow other developers to penetrate the view cones
How they plan to work will other council members to advocate for their positions
General observations

The majority of candidates who completed the survey by the deadline are generally in favour of protecting public views. This may be because candidates who chose to complete the survey did so because they were already in favour of view cones and public views.

When asked how they would handle developer requests for projects to protrude into view cones, some candidates provided vague answers that indicate their decisions will be based on public interest and tradeoffs, such as Ken Sim:

“If public consultation demonstrated that there was interest in the project, we would look at it closely, but I would cannot comment on theoretical projects.”

Green Party’s Pete Fry was another candidate who would consider view cone trade-offs under exceptional circumstances:

“Though I would prefer not to see any future view cone encroachments, I suppose exceptional circumstances might be considerable: but the degree of public benefit would have to be commensurate to the degree of encroachment. To be clear, though, my first reaction is no, and any deviation from this would be only under exceptional circumstance and with transparent engaged process and thoroughly in the public interest.”

It is worth noting that the tradeoff argument in exceptional cases is the same argument that Vision Vancouver used to justify allowing PavCo Tower to protrude through the view cone in exchange for 100% market rentals. It could be seen as a precedent, signalled by Mayor and Council to developers, on what would need to be offered in consideration for a relaxation of the view cone policy.

Only independent council candidate Taq Bhandal was explicitly in favour of penetrating the view cones if the building was eco-friendly. However, the City already already requires view cone-protruding buildings to meet the City’s Green Buildings Policy.

On the question of whether candidates will trigger a comprehensive review of the existing view cone policies last reviewed just under a decade ago, most candidates responded that they would review the policy for the purpose of protection, further understanding, and potential expansion of its scope. COPE council candidates did not state they want to review the policies, but that they will protect existing public views.

Independent council candidate Taq Bhandal provided a significantly different answer than most candidates, stating that view cones are not a priority for her for reasons related to the environment and social justice:

“I am a 27 year old and as a social and environmental justice researcher. To be frank, I am more concerned about preparing the city for sea level rise, storm water, increased population, and affordable, safe housing spaces. I think the conversation about preserved views is lacking in an analysis of power (across ethnocultural background, gender, socio-economic status, citizenship, ability, etc.) and who gets to “see” the mountains. Environmental scientists have confirmed that high density is the best way for humans to try and live in harmony with the non-human world. High density includes tall apartment buildings in addition to low-rises (such as walk-ups in Montreal and New York).”

In contrast to Taq Bhandal‘s social justice position, other candidates argue that public views are already public benefits and public assets shared by all Vancouverites, and that the view cone policies protect those views from developers that build “luxury condo towers”:

Rohana Rezel (ProVancouver): I will protect the view cones. What makes Vancouver unique is the magnificent nature that surrounds our city. That view should be shared by all Vancouverites. It’s wrong to block those views to make room for Westbank and their ilk to build safety deposit boxes in the sky for the global rich.

Adriane Carr (Green): Yes. Our Vancouver Greens’ election platform states we will protect public view corridors as a public asset.

Derrick O’Keefe, Jean Swanson, Anne Roberts (COPE): COPE would protect the existing view corridor policies that have over considerable time proven their worth as far as public benefit but also ensured a predictable and fair environment for developers and land owners. We believe that enough density has been gifted to developers of luxury condo towers that do not provide the affordable housing we need and instead have contributed to speculative investment that has worsened the housing crisis.

Three candidates from the Green party — Wiebe, Fry, Carr —responded separately, and provided slight to large variations on their answers. For example, on their individual approaches to policy, and their positions on the view cone-protruding Concord Pacific tower proposals in NEFC Plan:

Michael Wiebe: “I don’t believe at this time that the amenities provided are enough to allow 425ft towers to penetrate the view cone. I would want a review of the view cone policy, complete understanding of the amenities provided and an understanding of the needs.”

Pete Fry: “I would challenge the assumption that this view cone encroachment is the only way to finance the NEFC Plan, and call for detailed 3rd party audited pro formas, and a line item budget to detail the extent to which we need to sacrifice developer profits or public benefits.”

Adriane Carr: “I cannot answer this question without prejudicing my ability to make a decision at the Council table on these applications. Councillors must retain an open mind on a matter before Public Hearing or else they are ineligible to vote on it.”

If a Green slate is elected, it will be interesting to see whether we will see this similar dynamic and individualism of opinion on council.

Although it’s anybody’s guess on what the makeup of the next council will be, what we do know is that the debate on view cones will not be going away soon, as there are pertinent decisions the next Mayor and Council will have to make on this issue very soon.


Results:
http://saveourskylineyvr.ca/

How many amenities do developers have to provide to make view cone-advocates happy?

No, really, the NEFC already is paying $350/sqft and implementing subsidized housing and community facilities/parkland on the lower floors.

Does the entire tower need to be rental?

How much are the view cones really worth?

They do realize they're just moving development to the suburbs, where the view cones will be penetrated?

[scryer]

Originally Posted by fredinno

They do realize they're just moving development to the suburbs, where the view cones will be penetrated?

Tower sprawl baby!

These view-cones are out-dated and just serve as an additional limitation. They only serve the rich that visit Queen Eli. Park once a year in summer to enjoy the "views" or the rich in Point Gray.

[Vin]

Tower sprawl is already happening all over the Lower Mainland, and viewcones and the resistance to go high density in Vancouver have a lot to do with it. Not necessarily a bad thing, but if this trend continues, Vancouver can one day lose its status as the regional centre when the bulk of the population shifts eastwards.