Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[GenWhy?]

I thinking with all the buildings already around it you wouldn't really notice from the street

[Changing City]

If they only added a tower on the most recent north-east part of the building, it would have to add about 56 additional office storeys to add 1 million sq ft, which is what the current plans call for. That would be much more expensive to build and only provide 18,000 sq. ft. floorplates. It also wouldn't attract the same businesses that the large floorplates are designed to attract.


[VPL]

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Large office floors plans are in demand.

You can still have large floor plates.
The Post project could have been twice as tall with one tower with the same floorplate size (but with a more square floorplate) set back from all frontages.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Changing City

If they only added a tower on the most recent north-east part of the building, it would have to add about 56 additional office storeys to add 1 million sq ft, which is what the current plans call for. That would be much more expensive to build and only provide 18,000 sq. ft. floorplates. It also wouldn't attract the same businesses that the large floorplates are designed to attract.

All I'm saying is that with a taller tower, the floorplate(s) would not need to line up with the existing frontages (not necessarily only on the NE expansion site). The massing could be designed with floorplates that still appeal to tech comanies, but still be smaller than what is currently proposed.
i.e. the Amazon towers at the Post have smaller floorplates than what's proposed at Hudson's Bay, and obviously appeal to Amazon.

For example (and example only), for Hudson's Bay redevelopment, if you stack 2 of The Post's Amazon towers on top of each other and setback from Georgia Street, you'd have a less imposing massing than what is currently proposed.

There's a reason that Burrard Street was planned with alternating plazas/low rises across the street from each other
- because it created a pleasant environment for that ceremonial street.
Mind you, the redevelopment of the Royal Centre banking pavilion is messing with that.
Next will we see redevelopment of the BMO banking pavilion at Bentall Centre or expansion of towers onto adjacent plazas at Park Place and Commerce Place?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

You can still have large floor plates.
The Post project could have been twice as tall with one tower with the same floorplate size (but with a more square floorplate) set back from all frontages.

There are all sorts of ways that the space could have been arranged, even with the height limit. Presumably The Post could have had a single tower in the middle of the building, but with a floorplate the equivalent of the two towers combined. (It didn't need to be twice as tall in one tower).

Or they could have slightly larger floorplates that didn't cantilever back out after the recess floor, but with a slightly smaller space between the two towers. But that wasn't the arrangement of space that Quadreal decided to develop - they preferred two blocks with a recessed floor and then continuing up following the existing envelope. I can see that's not your preference, but it does seem to be what developers are pursuing.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Changing City

There are all sorts of ways that the space could have been arranged, even with the height limit. Presumably The Post could have had a single tower in the middle of the building, but with a floorplate the equivalent of the two towers combined. (It didn't need to be twice as tall in one tower).

Or they could have slightly larger floorplates that didn't cantilever back out after the recess floor, but with a slightly smaller space between the two towers. But that wasn't the arrangement of space that Quadreal decided to develop - they preferred two blocks with a recessed floor and then continuing up following the existing envelope. I can see that's not your preference, but it does seem to be what developers are pursuing.

That's EXACTLY what we're talking about in this view cone thread.
They COULD HAVE gone taller if it WEREN'T FOR the view cones!
There's not much excess space on either of the sites to significantly set back from the frontages.

Here's the Hudson's Bay model.
Not much flexibility in massing there as it's up to the view cone height (compare to Canaccord and The Hudson).
Holborn's Bay Parkade will probably have a similar height in the 300ft range. I think someone said 330ft at one time?


https://www.urbanyvr.com/hudsons-bay-vancouver-redevelopment/


https://www.urbanyvr.com/hudsons-bay-vancouver-redevelopment/

[jlousa]

As some others have said the view cones have not hampered housing supply or affordability in any meaningful way. No different then Burnaby allowing 60+story towers has done nothing for meaningful supply nor affordability. Saying it would look cool to have a supertall is going to be much harder to sell to the public so I reckon those pushing it will lean on the affordability angle.
Any I doubt the likes of the Amazons, Microsofts of the world care about height, Most tech cities are not known for tall buildings if anything it's usually the opposite. City would be more productive in pushing medium density across all arterials and no I don't think the plan to put 6plexes on sfhs will help affordability either.

[officedweller]

My biggest concern isn't to get a supertall, it's about the way the view cones have an unintended impact on the built environment.

Look at the alley behind the Hudson's Bay redevelopment and think of the residents at The Hudson who will forever look into the inside corner of that building (which appear to be blank walls).
That's a consequence of the height restriction and the inability to create a gap in the massing.

[GenWhy?]

The Microsoft campus well outside the urban centres comes to mind. I think we're quite fortunate. 2

While I agree some more pretty buildings for tourists to take photos of would be okay, it really doesn't affect much at the end of the day. Not being able to build residential towers what we could back in 1974 in Kits or Fairview / South Granville on the other hand...

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by officedweller

My biggest concern isn't to get a supertall, it's about the way the view cones have an unintended impact on the built environment.

Look at the alley behind the Hudson's Bay redevelopment and think of the residents at The Hudson who will forever look into the inside corner of that building (which appear to be blank walls).
That's a consequence of the height restriction and the inability to create a gap in the massing.

There are existing rules in place that will force the HBC proposal to change their design to accommodate that.

[vanman]

Why can't the city push for medium density along arterials and at the same time look at loosening view cone and shadowing restrictions downtown where it makes sense? The city is very capable of doing more than one thing at a time.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

There are existing rules in place that will force the HBC proposal to change their design to accommodate that.

Thanks, that's good to hear!

[logan5]

Originally Posted by jlousa

As some others have said the view cones have not hampered housing supply or affordability in any meaningful way. No different then Burnaby allowing 60+story towers has done nothing for meaningful supply nor affordability. Saying it would look cool to have a supertall is going to be much harder to sell to the public so I reckon those pushing it will lean on the affordability angle.
Any I doubt the likes of the Amazons, Microsofts of the world care about height, Most tech cities are not known for tall buildings if anything it's usually the opposite. City would be more productive in pushing medium density across all arterials and no I don't think the plan to put 6plexes on sfhs will help affordability either.

You don't want swagger?

A 1000 sq foot unit in a 6 plex will almost certainly be much more affordable than a 1000 sq foot condo. I think it'd widely understood here why a 6 plex (per sq foot) is far cheaper to build than a condo tower. And you can see examples in Vancouver right now where a ground oriented unit is cheaper than a high rise condo unit. And 6 plex unit would still be cheaper than a medium density 6 story unit, where you still have elevators and underground parking, and expensive mechanical systems.

The best shot at affordability for home buyers is if ground oriented housing (no underground parking, no elevators, no common areas, etc) gets built at the same scale as towers.

The city does have a plan in place for medium density along arterials, and off arterials. Towers around Skytrain stations, and soon a 6 plex 4 plex plan for virtually all single detached areas. For the first time that I've ever seen, the whole CoV can/wiil be zoned/rezoned into all forms of residential housing - towers, mid-rise, multi-plex.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by logan5

A 1000 sq foot unit in a 6 plex will almost certainly be much more affordable than a 1000 sq foot condo. I think it'd widely understood here why a 6 plex (per sq foot) is far cheaper to build than a condo tower. And you can see examples in Vancouver right now where a ground oriented unit is cheaper than a high rise condo unit. And 6 plex unit would still be cheaper than a medium density 6 story unit, where you still have elevators and underground parking, and expensive mechanical systems.

But what's the incentive of a SFH owner to sell out for someone to come in and build a six plex. If you build medium density aren't you getting a premium as a developer that makes those land assemblies along Cambie etc. viable?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

But those are just the ones that got built. If you're going to compare it to the rezoned but UNBUILT Broadway corridor, that's unfair.

You've lost me here. Even if Broadway somehow only ends up having, I dunno, 10-15k units (pretty hard since developers usually build to max zoning), that's still at least 10-15x what you'd get by removing the viewcones.

Originally Posted by vanman

Why can't the city push for medium density along arterials and at the same time look at loosening view cone and shadowing restrictions downtown where it makes sense? The city is very capable of doing more than one thing at a time.

Time, administration and political clout/goodwill are finite resources. Run out of one or more, and you'll have to choose... and as seen with the Broadway Corridor and the various downtown height restrictions, Council's likely to drain all three real fast.

[Klazu]

I don't mind the proposed box above The Bay, but keep forgetting about that awkward backside.

I also don't think it is correct to say that taller buildings won't help with supply. Some of the Burnaby towers have over 500 units in a single building. Five hundred!! Why affordability can't be helped is due to the totally out of control immigration. It was crazy to learn that the Metro is already pushing 2.8 million people and could break 3 million in just a few years. There is no building our way out of this mass influx of people.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The argument isn't that they won't help supply. The argument is that three or four 250-unit towers that already fit within current zoning would help just as much as one or two 500+ ones, if not more.

Stop immigration, and now Canada begins to shrink and there's little to no reason to breach the viewcones in the first place. We want to be a global city? This is how we get the critical mass to enable stuff that gets us there; that, or bulldozing Surrey and Langley and moving everybody north of the Fraser, which will never be a thing.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I don't mind the proposed box above The Bay, but keep forgetting about that awkward backside.

I also don't think it is correct to say that taller buildings won't help with supply. Some of the Burnaby towers have over 500 units in a single building. Five hundred!! Why affordability can't be helped is due to the totally out of control immigration. It was crazy to learn that the Metro is already pushing 2.8 million people and could break 3 million in just a few years. There is no building our way out of this mass influx of people.

Having 500 apartments doesn't necessarily mean high density. Escala has over 500 units, and it's 4.4 FAR.

As for immigration preventing affordability, that's absolutely not true. The number of immigrants coming to BC has been around 40,000 a year, every year, between 2000 and 2020.

House prices are all about interest rates, and the cost of a mortgage.

Home prices here have been rising steadily for many years, but they only really took off in 2015, a few years after the Bank of Canada interest rates dropped to around 1%, and eventually to only 0.25%. Prices doubled for both houses and apartments here between fall 2015 and spring 2022, having risen by 16% for condos and 22% for detached homes in the previous 12 months alone.

The Bank of Canada rapidly increased its rate from 0.25% in March 2022 to 4.5% in January 2023. In that period of 10 months Greater Vancouver benchmark home prices have fallen 15% for houses and 16% for condos. That inverse relationship between changing interest rates and changing house prices held true for the entire Canadian market in the 10 years to 2021, at least. [graphic here]

[logan5]

In the context of downtown Vancouver and the Broadway Corridor where space is limited and you can't simply just build larger floor plates to get more density, you need to go taller.

When you you do go taller in order to build more units in one project (instead of 2 buildings with the same number of units) you use our limited amount of labour far more efficiently. When you split the same number of units into 2 buildings because of view cone limitations, you have to repeat the long process of building another parkade, which can take years. That years long process and labour expense building another parkade could instead be focused on building more badly needed homes in one larger, taller project.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

In the context of downtown Vancouver and the Broadway Corridor where space is limited and you can't simply just build larger floor plates to get more density, you need to go taller.

When you you do go taller in order to build more units in one project (instead of 2 buildings with the same number of units) you use our limited amount of labour far more efficiently. When you split the same number of units into 2 buildings because of view cone limitations, you have to repeat the long process of building another parkade, which can take years. That years long process and labour expense building another parkade could instead be focused on building more badly needed homes in one larger, taller project.

The time taken to dig a deep hole for say an eight storey parkade is at least twice as long as it takes to dig a four storey hole. It gets more difficult to remove the spoil the deeper you go, and the rock gets harder. If the hole gets below the glacial till, you hit even harder rock, and have to blast the rock out.