The Post | 67m | 27 fl | U/C

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Vin

All the above comments can be resolved if the Viewcones restrictions are removed. A tall tower would essentially eradicate all the issues brought up above. With the Viewcones intact, it's almost like asking for the impossible, especially if the developer wants to attain the specified floor space.

Plenty of UDP members object to at least some of the viewcones, as do plenty of staff in planning.

You need to know viewcones are enforced by COUNCIL and are a reflection not of planning but the citizens of the city.

Just a few years ago there was a public engagement over the viewcones and they were generally supported by the voting public. Until that changes the viewcones are here to stay because apparently the citizens of Vancouver want them.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Jebby you're aware this is a direct quote from the UDP minutes correct?

How else do they need to spell it out that they found it too boring and would like some excitement?

And we've all seen how the UDP is in favor of actual "exciting" architecture, right?

They neuter virtually every proposal with their demand to conform to their version of what the CoV must look like.

[LeftCoaster]

They really don't, but you're entitled to your opinion.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Plenty of UDP members object to at least some of the viewcones, as do plenty of staff in planning.

You need to know viewcones are enforced by COUNCIL and are a reflection not of planning but the citizens of the city.

Just a few years ago there was a public engagement over the viewcones and they were generally supported by the voting public. Until that changes the viewcones are here to stay because apparently the citizens of Vancouver want them.

Wrong thread, I know, but would a second public vote be possible? Or is it only aminority that wants the cones eased up or lifted?
Would a majority support lifting them, or would this nail the coffin shut?
Another vote on buildings only in the CBD and west End. Many residents would like some of 'em taller, too, I think.

Yeah, I know. Useless idea. I just wanted to add myhere because I hate it when something gets "dumbed" down from looking sharp, and although agreed about the Viewone rules,
some of them enforced by people who don't necessarily agree with them, CBD criticism may hav been excessively harsh.
But I still wish another vote were possible.

[LeftCoaster]

Anything is possible. If people on this site cared as much as they claim to they could rally people and submit a petition to re-assess them.

But time and time again reality proves that the majority of complainers on here just bitch and moan from their keyboard but make no attempt to actually affect change themselves. Pretty lazy attitude.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Anything is possible. If people on this site cared as much as they claim to they could rally people and submit a petition to re-assess them.

But time and time again reality proves that the majority of complainers on here just bitch and moan from their keyboard but make no attempt to actually affect change themselves. Pretty lazy attitude.

You bet. I don't think enough people actually research what they are talking about:

http://vancouver.ca/your-government/...ign-panel.aspx

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Just a few years ago there was a public engagement over the viewcones and they were generally supported by the voting public. Until that changes the viewcones are here to stay because apparently the citizens of Vancouver want them.

You do know that the public survey the city conducted a number of years ago was a textbook example of survey bias, which generated the very response the city clearly preferred? Given the biases in the design of the study, it is actually surprising the results were as close as they were.

So, the word "apparently" should be underscored.

For what it is worth, here are the results of the surveys conducted at the open houses regarding the city's proposed changes to the General Policy on Higher Buildings. They show that the respondents overwhelmingly support taller buildings in downtown. Although unscientific, given that these kinds of affairs are usually dominated by the anti-development crowd, it not unreasonable to infer that support for taller buildings is likely even greater among the general population.

See Appendix D: http://council.vancouver.ca/20101216...heDowntown.pdf

[trofirhen]

Given that The Post is a major project, and given that the recent version was turned dow, would anyone be willing enough, have the time and ability enough, to do a few "fantasy" renders
for this site? .This is not to create a "post fantasies" thread. It's just an opportunity for a few people to show how they would do it, or imagine it being done.
That might prove creative and interesting, was all I was thinking.
There's a lot of time to come before the new plans are finalized and the first ground broken.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Anything is possible. If people on this site cared as much as they claim to they could rally people and submit a petition to re-assess them.

But time and time again reality proves that the majority of complainers on here just bitch and moan from their keyboard but make no attempt to actually affect change themselves. Pretty lazy attitude.

Too bad you're in Toronto, LC. You'd be just the person to initiate that in Vancouver, IMO.

[LeftCoaster]

Not really since I work in the industry.

It kinda has to come from a citizens group or else it loses it's legitimacy.

I'd be more than happy to lend a hand if anyone wants to get it going though.

[Genauso]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Plenty of UDP members object to at least some of the viewcones, as do plenty of staff in planning.

You need to know viewcones are enforced by COUNCIL and are a reflection not of planning but the citizens of the city.

Just a few years ago there was a public engagement over the viewcones and they were generally supported by the voting public. Until that changes the viewcones are here to stay because apparently the citizens of Vancouver want them.

I don't want to eliminate viewcones, but I think the UDP would get a lot of public support if they came forward with a simple proposal to delete about half of them that originate from relatively insignificant points in the city.

It would be a good bridge to begin talking about what would be a system that is useful 50 years from now, instead of "well it's not completely broken today"

The city/province are also the ones who keep open the Single Room Occupancy hotels that do not meet the building/safety codes on Granville St downtown so slumlords can collect the welfare money of addicts. (featured story on global news the other night by local businesses wanting it cleaned up... instead city council wants to spend more money renovating the design of Granville St again) I think it's time Vision Vancouver become a lot more responsive and get out of the way of simple pragmatism, it's an election year after all.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Genauso

I don't want to eliminate viewcones, but I think the UDP would get a lot of public support if they came forward with a simple proposal to delete about half of them that originate from relatively insignificant points in the city.

That's not even close to the UDPs mandate and would be completely unprofessional and out of line for them to put forward.

I'll say it again, this needs to come from citizens, not those involved in the industry.

If anyone on here cared even half as much as they claim to there would be a citizens group fighting the viewcones.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Not really since I work in the industry.

It kinda has to come from a citizens group or else it loses it's legitimacy.

I'd be more than happy to lend a hand if anyone wants to get it going though.

Heard anything? I might be interested.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Plenty of UDP members object to at least some of the viewcones, as do plenty of staff in planning.

You need to know viewcones are enforced by COUNCIL and are a reflection not of planning but the citizens of the city.

Just a few years ago there was a public engagement over the viewcones and they were generally supported by the voting public. Until that changes the viewcones are here to stay because apparently the citizens of Vancouver want them.

Perhaps the public are hoodwinked into believing that the Viewcones are actually good for development and the protection of the natural environment of this city. When you throw around loose terms like "the city's beautiful mountain views will always be preserved" or "tall buildings creating a wall of concrete will destroy the natural beauty of Vancouver", I'm sure citizens who are not in the industry will blindly believe that many of the City's restrictions bring more benefits than harm. Fact is, the Council only offer a black and white perspective of this issue, as if saying "if you're not with us, you're against us". They don't give the option of letting people review or question the policies regarding view protection, and fail to evaluate the policies internally every few years to ensure that they are kept up to date.

If people in UDP are so against the idea viewcones, they should come out and inform the media of the real harm that the antiquated viewcones policies are outdated and in fact harming the development process and aesthetics of this city, not to mention that the loss of potential densification is worsening the affordability of this place. The danger of such policies is that once they are implemented, they are essentially carved in stone and almost impossible to change or remove, just like you can't debate with someone steep in certain religious beliefs. You can't question it, period. That, to me, is criminal. The idiotic stubbornness of people in power is simply mind-boggling.

Originally Posted by Genauso

I don't want to eliminate viewcones, but I think the UDP would get a lot of public support if they came forward with a simple proposal to delete about half of them that originate from relatively insignificant points in the city.

It would be a good bridge to begin talking about what would be a system that is useful 50 years from now, instead of "well it's not completely broken today"

The city/province are also the ones who keep open the Single Room Occupancy hotels that do not meet the building/safety codes on Granville St downtown so slumlords can collect the welfare money of addicts. (featured story on global news the other night by local businesses wanting it cleaned up... instead city council wants to spend more money renovating the design of Granville St again) I think it's time Vision Vancouver become a lot more responsive and get out of the way of simple pragmatism, it's an election year after all.

I totally agree with you.



If we don't have to grapple with City restrictions such as the viewcones, imagine the redevelopment of The Post will open up a lot more possibilities to make it a truly great project. Unfortunately, it seems that we always have this stupid issue that keeps bogging us down, time and again, while other cities are reaching for new heights in skyscraper design and development. This is more than frustrating.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Vin

Perhaps the public are hoodwinked into believing that the Viewcones are actually good for development and the protection of the natural environment of this city. When you throw around loose terms like "the city's beautiful mountain views will always be preserved" or "tall buildings creating a wall of concrete will destroy the natural beauty of Vancouver", I'm sure citizens who are not in the industry will blindly believe that many of the City's restrictions bring more benefits than harm. Fact is, the Council only offer a black and white perspective of this issue, as if saying "if you're not with us, you're against us". They don't give the option of letting people review or question the policies regarding view protection, and fail to evaluate the policies internally every few years to ensure that they are kept up to date..,

Hoodwinked? The public doesn't care what's best for developers, why should they? Vancouver's history is littered with developers' interest being put ahead of everybody else and buying what they want from council.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

That's not even close to the UDPs mandate and would be completely unprofessional and out of line for them to put forward.

I'll say it again, this needs to come from citizens, not those involved in the industry.

If anyone on here cared even half as much as they claim to there would be a citizens group fighting the viewcones.

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Heard anything? I might be interested.

The essential is to find a core of people willing to put time and energy into it; as LC says, those outside the industry. Even here on SSP, there might be a handful of people to start with.

[Genauso]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Not really since I work in the industry.

It kinda has to come from a citizens group or else it loses it's legitimacy.

I'd be more than happy to lend a hand if anyone wants to get it going though.

There might be a citywide citizen's revolt brewing because the cost of living and the cost of business has become so screwed up under Vision Vancouver.

Feel free to make an open post or a private message.

I want to know the practical milestones, and what metrics to identify policy improvements by. Also need to know which big developers would be open to collaboration, and which would undermine efforts for broad based relaxation of develop-able land.

You do understand it will only happen with a regime change? The current council is Kellyanne Conway double-speaking to cover her boss' ass and the boss don't care about other people's problems

[officedweller]

New (?) model pic from Changing City Updates.

Looks like the Georgia façade has been set back except for a centre portion - as opposed to the previous asymmetrical setback.

Seems to pay a bit more respect to the formality of the heritage façade.


https://changingcitybook.com/2017/05...-west-georgia/

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

New (?) model pic from Changing City Updates.

Looks like the Georgia façade has been set back except for a centre portion - as opposed to the previous asymmetrical setback.

Seems to pay a bit more respect to the formality of the heritage façade.

Yes - it's a new image of the revised scheme (taken today of the model that the UDP are reviewing this afternoon). The angled cut-off on the office tower (in the foreground) has gone as well - the whole thing looks simpler, and there appear to be a bit of colour that matches the dark red tiles on the existing building.

[officedweller]

WRT the angled cut-off, I recall that too - but looked back in this thread and saw pics of a model similar to the above post in January 2017 (quoted below)
- so maybe that's a reversion to an earlier version (but narrower on the Georgia side)?

Note that the January 2017 model does not have the current symmetrical Georgia façade.

... and I just realized that the office block has lost its "pleats" from the Homer and Hamilton sides.

Older Model Pic:

Originally Posted by bc2mb

Some new models of The Post redevelopment [January 2017]:



Source: http://urbanyvr.com/downtown-vancouv...dential-office