Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think the SW corner of the building will be in line with Kingsway:

Isn't there an 8 storey office building lining up with Kingsway that's already under construction? [source: changing city blog]

[jollyburger]

You really wonder why someone would even bother spending the time to explain the stupidity of some select viewcones.

Located at the mid span of the Cambie Bridge, north of the 6th Ave on-ramp, the view of Crown Mountain, Beauty Peak, the Camel, Dam Mountain, Grouse Mountain, and a glimpse of Goat Mountain can be seen.

The spires of BC Place and the top of the Harbour Centre add context and texture to the view.

https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/cambie-bridge-protected-view.aspx

[Migrant_Coconut]

At least Cambie provides actual mountains. Try this one:

Sections C2.1 and C2.2 allow views of Crown Mountain, the Camel, and Beauty Peak. Although these views are partially obscured by vegetation, regular park maintenance should restore the established view.

https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/laurel-landbridge-protected-view.aspx

From what I can tell, the view behind the trees is equally unimpressive. One of these City Councils really need to ask themselves why they can't just ditch the cone and let nature grow as normal.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

At least Cambie provides actual mountains. Try this one:



https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/laurel-landbridge-protected-view.aspx

From what I can tell, the view behind the trees is equally unimpressive. One of these City Councils really need to ask themselves why they can't just ditch the cone and let nature grow as normal.

Apathy and Stupidity rule....

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

It depends how many 6-story condos you rezone for. If you rezoned the entire region medium density apartments, you could support the population of Tokyo.

Yeah but are we rezoning the entire region for medium density apartments?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Vin

Yeah but are we rezoning the entire region for medium density apartments?

On the arterials, sort of, yes.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

At least Cambie provides actual mountains. Try this one:



https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/laurel-landbridge-protected-view.aspx

From what I can tell, the view behind the trees is equally unimpressive. One of these City Councils really need to ask themselves why they can't just ditch the cone and let nature grow as normal.

You don't understand. It's like San Fran, the purpose of the view cones is primarily to make conservatives (not in the political sense) and ecohippies who oppose redevelopment happy.

The Viewcones are another layer of the merger of Vancouverism and NIMBYism that dominates Vancouver proper- a symptom, an excuse.

The Viewcones may be torn down, but what needs to be torn down was the root cause. Otherwise, its only a small piece of the density problem.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by fredinno

On the arterials, sort of, yes.

I'm sure Aroundtheworld did not mean just the arterials, because that would never be able to "support the population of Tokyo", not even close. The only way is to go tall, really tall along some arterials and intersection nodes.

[Migrant_Coconut]

We don't need Tokyo, we just need D.C. - and 6+ on the arterials and 3+ off them (which is the plan) will get us there.

Originally Posted by fredinno

You don't understand. It's like San Fran, the purpose of the view cones is primarily to make conservatives (not in the political sense) and ecohippies who oppose redevelopment happy.

The Viewcones are another layer of the merger of Vancouverism and NIMBYism that dominates Vancouver proper- a symptom, an excuse.

The Viewcones may be torn down, but what needs to be torn down was the root cause. Otherwise, its only a small piece of the density problem.

The term you want is either "traditionalist" or "reactionary" - in which case, even some of the progressive urbanists count as such (which is true for the Tyee crowd, but that's not the point).

Some of the viewcones have their uses. What we need to do is sit down and figure out which ones we keep, merge, simplify or remove outright.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

We don't need Tokyo, we just need D.C. - and 6+ on the arterials and 3+ off them (which is the plan) will get us there.

The term you want is either "traditionalist" or "reactionary" - in which case, even some of the progressive urbanists count as such (which is true for the Tyee crowd, but that's not the point).

Some of the viewcones have their uses. What we need to do is sit down and figure out which ones we keep, merge, simplify or remove outright.

Thank you, Migrant !! That is the most lucid, "bang on" and accurate statement that I have read do far with ANYTHING to do with the viewcones! I hope others memorize this.
It is a reference point - in the form of a written remark - that should be applied any time the viewcone topic or issue comes up.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Vin

I'm sure Aroundtheworld did not mean just the arterials, because that would never be able to "support the population of Tokyo", not even close. The only way is to go tall, really tall along some arterials and intersection nodes.

If you include all of Metro Van, including the inaccessible East Maple Ridge (we need to built a freeway across Maple Ridge), and have 10 stories near stations and the FTNs (the upper limit of Mid-rise), sure you can.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

We don't need Tokyo, we just need D.C. - and 6+ on the arterials and 3+ off them (which is the plan) will get us there.



The term you want is either "traditionalist" or "reactionary" - in which case, even some of the progressive urbanists count as such (which is true for the Tyee crowd, but that's not the point).

Some of the viewcones have their uses. What we need to do is sit down and figure out which ones we keep, merge, simplify or remove outright.

It's 3+ on some of the lesser arterials proposed, 6 near the commercial areas.


I don't know where you're getting your notion of 3 stories off the arterials. On the Cambie Corridor, sure, 3 stories off the Arterials and Stations, if you count townhouses as 3 story medium density.

I may be a bit out of the loop, but I'm pretty sure things haven't improved so much to add enough Med. Density in even East/South Van to become DC.

I guess that's a better term.

The problem occurs is that, while that's true, and the city SAYS it will does/will do that, the reality is that that never happens. You can't get an objective view of which viewcones are low priority when you have the fundamental anti-development mindset bubbling below fueling it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

It's 3+ on some of the lesser arterials proposed, 6 near the commercial areas.
(please consider linking or resizing giant images)
I don't know where you're getting your notion of 3 stories off the arterials. On the Cambie Corridor, sure, 3 stories off the Arterials and Stations, if you count townhouses as 3 story medium density.

I may be a bit out of the loop, but I'm pretty sure things haven't improved so much to add enough Med. Density in even East/South Van to become DC.

This is the part where I bring up the Phase 3 Cambie Plan which came last year, four years after the Marpole Plan. City Hall's new paradigm is 4-6 storeys on the main arterials, dropping to 3+ (townhomes) on the side arterials, and 10-12 around the town hubs. Broadway should be at least that high, and Main, Commercial, Hastings and "denser" parts of the West Side are following suit, so DC isn't exactly unattainable.

Originally Posted by fredinno

The problem occurs is that, while that's true, and the city SAYS it will does/will do that, the reality is that that never happens. You can't get an objective view of which viewcones are low priority when you have the fundamental anti-development mindset bubbling below fueling it.

Is it though? Development/zoning votes for the present council are usually five in support and three against, with one NIMBY hiding on the fence. The entitled Boomers aren't necessarily well-entrenched as just really f***ing loud.

[urbandreamer]

Are there any height restrictions for the Robson and Richards area? Specifically the parking lot behind Japadog?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

Are there any height restrictions for the Robson and Richards area? Specifically the parking lot behind Japadog?

About 120 metres.

[Metro-One]

With all the talk of view comes recently surprised no one posted this:

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouvers-shrinking-skyline

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

With all the talk of view comes recently surprised no one posted this:

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouvers-shrinking-skyline

Again highlighting the stupidity of our policies that curtail growths here.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

With all the talk of view comes recently surprised no one posted this:

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouvers-shrinking-skyline

Does anybody really care? Who really "wants" to live in Burnaby? People live there because they can't afford Vancouver.

[jlousa]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Does anybody really care? Who really "wants" to live in Burnaby? People live there because they can't afford Vancouver.

I wouldn't say nobody wants to live in Burnaby, but think it's fair to say many people are there because they can't afford Vancouver. Certainly don't think there are many people that choose Burnaby because they allow taller tower. Also don't think any of those taller towers in Burnaby are really less expensive due to the height. Anyone that really thinks removing the view cones would make any difference in prices is kidding themselves. A tall tower with 10fsr is cheaper then a supertall with the same fsr. Saying you can land more fsr in the supertall isn't a good argument as you could do the same in the tall tower, but either way the more density you allow the more you will pay for that underlying land making it a wash. Joyce Collingwood was the densest area of Vancouver and with only modest height towers before this last wave. Focus on densifying the rest of the city if you're after affordability, the view cones are not the answer.

[jollyburger]

Whenever you talk about the viewcones it turns into a giant mess of every pet peeve someone has about Vancouver's affordability or urban design.

The author should have just written an article about how he wants supertall buildings. If anything councils have exempted the taller buildings in Vancouver into viewcones so his argument is basically shot down in that aspect. And his argument that the developments in the upper lands of the North Shore is because of affordability is a joke.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I wouldn't say nobody wants to live in Burnaby, but think it's fair to say many people are there because they can't afford Vancouver. Certainly don't think there are many people that choose Burnaby because they allow taller tower. Also don't think any of those taller towers in Burnaby are really less expensive due to the height. Anyone that really thinks removing the view cones would make any difference in prices is kidding themselves. A tall tower with 10fsr is cheaper then a supertall with the same fsr. Saying you can land more fsr in the supertall isn't a good argument as you could do the same in the tall tower, but either way the more density you allow the more you will pay for that underlying land making it a wash. Joyce Collingwood was the densest area of Vancouver and with only modest height towers before this last wave. Focus on densifying the rest of the city if you're after affordability, the view cones are not the answer.

I wonder what’s happening with the Citywide plan. It’s delayed now because of Covid, and I wonder if it will ever be completed at all. The key for affordability lies in the redefining of rs zoning, not taller towers, as you said.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Whenever you talk about the viewcones it turns into a giant mess of every pet peeve someone has about Vancouver's affordability or urban design.

The author should have just written an article about how he wants supertall buildings. If anything councils have exempted the taller buildings in Vancouver into viewcones so his argument is basically shot down in that aspect. And his argument that the developments in the upper lands of the North Shore is because of affordability is a joke.

Ya I read this this morning for a laugh, read it as, "Vancouver would look more pretty to me with taller buildings", and that it's simply about 'who has taller buildings. It was an odd filler piece before the holiday.

"Montreal, Calgary, and Edmonton all possess skyscrapers that reach above Living Shangri-La,” but if transplanted into Toronto, it would find itself as merely the 35th tallest tower in the city — potentially falling to 75th place in the coming years."

Affordability was mentioned once I think, and they assume higher means more affordable which is not true. Higher buildings in somethings like 20% of the city's land area won't bring market rents / housing prices down. As well as this I think sums it up:

"A taller, more dynamic skyline would greatly improve the downtown skyline as seen from more directions than it would hinder."