Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[Vin]

In Vancouver, don't just blame immigrants for high land costs. Think more about land use restrictions like View Cones......

A good read:




Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost
Apr 4th 2015

BUY land, advised Mark Twain; they’re not making it any more. In fact, land is not really scarce: the entire population of America could fit into Texas with more than an acre for each household to enjoy. What drives prices skyward is a collision between rampant demand and limited supply in the great metropolises like London, Mumbai and New York. In the past ten years real prices in Hong Kong have risen by 150%. Residential property in Mayfair, in central London, can go for as much as £55,000 ($82,000) per square metre. A square mile of Manhattan residential property costs $16.5 billion.

Even in these great cities the scarcity is artificial. Regulatory limits on the height and density of buildings constrain supply and inflate prices. A recent analysis by academics at the London School of Economics estimates that land-use regulations in the West End of London inflate the price of office space by about 800%; in Milan and Paris the rules push up prices by around 300%. Most of the enormous value captured by landowners exists because it is well-nigh impossible to build new offices to compete those profits away.

To read more:
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21...v=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709

[Infrequent Poster]

The viewcones are stupid!

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by Vin

In Vancouver, don't just blame immigrants for high land costs. Think more about land use restrictions like View Cones......

I dislike the view cones, but they're small beans compared to other land use restrictions. It's straight-up illegal to build anything but single-family homes and (a small handful of) duplexes on about 80% of the residentially zoned land in Vancouver*.

Also, that is a pretty great article. Ryan Avent does a very good job of covering land use in the Economist.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by quobobo

I dislike the view cones, but they're small beans compared to other land use restrictions. It's straight-up illegal to build anything but single-family homes and (a small handful of) duplexes on about 80% of the residentially zoned land in Vancouver*.

Also, that is a pretty great article. Ryan Avent does a very good job of covering land use in the Economist.

Yes, view cones are not the only culprits, there are certainly many others. However, to restrict the vertical growth and hence density of the only place in the entire city that allows reasonable high density is just making the situation worse.

And yes, the Economist is a very reputable publisher: the writer would have done lots of research before penning the article.

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by Vin

the writer would have done lots of research before penning the article.

He wrote an entire book (albeit a short one) about land use a while ago: The Gated City. It's pretty good.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Vin

In Vancouver, don't just blame immigrants for high land costs. Think more about land use restrictions like View Cones......

A good read:




Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost
Apr 4th 2015

BUY land, advised Mark Twain; they’re not making it any more. In fact, land is not really scarce: the entire population of America could fit into Texas with more than an acre for each household to enjoy. What drives prices skyward is a collision between rampant demand and limited supply in the great metropolises like London, Mumbai and New York. In the past ten years real prices in Hong Kong have risen by 150%. Residential property in Mayfair, in central London, can go for as much as £55,000 ($82,000) per square metre. A square mile of Manhattan residential property costs $16.5 billion.

Even in these great cities the scarcity is artificial. Regulatory limits on the height and density of buildings constrain supply and inflate prices. A recent analysis by academics at the London School of Economics estimates that land-use regulations in the West End of London inflate the price of office space by about 800%; in Milan and Paris the rules push up prices by around 300%. Most of the enormous value captured by landowners exists because it is well-nigh impossible to build new offices to compete those profits away.

To read more:
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21...v=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709

Vin.....the reality is that government regulation does ultimately stimulate/create wealth via the increase in poperty values!

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Vin

Yes, view cones are not the only culprits, there are certainly many others. However, to restrict the vertical growth and hence density of the only place in the entire city that allows reasonable high density is just making the situation worse.

And yes, the Economist is a very reputable publisher: the writer would have done lots of research before penning the article.

Maybe explain to me how height restrictions are restricting density. What type of density are you contemplating for Vancouver developments?

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

The viewcones are stupid!

Well put. Very succinct.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

Maybe explain to me how height restrictions are restricting density. What type of density are you contemplating for Vancouver developments?

More than you can comprehend.....

[csbvan]

I was listening to the Globe and Mail's architecture critic talk about the new VAG on On the Coast yesterday (actually fairly positive about the building). But he got on to talking about the 2 buildings that will be built next to the new gallery and suggested that it shouldn't be 2 stout buildings, and instead 1 taller building to open up more public space...and then went on to say that it would be against the viewcone policy (bashed the viewcone policy) and suggested that the viewcones would likely be getting punted within the next year.

I don't know where the information came from, but he seemed to have some knowledge about a process that is in the works that would dismantle the policy.

[Klazu]

One can dream. One can dream...

[Vin]

Originally Posted by csbvan

I don't know where the information came from, but he seemed to have some knowledge about a process that is in the works that would dismantle the policy.

I love the sound of that! Never say never....but so much time and potential wasted already.

[Klazu]

Well if it's eased or removed, a whole world of re-development opportunities will open. There is plenty of space to build higher in Downtown if the view cones go.

[LowerLonsdaleMike]

That would be quite the amazing day if that dang policy was removed. I really dislike our tabletop skyline. We need a few 300m towers that bring this city into a whole new league.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by LowerLonsdaleMike

We need a few 300m towers that bring this city into a whole new league.

I don't disagree, but even without view cones our city is still some 15 years away from such buildings making any economical sense in here. Looks at Toronto and them only now starting to see such proposals. Without view cones there might be so many development options suddenly opening up that super-talls might be even further out.

Few 250 meters / 80 floor skyscrapers would already be a game-changer for our skyline.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I don't disagree, but even without view cones our city is still some 15 years away from such buildings making any economical sense in here. Looks at Toronto and them only now starting to see such proposals. Without view cones there might be so many development options suddenly opening up that super-talls might be even further out.

Few 250 meters / 80 floor skyscrapers would already be a game-changer for our skyline.

Totally agreed the viewcones should go, or if not, then greatly relaxed (...as if....ha!)
However, even with that out of the way, I wouldn't want Vancouver to go 300m. That's 1000 feet. Rather pretentious if you don't have the Alpha rating to back it up, I think.
It's like a young cowboy who wears too big a stetson and pretends he's a gunslinger when he's not.
(Unless he gets his HSBC permit). // I'd much rather see a large group 160 > 230m, then a couple, or one (as you wish) 270m+ one. //
But don't wear daddy's and mummy's clothes until you're big enough.

Seriously, another look at the skyline profiles - domed? - twin-peaked? - - might be a good idea of where you want to emphasize height.
Certain streets and districts may turn out out more appropriate than others.
(there WAS this posted somewhere, but I can't find it)

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I don't disagree, but even without view cones our city is still some 15 years away from such buildings making any economical sense in here. Looks at Toronto and them only now starting to see such proposals. Without view cones there might be so many development options suddenly opening up that super-talls might be even further out.

Few 250 meters / 80 floor skyscrapers would already be a game-changer for our skyline.

It's all speculation so there is no right answer, but I would say that Vancouver's condo market is just as lucrative as Toronto's market where they have built up to 900 feet so far (Aura). Without the viewcones Vancouver would match those heights.

[logan5]

It's highly likely that these latest proposals that go up to the 550' height limit would be in the range of 750' or even higher.

[urbancanadian]

Yeah, if there were no height limits (or other political reasons), it's not at all unlikely that Vancouver would "beat" Toronto in heights - at least for condo towers. After a certain height, the towers become less economical, and the unit prices need to get steeper.

That's why NYC is able to build those skinny supertalls - because the market is able to find buyers to finance the extreme construction costs. On the other hand, I think it's unlikely you'll see that sort of structure go up in Houston. Sure, they have rich people living there too, but the unit prices would be too out of whack with the current land and property values in that city to attract enough buyers.

One recent example is the comment Bjarke Ingels made about Vancouver House. He said that there are only three cities in North America where constructing that tower would even be feasible, due to the crazy engineering costs that go into building it. That's because, according to him, those are the only cities that could command the average price psf needed for it. (The three cities he was referring to being New York, Vancouver, and San Francisco.)

I'm not an expert on this though, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by csbvan

I was listening to the Globe and Mail's architecture critic talk about the new VAG on On the Coast yesterday (actually fairly positive about the building). But he got on to talking about the 2 buildings that will be built next to the new gallery and suggested that it shouldn't be 2 stout buildings, and instead 1 taller building to open up more public space...and then went on to say that it would be against the viewcone policy (bashed the viewcone policy) and suggested that the viewcones would likely be getting punted within the next year.

I don't know where the information came from, but he seemed to have some knowledge about a process that is in the works that would dismantle the policy.

Do you know who was the architecture critic they were interviewing? It just seems like it would political suicide...

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by logan5

It's highly likely that these latest proposals that go up to the 550' height limit would be in the range of 750' or even higher.

The developer of the First Baptist Church site wanted to create the the city's newest tallest at 750ft, but the city chopped down the project to 550ft via the West End Community Plan, even though no city-fabricated viewcones pass over that site.