Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sure, and a lot of things that're completely outside the viewcones would add 100x the supply at lower prices. Put another dozen-ish $2 million condos in the market once or twice a year, nothing happens.




20-30 floors, actually, depending on which part of the corridor you look at. And the QE viewcone actually stops east of Oak, which is how we're getting all the 40-floor developments around South Granville.

Again, I'm all for having an observation tower at QE and lifting the 'cones accordingly; until that's politically viable though, there's much more important fights to pick that would yield actual affordable housing. Yaletown will never be cheap again.

You might be able to build on top of the warehouse district and keep the facades.
But yeah, I broadly agree.

Getting OV density on South False Creek and getting towers on the slopes away from Broadway itself is more important.

That leaves the helipad and the City Hall-centered height restrictions more important.


Also, Vancouver really screwed up when it decided to have Millennium Line go to False Creek instead of to East Broadway because it wanted to redevelop the industrial area and not the residential stuff. Now that it's protected from redevelopment (minus Emily Carr, which is a counterbalance to my point, but then again, would probably be placed elsewhere if not for Skytrain there), they've lost a ton of land that would be useful for redevelopment (medium density, though).

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Unless you honestly believe building more housing increases demand faster than it increases supply, you're just wrong. Building high end condos means reducing pressure on lower end housing that high end buyers are buying because they have nothing else to buy. Supply is supply. Let's not pretend it does nothing. Housing = good.

Yeah pretty much this.

If builders won't build to the height limits because there's no market for what they will cost, that's one thing. In the mean time we should let them build higher in some of these really arbitrary view cones.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I remember, bankrupt is another of the words you don't understand. The 2023 budget shows the City of Vancouver had an operating surplus of $190m in 2022.

You're the one who's lagging here when it comes to contextual comprehension, or could it be just sheer ignorance or worse, arrogance? You decide.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/city-of-vancouver-property-tax-increase-proposal-2023
City of Vancouver proposes 9.7% property tax hike in 2023
As of December 2022, the GSRF was sitting at a very unhealthy negative sum of $2.4 million

That's "bankrupt" in my book.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

You're the one who's lagging here when it comes to contextual comprehension, or could it be just sheer ignorance or worse, arrogance? You decide.

That's "bankrupt" in my book.

They spent that reserve money on COVID response. Without the 1% tax increase for dedicated replenishment, they'd still be in the black for 2023.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

They spent that reserve money on COVID response. Without the 1% tax increase for dedicated replenishment, they'd still be in the black for 2023.

That's 1% versus the actual 10% for the tax increase: obviously doesn't add up. Also, if Covid is the cause, then other municipalities should also be in financial difficulties, but apparently that isn't so.

[GenWhy?]

QE viewcone removal thankfully doesn't spell condo fever, land price spikes and speculation and will lead to actual rental replacement at roughly the same rates.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

That's 1% versus the actual 10% for the tax increase: obviously doesn't add up. Also, if Covid is the cause, then other municipalities should also be in financial difficulties, but apparently that isn't so.

Trying not to derail this too much, but, if I understand your comment, the proposed 9.7%, of that, 1% is dedicated to increased reserve funds. So if you want to put $5.3m into something besides the reserve fund, or only have an increase of about 8.2%, and have no money go to the reserve fund this budget, I'd recommend writing to ABC councillors.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

You're the one who's lagging here when it comes to contextual comprehension, or could it be just sheer ignorance or worse, arrogance? You decide.

That's "bankrupt" in my book.

Let me guess, your book has floppy pages, very short words and very, very big writing?

The City allocates money under a number of budget headings. Generally the expenditure is reasonably predictable, and so is the income, so there's usually sufficient income from taxes or fees to cover the expenditures under each heading, but just in case expenses are unexpectedly high, or income is unexpectedly low, there's a General Stabilization Reserve Fund, with money in to cover that unexpected situation.

It's like you keep your money in five jam jars in a row on top of your fridge. The one for rent/mortgage is generally predictable, and so is the amount you put aside for comics, and sweeties, and going to the cinema. And just in case something needs buying you didn't anticipate, there a pot on the end that you put $2 into every week. That's Vin's Rainy Day Fund.

As a result of covid, some expenses went up unexpectedly, (lots of IT overtime getting staff set up to work from home on secure computers) and revenue dropped in some areas (far fewer development applications for a while, and no income from Community Centres, and far fewer people parking in Easy Park lots for a while). So the City used the General Stabilization Reserve Fund to cover its bills. Also, the City of Vancouver budgets $4m for snow clearance, which is more than enough in a typical year. Guess what? It snowed more than usual in 2020, and in 2022. So the City dips into the Reserve Fund to cover the extra cost.

It's like you spilled coke all over your PlayStation, and the controls got all sticky and stopped working. Well a replacement is $600, but you've only got $560 in your 'Rainy Day' jar, but you're going to buy it anyway and you know you can get enough when you get paid to cover the rent and pay back the extra $40, so you slip an IOU in the Rainy Day Fund jar, (which is now empty). (Generally people in your position buy the controller on their credit card and pay significant interest rates to pay it off, but you don't believe in debt).

Are you bankrupt? There's still money in the other six jars, and nobody is hammering on the door for repayment of anything.

And Vancouver is by no means facing the highest tax increase - which is higher than it would have been because ABC have just realised that 100 extra police will cost an extra 2.7% tax increase, and there's also extra money needed to cover other 'election promises'. In Port Moody they're looking at an 11.3% increase "Ganske said the draft budget includes the reinstatement of several services that were cut during the COVID-19 pandemic to save money." Victoria is contemplating a 9% tax increase. And of course Surrey is looking at 17.5%

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Let me guess, your book has floppy pages, very short words and very, very big writing?

I have to say, this is an incredibly well written post

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Let me guess, your book has floppy pages, very short words and very, very big writing?

The City allocates money under a number of budget headings. Generally the expenditure is reasonably predictable, and so is the income, so there's usually sufficient income from taxes or fees to cover the expenditures under each heading, but just in case expenses are unexpectedly high, or income is unexpectedly low, there's a General Stabilization Reserve Fund, with money in to cover that unexpected situation.

It's like you keep your money in five jam jars in a row on top of your fridge. The one for rent/mortgage is generally predictable, and so is the amount you put aside for comics, and sweeties, and going to the cinema. And just in case something needs buying you didn't anticipate, there a pot on the end that you put $2 into every week. That's Vin's Rainy Day Fund.

As a result of covid, some expenses went up unexpectedly, (lots of IT overtime getting staff set up to work from home on secure computers) and revenue dropped in some areas (far fewer development applications for a while, and no income from Community Centres, and far fewer people parking in Easy Park lots for a while). So the City used the General Stabilization Reserve Fund to cover its bills. Also, the City of Vancouver budgets $4m for snow clearance, which is more than enough in a typical year. Guess what? It snowed more than usual in 2020, and in 2022. So the City dips into the Reserve Fund to cover the extra cost.

It's like you spilled coke all over your PlayStation, and the controls got all sticky and stopped working. Well a replacement is $600, but you've only got $560 in your 'Rainy Day' jar, but you're going to buy it anyway and you know you can get enough when you get paid to cover the rent and pay back the extra $40, so you slip an IOU in the Rainy Day Fund jar, (which is now empty). (Generally people in your position buy the controller on their credit card and pay significant interest rates to pay it off, but you don't believe in debt).

Are you bankrupt? There's still money in the other six jars, and nobody is hammering on the door for repayment of anything.

And Vancouver is by no means facing the highest tax increase - which is higher than it would have been because ABC have just realised that 100 extra police will cost an extra 2.7% tax increase, and there's also extra money needed to cover other 'election promises'. In Port Moody they're looking at an 11.3% increase "Ganske said the draft budget includes the reinstatement of several services that were cut during the COVID-19 pandemic to save money." Victoria is contemplating a 9% tax increase. And of course Surrey is looking at 17.5%

Of all the well-established larger cities with CBDs in Canada, bankrupt Vancouver fares the worst.

Toronto - 5.5%
Montreal - 4.1%
Calgary - 5.5%
Edmonton - 4.96%
Vancouver - 10.7%

Typical excuses and the acceptance of low standards coming from you and that's not even a surprise. Inefficient and inept City officials will love it if this City is full of voters such as yourself: no one has to be held accountable for the mismanagement of this city.


Regarding Viewcones:

Opinion: Arbitrary view cone height restrictions are strangling Vancouver's potential
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-view-cones-economic-potential

Opinion: Central Broadway's job growth potential blocked by mountain view cones
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/central-broadway-plan-view-cones-mountains-queen-elizabeth-park

Opinion: Vancouver’s repressive tower height policies to limit shadows running amok
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-tower-building-shadowing-solar-access

Sometimes it is obvious what is holding back this City, but there are always folks who seem to be forever shrouded by fog and refuse to see anything beyond.

[chowhou]

THIS JUST IN:



Cereal producers are HIGHLY BANKRUPT while meat producers are pulling in BIG BLACK BALANCE SHEETS

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Of all the well-established larger cities with CBDs in Canada, bankrupt Vancouver fares the worst.

Toronto - 5.5%
Montreal - 4.1%
Calgary - 5.5%
Edmonton - 4.96%
Vancouver - 10.7%

Typical excuses and the acceptance of low standards coming from you and that's not even a surprise. Inefficient and inept City officials will love it if this City is full of voters such as yourself: no one has to be held accountable for the mismanagement of this city.

One of these cities is not like the others.

Today's Toronto is made up of 6 municipalities that were amalgamated in 1998. Montreal had 28 municipalities that merged in 2002. Pretty much all of the Calgary Metropolitan Area is the City of Calgary - there aren't any suburban municipalities. Same is true of Edmonton.

The City of Vancouver carries far more of the region's costs, but can only get taxes from its landowners.

Oh, the viewcones thing you added - News Just In - Ken Chan doesn't like them. That's not a surprise.

And you still don't understand what bankrupt is. That's not a surprise.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Citing VanCity Buzz to prove viewcones are why Vancouver's having budget problems... is like citing Hansel and Gretel to prove German witches used to live in gingerbread houses.

[SpongeG]

Vancouver City Council to eliminate most protected view cones of City Hall for transit-oriented development
Kenneth Chan | Mar 22 2023

Not only does the City of Vancouver have a northward view cone policy in place to protect views of the North Shore mountains, but there is also a lesser-known southward view cone policy to protect man-made landmark views of Vancouver City Hall.

There are view cones that face to the south from False Creek and the downtown Vancouver peninsula to protect landmark views of the 1936-built heritage City Hall building. It stems from a 1976 guideline to establish views by not having new buildings in the area of Broadway and Cambie Street obstruct views of City Hall.

But this is set to change, with a majority of Vancouver City Council expected to approve City staff’s proposed amendments to the View Protection Guidelines in relation to the Broadway Plan. This is part of City Council’s consideration next week of the forthcoming implementation strategy of the Broadway Plan, which itself was approved by the previous City Council in Summer 2022.

...

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-city-hall-southern-view-cones-landmark

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

Vancouver City Council to eliminate most protected view cones of City Hall for transit-oriented development
Kenneth Chan | Mar 22 2023

Not only does the City of Vancouver have a northward view cone policy in place to protect views of the North Shore mountains, but there is also a lesser-known southward view cone policy to protect man-made landmark views of Vancouver City Hall.

There are view cones that face to the south from False Creek and the downtown Vancouver peninsula to protect landmark views of the 1936-built heritage City Hall building. It stems from a 1976 guideline to establish views by not having new buildings in the area of Broadway and Cambie Street obstruct views of City Hall.

But this is set to change, with a majority of Vancouver City Council expected to approve City staff’s proposed amendments to the View Protection Guidelines in relation to the Broadway Plan. This is part of City Council’s consideration next week of the forthcoming implementation strategy of the Broadway Plan, which itself was approved by the previous City Council in Summer 2022.

...

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-city-hall-southern-view-cones-landmark

It's not all rainbows and sunny ways:

As part of the upcoming protected view changes, the municipal government will reduce the number of southward protected view cones of City Hall from nine view cones to two.

These protected views of City Hall were created and enforced for many years by City staff, but this policy was never approved by City Council.

[...]

The changes would retain the two City Hall view cones south of the North False Creek seawall near the southern foot of Davie Street, and south from the middle of the Cambie Street Bridge deck. As well, both of these City Hall view cones would be added to the list of protected views in the View Protection Guidelines, which currently completely entails view cones to protect mountain views — not urban building landmarks.

Sounds to me like they're removing 7 unofficial view cones and enshrining 2 unofficial view cones as official view cones.

Almost sounds backwards to me.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by chowhou

It's not all rainbows and sunny ways:

Sounds to me like they're removing 7 unofficial view cones and enshrining 2 unofficial view cones as official view cones.

Almost sounds backwards to me.

It's good vibes though /s

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

It's not all rainbows and sunny ways:

Sounds to me like they're removing 7 unofficial view cones and enshrining 2 unofficial view cones as official view cones.

Almost sounds backwards to me.

There were really only 3 practical and good (great views of City Hall) viewcones and those 3 have a lot of recent development under them already. So not really a loss. Wish they kept the Rogers park one tho.

The other 5 many were blocked by trees or other parts of buildings or had shoddy slivers of view from weird viewpoints. We expected nothing less from talking with Staff earlier so this is reassuring.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

There were really only 3 practical and good (great views of City Hall) viewcones and those 3 have a lot of recent development under them already. So not really a loss. Wish they kept the Rogers park one tho.

For north facing view cones, I can at least understand that a lot of people like seeing the mountains.

How many people are crossing the Cambie Bridge or walking along the Seawall and taking the time to admire City Hall? These views have zero value to anyone.

IMO City Hall viewcones seem like a tiny bit of a conflict of interest.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

For north facing view cones, I can at least understand that a lot of people like seeing the mountains.

How many people are crossing the Cambie Bridge or walking along the Seawall and taking the time to admire City Hall? These views have zero value to anyone.

IMO City Hall viewcones seem like a tiny bit of a conflict of interest.

Yeah, practically half the forum has said the same thing. Most of the viewcones are a touchy subject for the electorate, but these ones can easily be scrapped for a fair amount of midrise density, with almost zero (political) cost.

[GenWhy?]

Civic pride and appreciation of great architecture of a public building that all people can view from inside and out