Downtown Vancouver Updates

[officedweller]

But that said, the window frontage is impressive for both. Better than a bowling alley with a single window at the end.

Presumably the skinny parts of both the studio and the pointy one-bedroom would be back-to-back bathrooms sharing a wall with utilities and maybe an in-line kitchen along the rest of that long wall.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by vanman

Wow that corner studio is hilarious. Who wouldn't want to live in a 400 sqft hallway? The other units look only slightly less awkward.

The drawing doesn’t show the unit floor plan, but the narrow section looks to be about 6’ wide, or maybe a few inches more, so you could fit a narrow kitchen in there maybe. Then the rest of the space would be functional as it looks about 10 and 12 feet wide.

[city guy]

this is a great example of a view cone creating dumb-🞵🞵🞵 uninhabitable spaces...and for what? I wish this was a city that had good housing plans as their TOP priority, with view cones taken into secondary consideration

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by city guy

this is a great example of a view cone creating dumb-🞵🞵🞵 uninhabitable spaces...and for what? I wish this was a city that had good housing plans as their TOP priority, with view cones taken into secondary consideration

Yeah, but if I can't see the mountains every day from Choklit park or {insert-arbitrary-location-here-several-hundred-miles-away}, how will I ever be able to enjoy my morning latte on my way to Yoga class on the Creek?

/s


{hard eye-roll}

Here's a fun little game:

Try explaining Vancouver viewcones to someone not from this city and why they're so important and then see how well they manage to conceal their epic eyerolls

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Yeah, but if I can't see the mountains every day from Choklit park or {insert-arbitrary-location-here-several-hundred-miles-away}, how will I ever be able to enjoy my morning latte on my way to Yoga class on the Creek?

/s


{hard eye-roll}

Here's a fun little game:

Try explaining Vancouver viewcones to someone not from this city and why they're so important and then see how well they manage to conceal their epic eyerolls

These kind of policies aren’t unique to Vancouver.

Outside of this forum I’ve never heard anyone mention them and it’s pretty much a non-issue.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

These kind of policies aren’t unique to Vancouver.

Outside of this forum I’ve never heard anyone mention them and it’s pretty much a non-issue.

True.
But the disparity between housing affordability/cost of living and a city the size (and stature) of Vancouver, kind of is.

If you look at affordability levels and housing market prices for comparable cities, (or alternatively, if you compare with cities where affordability is at a comparable level given what kind of cities those are), it just doesn't match up in most cases.

We have Toronto- or San Francisco-level housing prices and living cost levels here for a city that's not even remotely at the same level as either of those two in terms of things like average and median income and wealth level and the like.

And I'm pretty sure THAT's not a "non-issue"......even outside a forum like this.

Sure, View cones are not the sole cause of this, but years and years of being negligent (and careless) in housing and planning policies have led us to where we are.
And the same people who will claim that View cones are not a problem and that the mountain views are important and whatnot are the same people who will likely whine about the increasing homelessness levels in the city, without the slightest hint of self-awareness or capability to make the connection.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

True.
But the disparity between housing affordability/cost of living and a city the size (and stature) of Vancouver, kind of is.

If you look at affordability levels and housing market prices for comparable cities, (or alternatively, if you compare with cities where affordability is at a comparable level given what kind of cities those are), it just doesn't match up in most cases.

We have Toronto- or San Francisco-level housing prices and living cost levels here for a city that's not even remotely at the same level as either of those two in terms of things like average and median income and wealth level and the like.

And I'm pretty sure THAT's not a "non-issue"......even outside a forum like this.

Sure, View cones are not the sole cause of this, but years and years of being negligent (and careless) in housing and planning policies have led us to where we are.
And the same people who will claim that View cones are not a problem and that the mountain views are important and whatnot are the same people who will likely whine about the increasing homelessness levels in the city, without the slightest hint of self-awareness or capability to make the connection.

The viewcones are known design restrictions for developers, so you can budget for the limitations if you already own or are purchasing the land.

But... when politicians shoot down more housing options outside the penninsula then you get housing affordability issues. Getting rid of a few viewcones is not the issue. Building tall doesn't always building affordable condos / rentals, etc.

[GenWhy?]

Last I heard / saw one would need 1 more West End outside the downtown core to achieve some remote amount of affordability (market rental & income-tied rental towers under 20 floors... average 10-14 storeys).

[Migrant_Coconut]

On the third hand, while many of the viewcones 🞵🞵🞵🞵, getting rid of them won't greatly affect supply. This specific development would only gain 145 units at most - that's one lowrise.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by city guy

this is a great example of a view cone creating dumb-🞵🞵🞵 uninhabitable spaces...and for what? I wish this was a city that had good housing plans as their TOP priority, with view cones taken into secondary consideration

I am both intrigued and horrified that a 360 sq. ft. studio is a serious thing. What does this say about the livability of Vancouver? That not even our high rises can appropriately encompass someone's life decently? People complain about being packed like Sardines in transit yet that doesn't seem to hold a candle to this mess of a floor plan.

Thanks view cones!

[logan5]

High rises are the most costly form of housing you can build, so you end up paying a huge premium to live in a small studio. For the same price as a studio in a high rise, you could get a large one bedroom in the city of Vancouver, but only if they opened up detached neighbourhoods to ground oriented housing. But that apparently will never happen.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

True.
But the disparity between housing affordability/cost of living and a city the size (and stature) of Vancouver, kind of is.

If you look at affordability levels and housing market prices for comparable cities, (or alternatively, if you compare with cities where affordability is at a comparable level given what kind of cities those are), it just doesn't match up in most cases.

We have Toronto- or San Francisco-level housing prices and living cost levels here for a city that's not even remotely at the same level as either of those two in terms of things like average and median income and wealth level and the like.

And I'm pretty sure THAT's not a "non-issue"......even outside a forum like this.

Sure, View cones are not the sole cause of this, but years and years of being negligent (and careless) in housing and planning policies have led us to where we are.
And the same people who will claim that View cones are not a problem and that the mountain views are important and whatnot are the same people who will likely whine about the increasing homelessness levels in the city, without the slightest hint of self-awareness or capability to make the connection.

Housing affordability is a non-issue? What?

You’re really all over the place in your argument here.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

The viewcones are known design restrictions for developers, so you can budget for the limitations if you already own or are purchasing the land.

But... when politicians shoot down more housing options outside the penninsula then you get housing affordability issues. Getting rid of a few viewcones is not the issue. Building tall doesn't always building affordable condos / rentals, etc.

I agree with all that, and I even made the point that View cones are not the sole issue or cause of the problems.

But the point per this discussion was just how they are emblematic of the larger issue of misplaced priorities that this city sometimes seems to suffer from.

Living in a beautiful city is a good thing to be sure and it can even be argued that not only does it enhance the quality of life, but even enhances on some level the actual value of property and the draw for people wanting to live here (beyond the moderate weather and all the other pulls).

But......

Everything comes with a cost, and at what point does the cost outweigh the perceived benefits?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by scryer

I am both intrigued and horrified that a 360 sq. ft. studio is a serious thing. What does this say about the livability of Vancouver? That not even our high rises can appropriately encompass someone's life decently? People complain about being packed like Sardines in transit yet that doesn't seem to hold a candle to this mess of a floor plan.

Thanks view cones!

If you'll check the podium (that isn't affected by the viewcones), you'll find four such units on each floor.

Remember that this is social housing - these are likely tenants who'd otherwise be in a shelter.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Housing affordability is a non-issue? What?

You’re really all over the place in your argument here.

Where in the world did you get that from in my comment? (and how)

The literal actual sentence in that post of mine that you quoted is thus...
(and I underline and bold the pertinent part for emphasis):

"And I'm pretty sure THAT's not a "non-issue"......even outside a forum like this."

What comment are you reading?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by logan5

High rises are the most costly form of housing you can build, so you end up paying a huge premium to live in a small studio. For the same price as a studio in a high rise, you could get a large one bedroom in the city of Vancouver, but only if they opened up detached neighbourhoods to ground oriented housing. But that apparently will never happen.

Exactly. Something like 60% of the City's land is not affected by a viewcone but those areas are dead against even 4-storey apartments or expanded commercial options on arterial streets.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

I agree with all that, and I even made the point that View cones are not the sole issue or cause of the problems.

But the point per this discussion was just how they are emblematic of the larger issue of misplaced priorities that this city sometimes seems to suffer from.

Living in a beautiful city is a good thing to be sure and it can even be argued that not only does it enhance the quality of life, but even enhances on some level the actual value of property and the draw for people wanting to live here (beyond the moderate weather and all the other pulls).

But......

Everything comes with a cost, and at what point does the cost outweigh the perceived benefits?

Agree. I just always like to point out that the viewcones are a solid KNOWN in the developer world as a pre-digested factor. Our rentals or condos, affected by a viewcone or not, will be at market value, regardless (to a reasonable degree) of the viewcone's impact.

The major factor is that the viewcones affect the "easy developable, not in my yard" pre-zoned land, so we see the affects in the lens of the viewcone, rather than zoning restrictions in the rest of the city that would be great places for 10 storey moderate-income rental housing around transit, areas that usually get gentrified and out-priced.

If you concentrate developable land for added density in select areas you get expensive land. This just so happens to be the politically convenient area of a former industrial area downtown that has viewcones.

Condo prices, rents, land costs, building costs all change and have external factors that can change on a dime or signature of policy. The views from these units are also private, exclusive.

Views of natural beauty from public spaces exist in infinity if preserved and are "free" to view and found all over the city making it a loved destination. Viewcomes do not have the impact many believe on housing affordability or availability. Major bus routes and SkyTrain stations that largely only allow SF homes do affect it substantially.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Vancouver_Highrise

Luckily you don’t live in the city of Vancouver and therefore don’t have a say in where our taxpayer dollars are going to in terms of social housing.

Yes, these days I am very happy not to be living in Vancouver but I do have a feeling that my provincial taxes end up subsidizing many social housing projects in the city. Hopefully this is not one of those projects like someone suggested above.

While I hate many of the view cones I actually quite like the ones opening Ng up from Charleson Park over Yaletown. It is quite and unique angle to see the mountains behind the city. Always liked it. Most other view cones could still be scrapped.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Klazu

While I hate many of the view cones I actually quite like the ones opening Ng up from Charleson Park over Yaletown. It is quite and unique angle to see the mountains behind the city. Always liked it. Most other view cones could still be scrapped.

Yeah, what we really need is a review, not a blanket "keep all" or "scrap all" decision. '89 was thirty-one years ago. Some still work, others don't.

[MistyMountain]

It would be nice to see a viewcone for BC place. It's a landmark, and its unfortunate that its getting at least partially covered up by developments, especially after we spent $500M on it.