Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

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.

Hence we should all oppose the viewcone policies and chop down the panel that rejected the 750' tower. My my what a missed opportunity, and it's not like no developer wants to build such a tower, as alleged by some forumers. It's all due to politics via the viewcone policies.

I wonder what that artchitectural critic is going to do to remove these archaic barriers to vertical growths.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Vin

Hence we should all oppose the viewcone policies and chop down the panel that rejected the 750' tower. My my what a missed opportunity, and it's not like no developer wants to build such a tower, as alleged by some forumers. It's all due to politics via the viewcone policies.

I wonder what that artchitectural critic is going to do to remove these archaic barriers to vertical growths.

Here in the states aggressive developers would have successfully taken the Vancouver review panel to court. In U.S. urban planning law such actions by the city represents an unlawful "taking" of development rights thus harming the economic welfare of the property owner!

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

Here in the states aggressive developers would have successfully taken the Vancouver review panel to court. In U.S. urban planning law such actions by the city represents an unlawful "taking" of development rights thus harming the economic welfare of the property owner!

As much as I like tall buildings, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Ultimately, it's the city's call, and even if it's not logical developers should not be allowed to take them to court over their policies because it'll make them less money.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

Here in the states aggressive developers would have successfully taken the Vancouver review panel to court. In U.S. urban planning law such actions by the city represents an unlawful "taking" of development rights thus harming the economic welfare of the property owner!

Pardon? height, design, and all sorts of details are micromanaged by American city halls all the time

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

Here in the states aggressive developers would have successfully taken the Vancouver review panel to court. In U.S. urban planning law such actions by the city represents an unlawful "taking" of development rights thus harming the economic welfare of the property owner!

Yup, Canadian business types are by and large too soft and easily giving up on challenging the status quo by playing safe on decision-making (Wonder why Tim Horton's and The Bay never expanded beyond North America or even the Canadian border?). Over-aggressiveness is, however, a double-edged sword as it can also cut both ways: great for business expansions and getting what you want, but also a sure way to bring in new enemies. The trick is to find a fine balance.

With that said, much more needs to be done to take down the viewcone policies because the City simply has too much power when wielding them. They are almost like a religious edict that no one can question, no matter how illogical they may seem. Too bad local developers (who don't rely on the international arena to conduct their business) need to rely so much on City approvals by not offending or challenging them too much. We definitely need more international players here.

[Vancity]

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.

about time.

[jlousa]

The view cones are not going anywhere anytime soon... and yes you can quote me on that.

[Klazu]

Come on, jlousa. Bursting our bubble on Friday afternoon? Not fair.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The view cones are not going anywhere anytime soon... and yes you can quote me on that.

How can you be so sure?

[EastVanMark]

The viewcones will come down right about the time when City Hall acquires some common sense....

So in other words, don't hold your breath...

[Nites]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The view cones are not going anywhere anytime soon... and yes you can quote me on that.

I hate you.

[Vancity]

way to burst our bubbles, jlousa. lol.

darn it vancouver....remove those viewcones, at the very least make changes to them....

we must have one of the flatest, most table topped skylines around....

[logan5]

The City did float around the idea of special 700 foot sites - the Bay parkade for one, and 3 other sites, so the city is thinking of going higher. I'd say there's a good possibility that the city will push for greater heights in the near future.

[Sprawl]

Another round of increases at select sites would make sense and would be broadly accepted. Surely there's also a case to be made for removing some of the more obscure cones, as well. But I see no need to scrap the scheme entirely.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vancity

way to burst our bubbles, jlousa. lol.

darn it vancouver....remove those viewcones, at the very least make changes to them....

we must have one of the flatest, most table topped skylines around....

Yes! But doesn't it remind you of Rio de Janeiro (cough cough)?

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

Pardon? height, design, and all sorts of details are micromanaged by American city halls all the time

Government constraints on the private sector in the U.S. are generally limited to matters concerning the public health, safety and (social/economic) welfare!

There are urban planning laws that speak to the concept of a land use "taking" (re: depriving a private property owner of the right to enjoy the full economic rewards of his/her property)! Thus, (for example) although governent does have the power of eminent domain in land use matters the affected private citizen does have the right to fair market compensation.

Hence, a view cone restriction would have to either meet the prescribed threshold for the promotion of the public's health/safety/welfare standards or furnish financial compensation for the taking of the full development rights of the respective property owner!

But keep in mind here that my specific response was in reply to the posting that said something to the effect that a particular parcel of land, located in an area where the view cone limt was some 750', was being arbitrarily limted by the city to lower construction limit of 550'. That (if true) it would seem constitutes a capricious "taking" of a developer's right to enjoy the full "fruits of his property"!

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

Government constraints on the private sector in the U.S. are generally limited to matters concerning the public health, safety and (social/economic) welfare!

There are urban planning laws that speak to the concept of a land use "taking" (re: depriving a private property owner of the right to enjoy the full economic rewards of his/her property)! Thus, (for example) although governent does have the power of eminent domain in land use matters the affected private citizen does have the right to fair market compensation.

Hence, a view cone restriction would have to either meet the prescribed threshold for the promotion of the public's health/safety/welfare standards or furnish financial compensation for the taking of the full development rights of the respective property owner!

But keep in mind here that my specific response was in reply to the posting that said something to the effect that a particular parcel of land, located in an area where the view cone limt was some 750', was being arbitrarily limted by the city to lower construction limit of 550'. That (if true) would seem constitutes a capricious "taking" of a developer's right to enjoy the full "fruits of his property"!

http://www.straight.com/news/601466/city-vancouver-taken-court-over-view-corridors

^^ Oh, back in 2014 some Nimbyos took the City to court for trying to reduce the downtown viewcones. Surprise, surprise, they were the Resident's Association of Mount Pleasant. I never knew that having a view of the mountains behind downtown's skyline is a "right" in the constitution. I can undertand this: having the right to affordable housing, drinkable water, clean air, but having a right to view the mountains? Only in hick Mt. Pleasant. Can't these lazy bums hitch a "free ride" on the 99 B-line bus to Kits to view their mountains? I'm not putting down the residents living in MP, and I'm very sure these Nimbyos are the loud minority. However things need to change as the City, by establishing the viewcone policies in the late 80s, had set a dangerous precedence for these people to continue belting out their nonsensical entitlements. Sad that the spineless City has to give in to the demands of such groups.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Vin

http://www.straight.com/news/601466/city-vancouver-taken-court-over-view-corridors

^^ Oh, back in 2014 some Nimbyos took the City to court for trying to reduce the downtown viewcones. Surprise, surprise, they were the Resident's Association of Mount Pleasant. I never knew that having a view of the mountains behind downtown's skyline is a "right" in the constitution. I can undertand this: having the right to affordable housing, drinkable water, clean air, but having a right to view the mountains? Only in hick Mt. Pleasant. Can't these lazy bums hitch a "free ride" on the 99 B-line bus to Kits to view their mountains? I'm not putting down the residents living in MP, and I'm very sure these Nimbyos are the loud minority. However things need to change as the City, by establishing the viewcone policies in the late 80s, had set a dangerous precedence for these people to continue belting out their nonsensical entitlements. Sad that the spineless City has to give in to the demands of such groups.

Well what about a counter suit (for the Supreme Court of Canada) by citizens demanding the right to see shinny new 800 foot skyscrapers all lit up at night in downtown Vancouver!!??

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

Well what about a counter suit (for the Supreme Court of Canada) by citizens demanding the right to see shinny new 800 foot skyscrapers all lit up at night in downtown Vancouver!!??

That would be something, wouldn't it?

I suppose that never took place because most of us are simply too meek about wanting better and shinier things here. Folks buy into the "laid back" mentality of this city, often termed "provincial" for a reason. However, things are looking up as more are exposed to what's hot elsewhere in the world. I often find people trying to bring innovative ideas here having to go through tiresome hoops and criticisms. However, once established, locals are also surprisingly fast to embrace them. For instance, coffee culture wasn't a thing in this city back in the 90s (being a tea-sipping North American British Commonwealth backwater and all...), but since the arrival of Starbucks, look at how the number of coffee shops have grown!

I'm glad we're having buildings like Telus Garden, Shangri-la and Trump built here. They show the naysayers that it's not the end of the world even with the presence of these bright and tall structures.

[Prometheus]

Shangri-La and Trump are midgets compared to Edmonton's newest tallest under construction.

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Courtesy of Whyteknight/M.Z. commissioned by myself

Edmonton (yes, Edmonton) will be passing Vancouver's skyline by in terms of vertical boldness within the next three years. All of the new towers depicted above (with the exception of the curved stubby one to the right of the tallest) are currently under construction or imminently beginning construction. At 251 metres, the tallest (Stantec) is already under construction and will tower over Vancouver's Shangri-La and Trump by 54 metres and 63 metres, respectively, when completed in 2018.