Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments - Page 49

Migrant_Coconut · #**961** Posted **Feb 25, 2021, 2:07 AM**

Parks Board doesn't have any jurisdiction over the viewcones. They need to go back to banning whales and allowing tent slums.

jollyburger · #**962** Posted **Feb 25, 2021, 2:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://twitter.com/NPACaucus/status/1364107032488386564?s=20

If anything is blocking the view it's those trees.

Migrant_Coconut · #**963** Posted **Feb 25, 2021, 2:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollyburger

If anything is blocking the view it's those trees.

The hilarious part is how they need to constantly chop down the trees just for the sake of the viewcone. This wouldn't be a problem if they'd just built the observation tower back in '08.

officedweller · #**964** Posted **Feb 25, 2021, 5:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://twitter.com/NPACaucus/status/1364107032488386564?s=20

jollyburger · #**965** Posted **Feb 25, 2021, 6:20 AM**

Unless you have binocular implants in your eyes the view looks more like this:

(From the CoV page on that viewcone)

Sheba · #**966** Posted **Apr 25, 2021, 6:47 PM**

It's not just here... Montreal politicians debate whether to allow skyscrapers higher than Mount Royal

osirisboy · #**967** Posted **Apr 25, 2021, 7:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Unless you have binocular implants in your eyes the view looks more like this:

(From the CoV page on that viewcone)

Lol exactly. All of downtown could be 500 metre buildings and you’d still have sweeping mountain views.

SeymourDrake · #**968** Posted **Apr 25, 2021, 7:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Parks Board doesn't have any jurisdiction over the viewcones. They need to go back to banning whales and allowing tent slums.

this

jollyburger · #**969** Posted **Apr 25, 2021, 7:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheba

It's not just here... Montreal politicians debate whether to allow skyscrapers higher than Mount Royal

Mont Royal is 763 feet..

EastVanMark · #**970** Posted **Apr 25, 2021, 7:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Mont Royal is 763 feet..

Exactly. Not to mention its basically immediately adjacent to the downtown core. Neither is true in our scenario.

Henbo · #**971** Posted **Apr 25, 2021, 8:14 PM**

"The view has immense, demonstrable value for our city, its people, and the larger city economy"

I'd be really curious to see the math on:

1) The amount of additional sq footage that could be built by relaxing existing zoning and height restrictions along the Broadway corridor

2) What would be the total value of this additional sq footage

3) Divide this total value by the number of Queen Elizabeth park visitors per year = the value of this view per visitor...

Sheba · #**972** Posted **Apr 25, 2021, 9:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Exactly. Not to mention its basically immediately adjacent to the downtown core. Neither is true in our scenario.

Change the names and we've heard almost exactly the same comment from view cone proponents:

Quote:

"The densification of Montreal's downtown must be done in a respectful and planned way, in a way that preserves the importance of Mount Royal and the visual perspectives that allow it to be admired by everyone, not by building towers that will hide our mountain," she told a city council meeting.

jollyburger · #**973** Posted **Apr 25, 2021, 10:29 PM**

Quebec City with no height restriction has this ugly 65 story building going up

https://lephareqc.ca/

LeftCoaster · #**974** Posted **Apr 27, 2021, 11:25 PM**

Well technically no they don't. It is not under construction nor is it even in site prep.

Vin · #**975** Posted **Sep 27, 2021, 8:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKaz

I always wondered at what height does the cost of the structure per unit start to exceed the savings they get splitting the land per unit?

Have we been misled that the optimum height of towers are those with 40+ floors and not 50-80 stories?

Migrant_Coconut · #**976** Posted **Sep 28, 2021, 2:28 AM**

So Brentwood, Lougheed and Coquitlam need to be shorter to maximize affordability. Got it.

Metro-One · #**977** Posted **Sep 28, 2021, 3:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

So Brentwood, Lougheed and Coquitlam need to be shorter to maximize affordability. Got it.

It says 50 to 80 floors, so no, no where in BC as of yet needs to be shorter to maximize affordability.

Migrant_Coconut · #**978** Posted **Sep 28, 2021, 4:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

It says 50 to 80 floors, so no, no where in BC as of yet needs to be shorter to maximize affordability.

The graph's low point is ~60 floors, and land and construction costs even out at ~40; downtown's newest and upcoming range from 38 to 57.

In other words (assuming the graph is accurate), optimal cost/sq ft is just slightly above the current status quo... and Burnaby's 70+ floor towers have everything to do with bragging rights and higher property values, and nothing to do with affordability. And I'd love to know how Kenneth Chan will spin that one next week.

Changing City · #**979** Posted **Sep 28, 2021, 4:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

Have we been misled that the optimum height of towers are those with 40+ floors and not 50-80 stories?

No, we haven't because the five-year-old Credit Suisse article is a generalized model applied across the entire world, but obviously different jurisdictions have different construction standards, construction codes, and seismic requirements that can have a huge impact on what the 'optimal' affordability for a tower might be.

Secondly, in Vancouver and most other municipalities, taller buildings are looking for higher density than the prevailing zoning, so they seek a rezoning. In doing that, they offer additional public amenities, social housing or similar benefits. Those offset the lower land price per unit that the graph implies, so going up to 80 storeys doesn't reduce the land cost shown in Greater Vancouver in the way the 'model' Credit Suisse created would imply.

Obviously the theoretical model is using 'affordability' as a measure of how much it costs to build a tower. It doesn't mean the tower units will be any cheaper. As we know, the higher up the tower you go, the greater the price asked. So in this case 'affordability' really means 'developer profitability', not that your 58th floor condo will be a bargain.

Metro-One · #**980** Posted **Sep 28, 2021, 6:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The graph's low point is ~60 floors, and land and construction costs even out at ~40; downtown's newest and upcoming range from 38 to 57.

In other words (assuming the graph is accurate), optimal cost/sq ft is just slightly above the current status quo... and Burnaby's 70+ floor towers have everything to do with bragging rights and higher property values, and nothing to do with affordability. And I'd love to know how Kenneth Chan will spin that one next week.

Do we have a single 70+ floor tower built or U/C yet? Nope.

And will still take the actual graphs word over yours that it’s beyond 80 floors where the rise I BC costs actually start to become meaningful.