Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[logan5]

I would think that if a developer is willing to build a 80 story tower, then that must be optimal. If a 55 story building has the best profit margin, why build anything else?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

I would think that if a developer is willing to build a 80 story tower, then that must be optimal. If a 55 story building has the best profit margin, why build anything else?

I think a tower up to something in the mid 50 storeys is probably the most profitable, in our market, but not 80. If it's true, why aren't there any 80 storey towers built yet? Only one has been proposed so far in Burnaby. At the Amazing Brentwood the rezoning permitted up to 70 storeys, and they actually built 56, and the remaining towers are the same height, or shorter.

The tallest at Concord Brentwood is also 55 storeys too, but the rest are 50, and 38 and 27 storeys. Presumably those are all profitable too. SoLo's tallest is 52, the other three are shorter. Station Square was rezoned up to 57 floors, but the tallest is also 52, and the other four are shorter.

Although they are going to 65 storeys (for one of the eight towers) at Concord Metrotown - the remainder are all shorter, and the shortest is only 33 storeys. There's one 64 floor tower in the first phase at Gilmore Place - the others are all shorter. There's a possible 73 storey in the second phase, but again, the others are shorter.

[Migrant_Coconut]

If anything, the optimal cost/benefit height for most cities is apparently 30-40 floors, as evidenced by New York and Shanghai, with Sydney and Melbourne somewhat below that. The only one I can see that bottoms out at above 50 is Chicago... and Vancouver most definitely does not have the same conditions as Chicago.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If anything, the optimal cost/benefit height for most cities is apparently 30-40 floors, as evidenced by New York and Shanghai, with Sydney and Melbourne somewhat below that. The only one I can see that bottoms out at above 50 is Chicago... and Vancouver most definitely does not have the same conditions as Chicago.

No it doesn't have even close to the same conditions. Condos in the popular Lincoln Park neighbour just north of downtown Chicago, go for around $383/sq foot. The average price in downtown Vancouver is nearly triple that at $1100 per sq foot.

Not sure why you are arguing against what an industry expert has said. And that 55 floor optimal height has been mentioned here before many times over the years.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by logan5

No it doesn't have even close to the same conditions. Condos in the popular Lincoln Park neighbour just north of downtown Chicago, go for around $383/sq foot. The average price in downtown Vancouver is nearly triple that at $1100 per sq foot.

Not sure why you are arguing against what an industry expert has said. And that 55 floor optimal height has been mentioned here before many times over the years.

Where did I disagree with him? Vancouver's obviously not 30-40 like NYC or Shanghai, nor is it 50-80 like some posters have made up on the spot, which I why I brought it up.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

No it doesn't have even close to the same conditions. Condos in the popular Lincoln Park neighbour just north of downtown Chicago, go for around $383/sq foot. The average price in downtown Vancouver is nearly triple that at $1100 per sq foot.

Not sure why you are arguing against what an industry expert has said. And that 55 floor optimal height has been mentioned here before many times over the years.

All sorts of things get said here, but only some of them are credible. I think the Dikeakos comments are the first I've seen from someone directly involved in the industry that confirms that building higher and higher has logical limits, and that up to 55 storeys seems to be the sweet spot.

That doesn't mean every tower has to be allowed to go to 55 storeys. Those towers that Concord or Bosa or Onni build at 12 storeys, or 28, or 35 are presumably still profitable enough to continue development. And it's not height that's as important as density. And all the highest density buildings, even with viewcones and shadowing policies in place, are in Vancouver.

It's generally not acceptable to let a developer build 'the most profitable' anywhere anyway. The right to develop is always surrounded by rules and regulations about design, energy efficiency, parking provision, as well as height. Viewcones and shadowing are just part of those rules, and respected commentators on here say that overall they're not limiting development or affordability. They do affect individual buildings, obviously, but as they have been around for years any competent developer will have taken them into account in the calculations for what they want to build.

[madog222]

View cone intrusion of the 130 W Broadway proposal.


Image from NSDA Architects https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/130-w-broadway

[Metro-One]

Just looking at that makes me chuckle. Every tower in that shot could be doubled in height and the mountains would still be seen rising very prominently in the background. In fact to make it even more asinine, the only portion of the view largely being protected by the view cones is off the urban sprawl on the lower elevations of the North Shore Mountains…

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Just looking at that makes me chuckle. Every tower in that shot could be doubled in height and the mountains would still be seen rising very prominently in the background. In fact to make it even more asinine, the only portion of the view largely being protected by the view cones is off the urban sprawl on the lower elevations of the North Shore Mountains…

I assume that's a QE viewcone, which are the dumbest in the city for sure.

[GenWhy?]

I agree with the existing of a QE viewcone, just not how it's currently presented, that's for sure.

Should start where the north shore sprawl ends.

[logan5]

The skyline actually looks too small from QE Park, compared to the mountains. A better proportion is if the skyline reached almost halfway up the height of the mountain. Perspectively speaking.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by logan5

The skyline actually looks too small from QE Park, compared to the mountains. A better proportion is if the skyline reached almost halfway up the height of the mountain. Perspectively speaking.

But then if you stand at Cambie and Broadway you can hardly see the mountains (but you can). So from that perspective, the height limits are reasonable.

[Changing City]

The Broadway Plan allows buildings to protrude into the QE Park viewcones. That's why the application illustrates the degree of intrusion. These towers couldn't be any taller without adding shade to Janathan Rogers Park - if the towers did that GenWhy would be after the developers.

[GenWhy?]

I would be after them because they would be getting an unfair advantage over me for my towers. But as far as I also remember, they are protruding into the viewcone more than what the plan allows (for the eastern tower, anyway). Thought you were only allowed to go into 3.2.4a in certain "higher buildings locations".

[GenWhy?]

I don't have any "high building" sites so I might be wrong. All I know is that even though if we offer 20% below-market rents we can only still build up to the base of the viewcones in like 80% of the Broadway Plan area.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The Broadway Plan allows buildings to protrude into the QE Park viewcones. That's why the application illustrates the degree of intrusion. These towers couldn't be any taller without adding shade to Janathan Rogers Park - if the towers did that GenWhy would be after the developers.

The Broadway Plan allows building into the 3.1 and 3.2.4a sections only, the east tower’s protrusion into 3.2.4 is not expressly permitted.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I would be after them because they would be getting an unfair advantage over me for my towers. But as far as I also remember, they are protruding into the viewcone more than what the plan allows (for the eastern tower, anyway). Thought you were only allowed to go into 3.2.4a in certain "higher buildings locations".

Yup that’s correct, they can go into 3.1 and 3.2.4a in these locations only. Only for job space in A and B and only for 100% social housing in C.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

But then if you stand at Cambie and Broadway you can hardly see the mountains (but you can). So from that perspective, the height limits are reasonable.

I agree with the QE height limit for the "background" height limits (downtown), but not the foreground (Fairview & Mount Pleasant).

Love that view from Cambie & Broadway.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by madog222

Yup that’s correct, they can go into 3.1 and 3.2.4a in these locations only. Only for job space in A and B and only for 100% social housing in C.

I friggin thought so. I knew Jon was applying anyway just to have a public brew-haw with a new Council. The whole building is market rental too with one tower having a daycare. You want to go into the viewcone and not build the mandated social housing? pony up each tower having 20% units below-market, Jon. You know, for those teachers and nurses he was going on about for his downtown tower.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Just looking at that makes me chuckle. Every tower in that shot could be doubled in height and the mountains would still be seen rising very prominently in the background. In fact to make it even more asinine, the only portion of the view largely being protected by the view cones is off the urban sprawl on the lower elevations of the North Shore Mountains…

Double the height, double the density. Simple as that, but we don't want that.

And who cares about being logical in this city? Bring in even more asinine policies I say.....