Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments - Page 19

jlousa · #**361** Posted **Jan 14, 2011, 5:37 AM**

There is an offical presentation regarding higher buildings and the HAHR on Monday, January 17, 2011, 7:00 - 8:30 pm at the Empire Landmark Hotel (1400 Robson Street) in the Crystal Ballroom (lobby level). This one will be run by the city and be lacking in the misinformation provided at the unofficial one.
I will attend this one, hopefully a few members can drop by as well.

Metro-One · #**362** Posted **Jan 14, 2011, 5:53 AM**

Sweet, i may actually be able to go to this one!

wrenegade · #**363** Posted **Jan 14, 2011, 6:07 PM**

Sweet, I should be able to make this one as well.

Alex Mackinnon · #**364** Posted **Jan 16, 2011, 12:27 PM**

So being the number cruncher I am I recreated Steve's block models with amusing results. Took the shape to get the floor plate, then used the height for floor count.

The results are amusing. The 700' Monster tower on Georgia has about 1.7M Sq. Ft. of space. I guess it wouldn't be all usable, but crap what a monster.

The rest of the towers were all around the 1M Sq. Ft. marker. Those will get built soon.

28000-33000 Sq. Ft. foot print.

http://cityhallwatch.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/citizensforum-cityhallwatch-sb_11-jan-2011-9mb.pdf

The models are in here if you missed the presentation.

Locked In · #**365** Posted **Jan 16, 2011, 7:41 PM**

^ That's fantastic. Hard to see an office tower the size of the Bow going up on that site... Of course, he wouldn't have let you bring that up at last week's propaganda session.. err, town hall meeting.

Canadian Mind · #**366** Posted **Jan 16, 2011, 8:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

City Presentation from the City's website.
I hadn't realized that the 425' sites at Granville Bridgehead were the ones closer to the water and the upland 300' sites are remaining the same. I think I'd rather have the two upland sites increased and the ones closer to the water increased only to 300'.
That would reduce the "in your face" aspect of the current proposals.

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/2010...tunitiesforHigherBuildingsintheDownt.pdf

Isn't the point of the proposal to be that of a bold "gateway" statement when entering the city?

trofirhen · #**367** Posted **Jan 16, 2011, 8:21 PM**

http://cityhallwatch.files.wordpress...n-2011-9mb.pdf

Making statements such as the ones in the presentation are akin to someone in Fan Francisco saying
... "no! no! you can't build tall buildings downtown, because then you'll block out the views of the GG Bridge, the Bay Bridge, Twin Peaks ....."

Even though Vancouver does not have the high, vetiginous hills that SF has, there are still many streets in downtown SF where all you can see is a slice of the Bay Bridge between tall buildings. And their "talls" are a lot higher and more numerous than Vancouver's

Nevertheless, the overall geography of the SF Bay area and its views, and appreciation thereof, remains intact.

In his presentation, Mr. Bohus even went out on a limb by saying "let's take it one step farther" showing a fictitious future West End view punctuated with "supertalls." This is visual hyperbole, with the aim of 'scaring' Vancouverites into the monstrous effects of what "MIGHT be."

There are many places in central San Francisco, both downtown, and in adjacent neighbourhoods, where you see neither bridge nor Bay (or even Mt. Tamalpais, for that matter) ... just as there are already many residential streets and downtown Vancouver streets, where you cannot see the mountaintops.

If the planning is of "supertalls" for Vancouver is done wisely, limiting them to the already city-defined CBD and bridgehead areas, we'll be able to keep nearly all our views as they exist now without traumatizing the citizenry.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

SpikePhanta · #**368** Posted **Jan 16, 2011, 10:47 PM**

He doesnt mention Hong Kong with Ocean, Mountains and city....

Canadian Mind · #**369** Posted **Jan 17, 2011, 12:42 AM**

Downtown Vancouver is also as much an island as is Manhattan.

officedweller · #**370** Posted **Jan 17, 2011, 4:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Isn't the point of the proposal to be that of a bold "gateway" statement when entering the city?

Yeah, but the way they look in the renders they also look like a barrier or wall.

Canadian Mind · #**371** Posted **Jan 17, 2011, 4:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah, but the way they look in the renders they also look like a barrier or wall.

I think thats the impression anyone would have when looking at ominous green cubes, which from what I can tell represent the maximum height allowed, as well as width and length of the properties. I would assume they would be at least a touch thinner.

Personally, I like the bold look. Would make the city feel bigger than it already does.

Mininari · #**372** Posted **Jan 17, 2011, 4:34 PM**

A somewhat poorly written News1130 story:

"could allow several towers to rise about 200m" Really??? Where?
Last I checked theres only ONE that could potentially crack 200m.

"add just under 1 million sq/ft of density" -- I suppose this is what the EXTRA ADDED density would be... its not clear in the writing.

Building up while protecting Vancouver's view-corridors
Vote on Thursday about increasing heights
Dave White Jan 17, 2011 07:33:49 AM
Be the first to Comment
0 Recommendation(s)
Related Stories

* Forum on building heights in downtown Vancouver

VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - Vancouver can't build out, so the only option for expansion is to build up. But not everyone is on board with the idea, and it has nothing to do with fears the city will become too busy.

A protest being held this morning in the downtown eastside is aimed at preventing extra high-rising condos from paving over that neighbourhood. As the community rallies, most people say it's not a parking crunch or traffic gridlock that has them worried about taller buildings.

"You got to be able to see the mountains. It's our beauty, that's what makes this Vancouver," says one woman who thinks it's all about our precious view-corridors.

Others add, "Vancouver has an iconic skyline, so why do we need to look like Toronto?"

The City of Vancouver will vote Thursday on reports that could allow several buildings to rise over 200 metres, mainly along Georgia, Granville and Burrard Streets. That would add just under a million square feet of density downtown.

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/artic...le-protecting-vancouver-s-view-corridors

trofirhen · #**373** Posted **Jan 17, 2011, 6:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

I think thats the impression anyone would have when looking at ominous green cubes, which from what I can tell represent the maximum height allowed, as well as width and length of the properties. I would assume they would be at least a touch thinner.

Personally, I like the bold look. Would make the city feel bigger than it already does.

Agreed. Absolutely. (... and what's more, Vancouver has enough little "cubes" as is)

mr.x · #**374** Posted **Jan 17, 2011, 6:24 PM**

"But not everyone is on board with the idea, and it has nothing to do with fears the city will become too busy."

Dear God....

Metro-One · #**375** Posted **Jan 17, 2011, 6:26 PM**

News 1130 always seems the direct their news stories more towards the view point on the Nimbys or protest group, they are very unbalanced and often inflame misinformation.

Why is it that whenever Vancouver is on the right track of development (such as finally proposing taller towers (focussing on the skyline) and building skytrain, a true grade separated rapid transit system) there is always some bizarre fringe group with misinformation up in arms against it getting all of the media attention?

bils · #**376** Posted **Jan 17, 2011, 8:07 PM**

story from Global TV noon news, paraphrased as the story ran:

opposition from DTES

worried plan to allow taller buildings will slowly push them out

"build social housing now"

protest today against gentrification of their neighborhood will mean higher rent

wants city to build 10 housing sites per year for next 5 years

proposal to increase heights to 15 storeys in gastown, victory sq, chinatown

govt says building social housing without allowing development is almost impossible, city has already lowered max building heights