Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[officedweller]

I think the biggest issue with going tall is the cost to maintain and repair.
That's fine for a commercial building (including residential rental), but gets pretty iffy for condos where you have owners footing the bills.

As for empty lots, they culd be used for other temporary uses like parking or even a one storey retail building.
You can't force a property owner to undertake a potentially money losing enterprise (ie trying to sell or rent units in the DTES).

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think the biggest issue with going tall is the cost to maintain and repair.
That's fine for a commercial building (including residential rental), but gets pretty iffy for condos where you have owners footing the bills.

As for empty lots, they culd be used for other temporary uses like parking or even a one storey retail building.
You can't force a property owner to undertake a potentially money losing enterprise (ie trying to sell or rent units in the DTES).

If the developer doesn't think they can lease units in a building at a particular location, they should sell the site to someone who can. Westbank just finished a pretty big market and non-market rental building in the DTES. Wall did one in 2018. There's a market rental building just completing on the 100 block of Main Street, right across from one that was built in 2018. There's a new market rental building developed by Millennium on Pigeon Park - there's even a pizza place in the main floor. The completed buildings all seem to lease out just fine.

Holborn's lot is temporary parking, and was single storey retail before that, which they demolished. A surface parking lot is not what any area needs - let alone the DTES. It's not like it wasn't the DTES when they bought the site, or that it's going to suddenly dramatically gentrify. There's another market rental building just approved right next door to the Holborn site. What's the betting it gets built first?

(Just realised this is way off topic.)

[officedweller]

I don't think you should force property owners to use their land to its highest and best use.
Otherwise, the same argument can be made for non-vacant sites that are currently "underdeveloped' vis-a-vis their zoning.
(ie. slippery slope)

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I don't think you should force property owners to use their land to its highest and best use.
Otherwise, the same argument can be made for non-vacant sites that are currently "underdeveloped' vis-a-vis their zoning.
(ie. slippery slope)

I don't think you should force them to do anything. But you can provide a financial disincentive to hoarding land and sitting on it, and use the funds for affordable housing, or providing public bathrooms, or some other expenditure that wouldn't necessarily be funded that would benefit the area. You could allow a year period of grace, and have temporary uses other than parking that could be approved. I don't see it as any different to charging higher taxes on under occupied residential units.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I don't think you should force them to do anything. But you can provide a financial disincentive to hoarding land and sitting on it, and use the funds for affordable housing, or providing public bathrooms, or some other expenditure that wouldn't necessarily be funded that would benefit the area. You could allow a year period of grace, and have temporary uses other than parking that could be approved. I don't see it as any different to charging higher taxes on under occupied residential units.

Is that a land value tax my ears hear?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Is that a land value tax my ears hear?

Hell no! But this isn't the thread to debate that idea.

[WarrenC12]

Land value tax, sure.

Stewart floated the idea of an "empty business tax" similar to the EHT. This is a bit silly because often the city forces unwanted CRUs in the bottom of bigger developments that sit empty for years.

But land that is being used for literally nothing should have some incentive to develop.

[Jimbo604]

It doesn't matter who loves view cones, or doesn't. Or if staff love view cones. It's in the mayor's hands now.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Rather, it's in Council's hands. The mayor can be outvoted if there's even six Councillors who like the viewcones.

[Jimbo604]

It remains to be seen how independent each ABC councilor is.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

It remains to be seen how independent each ABC councilor is.

Why would they be at this stage? Sim carried them to a massive victory over Stewart. Remember how high the vote counts were.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Why would they be at this stage? Sim carried them to a massive victory over Stewart. Remember how high the vote counts were.

Sim was aided by having coaxed three veteran councillors with name recognition onto his team, which helped legitimize the fledgling ABC. So it’s a bit of a two way street.

[EastVanMark]

“ Vancouver doesn't have a shadow crisis. Vancouver doesn't have a view cone crisis. Vancouver has a housing crisis," he said, adding that Vancouver should be home to the tallest and densest development projects in the region, rather than Surrey or Burnaby.” -from the CBC article

Preach Ken, preach!

Could it be that we might finally get a mayor with some common sense in this city? Gotta be too good to be true.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

“ Vancouver doesn't have a shadow crisis. Vancouver doesn't have a view cone crisis. Vancouver has a housing crisis," he said, adding that Vancouver should be home to the tallest and densest development projects in the region, rather than Surrey or Burnaby.” -from the CBC article

Preach Ken, preach!

Could it be that we might finally get a mayor with some common sense in this city? Gotta be too good to be true.

If Vancouver has such a housing crisis why aren't Sim and Eby forcing Joo Kim Tiah to actually start building on the Little Mountain property the province sold him over a decade ago?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

If Vancouver has such a housing crisis why aren't Sim and Eby forcing Joo Kim Tiah to actually start building on the Little Mountain property the province sold him over a decade ago?

You should know that you can't force anyone to build anything, you can only remove restrictions and provide incentives.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

Daily Hive dunks on view cones:

Vancouver City Council abolishes view cones and housing roadblocks!
Ian Ius May 25 2022, 4:01 pm
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-view-cone-restrictions-policies

That's the greatest news!

Agree with the logic of removing the viewcones as it's been what's been discussed here all along.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

That's the greatest news!

Agree with the logic of removing the viewcones as it's been what's been discussed here all along.

You realise it's not news at all? It's a supposedly 'satirical' piece from last year...

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by vin

that's the greatest news!

Agree with the logic of removing the viewcones as it's been what's been discussed here all along.

whoosh!

[Migrant_Coconut]

Looks like a certain poster just bit the Onion... again.

[LeftCoaster]

Absolute onion muncher