Downtown Vancouver Updates

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

That's turning out great! And so nice to not see depressing clear drab glass.

Agree totally about the glass. Reflective glass is so much nicer. The 'white wing' balconies on each building harmonize, and the buildings complement each other.
The street, here anyway, has a pleasant, even 'symmetry' to it, and a density and height approaching some of the newer parts of major big cities. Nice height, style for 'infill'.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

so does everyone think that the height limits proposed by the city just happens to be the economic height as well? i mean, what are the odds that almost every proposal is only a few feet under the limit? it sounds like a big coincidence to me... or that the market wants more, but cant have more so it is stuck pushing right up to the ceiling.

Telus Garden crammed in 54 floors regardless of their height limit. And The Stack had no limits at all, but their "economic" height was apparently just seven metres taller than what they have now. Like or dislike the viewcones, they're not a massive obstacle to downtown's commercial capacity or attractiveness; we're not getting large office towers anywhere in the Lower Mainland - the "shaved" towers are almost all residential.

Also, the market would be perfectly fine with half a dozen 550-footers, then absolutely nothing for the rest of the decade (a la Calgary)... but we and the city would not be. Laissez-faire boom/bust isn't always the answer.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Telus Garden crammed in 54 floors regardless of their height limit.

well there is a big difference between commercial floors and residential floors. the heights are generally quite higher for a reason and cannot just be lowered. not a comparison that can be made.

either way, there needs to be an actual review on this. just a funny side note, 5 million sqft of office is the same size as Chicago's Sears (Willis) Tower.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

well there is a big difference between commercial floors and residential floors. the heights are generally quite higher for a reason and cannot just be lowered. not a comparison that can be made.

either way, there needs to be an actual review on this. just a funny side note, 5 million sqft of office is the same size as Chicago's Sears (Willis) Tower.

Office towers is the entire point of the last page or so of the discussion. Residential towers, yes, those are usually higher - and we all mostly agree that those are being boxed in.

You'll be happy to know that the viewcones in and around Broadway (so, most of the downtown ones aside from QE) are under review as part of the corridor planning process. There should be an open house next year, if the reps can be believed.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Telus Garden crammed in 54 floors regardless of their height limit. And The Stack had no limits at all, but their "economic" height was apparently just seven metres taller than what they have now. Like or dislike the viewcones, they're not a massive obstacle to downtown's commercial capacity or attractiveness; we're not getting large office towers anywhere in the Lower Mainland - the "shaved" towers are almost all residential.

Also, the market would be perfectly fine with half a dozen 550-footers, then absolutely nothing for the rest of the decade (a la Calgary)... but we and the city would not be. Laissez-faire boom/bust isn't always the answer.

Not true, the Stack had a limit of 550ft, and their proposal was 550 feet that they were moving forward with until it was cut to 528 feet by the city, and the city wanted to reduce the height further but I believe there was some major push back by the developer by that point due to leases already signed.

Also 1166 West Pender was going to be as tall the Stack (around 168 metres) but the city stopped that before it went to the official proposal stage. It was limited to 118m, having since grown a tiny bit since then to 121.6m.

Also there is 555 West Cordova which was reduced in height by the city.

Also, let’s just say there are a couple very prominent sites downtown that are slated for redevelopment, but these sites are very limited be view cones and the developers are now sitting on these properties waiting for a more relaxed climate regarding such policies.

Truth is nearly all (if not all) of these office towers are building to the max height allowed on their sites.

If there were no view cones / things were more relaxed I am under no delusion that we would have endless office towers going up at heights of 250 metres or so, but I do honestly believe that currently under this current office boom we would have at least a couple in the 170 to 200 metres range going up amongst the shorter 100 to 125 metres towers.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

If there were no view cones / things were more relaxed I am under no delusion that we would have endless office towers going up at heights of 250 metres or so, but I do honestly believe that currently under this current office boom we would have at least a couple in the 170 to 200 metres range going up amongst the shorter 100 to 125 metres towers.

Pffft, I doubt very many people have that delusion.

What I'm saying is that given the current trend, thirty metres less isn't exactly a dealbreaker for corporate HQs coming here - contrary to some opinions - it just translates into one or two less tenants which just wait for the next one. That'll stack up alright (um, no pun intended), but that's more to do with the developers (which as with Telus Gardens, could add more floors into their given space), and the slow-assed approval process. And as ChangingCity's pointed out, there's about to be a whole lot of new office space coming in to compensate.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Not true, the Stack had a limit of 550ft, and their proposal was 550 feet that they were moving forward with until it was cut to 528 feet by the city, and the city wanted to reduce the height further but I believe there was some major push back by the developer by that point due to leases already signed.

Also 1166 West Pender was going to be as tall the Stack (around 168 metres) but the city stopped that before it went to the official proposal stage. It was limited to 118m, having since grown a tiny bit since then to 121.6m

The reduction in height of The Stack and 1166 West Pender was not related to viewcones. It's the policy which limits shadowing of parks.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The reduction in height of The Stack and 1166 West Pender was not related to viewcones. It's the policy which limits shadowing of parks.

Yeah, I am aware of that, let’s just give them a ball park name of height limiting policies.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Pffft, I doubt very many people have that delusion.

What I'm saying is that given the current trend, thirty metres less isn't exactly a dealbreaker for corporate HQs coming here - contrary to some opinions - it just translates into one or two less tenants which just wait for the next one. That'll stack up alright (um, no pun intended), but that's more to do with the developers (which as with Telus Gardens, could add more floors into their given space), and the slow-assed approval process. And as ChangingCity's pointed out, there's about to be a whole lot of new office space coming in to compensate.

I am just going sum up my point simply as possible, the height restrictions aren’t helping, especially next and above our mass transit stations.

People can argue forever how tall building would be or the exact affect these policies have, etc...

But again, things would be simpler without them, and we likely would have at least a few taller office towers being built today than we do now, and that would be a net positive for downtown.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Yeah, I am aware of that, let’s just give them a ball park name of height limiting policies.

OK, that's more accurate, but getting rid of the shadow policy would be a tough sell. It's not like we have that many parks, and that sort of protection is not unique to Vancouver. Even The Bow in Calgary was reduced in height so that it didn't cast a shadow on the Bow River walk.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I am just going sum up my point simply as possible, the height restrictions aren’t helping, especially next and above our mass transit stations.

People can argue forever how tall building would be or the exact affect these policies have, etc...

But again, things would be simpler without them, and we likely would have at least a few taller office towers being built today than we do now, and that would be a net positive for downtown.

As I told Future, the viewcones in and around the Broadway corridor should be under review next year (with open house consultation). Stay tuned.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

As I told Future, the viewcones in and around the Broadway corridor should be under review next year (with open house consultation). Stay tuned.

That is interesting news. With a tweak here and there, hopefully we'll be getting something substantial around Broadway, and maybe even an impact on the CBD / West End. Little to lose.

[Klazu]

I believe Telus Garden is only 46 real floors. Definitely not 54.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by Changing City

OK, that's more accurate, but getting rid of the shadow policy would be a tough sell. It's not like we have that many parks, and that sort of protection is not unique to Vancouver. Even The Bow in Calgary was reduced in height so that it didn't cast a shadow on the Bow River walk.

Yes. We limit a building height so it doesn't "cast a shadow" on the park. But let's cover the park in trees in order to "provide shade".

[Vin]

Thank you McMinsen for all the wodnerful updates. This is a great example of how a neighbourhood quickly improves once height limits are increased, and almost overnight too. Therefore I'm still perplexed to see why people keep denying the fact that height limit policies are one of the examples of what is limiting many neighbourhoods to improve.

Originally Posted by mcminsen

About nine weeks later...

Nov.19 '19, my pics


























[/URL]

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The reduction in height of The Stack and 1166 West Pender was not related to viewcones. It's the policy which limits shadowing of parks.

Same thing. Shadowing of parks, just like the viewcones, is one of those dumb city policies that hinder the sound development of our city, if not business-busting. Many other cities do not have to grapple with these. Hence it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why big businesses do not want to locate to our city.

Originally Posted by Changing City

OK, that's more accurate, but getting rid of the shadow policy would be a tough sell. It's not like we have that many parks, and that sort of protection is not unique to Vancouver. Even The Bow in Calgary was reduced in height so that it didn't cast a shadow on the Bow River walk.

When cities have taller buildings with much higher densities, they can dedicate more land area as parklands. Due to the bigger park footprints, they are not easily overshadowed by the tall towers.

Just look at OV. Because of low building height land footprint maximization, small pocket parks between the buildings receive 100% shadowing due to their proximity to the structures.

Interesting you brought up the Bow of Calgary. The skyline of Calgary would've been way nicer if it were taller. Now even Edmonton looks a lot nicer than Calgary with the height of the Stantec tower and Marriott of the ICE district.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I believe Telus Garden is only 46 real floors. Definitely not 54.

Sounds about right when window counting, but I'm seeing quotes for 53-54 floors of residential space and 24 floors of office space. So either you, me or the realtors have the wrong idea.

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Yes. We limit a building height so it doesn't "cast a shadow" on the park. But let's cover the park in trees in order to "provide shade".

Tower shadows = bad, plant shadows = good? I guess it makes sense if you're a treehugger.

At any rate, Toronto, Boston, even Manhattan, they're all looking into limiting shadows on parks. Vancouver's simply unfortunate enough to have been first to the party... and right when the city started to grow big.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

limiting shadows on a park is okay, completely banning them is dumb. i remember reading about a building here a while back where they chopped it down because for a brief period of the year it shadowed a small corner of the park for like 12mins. and that part of the park already had trees that made shade. it was something ridiculous like that.

cant remember what building that was though or i would link the discussion.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

limiting shadows on a park is okay, completely banning them is dumb. i remember reading about a building here a while back where they chopped it down because for a brief period of the year it shadowed a small corner of the park for like 12mins. and that part of the park already had trees that made shade. it was something ridiculous like that.

cant remember what building that was though or i would link the discussion.

That was the Stack.

And yes, there is nothin wrong with some height restrictions, many cities have them, even other in Canada, but Vancouver has set the limits ridiculously low in most areas and for poor reasons.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Tower shadows = bad, plant shadows = good? I guess it makes sense if you're a treehugger.

At any rate, Toronto, Boston, even Manhattan, they're all looking into limiting shadows on parks. Vancouver's simply unfortunate enough to have been first to the party... and right when the city started to grow big.

Quite a few cities require shadow studies and avoid shading parks. As well as those you found Winnipeg, Mississauga, even smaller cities like Barrie.

Having trees in the park is one reason for avoiding heavy shadows - do trees grow better in sunlight or in shadow? (They're just trying to maintain healthy trees - nobody insists that you have to hug them).