HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #901  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 10:59 PM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 17,847
I love it when people miss the point of articles completely.

If you didn’t notice the central argument was about the loss of density, both residential and commercial (commercial particularly downtown and around the future Broadway-Cambie hub) around Vancouver’s primary transit hubs / stations.

Not everything is strictly about residential developments.

It’s less about Vancouver needing to be the tallest, more about finding a better less restrictive middle ground.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/30634635@N03/with/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0_0h9qKlhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #902  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 11:01 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
Does anybody really care? Who really "wants" to live in Burnaby? People live there because they can't afford Vancouver.
Developers must be pretty dumb to keep building those residential towers in Burnaby then, and the high rate of population increase there must also be a census count error.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
I love it when people miss the point of articles completely.

If you didn’t notice the central argument was about the loss of density, both residential and commercial (commercial particularly downtown and around the future Broadway-Cambie hub) around Vancouver’s primary transit hubs / stations.

Not everything is strictly about residential developments.

It’s less about Vancouver needing to be the tallest, more about finding a better less restrictive middle ground.

Obviously there are many here who don't care about having tall skyscrapers built, the lack of density, and also the loss of potential economic growth of the city. Well, our loss is also the suburb's gain, as well as that of other cities in the Northwest and the country.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #903  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 11:14 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa View Post
I wouldn't say nobody wants to live in Burnaby, but think it's fair to say many people are there because they can't afford Vancouver. Certainly don't think there are many people that choose Burnaby because they allow taller tower. Also don't think any of those taller towers in Burnaby are really less expensive due to the height. Anyone that really thinks removing the view cones would make any difference in prices is kidding themselves. A tall tower with 10fsr is cheaper then a supertall with the same fsr. Saying you can land more fsr in the supertall isn't a good argument as you could do the same in the tall tower, but either way the more density you allow the more you will pay for that underlying land making it a wash. Joyce Collingwood was the densest area of Vancouver and with only modest height towers before this last wave. Focus on densifying the rest of the city if you're after affordability, the view cones are not the answer.
The article did not focus only on the affordability of residential units, but more of a loss of the overall benefits that this City can get without the Viewcones. It is already an anomally that suburban cities are developing at such a fast pace, whereas many parts of Vancouver are stagnated. Why would businesses and developers build elsewhere when they can benefit more being in Vancouver, especially since this is the business, commercial and cultural centre of this region? Obviously the Viewcones, plus a host of other policies, are driving businesses and people further away: City Hall being financially insolvent is a testament to the fact that less businesses are paying taxes to the municipality to keep it functioning properly. Therefore the suburbs having the tallest buildings on the west coast is highlighting this issue even more, but it is sad that many can't even see it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #904  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 11:18 PM
whatnext whatnext is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 27,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa View Post
I wouldn't say nobody wants to live in Burnaby, but think it's fair to say many people are there because they can't afford Vancouver. Certainly don't think there are many people that choose Burnaby because they allow taller tower. Also don't think any of those taller towers in Burnaby are really less expensive due to the height. Anyone that really thinks removing the view cones would make any difference in prices is kidding themselves. A tall tower with 10fsr is cheaper then a supertall with the same fsr. Saying you can land more fsr in the supertall isn't a good argument as you could do the same in the tall tower, but either way the more density you allow the more you will pay for that underlying land making it a wash. Joyce Collingwood was the densest area of Vancouver and with only modest height towers before this last wave. Focus on densifying the rest of the city if you're after affordability, the view cones are not the answer.
Yes indeed. I also find it laughable that anybody thinks the projects that propose to pierce the viewcones will help with affordability. If anything it will be the opposite.

The City should just tell Holborn bluntly their Bay parkade proposal is never going to happen, if for no other reason than Holborn's inexcusable mishandling and delays on the Little Mountain site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #905  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 11:36 PM
scryer scryer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,964
'Twas a piss poor article, when all through the city
Not an SSPER agreed, all they gave it was pity;

The rent was too damn high -housing/construction policies designed by a council without care,
In hopes that socialism would kick in and be magically fair;

The Millennials were nestled all snug in their childhood beds,
While visions of housing affordability danced in their heads;
And mamma in her mumu, and I in my cap,
Had just settled down for a long COVID-19 stress nap,

When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter.
Away to the window I made it in a flash,
To witness the NIMBYs begin to thrash:

"It's too tall!" "It's too wide!" "It's too much!" The NIMBYs screamed and were angered;
Shouting to a city council that was spineless, corrupt, and cowered,
"Give up your Starbucks, scrimp; and work harder" the council said,
"But I work 3 jobs just to make the rent!" The Millennials, and younger generations plead;

With an affordability plan taking over 2 years to implement,
I knew in a moment that I could smell that bureaucratic stench,
Less rapid than molasses his political actions came,
The one and only Kennedy Stewart and his council of lames;

"Now, HOMELESSNESS! Now, CLIMATE CHANGE! Now, INCREASED DRUG USE and A PARK THAT GLEAMS!
On, COVID RESTRICTIONS! On, VIRTUE SIGNALLING! On CLOSING SMALL BUSINESSES and MONEY LAUNDERING SCHEMES!
To the top of the Shangri-La! To the top of the crown!
Forget wide-spread residential re-zoning, no one can build taller than this town!

With gregarious encouragement, I suddenly began to smile,
Housing prices have steadily risen, even amidst this COVID trial;
The kids will be all right. No need to worry.
We have to clean up the drug use and our environment. The decaying economy and our livelihoods as Canadians? What's the hurry?

Kennedy and Horgan then sprang to their private jet,
And away they flew from the working people that pay their salaries, they fled,
But I heard them exclaim, ere they drove out of sight,
Merry Christmas Happy Holidays to all, and to all a good night!

If you took this too seriously then you need to start charging me rent for the vapid space between your ears, that I'm living in for free. And do not come for me for the poetic imperfections in this, I'm not being paid for this masterpiece .

The conversation on the view cones is a direct symptom on the bigger issue: the housing crisis in Vancouver and the city policies that reinforce expensive housing prices for locals. The view cones is definitely one of the issues that needs to get updated. And until we are willing to have a realistic discussion on it instead of despairing it without offering alternative solutions then it will always be a circular discussion (and a bureaucrats' wet dream).

Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
Yes indeed. I also find it laughable that anybody thinks the projects that propose to pierce the viewcones will help with affordability. If anything it will be the opposite.
I will match your un-supported (link-wise) ultimatum, good sir, with one of my own because this is how mature differing perspectives work:

Anyone who says that height limitations has no impact on affordability is a fool. It is a piece, along many other pieces (mostly city policies TBH), that make the housing unaffordable.
__________________
There is a housing crisis, and we simply need to speak up about it.

Pinterest - I use this social media platform to easily add pictures into my posts on this forum. Plus there are great architecture and city photos out there as well.

Last edited by scryer; Dec 24, 2020 at 12:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #906  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 11:36 PM
GenWhy? GenWhy? is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 4,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
The article did not focus only on the affordability of residential units, but more of a loss of the overall benefits that this City can get without the Viewcones. It is already an anomally that suburban cities are developing at such a fast pace, whereas many parts of Vancouver are stagnated. Why would businesses and developers build elsewhere when they can benefit more being in Vancouver, especially since this is the business, commercial and cultural centre of this region? Obviously the Viewcones, plus a host of other policies, are driving businesses and people further away: City Hall being financially insolvent is a testament to the fact that less businesses are paying taxes to the municipality to keep it functioning properly. Therefore the suburbs having the tallest buildings on the west coast is highlighting this issue even more, but it is sad that many can't even see it.
To some developers the allure is cheaper and larger parcels of land. Recent city "gifts" by suburb politicians have been a boon to developers. But... tell that to the ex-Metrotown renters. Getting rid of viewcones might allow a few more stories in select Van downtown parcels for some more office, but it appears to be taking bread crumbs, putting a bunch together with glue and saying you have a loaf of bread.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #907  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 11:40 PM
GenWhy? GenWhy? is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 4,753
I highly agree. Help fix the viewcones with this much passion and help make me and big developers more money.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #908  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2020, 12:39 AM
whatnext whatnext is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 27,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by scryer View Post
[CENTER]...I will match your un-supported (link-wise) ultimatum, good sir, with one of my own because this is how mature differing perspectives work:

Anyone who says that height limitations has no impact on affordability is a fool. It is a piece, along many other pieces (mostly city policies TBH), that make the housing unaffordable.
Please point us to the affordable projects that have pierced the viewcones lately, or indeed maxed the city's tallest height restrictions. Shangri-la? Trump Tower? One Wall Centre?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #909  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2020, 1:02 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 17,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
Please point us to the affordable projects that have pierced the viewcones lately, or indeed maxed the city's tallest height restrictions. Shangri-la? Trump Tower? One Wall Centre?
Call me crazy but recently I have seen many rental towers and non luxury condo projects being built to their maximum allowable height downtown signaling that they indeed would go higher if allowed to. We have also now seen rental proposals and non luxury condos in the burbs reaching skyscraper heights.

Not to mention office towers continuously being built to their precise height limit, and in many cases reduced in height.

For example relaxing the height limit and allowing a taller more slender tower to be built would resolve many of the concerns currently attributed to the crystal proposal next to Waterfront.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/30634635@N03/with/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0_0h9qKlhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #910  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2020, 1:24 AM
officedweller officedweller is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 41,376
I don't see the view cone problem as an affordability issue.

I see it as a 'flexibility in design' issue.

The most recent problems created by the view cones are the straight jacket that the requirements impose on a project, to the extent that it impacts the quality of the built environment (ie squat buildings crowding / shadowing the street like at The Post, Telus Garden and the new one opposite) or in the case of condos, the efficiency of the floorplate.

As Metro-One mentions, that's exemplified by the Icepick proposal at Waterfront Station.

If there's a relaxation, I would prefer it to go to office towers close to SkyTrain stations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #911  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2020, 2:14 AM
Sheba Sheba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: BC
Posts: 4,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
Does anybody really care? Who really "wants" to live in Burnaby? People live there because they can't afford Vancouver.
That's really insulting. There are a lot of people who live across the region who don't want to live in Vancouver and are happy with where they live. The fact that you consider Vancouver number one really only matters to one person - you.

For the record I was born in Vancouver and grew up both there and SoF. I live in Burnaby now because it's where I want to be. I spend very very little time in Vancouver.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
Why would businesses and developers build elsewhere when they can benefit more being in Vancouver, especially since this is the business, commercial and cultural centre of this region?
Vancouver is the main centre of the region but it's hardly the only one. Most (I'd say all except someone could probably point to somewhere being an exception) cities have been building up their business and commercial areas - not to the level of CoV but enough so they're less of a 'bedroom suburb' anymore. Surrey Central is being built up to become *the* downtown for the whole SoF.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
Call me crazy but recently I have seen many rental towers and non luxury condo projects being built to their maximum allowable height downtown signaling that they indeed would go higher if allowed to. We have also now seen rental proposals and non luxury condos in the burbs reaching skyscraper heights.
For a lot of years it was a fight to get any rental towers built - developers are doing it now as they're following the money. Plenty of people can't afford to buy a place and the rental vacancy rate is insanely low. I hope they keep building rentals (and non-luxury condos) for many years to help bring some balance back to housing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #912  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2020, 6:51 AM
Abii Abii is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 136
So much noise... Vancouver risks becoming irrelevant with the view cones. Insult Burnaby and other cities all you want. Within 1-2 decades Burnaby is the hot new thing while Vancouver will begin to decay from a lack of investment. Tall buildings matter. Dubai went from being a diving village to what it is now because of a few tall buildings.

Tall buildings attract people, investment, activity, noise and discussion. If you can't see that then you don't want to see it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #913  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2020, 7:03 AM
whatnext whatnext is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 27,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abii View Post
So much noise... Vancouver risks becoming irrelevant with the view cones. Insult Burnaby and other cities all you want. Within 1-2 decades Burnaby is the hot new thing while Vancouver will begin to decay from a lack of investment. Tall buildings matter. Dubai went from being a diving village to what it is now because of a few tall buildings.

Tall buildings attract people, investment, activity, noise and discussion. If you can't see that then you don't want to see it.
LOL, that must be why Paris and Munich are such backwaters compared to the dazzling temptations of Metrotown or Central Surrey.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #914  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2020, 7:47 AM
MistyMountain MistyMountain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 72
Reducing the scope of of view cones is really not about creating affordable housing, at least directly. But apart from the contents of this article (creating a more dynamic and interesting skyline) there are many knock on benefits.

- Environmental: Clustering density leads to more walkability and a reduced reliance on cars. By allowing taller buildings downtown we create housing that's green, and slows urban sprawl. Taller buildings are more likely to be viable and therefore more likely to get built, so this would happen more quickly.

- Affordable housing: Taller buildings will result in more potential for profit and therefore more CAC's to the city, which can be used for affordable housing projects.

- Absorbing demand: Although downtown condos are likely to never be affordable by themselves, they absorb high income demand and slows the renovation of older, affordable housing stock elsewhere to meet this demand.

- Landmark effect: A new landmark tower could do a lot for tourism in Vancouver. Dubai has gained a lot of notoriety with the Burj Khalifa, London with the Shard, New York with the Empire State Building, etc. The same could happen with a similar landmark building in Vancouver.

- Light: shorter buildings that are stockier to fit more density contribute to a crowded street level feel. Taller, slimmer buildings would allow for more natural light to filter in between buildings.



On the notion that this will result in more profits or something, this is just silly because the city takes a hard look at the financials of projects and absorbs windfall profits through CACs, and there's no reason to expect that a project would get treated any differently because it is taller. Besides, we don't say no projects in other industries (eg. mining, forestry) because companies would make a profit.

A lot of the viewcones are quite literally not even usable due to trees, sails or BC place blocking them. A review could at least consider replacing these with other more useful viewcones.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #915  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2020, 9:06 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 9,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by MistyMountain View Post
- Absorbing demand: Although downtown condos are likely to never be affordable by themselves, they absorb high income demand and slows the renovation of older, affordable housing stock elsewhere to meet this demand

- Light: shorter buildings that are stockier to fit more density contribute to a crowded street level feel. Taller, slimmer buildings would allow for more natural light to filter in between buildings.
Other (valid) points notwithstanding, the Europhile/New Urbanist wing of City Hall wants a crowded street level, so that's not going to gain much traction.

And the demand argument's a little dubious; unless the developers came up with some kind of "200 floors by 2025" mandate in the boardroom, they probably won't suspend plans for Project B just because Project A got a height increase. More likely that they simply build both and push for increases on both.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MistyMountain View Post
A lot of the viewcones are quite literally not even usable due to trees, sails or BC place blocking them. A review could at least consider replacing these with other more useful viewcones.
Correctomundo. I think nine-tenths of the forum (and the City) could get behind removing the useless viewcones.

If the other tenth needs some persuasion, why not add new 'cones for other angles - like a small one from the East Van Cross to downtown, or the Fir Street Ramp to English Bay? If we're going to protect views, let's do it for people all over the city and all kinds of vantages, not just a few privileged Fairview/South Cambie residents who like the mountains.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #916  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2020, 3:29 AM
EastVanMark EastVanMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
Again highlighting the stupidity of our policies that curtail growths here.
Nice to see that someone in the media somewhere is addressing this instead of the seemingly endless puff pieces that seem to dominate the news round these parts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #917  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2020, 6:00 PM
2009 2009 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kelowna
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
LOL, that must be why Paris and Munich are such backwaters compared to the dazzling temptations of Metrotown or Central Surrey.
Downtown Vancouver is neither the geographic or population center of the region and it has poor road access. With cheaper real estate and less regulation in the suburbs Vancouver could lose its significance eventually

Who's to say head offices, the next Canucks arena, major museums, etc need to be built in Vancouver. They could end up somewhere like metrotown which is much more convenient for many
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #918  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2020, 8:35 PM
teriyaki teriyaki is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2009 View Post
Downtown Vancouver is neither the geographic or population center of the region and it has poor road access. With cheaper real estate and less regulation in the suburbs Vancouver could lose its significance eventually

Who's to say head offices, the next Canucks arena, major museums, etc need to be built in Vancouver. They could end up somewhere like metrotown which is much more convenient for many
Absolutely. Centre's of influence are the sum of its parts, and these are always in flux in a changing society. We just don't see usually see them unfold rapidly since the pace of change is usually too slow to really notice unless you're looking for it.

I think looking back, New Westminster is sort of an example to look at? It used to be much more culturally important, and now its completely different. I'll admit I don't know much about this part of town but I'm sure there is some history here to learn from.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #919  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2020, 10:12 PM
Sheba Sheba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: BC
Posts: 4,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by teriyaki View Post
Absolutely. Centre's of influence are the sum of its parts, and these are always in flux in a changing society. We just don't see usually see them unfold rapidly since the pace of change is usually too slow to really notice unless you're looking for it.

I think looking back, New Westminster is sort of an example to look at? It used to be much more culturally important, and now its completely different. I'll admit I don't know much about this part of town but I'm sure there is some history here to learn from.
To quote Wiki (which has a lot of historical info on New West): "It was founded by Major-General Richard Moody as the capital of the new-born Colony of British Columbia in 1858, and continued in that role until the Mainland and Island Colonies were merged in 1866, and was the Mainland's largest city from that year until it was passed in population by Vancouver during the first decade of the 20th century."

So yeah things change. If CoV keeps their viewcones the way they are, then the rest of the region is going to overtake it in importance. Do any of the other cities have view cones? I know Burnaby has one (between Central Park and Brentwood) - has anyone else come across any more non-CoV ones?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #920  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2020, 10:46 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 9,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2009 View Post
Downtown Vancouver is neither the geographic or population center of the region and it has poor road access. With cheaper real estate and less regulation in the suburbs Vancouver could lose its significance eventually

Who's to say head offices, the next Canucks arena, major museums, etc need to be built in Vancouver. They could end up somewhere like metrotown which is much more convenient for many
Downtown's got too much critical mass for a pole shift. Metrotown has too little. The centre may creep south or east toward the Mount Pleasant-Commercial area, but that's it.

Now Whalley OTOH...
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:28 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.