Vancouver view cone review

[Hed Kandi]

..

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by s211

The centuries-old maxim you quote above has been tamed by precedents...

In limited situations that do not really apply in the present case. For example, it has been held that an airplane flying high above your property is not liable for trespass. That is reasonable enough.

But it is true, there is much law that is inconsistent with our rights and freedoms. That is a shameful fact for which there is no justification.

[leftside]

Anyone know the intended sites for the new buildings in Gastown and Chinatown?

[yogiderek]

so the developer is supposed to tear down Bental 1 and 2 for a taller tower. Or lets say TD tower or Scotia bank tower etc etc. Is that what they're saying. Because if that is the case the developer will want want something that is at least 600 ft to replace a 300 ft or 400 ft building that is 40 years old.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by leftside

Anyone know the intended sites for the new buildings in Gastown and Chinatown?

3 were proposed
- Pender & Abbott
- Pender & Carrall
- Keefer Triangle

The Keefer Traingle one was nixed over concerns about shadowing the Dr. Sun Yat-Sen Garden.

*********

I agree that the CoV seems to bend over backwards trying to preserve views - both public and private views.
Take a look at all of the condo towers that are angled oddly or have small windows or spandrel panels to prevent people looking into units (and then also demand clear glass!)

*********

The biggest disappointment that I see is that the Bay Parkade site will not be developed as intensely as it should be given its location above the Granville SkyTrain Station. It sits under a view cone of about 300-ish feet. If built out, expect a taller version of "Electric Avenue" - very bulky.

The other 3 sites were really just ad hoc sites chosen because they are currently vacant (or close to vacant).

[s211]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

In limited situations that do not really apply in the present case. For example, it has been held that an airplane flying high above your property is not liable for trespass. That is reasonable enough.

But it is true, there is much law that is inconsistent with our rights and freedoms. That is a shameful fact for which there is no justification.

Are you for real? Again, hanging out at Pivot Legal too often?

[Prometheus]

Your repeated allusion to the socialism-oriented Pivot Legal Society is truly bizarre.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The biggest disappointment that I see is that the Bay Parkade site will not be developed as intensely as it should be given its location above the Granville SkyTrain Station. It sits under a view cone of about 300-ish feet. If built out, expect a taller version of "Electric Avenue" - very bulky.

The other 3 sites were really just ad hoc sites chosen because they are currently vacant (or close to vacant).

It is a disappointment, not so much that it won't be 700 feet tall, but limiting height below 300 feet on such a prime site will ultimately impact the economic feasibility of redevelopment - not to the extent that it won't occur after enough time (and not that we should cry for the owners), but without views from upper floors, it will lower the achievable rents on office space and sales prices on condos, which will ultimately diminish the quality of the finished product beyond just the potential for the unattractive bulky massing you mentioned.

[Metro-One]

Not to mention one would think you would want your tallest commercial towers near skytrain stations....

If Vancouver really wants to think green, it is going to have to lighten up on the view cones.

[jlousa]

Actually if it wants to think green it needs to do what it's done downtown everywhere else. Energy efficiency starts going backwards very quickly at ~600ft, our current crop of buildings are in the sweet spot for energy efficiency.
The region needs to continue working on it's multi-hub concept, it's very inefficient to have a network of buses, trains, etc running packed oneway and almost empty on the return trips. With an extensive multi-hub system you can double ridership without any additional capital investment.

Besides there is a ton of redevelopment space available, ~54Msqft under current zoning, the current proposal would've provided a increase of 3%, seemed to me that the price was too high for such minimal gains.

[mr.x]

Hopefully developments on the above mentioned four sites will be on hold for now, especially the Bay parkade site....300-feet city council? Really???

It's almost as if the city is trying to say that "we have enough [tall] skyscrapers, nothing [tall] should ever be built...we're done because it'll block our [arbitrary] sightlines of the mountains". It's completely absurd.

Lighten up, Vancouver...these view cones and height restrictions are incredibly arbitrary. If only city hall could take its view cone/height restriction concerns and place it on the quality of architectural design....

[vansky]

it seems that surrey is the only hope now...i think surrey should follow traditional north american city planning, skyscraper, highway and suburban sprawl...

[EastVanMark]

Wish I could say I am suprised by any of this.... Vancouver just continues to settle for more of the same; bland, boring architecture and a really frustrating, bizarre will to squash anything ambitious in this city.

And for the idea of developing the Bay parkade into into a whole whopping 300 feet (insert sarcasm here) version of the equally boring "electric avenue" .......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Actually if it wants to think green it needs to do what it's done downtown everywhere else. Energy efficiency starts going backwards very quickly at ~600ft, our current crop of buildings are in the sweet spot for energy efficiency.
The region needs to continue working on it's multi-hub concept, it's very inefficient to have a network of buses, trains, etc running packed oneway and almost empty on the return trips. With an extensive multi-hub system you can double ridership without any additional capital investment.

Besides there is a ton of redevelopment space available, ~54Msqft under current zoning, the current proposal would've provided a increase of 3%, seemed to me that the price was too high for such minimal gains.

While I agree with you that we need to start expanding development to other areas of the city (especially areas around skytrain stations) do you not find only allowing a 300 foot tower for the Bay parkade area a little silly? Do you not think that the Vancouver skyline deserves a few 600 to 700 foot towers? And does it not make sense to build such towers as close as possible to skytrain stations? These towers could be signature towers and indeed enhance views.

I agree Vancouver will never need supertalls, but seriously? Only one of these 4 proposed sites had a tower height over 200m, a marginally tall tower in most cities. the others were nothing out of the ordinary, even for Vancouver! (well, the 152m proposal is slightly out of the ordinary for us, and is indeed, only 2m above skyscraper status.)

We really need to keep things in perspective here.

And if you say that efficiency starts going backwards at 600 feet, then let us build more 500 to 600 foot towers! ( I would be happy with a 600 foot tower on the bay parkade site)

[EastVanMark]

"We are not opposed to height," Louie said. "We are opposed to intrusions to these view corridors."- How you can have one without impacting the other I'll never know...I guess it just depends on what one considers as being of any "height"

then this doozy

"For too long, Chinatown has been in decline. We decided to take decisive action," he said.- There he goes again contradicting himself. On the one hand he can't stop but pat himself on the back by suggesting that raising the heights of buildings in that area is a good thing (Chinatown) while a few blocks down the road these benefits seemed to have disappeared when it comes to a 700 ft. skyscraper.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Not to mention one would think you would want your tallest commercial towers near skytrain stations.....

That makes too much sense. Please remember this city's commitment to backwardsness. On the one hand they preach density, then when somebody gives it to them, they turn it down. This city (and I use that term loosely when it comes to Vancouver) acts like a four year old at a restaurant. It begs the parents to order a particular item of the menu but then once served, doesn't eat it, and then cries when the parent reprimands them for ordering it in the first place.

[vansky]

700 ft is a small step toward a 200m dominated skyline dream...

[jlousa]

Personally I think we are a little too obsessed with height. Do I think we could use a 700ft tower sure, if it's in the right place, I don't think the bay parkade site is the right place. Maybe the Amacon site in the 1100blk Melville would be a better location but I'll leave that up to city planners to decide. The direction council has given isn't to stop taller builders at all, they directed staff to go back and see if they can come up with other sites for taller towers that don't intrude into the view cones. There are quite a few locations that fall into that category although they might not be as centrally located or along our ceremonial streets.

The Bay Parkade site has already been pre-approved for an FSR of over 10, that's huge on a site that large and I s predict that number will be revised upwards when it's time to develop.
I think the point tower over a podium has served us very well for the last 20+yrs, during the last few years we've started to see it evolve a bit and I think in the next development wave we will see a new take on what Vancouverism is about.

[flight_from_kamakura]

east van mark - it seems like louie is assuming that there are a finite number of residential units the city can absorb in a given year, and that he'd like to see a larger proportion of those built in chinatown to arrest the decline there. doesn't seem inconsistent (unless the bay parkade would have gone into office....)

[EastVanMark]

He never said anything near that. Also, I'm pretty sure that Bay Parkade site would have likely been either all or a large portion of, office space. The Chinatown proposals will be all residential