Downtown Vancouver Updates

[ranvancan]

Can someone please confirm/deny if Vancouver is the ONLY city in the world that has viewcones? I imagine others (Cities) use shadowing as guidelines but somewhat arbitrary, and I know they are not arbitrary to some people, viewcones feels like Vancouver sits alone on this one. I mean, some families have been living in their same neighborhoods for hundreds of years, and have NO way to leave their big back window to see if our Northshore mountains are still there?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I wonder if the remainder of the Amec lot has any potential to be redeveloped?

If you look at the design of the Amec building, it's cantilevered out at the base because the Dunsmuir Tunnel (with Skytrain running in it) actually runs underneath part of the plaza. Presumably a redevelopment might be possible to build something slightly taller, and with a bit more density, but that only seems likely if the existing building had some aspect that made redevelopment a priority.

It's probably better structurally designed than many other buildings (because of the cantilever requirement) so unlikely to have a seismic deficiency. It's also reasonably big, and reasonably new (220,000 sq. ft. and 1994) so it's much less likely to be redeveloped than many other more obvious candidates in other parts of the CBD.

[officedweller]

Cool, I hadn't realized that, but makes sense!

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by ranvancan

Can someone please confirm/deny if Vancouver is the ONLY city in the world that has viewcones? I imagine others (Cities) use shadowing as guidelines but somewhat arbitrary, and I know they are not arbitrary to some people, viewcones feels like Vancouver sits alone on this one. I mean, some families have been living in their same neighborhoods for hundreds of years, and have NO way to leave their big back window to see if our Northshore mountains are still there?

try google.

https://www.ibigroup.com/ibi-insights/the-value-of-view-cones/

Oxford. San Francisco. Vancouver. London. Through limited heights and thin forms, all of these cities have tried to ensure special vantages can be seen by all.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by officedweller

There would be parking under the Amec Building Plaza.
The lot to the north on Beatty is the underground parking for the 550 Beatty loft condos, and then there's a more recent midrise condo north of that on Beatty.

Yeah I guess the plaza isn't as big as it seems at first glance either.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Changing City

If you look at the design of the Amec building, it's cantilevered out at the base because the Dunsmuir Tunnel (with Skytrain running in it) actually runs underneath part of the plaza. Presumably a redevelopment might be possible to build something slightly taller, and with a bit more density, but that only seems likely if the existing building had some aspect that made redevelopment a priority.

It's probably better structurally designed than many other buildings (because of the cantilever requirement) so unlikely to have a seismic deficiency. It's also reasonably big, and reasonably new (220,000 sq. ft. and 1994) so it's much less likely to be redeveloped than many other more obvious candidates in other parts of the CBD.

Thanks was just wondering what the sunken plaza was for. Though I guess at the time the scale wasn't that out of place. Morguard currently owns it I think.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by ranvancan

Can someone please confirm/deny if Vancouver is the ONLY city in the world that has viewcones? I imagine others (Cities) use shadowing as guidelines but somewhat arbitrary, and I know they are not arbitrary to some people, viewcones feels like Vancouver sits alone on this one. I mean, some families have been living in their same neighborhoods for hundreds of years, and have NO way to leave their big back window to see if our Northshore mountains are still there?

Paris has several carving out the Champs Elysees; London has a few tiny ones for Westminster, St Paul's and the London Tower; Athens forbids anything over twelve floors to preserve views of the Acropolis.

Vancouver, however, appears to be the only one whose cones are hedgetrimming its downtown.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by ranvancan

Can someone please confirm/deny if Vancouver is the ONLY city in the world that has viewcones? I imagine others (Cities) use shadowing as guidelines but somewhat arbitrary, and I know they are not arbitrary to some people, viewcones feels like Vancouver sits alone on this one. I mean, some families have been living in their same neighborhoods for hundreds of years, and have NO way to leave their big back window to see if our Northshore mountains are still there?

I can assure you it is not. 'View preservation' and historic preservation height limits are terms that are commonly used. The Height Limit for London dated back to the 1890s and it shaped more than a century of development in that city in the name of preserving the ascendancy of key buildings like St Paul's Cathedral. This has only been relaxed in select places recently to allow for the recent batch of skyscrapers. Paris has had height limits to preserve views of Sacré-Cœur, the Champs Elysees, Haussmann's renovation of Paris, and to prevent surrounding buildings from surpassing the spires of Notre Dame (man should not put himself above god). Rome's Historic Preservation Commission has all sorts of development limits to preserve views and the character of historic precincts. Athens has view preservation development limits to celebrate the Acropolis. Etc. Etc. There are so many examples. Vancouver has chosen the mountains as the subject of view preservation, as opposed to cathedrals or historic structures from antiquity.

Vancouver's view preservation tools, as flawed as most of the view cones are, absolutely have precedent. Please don't pretend that it is some sort of crazy outlier.

[Klazu]

Doesn't Montreal also have some height restrictions Baden on Mont Royal?

[csbvan]

Many capitals also have them, like Washington, Austin, I think Ottawa? At least it did. They are extremely common.

[osirisboy]

But those aren’t view “corridors “. They are general height restrictions.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I can assure you it is not. 'View preservation' and historic preservation height limits are terms that are commonly used. The Height Limit for London dated back to the 1890s and it shaped more than a century of development in that city in the name of preserving the ascendancy of key buildings like St Paul's Cathedral. This has only been relaxed in select places recently to allow for the recent batch of skyscrapers. Paris has had height limits to preserve views of Sacré-Cœur, the Champs Elysees, Haussmann's renovation of Paris, and to prevent surrounding buildings from surpassing the spires of Notre Dame (man should not put himself above god). Rome's Historic Preservation Commission has all sorts of development limits to preserve views and the character of historic precincts. Athens has view preservation development limits to celebrate the Acropolis. Etc. Etc. There are so many examples. Vancouver has chosen the mountains as the subject of view preservation, as opposed to cathedrals or historic structures from antiquity.

Vancouver's view preservation tools, as flawed as most of the view cones are, absolutely have precedent. Please don't pretend that it is some sort of crazy outlier.

And funny, most of those cities are big tourist draws. They are places people want to visit. Many SSPers apparently think a collection of mediocre buildings that happen to pierce a viewcone will be an equally popular draw.

[MistyMountain]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And funny, most of those cities are big tourist draws. They are places people want to visit. Many SSPers apparently think a collection of mediocre buildings that happen to pierce a viewcone will be an equally popular draw.

There are some reasonable viewcones for sure, but some are just completely unnecessary. Quite a few of them are obscured for half of the year by trees, a couple are blocked by BC place, and take this one for example: nobody is stopping on the Granville Bridge to admire the slivers of views of the mountains.

[idunno]

Originally Posted by MistyMountain

There are some reasonable viewcones for sure, but some are just completely unnecessary. Quite a few of them are obscured for half of the year by trees, a couple are blocked by BC place, and take this one for example: nobody is stopping on the Granville Bridge to admire the slivers of views of the mountains.

Enter --- Granville Bridge Connector

[Vin]

Viewcones: Just a case of dumb people coming up with dumb things and making them sound important and crucial to the advancement of Mankind.

In the meantime, so much time, money and resources are wasted to ensure that these dumb things work, not to mention a lot of lost potentials over the decades.

[GenWhy?]

I mean... in the next election if enough people get together I'm sure you could all get rid of viewcones and make me and my Clients LOADS more money.

[officedweller]

In the case of cities that have overall height restrictions over historic cores, many have designated outlying areas for tall office development (that are not shown in tourist brochures).

ie
Paris - La Defense
London - Canary Wharf (but competition led to The City relaxing height restrictions)
Washington, DC - taller buildings are across the river in Arlington, VA

[MistyMountain]

Originally Posted by idunno

Enter --- Granville Bridge Connector

Even then, you would probably go to somewhere else where you can get a better view of the mountains then go to that specific point on the bridge.

In my personal opinion the notion of preserving views has significant merit. It's just unfortunate that it's been taken to extremes and there are very real consequences to people's day to day lives that happen as a result of them.

In the new St. Pauls hospital they had to sacrifice street level public realm and patient views by using an odd finned design (where a lot of patients will now be staring at a wall) to fit it on the lot and under the viewcones. I hardly think it would have been the end of the world if the hospital had been allowed to cover some of the trees on Grouse Mountain in this specific location.



In that new social housing building near richards a lot of low income residents are going to have portions of their living spaces that are essentially unusable.



That new social housing building for teachers had to cut down the number of units it can offer because of a view cone.



That's not to mention all street level vibrancy and public spaces we've missed out on because the city's policies force short block buildings instead of taller slender ones. There are real impacts to these policies, and to me trading a few (not all) very slender view corridors of mountains that can be seen at many other vantage points, or allowing some small intrusions into the wider view cones to very materially benefit people's lives is worth it.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

Viewcones: Just a case of dumb people coming up with dumb things and making them sound important and crucial to the advancement of Mankind.

Sounds like malls to me.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And funny, most of those cities are big tourist draws. They are places people want to visit. Many SSPers apparently think a collection of mediocre buildings that happen to pierce a viewcone will be an equally popular draw.

Likewise, a few less tiny slivers of mountain isn't going to make or break Vancouver's attractiveness. Some viewcones are much less necessary than others.