Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Deletion of the Chiklit Park view cone would allow the Four Season site at Pacific Centre to go tall (ie 500ft within the Scotia Tower's view shadow).
Old discussion here:
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=197987&page=205

Well ain't that somethin....

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

The view cone report is out, it's suggest that 14 should be eliminated, with another 11 adjusted (some substantially, but mostly in name only).

https://council.vancouver.ca/20240710/documents/pspc1.pdf

Here's a list of ones that could be eliminated.

Laurel Landbridge - C1, C2.1, C2.2
Cambie Bridge - E1, E2.2, E3)
Choklit Park - F1.1, F1.2 F1.3
Queen Elizabeth Park - 3.1, 3.24a
Cambie Street - 9.2.2
Granville Bridge - 12.1
Granville Street - 20.2

Aaaaand they're gone.

Vancouver overhauls longstanding view protection policy to boost housing production

---

Vancouver city council overhauled the city’s longstanding view protection and shadowing policies Wednesday, in a move staff estimated could yield between 10 million and 20 million square feet of additional development space...


... The city isn’t scrapping its policies protecting public views and access to sunshine, staff and councillors emphasized Wednesday, but changing them. Two specific protected views, those from Choklit Park and the Laurel land bridge, which staff said are already obstructed by trees, will be removed altogether. But most of the protected public views will be retained, although some are being modified...


... The reviews of view and shadow policies were prompted by motions introduced last year by Sim and ABC Coun. Peter Meiszner.

ABC Coun. Rebecca Bligh, who seconded Meiszner’s motion last year, asked to sever the votes so that instead of supporting the staff recommendations wholesale, she could vote for leaving certain view protections unchanged, including those from Cambie Bridge, Choklit Park and Granville Street.

Citing concerns about tourism and quality of life, Bligh said some of the recommended changes would “significantly impact our overall view protection policy and require more consideration and consultation.”
Article content

“I feel quite strongly that these view cones need to be considered in a different way,” Bligh said.

Meiszner disagreed with his ABC colleague.

“By excluding these particular view cones identified by Coun. Bligh, we’re talking about 4.5 million square metres of additional development capacity that would not be available,” Meiszner said. “In good conscience, I just can’t get on-board with that, particularly in our housing affordability crisis.”

Link

Won't do much for affordability, but it's a pretty big win for the skyline.

[BaddieB]

Mountain views are great. Downtown skyline views are greater. There's a whole province of mountain views, but only one downtown like Downtown Vancouver. The views are going to be improved.

[jollyburger]

Too bad there isn't one of those Future Canada Skylines renderings for Vancouver

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=161213&page=327

EDIT: Busby Perkins + Will/Concord Pacific released this tool (now dead) back in 2010 to receive feedback on the future of the Vancouver skyline.



This looks about right

https://www.core77.com/posts/15767/Shape-Vancouvers-skyline

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Mountain views are great. Downtown skyline views are greater. There's a whole province of mountain views, but only one downtown like Downtown Vancouver. The views are going to be improved.

Agreed.

How much of the downtown peninsula will these changes honestly affect? Seeing how there are many overlapping view cones.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Aaaaand they're gone.

Won't do much for affordability, but it's a pretty big win for the skyline.

Interesting as I would declare the opposite. A win for affordability and a loss for the skyline! The view cones make me really love civic politics

[BaddieB]

Love City Politics in the sense that it viewcones were a kind of 'grassroots' thing that was intended to preserve views as a common good?

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Too bad there isn't one of those Future Canada Skylines renderings for Vancouver

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=161213&page=327

EDIT: Busby Perkins + Will/Concord Pacific released this tool (now dead) back in 2010 to receive feedback on the future of the Vancouver skyline.



This looks about right

https://www.core77.com/posts/15767/Shape-Vancouvers-skyline

I love that image because it lays out in plain view (forgive the pun) the ridiculousness of the whole viewcones debate and the fact that they've been treated as sacrosanct for so long in this city (at the cost of the actual cost of living, if not the quality of life too, for the masses).

Nobody in Vancouver or indeed the GVA (I'll even throw in the "build tall" surbubs in that) is ever going to build towers that come anywhere close to those heights, and that's what you'd need for there to be an issue or concern of blocking the mountain views or impacting the skyline.

Even if you half those heights, and shave some of that density, all you're really jeorpardizing are the views to the City and District of North Van and the sprawl happening at the foot of the mountains rather than the mountains themselves.

It's good they had this review and discussion (even though from my perspective, it looks like they tried as hard as they could to do as little as they could in terms of eliminating or minimizing them,....but whatever), because if nothing else now their own study shows that the presence of the viewcones really have been having a (negative) impact on buildability in the city and thus indirectly the ability to increase housing and office space supply.

They went for the low-hanging fruit and eliminated the ones that make no sense at all by still existing, by virtue of the fact that the views are already blocked now by foliage, and they can't cut those trees to restore the views without somehow looking hypocritical.
Meanwhile we still have others that don't make much sense except for very specific areas where you'd have to be at, to enjoy them which means they're only serving a very limited number of people or communities, - versus this so-called "greater good" of the city's sacred skylines or views.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

It's good they had this review and discussion (even though from my perspective, it looks like they tried as hard as they could to do as little as they could in terms of eliminating or minimizing them,....but whatever), because if nothing else now their own study shows that the presence of the viewcones really have been having a (negative) impact on buildability in the city and thus indirectly the ability to increase housing and office space supply.

I understand they did this specifically to avoid drawn-out public consultation.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Too bad there isn't one of those Future Canada Skylines renderings for Vancouver

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=161213&page=327

EDIT: Busby Perkins + Will/Concord Pacific released this tool (now dead) back in 2010 to receive feedback on the future of the Vancouver skyline.



This looks about right

https://www.core77.com/posts/15767/Shape-Vancouvers-skyline

Not really: taller please. Some even taller towers will really define this skyline

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I understand they did this specifically to avoid drawn-out public consultation.

That's why we love ABC.

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Love City Politics in the sense that it viewcones were a kind of 'grassroots' thing that was intended to preserve views as a common good?

I would like to see it as a way to prevent more people to come live in this City. People here hate facing any sort of competition.

[Migrant_Coconut]

A broken clock is right twice a day.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Interesting as I would declare the opposite. A win for affordability and a loss for the skyline! The view cones make me really love civic politics

I believe you yourself said most of this additional supply is basically just more money for developers? The downtown core won't suddenly become cheap, but it will be slightly more varied and less uniform.

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Love City Politics in the sense that it viewcones were a kind of 'grassroots' thing that was intended to preserve views as a common good?

Some, but many seem like the former NPA pleasing NIMBY voters in Fairview and False Creek (where 9/10ths of the cones are). How many Vancouverites travel all the way to Choklit Park for the afternoon? Not many.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I'd build at a lower cost and charge the same $psf. My Clients and marketing folks would demand nothing less from us. Not sure what this has to do with viewcones that are mainly in the DT peninsula

I hope you can see the point now.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Getting rid of viewcones would also increase land values in the areas affected...

Yes, that is true, but with a lot more houseowners sharing this space, the affordability improves. Also developers can't keep charging people max amount if there is competition all around. Eventually they need to lower prices if demand falls, but make it up by packing in more density if possible. Height restriction is a major hurdle to packing in more density.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The real restriction is still the 90% of Metro Vancouver which has been exclusively zoned for detached two-floor houses for decades. Thankfully, the CoV's been making progress with that long before this vote.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

A broken clock is right twice a day.



I believe you yourself said most of this additional supply is basically just more money for developers? The downtown core won't suddenly become cheap, but it will be slightly more varied and less uniform.

Some, but many seem like the former NPA pleasing NIMBY voters in Fairview and False Creek (where 9/10ths of the cones are). How many Vancouverites travel all the way to Choklit Park for the afternoon? Not many.

That is correct, developers of condos will probably sell more condos downtown with these view cone changes.

Other changes affect large sections of the Broadway Plan. Which is mostly rental.

The comment that is funnily enough quoted from 2021 (pre Broadway Plan) about "if building costs go down the higher you can build, why would I sell the condos for less than market value," I stand by.

[GenWhy?]

Also zoning and height restrictions still exist.

Let's not forgot what did not exist in 2021 as we focused on view cones in areas that were actually restricted:
- The Provincial TOA changes did not exist yet
- Broadway Plan did not exist

[GenWhy?]

If you look at slides 94, and 97 of the Report you'll see what I'm talking about.

Most of the view cone changes for tall condos downtown already are developed for the most part. The real changes are outside downtown for rental.

[jollyburger]

Melody Ma of Save Our Skyline YVR, who has been a consistent advocate for preserving Vancouver's view cones, said on Thursday that the changes were made with "short sightedness" and that Council has "sold off public views meant for generations to enjoy."

Go walk down to the seawall and enjoy it.

"This will not create affordable housing, but it will make a whole bunch of landowners very, very wealthy," added Former CTV News anchor Tamara Taggart.

She was replying to this tweet by Globe Kerry Gold

If most ppl are fine with giving up views for profits, so be it. But let's not pretend it's for affordable housing. If that were the case, the focus wouldn't be on opening up the most expensive real estate. #vanre

https://x.com/GoldinYVR/status/1810708435182268903

And this followup tweet from Gold

Judging from the comments on @KenSimCity’s happy tweet about reducing view cones, there’s a mountain of rage over this decision. #vanre

96 replies = "mountain of rage" The deluded world of thinking in your little echo chamber.

https://storeys.com/vancouver-view-cones-policy-change/

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

The comment that is funnily enough quoted from 2021 (pre Broadway Plan) about "if building costs go down the higher you can build, why would I sell the condos for less than market value," I stand by.

You will be forced to sell lower if all your competitors can sell lower than you. Might as well pack up and leave the development business if you insist on selling at "market value".

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

If you look at slides 94, and 97 of the Report you'll see what I'm talking about.

Most of the view cone changes for tall condos downtown already are developed for the most part. The real changes are outside downtown for rental.

Not true. The Viewcones still affect a lot of sites, including redevelopment opportunities downtown. West End has a lot of sites ripe for redevelopment, and the removal of Viewcones help tremendously. There are even sites developers have halted developments due to gloomy prospects based on their current developments plans, but can be significantly improved if they could pack in more density by going even taller. Many of the proposed condo developments can even be converted/rezoned to rental towers if those are deemed profitable as well, such as the Peter Wall rental tower at Drake and Richards.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The supply difference between viewcones and no-viewcones is really only significant around the Broadway corridor, and that area's mostly rentals. Anybody expecting a few hundred luxury condos in the downtown core to move the affordability needle is dreaming out loud.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

Not true. The Viewcones still affect a lot of sites, including redevelopment opportunities downtown. West End has a lot of sites ripe for redevelopment, and the removal of Viewcones help tremendously. There are even sites developers have halted developments due to gloomy prospects based on their current developments plans, but can be significantly improved if they could pack in more density by going even taller. Many of the proposed condo developments can even be converted/rezoned to rental towers if those are deemed profitable as well, such as the Peter Wall rental tower at Drake and Richards.

I understand that the West End Plan must have considered viewcones limiting it's maximum heights when it was written, but removing viewcones does not immediately allow more height in any cases across the city if zoning of Plans are not amended. For instance 1188 Cardaro St has a max of 58m under than Plan but was permitted additional height (policy says density) as a rental building (it's rezoning calls for 68m or roughly 3 additional floors). This is still below Viewcone 20 from Granville St.

However, the viewcones did limit Broadway a lot more. In many areas the Plan said you could build a 20-storey building, but the view cone limited the height to maybe 11.