Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[Vin]

Originally Posted by p78hub

My photo. Trump looking very tall from Arbutus Ridge.


Skyline by mkms9, on Flickr

It would be awesome if a new viewcone can be established from this location. Imagine how much taller buildings can go without them blocking the mountains? It is really funny that people are saying Vancouver is losing the views of mountains.

[Phil McAvity]

I'll bet view cones were created as a way to minimize development downtown because the logic behind them is non-existent.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Vancity

I find this really odd. Buildings are built to be seen, not to be hidden. lol. if your going to go invisible, why even bother building it in the first place? This makes no sense. LOL.

this has to be a joke...

Commercial buildings are built as a means of getting a financial benefit, nothing more, nothing less.

If some developer tries to blow sunshine out his ass about relaxing viewcones it's not to give anyone a better aesthetic experience, its to squeeze more revenue out of a building site.

[rofina]

I'm glad that an international architect, and in fact also entire other cities, are starting to comment on our skyline.

Its good that its becoming a topic, but its also great because it will hopefully work towards educating and furthering our city design.

In short, the view cones are a perfect metaphor for whats actually wrong with this city. A superficial rule, limiting growth, instituted by the 1% so that they can selfishly protect their views of the mountains from a few select locations.

Utterly ridiculous.

[idunno]

1%? Are you crazy? The view cones are all pretty much from public space vantage points.

[Dimswitch]

Maybe a bit more than 1% but primarily from the south side of False Creek and mainly City Hall. I used to live in East Van and no problem seeing the mountains from there even if the Burj was downtown. No problem from just west of Kits and on out to UBC either. And if you live downtown and expect to get a mountain view from there, dream on, sooner or later you're going to be blocked out

[Pinion]

A lot of 1%ers live at the base of mountains the view cones are supposed to protect. I go months without seeing the city from the south, like a lot of metro Vancouverites.

[djh]

Originally Posted by Dimswitch

Maybe a bit more than 1% but primarily from the south side of False Creek and mainly City Hall. I used to live in East Van and no problem seeing the mountains from there even if the Burj was downtown. No problem from just west of Kits and on out to UBC either. And if you live downtown and expect to get a mountain view from there, dream on, sooner or later you're going to be blocked out

How much do you want to bet that if tomorrow the city was to ease all of the viewcones east of Main Street, and a number of proposals went up that blocked the mountain views, that there would be an East Side backlash of people saying "Hey! How Come Our Views Aren't Preserved!? We Want Viewcones Just Like the One Percenters On The West Side!!!"

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by djh

How much do you want to bet that if tomorrow the city was to ease all of the viewcones east of Main Street, and a number of proposals went up that blocked the mountain views, that there would be an East Side backlash of people saying "Hey! How Come Our Views Aren't Preserved!? We Want Viewcones Just Like the One Percenters On The West Side!!!"

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

Don't think you understand about viewcones. Currently there are absolutely no viewcones in East Vancouver. Tall buildings don't go up there because it is the "culture" of East Vancouver and has nothing to do with viewcones. People there just oppose tall buildings in their OCPs, that's all.

The reason viewcones were imposed is to stifle downtown's growth of tall buildings, and protecting the vantage points are just excuses to impose this restriction. The view points are all located on the west side, mostly around Fairview Slopes, top of bridges linking to the downtown core from Fairview Slopes and QE Park: non-sensical locations.

Still very glad that a couple of tall towers like Vancouver House and Trump are creeping up. I guess City Hall is trying to amend mistakes of the past but still scared to trounce on the toes of those who hate tall buildings and massive developments in general. Why? I don't know. Probably to continue the legacy of a hippie town?

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Vin

Don't think you understand about viewcones. Currently there are absolutely no viewcones in East Vancouver. Tall buildings don't go up there because it is the "culture" of East Vancouver and has nothing to do with viewcones. People there just oppose tall buildings in their OCPs, that's all.

There are 100's of viewcones in East Vancouver. The City just chooses to not protect them.

[djh]

Originally Posted by Vin

Don't think you understand about viewcones.

I don't think you know how to debate politely without being offensive.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by djh

I don't think you know how to debate politely without being offensive.

Nothing offensive about that post. He's right, the view cones are on the West Side of Vancouver, primarily on the South Side of False Creek.

They are a hurdle to development, and protect views for too few people to justify their use.

Am I all for unmanaged, out of control, tall towers everywhere? Absolutely not, but the cones need a solid review and reconsideration.

It seems far from logical to not allow the development of significant projects, in one of the mostly densely populated downtown areas based on a few sight lines that maybe a hundred people view a day.

I think this is also more important now than ever, as the amount of building sites in Downtown dwindles, it would be nice to get an iconic tower to exceed the current skyline.

[djh]

Originally Posted by rofina

Nothing offensive about that post. He's right, the view cones are on the West Side of Vancouver, primarily on the South Side of False Creek.

Hmm...
https://cityhallwatch.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/vanmap_views.png

[Delirium]

Originally Posted by rofina

They are a hurdle to development, and protect views for too few people to justify their use.

really? how to do you explain that 7 class AAA office buildings totalling 2.2million sq/ft are expected to come to market between now and 2017?

have the view cones limited condo development? nope. too long of a list to name all the residential projects on the go right now.

so.. yeah. ok. real hurdle to development.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Delirium

really? how to do you explain that 7 class AAA office buildings totalling 2.2million sq/ft are expected to come to market between now and 2017?

have the view cones limited condo development? nope. too long of a list to name all the residential projects on the go right now.

so.. yeah. ok. real hurdle to development.

Limiting development is an intrinsic feature of the viewcones. If building to the city-imposed viewcone limits was the most economically efficient for developers, then there would be no need for the city to impose such limits in the first place. Developers would simply build to the current viewcone limits and no higher because that would be the most economically efficient thing to do. But the very existence of the viewcones is due to the fact that it makes greater economic sense in many cases to build taller than those limits allow. Hence, the viewcones necessarily impose economic inefficiencies on development, and those inefficiencies are then passed on to business in the form of higher commercial rents (and to condo buyers in the form of higher property prices). That higher cost of doing business is a retardant to optimum economic development, and reduced optimum economic development in turn reduces optimum demand for commercial office space.

So, as nice as it is to see new commercial office development, it is still less than what there would have been in the absence of viewcone limits, ceteris paribus.

[mukmuk64]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Limiting development is an intrinsic feature of the viewcones. If building to the city-imposed viewcone limits was the most economically efficient for developers, then there would be no need for the city to impose such limits in the first place. Developers would simply build to the current viewcone limits and no higher because that would be the most economically efficient thing to do. But the very existence of the viewcones is due to the fact that it makes greater economic sense in many cases to build taller than those limits allow. Hence, the viewcones necessarily impose economic inefficiencies on development, and those inefficiencies are then passed on to business in the form of higher commercial rents (and to condo buyers in the form of higher property prices). That higher cost of doing business is a retardant to optimum economic development, and reduced optimum economic development in turn reduces optimum demand for commercial office space.

So, as nice as it is to see new commercial office development, it is still less than what there would have been in the absence of viewcone limits, ceteris paribus.

I don't know about this. Could you go into more detail about what these economic inefficiencies are that are passed on to renters?

You're insinuating that somehow developers are making less money on their view cone buildings and this is being reflected in the rents. I don't see the mechanism how this occurs. How exactly the developers hindered by view cones? The price they paid for the property would reflect the fact that it is in a view cone.

I don't think developers are paying absurd sums for view cone properties with the belief they'll be able to build whatever they want, only to be foiled by the city's well known and well established bylaw.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

I don't know about this. Could you go into more detail about what these economic inefficiencies are that are passed on to renters?

You're insinuating that somehow developers are making less money on their view cone buildings and this is being reflected in the rents. I don't see the mechanism how this occurs. How exactly the developers hindered by view cones? The price they paid for the property would reflect the fact that it is in a view cone.

I don't think developers are paying absurd sums for view cone properties with the belief they'll be able to build whatever they want, only to be foiled by the city's well known and well established bylaw.

I've always thought that if the original Olympic Village development were to be allowed to go a lot taller, each unit would have been sold cheaper.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

There are 100's of viewcones in East Vancouver. The City just chooses to not protect them.

100s of viewcones in East Vancouver??! Views are not viewcones.

Originally Posted by djh

I don't think you know how to debate politely without being offensive.

No matter how I sugarcoat a statement, if you strongly disagree with me, you would likely be offended.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

You're insinuating that somehow developers are making less money on their view cone buildings and this is being reflected in the rents. I don't see the mechanism how this occurs. How exactly the developers hindered by view cones?

So you think we should eliminate the viewcones then? Because it is nonsensical to advocate for the viewcones while simultaneously claiming they are unnecessary.

[sacrifice333]

Noticed yesterday that the Renaissance has been rebranded (or maybe debranded) to be the Pinnacle Hotel.

Based on it's position in the view shadow of the Marriot Pinnacle I'm guessing that it's either always been owned by Pinnacle or was recently purchased and that it is a site unhindered by view cones.

Anyone know the view cone boundaries better than I?