Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa
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.
Threaded Mode