Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[vansky]

usually stuff looks a big spaced out from the air, even shanghai doesn't look all that dense from an air shot...but hong kong is the truely crowded...and extremely expensive

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by 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

Density actually makes it cheaper. What makes land more expensive is the lack of land itself. Basically a high demand for land and a low supply of it. What density does is allows more people to live on an area of land. So that the price each person pays is less. But the total paid for that property is more.

We sadly live in a region that is has some kind of border in all 4 directions. Whether it be the ocean to the west, US border to the south or Mountains to the east and north. We can't just keep sprawling. So that makes land more expensive because there isn't enough land to go around.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by cabotp

We sadly live in a region that has some kind of border in all 4 directions. Whether it be the ocean to the west, US border to the south or Mountains to the east and north.

Yeah, it's so sad about those damn mountains and ocean. But, hey, not everyone can be lucky enough to live in a region free of stifling mountains and ocean front. I know it's hard to stay positive having to live here. But keep your chin up. Despite being cursed by mountains and ocean, Vancouver has other things going for it and is still an okay place to live.

[cabotp]

LOL well you got me there. I can say the best part about this place is the mountains and ocean. Even if they cause the price of land to go sky high.

Just was mentioning how the lack of land is really the biggest culprit to the high real estate prices.

[trofirhen]

x

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by cabotp

LOL well you got me there. I can say the best part about this place is the mountains and ocean. Even if they cause the price of land to go sky high.

Just was mentioning how the lack of land is really the biggest culprit to the high real estate prices.

I understood what you meant, but, boy, the way you phrased it.

I do not necessarily agree, however, that high real estate prices are caused by the mountains/ocean's confining nature. It is just as logical that high prices are the product of their beauty and attractiveness.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I understood what you meant, but, boy, the way you phrased it.

I do not necessarily agree, however, that high real estate prices are caused by the mountains/ocean's confining nature. It is just as logical that high prices are the product of their beauty and attractiveness.

True the beauty and attractivness will rise the price as well. Hence forth why an ocean front lot will always cost more than some lot in the middle of the east side of Vancouver.

But the lack of land does have a impact as well. Low supply and high demand almost always equates to high prices.

[junius]

Originally Posted by cabotp

LOL well you got me there. I can say the best part about this place is the mountains and ocean. Even if they cause the price of land to go sky high.

Just was mentioning how the lack of land is really the biggest culprit to the high real estate prices.

What about cheap credit combined with rabid speculation?

Everyone talks about this but I would really like to see a proper analysis of the subject. How much of a factor is land prices when people are more and more accepting of living in a dense urban environment? Vancouver has not added any new land in a century but has added significantly to the population due to densification.

While I agree that land prices are a factor I somehow feel they are often overstated or at least relied upon to dispel any belief in a possible price bubble in the lower Mainland. San Francisco has similar geographical limitations and its market crashed in the past 3 years. Oh, and it is pretty too!

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by junius

What about cheap credit combined with rabid speculation?

Everyone talks about this but I would really like to see a proper analysis of the subject. How much of a factor is land prices when people are more and more accepting of living in a dense urban environment? Vancouver has not added any new land in a century but has added significantly to the population due to densification.

While I agree that land prices are a factor I somehow feel they are often overstated or at least relied upon to dispel any belief in a possible price bubble in the lower Mainland. San Francisco has similar geographical limitations and its market crashed in the past 3 years. Oh, and it is pretty too!

Land prices are overstated. I think the "we have no room to grow myth" has a more psychological effect on the psyche than any real physical barrier. Ironically, it's this idea that keeps people justifying the higher prices here. If we opened up the entire ALR today to housing, doesn't anyone here think that prices would drop more than a single percentage point?

There's plenty of open space to build houses on in Surrey and Cloverdale. There's no shortage of land out there... and yet prices are pretty much on par with inner suburbs.

Prices are where they are for many reasons. But people will only buy if they think prices are affordable, or they think that even if it's not affordable, prices will go up faster than inflation, so they're saving money by doing it earlier. Of course, there's more to it, but when you're inundated with surveys proclaiming Vancouver as the world's "most livable city" all the time, it can get to you.

One thing I've wondered, is that if Metro Vancouver amalgamated, and all of the Metro was included in the rankings, I wonder how well this city would fare.

I think these surveys focus on the 200,000 or so people who live in or around the downtown peninsula / False Creek when it is talking about livability.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by junius

What about cheap credit combined with rabid speculation?

Everyone talks about this but I would really like to see a proper analysis of the subject. How much of a factor is land prices when people are more and more accepting of living in a dense urban environment? Vancouver has not added any new land in a century but has added significantly to the population due to densification.

While I agree that land prices are a factor I somehow feel they are often overstated or at least relied upon to dispel any belief in a possible price bubble in the lower Mainland. San Francisco has similar geographical limitations and its market crashed in the past 3 years. Oh, and it is pretty too!

I wouldn't dispel the fact that cheap credit has helped to push the prices higher than they are. Cheap credit is just have a sale on housing. Any sale will bring more buyers. It also allows people to spend more money on the house than on the interest.

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Land prices are overstated. I think the "we have no room to grow myth" has a more psychological effect on the psyche than any real physical barrier. Ironically, it's this idea that keeps people justifying the higher prices here. If we opened up the entire ALR today to housing, doesn't anyone here think that prices would drop more than a single percentage point?

There's plenty of open space to build houses on in Surrey and Cloverdale. There's no shortage of land out there... and yet prices are pretty much on par with inner suburbs.

Prices are where they are for many reasons. But people will only buy if they think prices are affordable, or they think that even if it's not affordable, prices will go up faster than inflation, so they're saving money by doing it earlier. Of course, there's more to it, but when you're inundated with surveys proclaiming Vancouver as the world's "most livable city" all the time, it can get to you.

One thing I've wondered, is that if Metro Vancouver amalgamated, and all of the Metro was included in the rankings, I wonder how well this city would fare.

I think these surveys focus on the 200,000 or so people who live in or around the downtown peninsula / False Creek when it is talking about livability.

I would agree that the ALR has caused the prices to go up. It of course causes an artificial restraint on the available land. So if they where to remove it and just build house after house that they could on every square inch of land in the Lower Mainland that would drop the price of land itself.

But even if they did that at some point in the future maybe 50 year or 100 years from now. We would be back to the problem of having a lack of land and hence forth the price of it would start to rise again.

[officedweller]

From the Courier:

Building heights under scrutiny

Allen Garr
Vancouver Courier


Friday, January 22, 2010


Last time I checked there were more than 80 speakers lined up for the public hearing that started this morning at city hall. On the table are two staff reports and imminent decisions by council that will change the face of the city for generations.

The first has to do with the future of the city's 27 precious view corridors. The debate is over whether we want to increase development "capacity" by plugging up those corridors with towering buildings.

The second, and the one that has attracted the vast majority of the attention, involves Chinatown, Gastown, Victory Square and Main and Hastings. The staff report refers to this work as the Historic Area Height Review.

What these two reports have in common is that they were requested by the previous council and were influenced by that council's plans to significantly increase density in the city under the program called EcoDensity.

I'll deal with the "downtown view corridors and capacity" study first.

As the city's head of planning Brent Toderian recalled this week, ever since the establishment of the city's view corridors two decades ago, there have been repeated requests by developers to have exceptions; buildings that would be allowed to intrude into that space. That was particularly true in the past few years as developer pressure increased on council and on the planning department. The promise of EcoDensity seems to have accelerated that pressure, which prompted council to ask for the study.

Staff has proposed four possible buildings, including one with a potential height of 700 feet. Three are along Georgia and one on Burrard near the north end of the Burrard Bridge. The staff report notes that three-quarters of Vancouverites believe that downtown development is leading to the loss of important views, and stronger action should be taken to protect those that remain.

But Toderian and his staff still found some tolerance for limited intrusions; hence the four sites. Those buildings would have to "exhibit exceptional architectural excellence and superior environmental performance while still maintaining important views to the mountains."

Staff cautioned council this week that those four structures would be the absolute maximum. More significantly and reflecting the change in attitude from last council to this, Toderian added that if council decides to do nothing, that would be just fine with him.

The Historic Area Height Review presents council with a more complex puzzle to deal with because of competing interests.

Concern about the deterioration of Chinatown and the need for revitalization has been on council's agenda at least as far back as Larry Campbell's time as mayor when Raymond Louie handled the file.

Former mayor Sam Sullivan's administration set things on edge when NPA Coun. Suzanne Anton decided Toderian's report on EcoDensity needed to be kicked up a notch. She had it amended to allow for much taller buildings in the historic district, which played particularly well with one of her supporters, developer Rob MacDonald.

Since then the debate has been heated and contentious, not just over density and building heights but also over the issue of what type of housing would result from a plan to increase the areas "body heat by doubling the population."

Planning philosophy is being guided, we are told, by the notion of "revitalization without displacement."

What has been presented appears to be a compromise and a conservative one at that. Heights in the historic areas will remain essentially unchanged. In adjacent areas, to ensure projects are economically viable, three sites will be allowed to rise up to 150 feet.

On this one I suspect council will increase the number of sites, arguing more are needed to ensure the successful revitalization of the area.

[email protected]

© Vancouver Courier 2010

[city guy]

the city is conducting an on-line survey, with moveable buildings! this is to assess the public's attitudes towards density and the 'shape of vancouver'

everyone should weigh in on this:

http://www.shapevancouver.com/

[Mininari]

Thanks for the link!
I just submitted my ideal skyline scenario (no, I didn't drag EVERY building to its maximum height). What is cool is the system creates a composite image of all submissions to date -- most notable is that the composite shows desire for a significantly taller CBD, but with only modest increases in the peripheral zones.

Great tool for a complex issue. I sure hope we see some kind of compromise that everyone can live with.

P.S. I did try stretching every building to its maximum -- the system doesn't let the building go above the mountain range line... and the skyline didn't really look that great 'maxed out.' Again, just another point for maintaining variety.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by city guy

the city is conducting an on-line survey, with moveable buildings! this is to assess the public's attitudes towards density and the 'shape of vancouver'

everyone should weigh in on this:

http://www.shapevancouver.com/

The website was done by Busby architects, not the City of Vancouver. It's a cool site, but it's not a meaningful survey from the City's perspective.

[officedweller]

Bad news:

Council rejects new downtown towers

VANCOUVER/CKNW AM 980
Dan Burritt
1/26/2010

Vancouver City Council has voted against four new downtown towers that would have been built through several existing view corridors.

Councillors approved an amended motion from Vision Vancouver's Raymond Louie to get staff to look for "higher building opportunities" within existing rules around view corridors.

Three of the towers would have been built on Georgia, the fourth on Burrard.

The motion also calls for changes to rules around higher buildings, requiring any new tall buildings to demonstrate "green building design".

"higher building opportunities" within existing rules around view corridors
- if you ignore current height limits other than view cones,
that may point you to pockets in the West End, Pender Triangle or outside the downtown peninsula

Most of the areas downtown without view cones have been built out:

From the 1997 Skyline study:
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...study/appd.pdf

[Stingray2004]

I'm certainly not impressed with council's decision based upon the following two over-riding factors in favour:

Vancouver’s director of planning says the proposal to allow four new extra-tall buildings in downtown Vancouver would enhance the city’s skyline and not undermine the long-standing policy of protecting views of the North Shore mountains.

http://www.vancouversun.com/technolo...134/story.html

53% of the public told the city they'd accept a higher building policy.

http://www2.canada.com/vancouvercour...3-56fffa4bca99

[mr.x]

This is very disappointing. It was a no brainer. We keep shooting ourselves in the foot...

[Prometheus]

Goddamn bastards!

[jlousa]

As much as I don't like a lot of things this council has done they have my full support on this one. It was a tough decision but it was the right one for the city. Once we intrude into the view cones we can never go back, this way we are free to try again and intrude in the future should be choose to. The proposal would've only added 1.8M sqft, that is more then easily added without touching the viewcones by slightly increasing FSRs across the board.

Bob Ransford had a decent article about this in this weekends Sun, councils for a while have been concentrating too much on downtown and ignoring potential throughout the rest of the city.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by jlousa

It was a tough decision but it was the right one for the city.

Says who? Who are they to dictate what is "right" for the city? What right do they have subordinating property rights, growth and development to their aesthetic preferences? Who are they to hold free people down and suppress architectural vision for the sake of a few arbitrary vantage points?