HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #481  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2011, 4:58 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,916
Money doesnt fall from the sky. When you get $20 million towards the Orpheum for allowing Capital to go higher it still comes from the pockets of current or future residents buying condos.

By not allowing Capital to go higher the city and especially the residents dont lose $20 million, the $20 million simply either stays in the pockets of the residents or gets collected by the city from other developments.

I think the argument that the city loses money towards social services or amenities is a stupid one.

And count me in for wanting to preserve the view cones, they are priceless and once lost almost irreplaceable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #482  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2011, 6:14 AM
delboy delboy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x View Post
What Vancouverites may term as "major increases in height" aren't going to kill these "precious" mountain views the city is known for....perhaps at some very few and extremely arbitrary view points that few people really care about. On the other hand if we're building a wall of 1,000 footers along the entire length of Robson Street, that's another story.

The economic vitality of the city has been hindered from nonflexible height restrictions and view cones for far too long.





And I wonder why...
yes, as i noted there needs to be balance. It is commonly known that to increase office space for the future in the city, there are going to have to be height increases and some impact to view cones, but as long as it is done with the intent to preview views, i think it is doable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #483  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2011, 6:19 AM
delboy delboy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa View Post
When I was younger I was anti viewcones, now that I'm older I'm a stout supporter. Even the sliver ones that seem useless still slice a path across the core letting sunlight reach the ground plane. It still surprises me walking the streets how much daylight we get ( even under overcast skies). Even our walls of glass which appear mundane help reflect sunlight everywhere. As mentioned by Delboy I don't get the appeal of Seattle, I enjoy I time there but it doesn't feel nearly as vibrant. I do notice that the streets of d/t Seattle do not seem to get the amount of light ours do.
this is very true and the other aspect of building forms here....to preserve natural light, or at least minimize it, is a huge quality of life factor.Other cities have failed in this regard, and many streets have a dearth of natural light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #484  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2011, 10:59 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 12,805
Natural light in the city has much more to do with the city laws of how far apart towers need to be from each other...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #485  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2011, 2:49 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
The separation is more for privacy then it is light, as the 80ft between residential towers doesn't mean there would be a path across the core just that they are in a somewhat scattered placement. Depending on the placement they could very well still block most light from reaching the ground. The separation certainly helps but it's the view cones that make the bigger difference.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #486  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2011, 7:46 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 41,376
I tend to think that height limits would force density into blockier forms that could overshadow the street more than is seen in downtown south. While it's nice to have the midrise blocks to add variety, based on SponeG's pics of Olympic Village, and my experience walking through the area, there is a lot of shadowing through those narrow streets due to the midrise streetwall. The only sunlight that penetrates on those streets is in the plaza areas and the seawall (i.e. put that massing in another area without open space or seawall and it could be more oppressive). The massing in downtown south achieves light penetration without as many open spaces. When the south side of 1st Ave. is built up, there will be more shadowing (although 1st Ave. is wider than the interior Village streets and the width of the streets would make a big difference too). ... and all of this at hieghts well under any view cones.

Here are some of SpongeG's pics of OV:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
was down at the village today - took a few pics - all by me

actual people and cars




Reply With Quote
     
     
  #487  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2011, 10:47 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,896
me an my friend were discussing that when we were down there - do some of these units ever see sunshine?

there seems to be a reason why they put the show homes in a sunny 7th floor unit - we had looked at one unit that fronts the water/bridge area - it was around $999,000 at the time last year when we toured it - it had no sunlight at all - it wasn't that bright but the light was okay but not dazzling
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #488  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2011, 2:18 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
The Rows in OV are much narrower then anywhere d/t which plays a factor as does the lack of setbacks from the street. OV works quite nicely N-S, it's E-W where things could've been improved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #489  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2011, 2:39 AM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toroncouver
Posts: 13,119
Those pics are also misleading in that they were taken during the winter when the light is extremely low in the horizon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #490  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2011, 3:23 AM
peters peters is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 40
SSPers Please come to this event......

http://www.straight.com/article-379478/vancouver/author-david-owen-says-dense-cities-benefit-planet

Author David Owen says dense cities benefit the planet
Share
comments Comments (1) [Print this page] Print
By Carlito Pablo, March 9, 2011

Author David Own says that density reduces pollution.

The urban jungle that more than eight million New Yorkers call home is the greenest city in America.

This statement may baffle those who regard New York City’s concrete canyons as the opposite of green, but Connecticut-based writer David Owen makes the case that the Hong Kong of the Hudson is a model of environmental sustainability.

Owen is the author of Green Metropolis: Why Living Smaller, Living Closer, and Driving Less Are the Keys to Sustainability (Riverhead, 2009), a book that argues that dense cities are good for the planet. He will deliver a talk at the Vancouver Playhouse on March 17; the event starts at 7:30 p.m.

“New Yorkers have the lowest per capita energy use in the United States,” Owen told the Georgia Straight in a phone interview. “They have the smallest carbon footprint per person. They’re the most significant users of public transit in the U.S. They have the lowest rate of automobile ownership. We have more registered vehicles than licensed drivers, and I assume the same is true in Canada. But in New York City, in Manhattan, 77 percent of all households don’t own even one car.”

According to Owen, the thing that makes NYC seem like an environmental time bomb is the same reason that makes it an ecological paragon: its highly compact population.

“One of the great challenges is mixing up people and the places where they go,” he said.

Owen, a long-time writer for New Yorker magazine, provided some figures to demonstrate how the most populous American city gets it right.

For example, 82 percent of residents in Manhattan, a major city borough, go to work by transit, bicycle, or on foot. That’s 10 times the rate for Americans in general.

New York accounts for almost a third of all the transit-passenger miles travelled in the U.S. Its subway system is the third-busiest in the world, after those in Tokyo and Moscow. New York City’s buses carry 842 million passengers a year, which is more than the combined total of Los Angeles, Chicago, and Philadelphia.

The average New Yorker generates only 7.1 metric tonnes of greenhouse gases per year, less than 30 percent of the national average.

These are all possible because New York has a dense population. For example, according to Owen’s figures, Manhattan has about 67,000 people per square mile, or more than 800 times the national average and 30 times that of Los Angeles.

Owen’s speaking engagement in Vancouver is being organized by the Global Civic Policy Society of ex-mayor Sam Sullivan.

Sullivan, a former politician who takes pride in taking on hard issues, pushed the City of Vancouver during his term to adopt EcoDensity, his brainchild concept that seeks to build a greener city through greater population densities.

Now an adjunct professor at the UBC school of architecture and landscape architecture, a position he took on starting in January this year, Sullivan reflected on how he changed the way many Vancouverites view density.

“I noticed that when people would come to public hearings after the EcoDensity initiative started, it was very rare to hear…[them] say density is bad,” Sullivan said with an amused laugh in a phone interview with the Straight. “What they would say is: ‘I’m not against density, but not here.’”

According to Sullivan, Owen will also help him launch what he called the Centre for Market Urbanism. “The idea is that government has a lot of responsibility for creating sprawl,” Sullivan said. “There’s a great demand by the market for increased density. And because government is constantly saying ‘no’ to density, we now have the sprawl we have across the region.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #491  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2011, 4:50 AM
wrenegade's Avatar
wrenegade wrenegade is offline
ON3P Skis
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lower Lonsdale, North Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,594
Bringing one back from the dead (kinda), but I saw plans from a very reputable developer for the Under the Granville Bridge area and the westerly triangle piece that was approved for up to 425'. Absolutely groundbreaking architecture for Vancouver. Stunning. Hed Kandi, right up your alley. Easily the most ambitious tower design I've ever seen for Vancouver.
__________________
Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #492  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2011, 5:00 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
No idea what you are talking about, but it sounds BIG, maybe we should have a Dialog about it...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #493  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2011, 7:06 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
Reason and Freedom
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Vancouver/Toronto
Posts: 4,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrenegade View Post

I saw plans from a very reputable developer for the Under the Granville Bridge area and the westerly triangle piece that was approved for up to 425'.
The language the city used in the new General Policy on Higher Buildings for this site was "generally 425 feet." Therefore, it is possible that the building could be even taller than 425 feet, just as Burrard Gateway is somewhat meaningfully taller than 500 feet though the new policy provided for a building of "generally 500 feet" on that site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #494  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2011, 2:01 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toroncouver
Posts: 13,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa View Post
No idea what you are talking about, but it sounds BIG, maybe we should have a Dialog about it...
haha clever.

I've been waiting for something BIG in Vancouver for a long time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #495  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2011, 2:29 PM
phesto phesto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: yvr/bwi
Posts: 2,698
Guys, I don't think it is any secret that Westbank is behind this.

I haven't seen the plans but it was described to me and sounded very interesting!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #496  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2011, 2:41 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toroncouver
Posts: 13,119
Why? Because it is stunning architecture from a reputable developer?

I guess there is really only one Vancouver firm I would think is behind that too
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #497  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2011, 5:08 PM
djh djh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrenegade View Post
Bringing one back from the dead (kinda), but I saw plans from a very reputable developer for the Under the Granville Bridge area and the westerly triangle piece that was approved for up to 425'. Absolutely groundbreaking architecture for Vancouver. Stunning. Hed Kandi, right up your alley. Easily the most ambitious tower design I've ever seen for Vancouver.
This is almost exactly the leaked description that somebody had a couple of years ago for "The Jenga Project" by Granville bridge offramp. That got dumbed-down to The Rolston.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #498  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 2:04 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 41,376
Given the acceptance of allowing towers to exceed view cone limits if they lie within an existing "view shadow", maybe it's worth while to examine development sites that lie in the Scotia Tower's view shadow?

The Scotia Tower view shadow is marked here, and I've roughly extrapolated the lines on the view cone map below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Built Form View Post
Here's a look at how the tower will replace the view of the Scotia Tower from City Hall.



...




All pix by Built Form
Here's the view cone in question:


http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/views/viewcones/92.htm#

Here's the relevant view cone diagram showing view cone heights
(there's already view cone limits of 550 ft at Bentall I, and 500 ft at Keg Caesar,
which would be potentially taller given the Scotia Tower "view shadow" - i.e. up to 600ft at Bentall I?):



Sites within Scotia Tower's view shadow:
701 West Georgia
Four Seasons Hotel
SW corner, Dunsmuir & Howe
SE corner, Dunsmuir & Hornby (888 Dunsmuir)
NE corner, Dunsmuir & Hornby
Keg Caesar/Swedish Touch/Brandi's building
Bentall I

Red dots mark sites in the Scotia Tower's view shadow.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Last edited by officedweller; Jan 18, 2012 at 2:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #499  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 5:15 AM
Locked In's Avatar
Locked In Locked In is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,977
^ Would love to see the old Keg Caesar building be redeveloped, but is that site big enough for a tall building, and would the City allow it with Le Soleil being mid-block?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #500  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 5:49 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 41,376
Yeah, that's a pretty tiny site - I don't even know if it would be feasible without Le Soleil coming down.
I think the site across Hornby would be a good candidate - it's low-rise all the way down to the alley (the ramen place).
It's technically outside the higher buildings area, but still across the street from it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:51 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.