Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Changing City

But there's no proof that limiting height reduces supply overall. There are only so many potential buyers, with so much money, looking to buy. Builders develop to meet the demand that money creates.

We have some pretty ridiculous examples where the view cones have impacted efficiency, just look at the tower at Drake and Richards now under construction.

[Klazu]

The time when Vancouver was the location of the tallest tower in the Metro has come to an end, regardless of changes to view cones. Burnaby, Surrey and Coquitlam are all pumping 60-70 storey tower plans at such exhausting pace, that Vancouver will not be exceeding those. I hope we see more 200-metre towers in Downtown and overall more 50-storey towers, but I doubt they will be the tallest in the region ever again.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Klazu

The time when Vancouver was the location of the tallest tower in the Metro has come to an end, regardless of changes to view cones. Burnaby, Surrey and Coquitlam are all pumping 60-70 storey tower plans at such exhausting pace, that Vancouver will not be exceeding those. I hope we see more 200-metre towers in Downtown and overall more 50-storey towers, but I doubt they will be the tallest in the region ever again.

Why do you think that? If the City allowed it starting just now, Downtown Vancouver would easily have many proposals for towers taller than anything in Burnaby. Developers make more money in Downtown Vancouver. It wouldn’t take long for downtown to have 10 of the tallest towers in Metro Vancouver.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by Klazu

The time when Vancouver was the location of the tallest tower in the Metro has come to an end, regardless of changes to view cones. Burnaby, Surrey and Coquitlam are all pumping 60-70 storey tower plans at such exhausting pace, that Vancouver will not be exceeding those. I hope we see more 200-metre towers in Downtown and overall more 50-storey towers, but I doubt they will be the tallest in the region ever again.

Surely if there's demand in the suburbs for 70 storey towers, there would be demand for something taller downtown.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by mcj

Surely if there's demand in the suburbs for 70 storey towers, there would be demand for something taller downtown.

Are you sure? Brentwood does have the White Spot R&D Kitchen after all!

[mcj]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Are you sure? Brentwood does have the White Spot R&D Kitchen after all!

Maybe not so sure anymore, it'll be difficult for downtown to surpass that level of culinary expertise.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Are you sure? Brentwood does have the White Spot R&D Kitchen after all!

Reminds me of Edmonton boasting "we got this BIG mall! See we're cool!"

Vertical suburbia looks cool in a photo but does not a city make.

[Klazu]

It should be noted that almost all tall suburban towers are part of massive masterplanned areas with lots of space to build on. In Downtown you are always limited to smaller lots where going taller and the extra elevator needs that come with that make projects less profitable, unless unit prices are pushed even higher. Most of the recent tall suburban proposals are almost entirely rentals or at least have a huge number of units on them, which economics in Downtown like the price of land support less than in suburbs.

I hope Ken follows through on his promises and we see more liberal approach to height, but I just can't see them building to same heights and numbers as in the suburbs.

[NewfBC]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Are you sure? Brentwood does have the White Spot R&D Kitchen after all!

Don't forget, White Spot abandoned the 'Nat's Kitchen & Tap House' new concept in Brentwood... I guess it sounded too upscale?

Ron.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by NewfBC

Don't forget, White Spot abandoned the 'Nat's Kitchen & Tap House' new concept in Brentwood... I guess it sounded too upscale?

Ron.

"R&D Kitchen" = "test food we wouldn't serve to people in Vancouver".

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I hope Ken follows through on his promises and we see more liberal approach to height, but I just can't see them building to same heights and numbers as in the suburbs.

No joke I was just having coffee next to a group of architects who were going in to meet with city staff around Sinclair Centre. The words "viewcones" and "shadow studies" came up a few times.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by Klazu

It should be noted that almost all tall suburban towers are part of massive masterplanned areas with lots of space to build on. In Downtown you are always limited to smaller lots where going taller and the extra elevator needs that come with that make projects less profitable, unless unit prices are pushed even higher. Most of the recent tall suburban proposals are almost entirely rentals or at least have a huge number of units on them, which economics in Downtown like the price of land support less than in suburbs.

Fair point, you'd either need larger parcels or would have to abandon point tower Vancouverism. However there are plenty of sites coming up for redevelopment in downtown that would support higher and wider towers. Sinclair Centre is an example as Warren notes:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

No joke I was just having coffee next to a group of architects who were going in to meet with city staff around Sinclair Centre. The words "viewcones" and "shadow studies" came up a few times.

Also Concord will likely have some interesting new ideas for their St Pauls site if things are relaxed successfully.

Fun to speculate at least.

[vanman]

Well that would be great if they were able to find a way to save some of the heritage buildings at St Pauls in exchange for going higher instead of the mass deomlition of the site that is currently planned. And this would be another prime example of how easing viewcone rules could lead to a better city overall.

[Klazu]

I think retaining St. Paul's facade is a given, as it will make whatever gets built there more unique. But since the site can accommodate several towers, I think density will come more the number of towers rather than their height. Pure guess.

I hope the 45-storey tower opposite to Esso on Davie gets going soon.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Klazu

The time when Vancouver was the location of the tallest tower in the Metro has come to an end, regardless of changes to view cones. Burnaby, Surrey and Coquitlam are all pumping 60-70 storey tower plans at such exhausting pace, that Vancouver will not be exceeding those. I hope we see more 200-metre towers in Downtown and overall more 50-storey towers, but I doubt they will be the tallest in the region ever again.

Ultimately, it would be extreme embarrassment that will make this city remove its Viewcones.

Looking at this thread, it is amazing how the perception has changed among forumers regarding the Viewcones. Barely a few years ago, the mere mention of Viewcone removal equates an extreme form of blasphemy. I'm glad it is no longer so. Hopefully this sentiment to get rid of Viewcones is felt among the general public as well.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Are you sure? Brentwood does have the White Spot R&D Kitchen after all!

Yay mall!

Originally Posted by logan5

Why do you think that? If the City allowed it starting just now, Downtown Vancouver would easily have many proposals for towers taller than anything in Burnaby. Developers make more money in Downtown Vancouver. It wouldn’t take long for downtown to have 10 of the tallest towers in Metro Vancouver.

Like you, many in Vancouver hate really tall buildings. Knowing this, developers are not taking chances since any delay means the loss of profits. They rather build somewhere with an easier development process surrounded by a more conducive environment.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Ultimately, it would be extreme embarrassment that will make this city remove its Viewcones.

Looking at this thread, it is amazing how the perception has changed among forumers regarding the Viewcones. Barely a few years ago, the mere mention of Viewcone removal equates an extreme form of blasphemy. I'm glad it is no longer so. Hopefully this sentiment to get rid of Viewcones is felt among the general public as well.

There's no reason to think that a majority of the general public, if asked, would be in favour of getting rid of viewcones. They certainly indicated support for them last time they were asked. However, there's also nothing to indicate that this mayor cares whether the public support them, or not. It will be interesting to see if there's a public hearing for any changes, or some other method to change how viewcones are considered during a decision on an application.

It's not clear if he's thinking of getting rid of some, or all, or indeed any of the viewcones. Council could decide to allow individual projects to go through the viewcones on a case by case basis, although that doesn't help the developers obtain certainty of what they can build. It will be interesting to see if all the ABC council members are of the same opinion, too.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Vin

Ultimately, it would be extreme embarrassment that will make this city remove its Viewcones.

Looking at this thread, it is amazing how the perception has changed among forumers regarding the Viewcones. Barely a few years ago, the mere mention of Viewcone removal equates an extreme form of blasphemy. I'm glad it is no longer so. Hopefully this sentiment to get rid of Viewcones is felt among the general public as well.

To which forumers are you referring to? The view cones are almost universally derided in this forum, which is not surprising given this is a skyscraper enthusiasts forum.

[Migrant_Coconut]

90+ percent of this forum wants to ditch the viewcones - the point of contention is whether or not their existence significantly harms Vancouver's economy and/or housing prices (because if they don't, the only argument against removal is ugliness and so there isn't really a rush). And the math favours the No side.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

We have some pretty ridiculous examples where the view cones have impacted efficiency, just look at the tower at Drake and Richards now under construction.

That one's egregious, but luckily, an outlier. What we usually get is the Jenga tower, which lost twelve floors, around 47k square feet, and... 17 units. Multiply that by fifty-ish projects now and in the future, that's around 250k sqft and 850 units.

Compare and contrast with the millions of sqft and 30k new units from upzoning the Broadway Corridor. By all means, scrap the views and build taller, but if ABC decides to compromise and do only that (i.e. forgoing a West 10th, 41st, Arbutus, Main or Hastings Plan to keep the NIMBYs happy), that's going to be a net loss for the city.

[officedweller]

Yuo, inefficient triangular floorplates, but also short squat fat buildings that create overbearing streetwalls.
The Post and Hudson's Bay are examples.