Downtown Vancouver Updates

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by idunno

Enter --- Granville Bridge Connector

People still won't be focused on the view the viewcone is protecting when they can look west outowards English bay or east to mount baker

There are literally 1000s of places all over the place that have amazing views that would still exist without a single viewcone.

[cov]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

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.

Exactly, the view cone extending from City Hall can only really be seen from the mayor's office.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by cov

Exactly, the view cone extending from City Hall can only really be seen from the mayor's office.

Ditto the viewcones to City Hall. I'd be genuinely surprised if there were more than ten people a year actively trying to see it from those particular spots on the seawall.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by cov

Exactly, the view cone extending from City Hall can only really be seen from the mayor's office.

There isn't one. The viewcones near City Hall are from Cambie Street.

[officedweller]

Maybe you'd get traction with the argument that:
- the view cones from the middle of the streets are for drivers, and the City should not be creating pleasant views for drivers, and/or
- the views for drivers would be a distraction

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Maybe you'd get traction with the argument that:
- the view cones from the middle of the streets are for drivers, and the City should not be creating pleasant views for drivers, and/or
- the views for drivers would be a distraction

Maybe we'd be better not talking about viewcones on Cambie Street at 11th Avenue in the Downtown Vancouver thread? It would be great if we had a rule that when a building's design responds to viewcone or shadowing policy, there can be one comment bemoaning the existance of those policies, and then we move on and discuss the building as proposed. I think there's a viewcone thread for general discussion.

[red-paladin]

This is not the thread to discuss viewcones/height restrictions.

[ranvancan]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

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.

Thank you, Hollywoodnorth. I guess I could have googled that, like you said. Just thought some of the 'forumers' had an answer and would discuss it here. Cheers mate.

[trofirhen]

I think that the View Cone thread has the potential of being a great discussion forum. As view cones are often so pertinent a topic, it's a shame the thread isn't more in play.
... hopefully that mght change ... "dès maintenant"

[djh]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I think that the View Cone thread has the potential of being a great discussion forum. As view cones are often so pertinent a topic, it's a shame the thread isn't more in play.
... hopefully that mght change ... "dès maintenant"

Nope.

A View Come thread would be about one page long. A series of rants by the usual suspects saying little more than "the viewcones are bad, I hate them!", and the vocal minority echoing the sentiment. Then everybody else staying silent because they don't want to get flamed, and realising the argument has more nuance than that. The End.

[Henbo]

Originally Posted by djh

....vocal minority echoing the sentiment. Then everybody else staying silent because they don't want to get flamed...

Sounds like this View Cone Thread should have a poll

[Feathered Friend]

Urban Design Panel Splits As Shadowy Illusions Make A Mountain Out Of Mole Hill

1116 Pendrell St (DP-2020-00054)
While I may not have attended as many Urban Design Panel meetings as Darren, even I knew what the main sticking point was going to be for this project. It certainly was not the contextual fit, as city staff admitted this expression can be found in many areas of the West End. Rather, despite the area’s tall buildings, the concern was the proposed height, as this property sits across from the 28 heritage houses that make up Mole Hill.

The applicant believed their taller, thinner vision was much more respectful than the short and stocky form prescribed in the West End Community Plan, but the panel was divided. Unfortunately, some of these professionals remained perplexed by the “tower in the park” terminology, and one questioned how that could be accurate when Nelson Park is two blocks away. Worse yet, is this led to considerable concern from others about the effect this building’s shadows would have on that public space.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2020/12/15...usions-make-a-mountain-out-of-mole-hill/

[Feathered Friend]

https://shapeyourcity.ca/18237/widgets/72168/documents/44307


https://shapeyourcity.ca/18237/widgets/72168/documents/44307

Transparent Community Services Unite Urban Design Panel In Support Of Transformative Relaxations

320 E Hastings St (DP-2020-00721) (First United Church)
It may not be on the Heritage Register, but Darren and I felt a twang of sadness when we learned the First United Church’s unique look was set to undergo a transformation. Yet, with its leaks and asbestos, there is no denying it has outgrown its original inward facing focus to one that engages with its community. In fact, the applicant team boasted every line in their plan represented the social relationship they had built over the last three years.

Which begs the question of why this Urban Design Panel review was necessary, as it could be argued few know this neighbourhood better than this charity. However, city staff answered this by revealing that the building’s widest point along Hastings Street exceeds the 120 foot frontage envisioned in the community plan. While the sloped “copper” plank wall along Gore Avenue mitigates this above the fourth floor, this issue and the overall height both require a relaxation of that policy.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2020/12/17...n-support-of-transformative-relaxations/

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2020/12/15...usions-make-a-mountain-out-of-mole-hill/

Thank you for what you guys do. Its a serious effort and its impressive.

That being said, and please don't take this the wrong way, reading your experiences at these meetings (certainly not this one in particular) has made me dislike Vancouver in a measurable way.

I cannot wait to not be a part of this City and the preposterous circle jerk of a bureaucracy it has evolved into.

Vancouver has really sucked the joy out of Vancouver.

[jollyburger]

Black Top Cabs has vacated their Granville Loops building

[officedweller]

Smithe & Richards Park

By me tonight

[officedweller]

YWCA Hotel Addition

From Changing City updates:


https://changingcitybook.wordpress.com/2020/12/17/733-beatty-street/

[officedweller]

From VancouverMarket.ca:


http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2020/12/20/top-10-land-deals-of-2020/

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by rofina

Thank you for what you guys do. Its a serious effort and its impressive.

That being said, and please don't take this the wrong way, reading your experiences at these meetings (certainly not this one in particular) has made me dislike Vancouver in a measurable way.

I cannot wait to not be a part of this City and the preposterous circle jerk of a bureaucracy it has evolved into.

Vancouver has really sucked the joy out of Vancouver.

Sucks to be one of the tenants evicted from the existing building. As was seen with Berkely Towers, the help "finding alternate accommodations" is often useless, with alternatives being priced much higher or out of the neighbourhood altogether. The message from the city is really that renters are second class citizens.

Here's the existing lowrise building. No beauty but I'm sure it is home to a number of long term tenants.

[IMG]pendrell by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Here's the existing lowrise building. No beauty but I'm sure it is home to a number of long term tenants.

I think you're mistaken. That's a strata building that the developers bought out. There is also a rental building beyond the strata - much smaller and built in 1937.