Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments - Page 44

Vin · #**861** Posted **Dec 6, 2018, 1:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredinno

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?

Frustrating isn't it? Dealing with a greedy bunch can never be easy....the previous administrators already started the precedence.

squeezied · #**862** Posted **Dec 7, 2018, 4:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Rest assured, Vancouver won't lose its status as the regional centre due to view cones and population shift eastwards. Burnaby and Surrey can have the tallest buildings to show off. But so long as Vancouver is the employment and cultural anchor of the region you have nothing to worry about Vancouver losing it's status. But of course your main concern is the penis contest of having tall buildings.

Vin · #**863** Posted **Dec 7, 2018, 4:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by squeezied

Rest assured, Vancouver won't lose its status as the regional centre due to view cones and population shift eastwards. Burnaby and Surrey can have the tallest buildings to show off. But so long as Vancouver is the employment and cultural anchor of the region you have nothing to worry about Vancouver losing it's status. But of course your main concern is the penis contest of having tall buildings.

I'm referring to 20-30 years down the road, and not tomorrow. As expected you have to be so condescending: totally uncalled for even though you love your viewcones to death.

squeezied · #**864** Posted **Dec 7, 2018, 5:29 AM**

Yes and I'm also referring to 20-30 years down the road, and not tomorrow. Reread my post again. Vancouver isn't going to lose its 'status' due to view cones and population shift eastwards. You love your tall buildings to death to see clearly.

Krissy · #**865** Posted **Dec 7, 2018, 5:46 AM**

scryer · #**866** Posted **Dec 7, 2018, 5:11 PM**

Again height is an unnecessary limitation to have during a housing crisis. View cones are clearly for the rich and for the NIMBYs. They should be some of the first pieces of red-tape to get relaxed.

You guys, we have an entire generation unable to afford real estate in the region, and pretty soon we are going to have them unable to afford rent. Do you want to see another generation in Vancouver or do you want the city to rent a workforce and let the real Vancouverites die off or move? Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot by upholding outdated city policies like the view cones.

For the record, I'm not saying to abolish view cones, I'm saying that we need to at least adjust them for our current social situation. The view cones aren't the sole solution but they are extremely superficial, if not disgusting in this day and age.

rickvug · #**867** Posted **Dec 7, 2018, 5:20 PM**

Downtown has absorbed far more population than the rest of Vancouver and has grown more quickly than any of the suburbs. Viewcones are not an issue for constraining population growth. Time to look at the other 90% of Vancouver, which has plenty of space to grow.

logan5 · #**868** Posted **Dec 7, 2018, 8:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by scryer

Again height is an unnecessary limitation to have during a housing crisis. View cones are clearly for the rich and for the NIMBYs. They should be some of the first pieces of red-tape to get relaxed.

You guys, we have an entire generation unable to afford real estate in the region, and pretty soon we are going to have them unable to afford rent. Do you want to see another generation in Vancouver or do you want the city to rent a workforce and let the real Vancouverites die off or move? Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot by upholding outdated city policies like the view cones.

For the record, I'm not saying to abolish view cones, I'm saying that we need to at least adjust them for our current social situation. The view cones aren't the sole solution but they are extremely superficial, if not disgusting in this day and age.

Relaxing the view cone policy will do 2 things for affordability... Jack and shit.

scryer · #**869** Posted **Dec 7, 2018, 9:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

Relaxing the view cone policy will do 2 things for affordability... Jack and shit.

... And I quoth myself:

Quote:

The view cones aren't the sole solution

Vin · #**870** Posted **Dec 8, 2018, 1:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by scryer

Again height is an unnecessary limitation to have during a housing crisis. View cones are clearly for the rich and for the NIMBYs. They should be some of the first pieces of red-tape to get relaxed.

You guys, we have an entire generation unable to afford real estate in the region, and pretty soon we are going to have them unable to afford rent. Do you want to see another generation in Vancouver or do you want the city to rent a workforce and let the real Vancouverites die off or move? Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot by upholding outdated city policies like the view cones.

For the record, I'm not saying to abolish view cones, I'm saying that we need to at least adjust them for our current social situation. The view cones aren't the sole solution but they are extremely superficial, if not disgusting in this day and age.

I find that a lot of taller buildings also provide more CACs for social housing. Large high-density buildings actually do contribute to affordability, even though these buildings may not be affordable. The City somehow manage to retrieve more revenue from such projects for other purposes. Furthermore, there is also a new trend for municipalities to start making some developers include social/affordable housing portion within the larger structures.

On the other hand, the 6-storey condos along Cambie probably don't do much when it comes to addressing affordability, do they?

Aroundtheworld · #**871** Posted **Dec 8, 2018, 5:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

On the other hand, the 6-storey condos along Cambie probably don't do much when it comes to addressing affordability, do they?

It depends how many 6-story condos you rezone for. If you rezoned the entire region medium density apartments, you could support the population of Tokyo.

Krissy · #**872** Posted **Dec 8, 2018, 5:11 AM**

Vin just wants tall towers for status, that's all. Affordability is probably secondary to him.

misher · #**873** Posted **Dec 8, 2018, 5:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krissy

Vin just wants tall towers for status, that's all. Affordability is probably secondary to him.

I’m involved with a ton of buildings so I can tell you that tall towers are super affordable. Economies of scale. Small buildings always have problems covering maintenance and levies. Plus large towers pay a ton to the government which helps pay for social housing. A $250,000 elevator repair over 200 units versus a $100,000 one over 40 units is an example. Levies can get much bigger too, especially when the manager/council volunteers are clueless. Remember that costs of ownership/affordability doesn’t stop after your purchase. Small buildings have constant fights over money.

Also it’s very unlikely you’ll get a good team of volunteers in a small building which is honestly essential. 200+ unit towers all the way.

logan5 · #**874** Posted **Aug 9, 2019, 6:04 AM**

Walking across Broadway at Kingsway today I noticed a crane for the Main and 6th project smack dab down the center of Kingsway and realized that that new building will completely block a pretty good view of downtown and the mountains, and it's just a low-rise building. Bit of a loss for the neighbourhood.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2629622,-...2e0!3e11!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0

Migrant_Coconut · #**875** Posted **Aug 9, 2019, 7:58 AM**

It'll suck for all the drivers out there, no doubt. Pedestrians, I think, are already used to obstructed views - there's much better spots on Main or Quebec.

officedweller · #**876** Posted **Aug 9, 2019, 9:53 AM**

Agreed, a nice sightline will be lost.
That's because the City does not preserve views towards other buildings (downtown cluster/BC Place)
- just views of certain mountain peaks.

jollyburger · #**877** Posted **Aug 9, 2019, 3:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Agreed, a nice sightline will be lost.
That's because the City does not preserve views towards other buildings (downtown cluster/BC Place)
- just views of certain mountain peaks.

The building is orientated to the north side of the lot so it could have been worse..

https://catalystcommdev.org/projects/188-east-6th-ave

GenWhy? · #**878** Posted **Aug 9, 2019, 4:09 PM**

Most of that view will not be lost by this building... until NESFC is built.

Chikinlittle · #**879** Posted **Aug 9, 2019, 6:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

Walking across Broadway at Kingsway today I noticed a crane for the Main and 6th project smack dab down the center of Kingsway and realized that that new building will completely block a pretty good view of downtown and the mountains, and it's just a low-rise building. Bit of a loss for the neighbourhood.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2629622,-...2e0!3e11!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0

💯

officedweller · #**880** Posted **Aug 10, 2019, 12:17 AM**

I think the SW corner of the building will be in line with Kingsway:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.260373,-1...9h,44.81t/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&authuser=0