Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[johnjimbc]

I suppose no one is mentioning the Canada Post site because for now it's no longer for sale . . . or at least that's my understanding. Is the Canada building considered heritage - or at least the facade? Just curious.

On the Bay Parkade site, so does Hudson Bay not own it? Do they have any say in whether it gets redeveloped? It's fine with me if they don't, but it's hard for me to imagine a huge department store just saying, "Sure, shut down our parking garage for a few years. No worries." IF they have any say in the matter.

One thing that struck me on seeing the view cone open house this weekend is it seems pretty clear to me they were "guiding" the public towards an answer they'd like to get. All the initial panels talked about the importance of view cones and acknowledged the public's overwhelming support for them in the initial stages of the study. But then each panel started offering "options" for modifying or shifting the view cones in some fashion, and asking for feedback on those specific considerations. Then near the end, they suddenly threw up these four "hypothetical" situations of buildings, all of which would be landmarks totally ignoring the existing or even suggested modifications of the view cones. The whole last third of the presentation was about the hypothetical buildings, which sort of ignored everything that led up to them. It was like they were basically asking, "We know the public really likes the view-cones. But here are some options for changing them anyhow. And what about buildings that ignore them completely . . . would they be ok?"

I actually found it sort of funny. I gave my honest opinions on the scenarios they showed, some positive and some only lukewarm. But I hate public forums like that generally. It's almost like push-polling in my mind.

The funny thing about the Bay Parkade site is it literally sits in the middle of three of the largest view-cones. It's not even on the edge of them. I think there is a lot of potential there. I hope whatever gets built there is a bit more creative than the rectangular blob they showed in their conceptual shots. maybe something with a bit more style and panache would be ok, but I hope they wouldn't squander a landmark opportunity with a new millennium version of the ScotiaBank tower . Maybe a couple of buildings - one 450 ft, one 650 ft with some type of cool plaza between them? Offset to the grid even?

I'd have a ringside seat to whatever they build so I just want it to be cool when and if it happens .

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Mininari

Cool! Who owns the bay parkade site? They're sitting on landmark property (potentially). Funny, no mention of the Canada Post building site.

Awvan was indeed correct, Holborn does own the Bay Parkade site. What they plan to do with it is anyone's guess.

Phesto, I've heard that rumour from a few people actually (no one in an orange vest... suits only). Apparently Gillespie was given an informal promise that SL would be the tallest in the city for the near future. I'm sure there is nothing in writing and its probably BS, but I certainly didn't make it up.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Phesto, I've heard that rumour from a few people actually (no one in an orange vest... suits only). Apparently Gillespie was given an informal promise that SL would be the tallest in the city for the near future. I'm sure there is nothing in writing and its probably BS, but I certainly didn't make it up.

No I’ll bet you’re right, as I’m sure there were some behind-the-scenes handshakes etc when SL was first approved and it wouldn’t have been a stretch for City Staff to suggest SL would be the tallest for the near future. (“near” meaning until COV policy allows something taller, which Gillespie himself is currently advocating).

[officedweller]

Thanks for the info JL.

700 ft at Bay Parkade would be a welcome departure from current City policy - maybe it just makes too much sense have a massive development on top of a SkyTrain station entrance that the City would allow it.

[jlousa]

Think the Shangri-la being the tallest guarantee is taken a little out of context, there was no guarantee but certainly an assumption throw around that it would remain the tallest for a while. There was nothing taller set to be built this boom cycle, so it would remain the tallest for quite a while, at least until the next boom cycle starts and then at least 3 more years for construction so we'd be talking probably 10+yrs.

Holborn is still leasing out space at the Bay Parkade so they don't intend on moving for a while. Not to mention the investment just made at Dunsimir House which I would imagine would be somehow part of the bay parkade development, it'll probably be 3+ yrs before we see movement. Maybe after they're done with the Ritz-Carlton and little Mountain whenever that is.

The Toyota site is probably the most likely to proceed anytime soon at the height proposed. Wonder how that would affect any potential rezoning at St. Pauls.

The city stands to make some sizeable money if they can allow a 500ft on the buslot site as they own it. If they allow a 700ft building at the Bay Parkade what would that mean for the city owned parking lot across the street?

[punkster1982]

Holborn bought the Bay Parkade with the intention of building condos and it wasn't long after that the CoV blocked building new residential in the business core. Maybe they are working out some sort of deal with Holborn to compensate them? Perhaps some mixed use development

[wrenegade]

I've heard that the Cov won't let Holborn do anything with that site until they fix the massive hole that is/was the Ritz. Unofficially of course. Personally I am more excited for that project (as well as Little Mountain) than the possibility of 700 feet at the Bay Parkade site. We know that Erickson's tower is gorgeous (plus 600 feet is nothing to sneeze at), and we know just because it's tall doesn't mean it will look all that great (Fairmont Pacific Rim).

[jlousa]

For those that were too busy to attend the open houses (Leftcoaster being on the other side of the country is no excuse)

I don't have time to post all the links so click thru them off the page.

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ards/index.htm

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by jlousa

For those that were too busy to attend the open houses (Leftcoaster being on the other side of the country is no excuse)

I don't have time to post all the links so click thru them off the page.

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ards/index.htm

Wow, those models with the new "higher" buildings look really good.
I know its cliche and completely incorrect to say this, but the downtown would look "complete" with these proposed buildings added. Especially if that 700' is an office tower.

[officedweller]

Thanks for the link!

[Pinion]

Interesting how all the view shots show the Ritz (or whatever it's called now) as being built and just as high as the Shangri-La. Is that just accepted as happening now?

[Hed Kandi]

..

[jlousa]

When it's completed, data needs analysis, planning dept needs to make recommendations, council needs to study them and vote on it. Probably very late this year, or early next year. Personally I would not be surprised if it got held up until just after the games. Next year is shaping up to be very busy for the planning dept.

[jlousa]

Results have been made public from the second round of consultations. Looks like people from the forum actually took part this time around as there is a real difference between the random surveys and the opt in ones. I won't decode the info you guys, instead I'll just post the info and let everyone make up their own mind on what it points to.

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...acksummary.pdf

[Hed Kandi]

..

[jlousa]

That was the last scheduled round, there could be another one depending on what staff comes back with.

[frank]

Of course, this being a skyscraper forum, I guess people are most interested in this:

Q How satisfied are you with the possibility of adding four more tall buildings in the downtown at these general locations?
Results:
• 53% were accepting of the expansion of the higher building policy (6-10)
• 34% of respondents were highly supportive (8-10)
• 37% provided a less definitive response (4-7)
• 29% were strongly opposed to the concept (1-3)

Analysis:

While support for this concept was less definitive than the varied building line, it appears as though there was adequate support for staff to further the potential for adding a limited number of taller buildings in the downtown.

... from page 18 of above document.

[jlousa]

Wow city has moved a lot faster on this then I expected. Here is an exert from the report going to council next week.

RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT Council affirm the View Protection Guidelines and the critical role that they have played for the past 20 years in protecting public views that enhance Vancouver’s world-renowned image of a vibrant city in a unique mountain and ocean setting.

B. THAT in order to strengthen and improve existing protected public views Council approve the View Strengthening for existing View Corridors from Granville Bridge to Grouse Mountain (views 12.1, 12.2, 12.3), Charleson Park to the Lions (view B1), and Alder Terrace to Mount Seymour (view A), generally as described in Appendix A.

C. THAT in order to protect additional important views as the city grows Council approve in principle the New Views, generally as described in Appendix A, and direct staff to report back on implementation following further technical analysis and Council’s decision on the Heritage Area Height Review.

D. THAT in order to provide an opportunity for a maximum of four taller buildings in the downtown skyline that exhibit exceptional architectural excellence and superior environmental performance while still maintaining important views to the mountains, Council approve in principle a Limited Expansion of the Higher Building Policy, generally as described in Appendix A, and direct staff to report back with a revised “General Policy for Higher Buildings”.

CONSIDERATION

E. THAT Council affirm the current, rigorous application of Cambie Street and Cambie Bridge view corridors (views 9.1, 9.2, E.1) and allow “build out” to occur up to the existing, flat plimsoll line, generally as described in Appendix A
– Varied Building Line – MAINTAIN CURRENT POLICY.

OR

F. THAT Council approve in principle a carefully and strategically applied Varied Building Line for the Cambie Street and Cambie Bridge view corridors (views 9.1, 9.2, E.1) by seeking opportunities through discretionary design review to allow limited and strategic increases in height above the existing plimsoll line (and/or increases and decreases where site size permits), generally as described in Appendix A – Varied Building Line – OPTION ONE;

AND THAT, Council direct staff to report back on implementation of this approach following additional analysis and considerations.


GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services recommends APPROVAL of Recommendations A through D.

The General Manager of Community Services puts forth items E and F for Council’s CONSIDERATION.

Another item of interest in the report is that they estimate there is space for an additional 30,000 residents downtown under current zoning.

Source:
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...ments/rr2b.pdf

[Hed Kandi]

..

[vansky]

does density have anything to do with the current real estate unaffordability?

i'm just sad that a city like vancouver has so high of an unaffordability, which is against livability