Quote:
Originally Posted by Hed Kandi
I do feel that the view cones policies are an important initiative, however the city's natural beauty can be preserved - and yet the skyline can benefit by having a greater sense of vertical scale if the height below the view corridors is raised.
|
I'd rather have it articulate from that view, so have it low to the left, peak above the mountains where wall centre is (so instead of a 150 meter tower have towers in 200-250 range), back down again in the area between wall and Shangri-la, where it woudl go up again over the CBD to allow anything in the 200-250 (300?) range, then back down lower over gastown and the east with structures not more than 100-150 meters.
From the PDF JL put up:
Quote:
What factors affect the value you place on a view?
-Importance of the public place
-Quality of the view
-Size or expanse of the view
-Duration of enjoyment
-Accessibility of the viewpoint
Which views do you value most?
What options are acceptable to modify views?
|
Importance of public place. Viewcones shouldn't be here there and everywhere, but in 3-4 notable locations that people would already be attracted too for other reasons (Granville Island, Science World, A spot in SEFC, and possibly something from further south up on the hill)
Quality of View & Size/Expanse. if there are going to be viewcones showing mountains, shwoing the very tip that could simply be mistaken for the top of buildings under the viewcone, or clouds when snowcovered is simply limiting growth potential without any real effect other than showing sky. I'd suggest that any viewcone make it obvious that it is a mountain in the back, either by having it real wide, real deep, or a combination of both. If I can't stick my hand out infront of me along viewcone and see mountain all around the sides, op and bottom, or both, then there is no point having it (say a 10cm by 10cm square or 2.5cm by 15 cm 1 meter away from focal point shoudl be minimum) within the hight limitations half has to be mountain, other half sky (so real views would be 5cm and 7.5cm of mountain respectively per view).
With that comes views being too big, and I'd suggest for anythign wider than 15cm at 1 meter that buildings be allowed to intrude on the established view to break it up. (so a 15cm wide by 10cm high view would have one building within 2.5 cm of middle to break it up).
Duration and Accessibility. Aside from any dramatic over the hill views when you are driving from the south, all views should be accessed by pedestrians and cyclists only, and the duration beign as long as a person is willing to stand there and take it all in. views while moving are no good for tourists or locals taking pictures, where you only need one vantage point. while they do provide enjoyment for the moving commuter as they go by, a commuter shoudl be focusing on the congested roads and not the city views. the responsible driver would park the car to enjoy the view while stationary.
I don't really value any specific view at present, they all contribute to Vancouvers overall lustre, though the really skinny or really high ones should simply be eliminated.
Options acceptable to modifying views are as I said above, the skyline shoudl interact with the mountainline via building peaks, every view should have a minimum size and expsure of mountains, etc.
3.1, 3.2, 9.1, 9.2, E1, and E2.1 are all examples of views where the Skyline could and should be allowed to interact with the mountainline. In the Case of E1 the arc for development has already been established by the Harbour Centre, and any development within that arc should be allowed to go as high as economically feasable pending any other viewcones.
D, 12.1.3, and C2.1 are all examples of where the mountain views are diminished enough that the economics of higher buildings overweigh the view of a sliver of mountain. A, 12.1.2, 12.2, and C1 are also possible locatiosn where this may also apply, however more mointain is visible and aslong as nothing has disturbed the views as seen in those photograhs, they could be good as they are and shoudl be left.
12.2 deserves a notable acception as based on the picture you can see Mt. Seymour through the canyon that is granville. I will go against what i said above about interacive viewcones, and would encourage an increase of the canyon effect for this view by increasing allowable height long the sides and tightly-spaced infill in areas where development is still permitted. this would cause the view to open up and widen as commuters travel towards the Harbourside, which could attract tourists in rental cars or just pedestrians towards the harbourside even more, making it feel like the open and welcoming part of the city. The New Convention centre in addition to Canada place, the recent harbourside developments, the floatplane terminal, and the future Waterfront transit hub are already centering this location as the public place to gather in the city, much more than Robson square ever could.
Any viewcones I have not mention I feel should not be modified to any significant extent, and are the models which I feel other views (either modified from current or totally new views) should be modeled from.
What are your guy's thoughts on this?