Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

GOOD:

Sam: "Hmm... interesting how the building has an odd angle on the top portion. I don't think it works with the overall design."
Kim: "There's a viewcone that bisects the site there."
Sam: "Oh ok makes sense. Think they could've been way more creative in addressing the viewcone. Doesn't look good."

Obviously my question was not addressed to you. You are not a moderator.

But your personal vision of what constitutes acceptable speech about how a viewcone affects the design or massing of a building under discussion is comical: it must end with the conclusion that any drawbacks in a building's design or massing are the result of the developer's lack of creativity, not the artificial encumbrances that limit the building's creative possibilities.

It would forbid full and candid critical assessments of projects, such as SFUVancouver's analysis of the Canada Post Building proposal, which correctly diagnoses the prime cause of the unpleasing (but unavoidable) massing of towers:

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Initial thoughts:

Very happy to see that they are committed to keeping the exterior of the existing structure.

Glad to see a mixed program of office, retail, and residential (market & rental, too).

Happy to see that there has been an effort made to create some texture and depth to the tower facade.

The inclusion of office, especially giant block-long 'land-scraper' floor plates is excellent and appeals to businesses that are often looking for breadth instead of height for their GLA. It's more space efficient, avoids the need for expensive internal circulation, is generally considered to be more conducive to cooperation, and it reduces the literal hierarchy of the organization.

Understand entirely that this is a preliminary massing model, however there is a lot of 'sameness' at the moment and I hope that further refinement can yield some interesting gestures.

"Cracking" the exterior of the Post Office structure in a few places could present some interesting opportunities to have the new modern towers appear to come down to grade/burst out through the old facade like new bark on a tree in spring.

The tyranny of the view cones strike again and has negatively affected the massing of a major downtown site. I would love to see the view that the view cone protects and decide for myself how irreplaceable the peek-a-boo view is.

The separation between towers sure looks tight, thought the massive size of the full city block site probably is messing with my sense of scale. I'm sure that they aren't any closer than the normal 75' minimum.

[urbancanadian]

Try not to take my post so literally. Basically I'm saying that a critique based on how the viewcone affects the specific design should be fine. But when the subject inevitably pivots to the overall economic viability of downtown or personal stances on skylines vs. mountains, then we get the same thing repeated ad nauseam because those are broad sub-issues pertaining to viewcones and not specific to the development at hand.

Obviously a conversation is going to go off on a tangent every now and again. The problem is it's been happening in every other thread and so the mods needed to step in. For the record, I'm very interested in hearing your viewpoint on the topic. I understand your positions, and agree with many of them. Just not in every case of a tower losing height, or whatever the case may be.

PS - I'm glad this discussion is happening in this thread, at least.

[jlousa]

Seems like some of the posters get the concept. This isn't a pro viewcone supporters being rewarded and the anti viewcone supporters being punished at all. This is simply about cleaning up the ongoing bickering by both sides in thread after thread. The above post actually is spot on, they can be brought up as an explanation as to why something was done, but if you want to discuss them more indepth then bring that conservation here.
Wish the view cones got this much attention from those that oppose them when they were under review but they decided to complain here instead.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

Try not to take my post so literally. Basically I'm saying that a critique based on how the viewcone affects the specific design should be fine. But when the subject inevitably pivots to the overall economic viability of downtown or personal stances on skylines vs. mountains, then we get the same thing repeated ad nauseam because those are broad sub-issues pertaining to viewcones and not specific to the development at hand.

That's fair enough. I hope the moderators realize they should never abandon the distinction between comments about viewcones that are directly relevant to the project under discussion (since it is impossible to properly discuss a building's design without being able to indentify and comment on the specific factors that shape it) and prolonged broader debates about the viewcones as such.

EDIT: It's gratifying to see that the following directive from yesterday has been revoked:

Originally Posted by jlousa

If someone feels the viewcone pertains to a certain project that's great, bring that up in the viewcone thread.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Klazu

What's the story behind Crystal Mall? It seems like a fairly large development, but somehow quite disconnected from the crowds. What was there before the mall?

I looked it up and Crystal Mall opened in 2000. The pics show the area levelled in 1997 and the next earlier set is 1992, where it shows this. The dark towers are Metrotower 1 & 2, the light towers behind them are the ones at Station Square and hidden by them is the library. The green area just to the right of the library is where Crystal Mall is now.


Waite Air Photos

[christmas]

I used to consider Sydney and Melbourne a rival to Vancouver in many ways. Now we're not even a match for them when it comes to skyline. I guess we can still compete with Auckland.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by christmas

I used to consider Sydney and Melbourne a rival to Vancouver in many ways. Now we're not even a match for them when it comes to skyline. I guess we can still compete with Auckland.

I've looked at this, too, and compared Toronto and Montreal, as well, to Sidney or Melbourne, but mainly looking for an AUS/NZ Vancouver counterpart.
IMO, Vancouver exceeds the Auckland skyline, which, though impressive, and with a revolving tower amidst the CBD, is not a match in density, height and size for Vancouver.
Brisbane is. At least regarding the CBD. Brisbane has a cluster of dense, tall, buildings on the riverbend CBD, but does not connect with ever-denser city town centres as in Vancouver.
Instead thre are miles of low density suburbs with much smaller density nodes than Vancouver. There is a large and comprehensive suburban rail system in Brisbane, but ...
it carries about a quarter of the daily pax of our Skytrain system. This in both cities with metro pop +/- 2.5million. (and airport BNE at 21+ m pax per year) Good comparison point city, for AUS / NZ, I rather think.......... if this in any way pertains to viewcones (!) If not, then excuse me.

[mcminsen]

I noticed this article in the real estate section of today's Courier newspaper.

******************

Vancouver’s View Cones a “Questionable Extravagance,” says Developer
Downtown Vancouver is far from built out, but the city may have to sacrifice specific viewpoints in favour of density and affordability, argues Urban Development Institute’s incoming chair

By
REW.ca
March 28, 2016

Vancouver may be running out of land on which to build more housing, but there’s plenty of space overhead – we just need to rethink the value of specific views, the Urban Development Institute’s incoming chair told listeners of the Real Estate Therapist radio show March 26.

- See more at: http://www.rew.ca/news/vancouver-s-view-...developer-1.2218401#sthash.ZepnzaZK.dpuf

[Vin]

I wonder how many "expert" voices need to be heard before the good ol folks of Vancouver will finally accept that the viewcone policies are a bane to urban development in our city, especially downtown and its surrounding areas.

[jlousa]

What did you expect someone in his position to say? I am certainly not a fan of the current council, but any council must weigh what is right for the city at large and not just for a particular industry. There is hundreds of millions of unbuilt sqftage still available downtown. Where more work should be done is outside the core. If they don't have the courage to step into traditional sfhs they don't even need to, they could upzone all aterials to between 3 and 5 fsr and that would keep builders occuppied for a couple of decades at which time they can carve another slice up.

[Infrequent Poster]

[IMG][/IMG]

I was gonna make this post in the 320 granville thread but decided to put it here instead, as I feel this building is just going to disappear into the tabletop. If the picture was wider angle that red line would go almost directly through the top of every other prominent downtown building as well. With 2 obvious exceptions.

Its disappointing......

[Klazu]

Well they have good reasons, as I cannot see the mountains anymore in that view!??!?!?

/s

[Klazu]

Downtown skyline vs. North Shore Mountains.

[Marshal]

That photo puts the correct scale to the issue. Obviously we view things very differently from different locations: what I take from the photo is not that the buildings are small and short compared to the mountains, but rather that downtown is a small piece of the local environment. And from that I take away that we all live in a mobile world in which our experience of our city comes from countless vantage points, and selecting a few from one relatively small area, is not achieving much. One or two view cones that offer significant views from significant locations would be both manageable and (possibly) worth while. What we have is an unmanageable mess that protects ridiculously cropped views that no-one sees because we are moving and not attending to the prize locations.

If you can't see the mountains from City Hall, Granville Bridge, or wherever, it is not rationally different than not seeing them from Robson and Granville. This is why our waterfront is so special. We see glimpses of our mountains from all over, but it's not until we find ourselves in the city's prime public spaces that we really connect with both mountains and ocean.

Klazu's picture powerfully shows that access to mountain views are to be found in a million different spots, and downtown is a special but quite localized experience of its own. Our butchered view cones should be retired. Not because of a particular industry, but because they don't work, and don't make sense.

[Hot Rod]

totally agree

[Vin]

I totally second that. Something needs to be done before all our buildable spots downtown are taken by short buildings.

[Marshal]

Yes, I know the concern, but I don't really worry about that. Big projects do happen on properties already occupied by significant large/tall buildings. The potential demo of the Landmark is a recent example. I know of a number of 20+, even 30+ story towers in Toronto, New York and Chicago that were replaced with bigger structures.

[ryanmaccdn]

The view cone policy will 100% have to come down, it's not a question of if ..it's when. And if that's the case why now, what would be the difference between now and 20+ yrs from now?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Yes, I know the concern, but I don't really worry about that. Big projects do happen on properties already occupied by significant large/tall buildings. The potential demo of the Landmark is a recent example. I know of a number of 20+, even 30+ story towers in Toronto, New York and Chicago that were replaced with bigger structures.

We don't have to cannibalize good buildings to put taller ones just because we are running out of space if not for the viewcones. It's such a waste.

Originally Posted by ryanmaccdn

The view cone policy will 100% have to come down, it's not a question of if ..it's when. And if that's the case why now, what would be the difference between now and 20+ yrs from now?

Many folks out there still believe it's a good thing, mostly because of misinformation of the past, with virtually no one in authority bothering to question it.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by Vin

We don't have to cannibalize good buildings to put taller ones just because we are running out of space if not for the viewcones. It's such a waste.

Exactly. It's a waste and it makes a mockery of Vancouver branding itself as "green".