[mr.x2]

Proposal – Queen Elizabeth Park

Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation
Planning Committee Meeting
March 6, 2007

Piet Rutgers introduced John Norton and Richard Henriquez to present a concept proposal to build a privately developed and operated observation tower adjacent to the Bloedel Conservatory and the Plaza at Queen Elizabeth Park. He told the Committee that the views have been progressively obscured by the natural growth of the trees on the site, and that the idea came forward several years ago when the Plaza was designed but was not pursued at that time due to the expense.

John Norton told the Committee that the highest point in Vancouver is located in Queen Elizabeth Park at the top of Little Mountain, and the spectacular view it offered in the past is an asset to the Park Board that has been lost as the trees have grown. He told the Committee that he has reviewed the business case for building an observation tower and marketing it as
Vancouver’s “highest point”, and believes that it is an economically viable proposal that could create a very popular attraction and draw large numbers of people, especially if it is completed by 2010. He would like the Park Board to ask for public input on the concept of an observation tower in Queen Elizabeth Park.

Richard Henriquez explained that the idea for an observation tower began when the Plaza in Queen Elizabeth Park was designed. He presented a concept plan that he recently expanded from earlier sketches, described its features, and noted that although the height in this concept is 150 feet, it will depend on projections of the tower’s life span because trees grow several feet each year.

Piet Rutgers summarized the process that would be followed if the Park Board supports the concept. A Request for Proposals (RFP) will be sent out and responses reviewed and evaluated. Staff would prepare recommendations on the selection of a proposal for the Board’s approval. He noted that the schedule is very tight for completion by 2010.

Discussion
- A member of the Committee asked about fees for entering the proposed tower. The delegation said comparable attractions in the USA charge $10, and noted that many people will be attracted to the highest spot in Vancouver and tour bus business will increase significantly.
- The Committee discussed the integration of the proposed observation tower with the park and asked questions about much parkland would be displaced, shading from the tower, and views of the tower from the rest of the park. A Commissioner suggested that cutting down some trees is an alternative way to recover the view. The delegation noted that cutting trees will provide peek-a-boo views but not reclaim the spectacular views that this location used to offer.
- A Commissioner asked the delegation if a business plan identifying potential revenue opportunities for the Park Board has been developed. The delegation explained that when the Board approves the concept and sends out an RFP, they will include their business plan in their proposal. They expressed confidence that the concept is economical and will be beneficial for both parties.
- The Committee discussed the reduced use of this area of the park and loss of revenues due to recent GVRD, Park Board, and Canada Line construction projects, and acknowledged the need to find ways to encourage people to return to the park.
- A Commissioner identified the contrast between the contemplative nature of the tai chi arbors, the Plaza and the Bloedel Conservatory, and the activity levels of a busy tourist attraction, and asked if this is an appropriate use for the park. A member of the Committee recalled the diverse public response to the development of the Bloedel Conservatory and said that the tower concept should be put out to the public.
- The Committee discussed the integration of an observation tower with the Bloedel Conservatory and the Plaza. The delegation explained that there is not enough time before 2010 to assess and address the technical challenges of the Conservatory.
- Staff explained that a public process on the merits of an observation tower could include these elements: on site signage, a website, stakeholder and user outreach, and an open house. Staff would then report to the Board on the results of the process.

Next Steps
The Planning Committee requested that staff prepare a report on the concept of an observation tower at Queen Elizabeth Park to be submitted to the Board


Next Meeting
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 pm. The next meeting is scheduled for March 20, 2007.








Queen Elizabeth Park tower causes concern

News Features By Matthew Burrows
Publish Date: April 12, 2007

Long-time Riley Park resident and citizen watchdog Ned Jacobs says he is worried that a proposed private observation tower will "severely compromise" the values of Queen Elizabeth Park.

The 56-year-old told the Georgia Straight he has lived in the area since 1980 and was initially drawn to the neighbourhood by the park. Now he is concerned that a potentially "privatized view" from a 40-metre planned observation tower will alter the dynamic of the 53-hectare park and the highest point (at 150 metres) in Vancouver.

"At 10 feet per storey, it's 15 storeys," Jacobs, a part-time Vancouver park board outdoor worker, said of the tower. "The park board is taking this to a whole new realm. This is like putting a balloon up in the sky. The people down below will be like little sticks in the park there. And you can imagine it in the neighbourhood, where you've been used to having this rounded contour of a hill with trees. Suddenly there will be some sort of tower up there."

At the March 6 meeting of the park board planning committee, delegations identified by meeting minutes as Vancouver architect Richard Henriquez and John Norton, both of Observation Tower Inc., explained their idea for an observation tower and presented a concept plan for a "privately developed and operated observation tower adjacent to the [Bloedel] conservatory". The tower, it was claimed, would increase tour-bus business significantly and possibly charge an entrance fee of about $10.

Commissioners–with NPA commissioner Heather Holden as committee chair–allowed the tower concept to come before the full park board, which Henriquez told the Straight is happening "at the end of the month". Park board communications director Joyce Courtney said the date–likely the April 30 meeting at park board headquarters on Beach Avenue–could only be confirmed "one week before", once the April 16 board meeting is done.

Jacobs said he has "lifelong experience of planning and civic issues", thanks to his late mother, famed Toronto urban-affairs expert and author Jane Jacobs. Ned Jacobs said the privatization of part of the Queen Elizabeth Park plaza would be "expensive and unnecessary" and would have no supporting "subway" infrastructure to back it up when traffic increases to the area.

Jacobs said he has helped develop a cheaper "public" alternative to Henriquez's model, with no admission fee, that he claims would clear the tree line currently impeding clearer views of the downtown core.

"Jane called P3s 'monstrous hybrids' of governance and commerce," he said. "Such arrangements can only lead to a conflict of interest. A private company is involved in a monopoly situation, and this could conflict with the public interest over things like extra parking."

NPA commissioner Korina Houghton told the Straight the board "had some concerns" regarding size and the issue of it being in Queen Elizabeth Park. "Frankly, I wouldn't want to see anything too massive."

Independent commissioner Allan De Genova told the Straight he thought the tower looked "edgy" and that "some work still needs to be done". But he said he is not concerned about the potential P3.

"It's private dollars coming in to bring something up to a level I think we need," De Genova said. "To do the [renovation at] Bloedel Conservatory as a whole is half a million dollars. It's been a sinkhole for us. It's old and it's tired and maybe we should be revisiting that."

In closing, Jacobs referred to a May 31, 1999, park board meeting where commissioners–including then–NPA commissioner De Genova–unanimously approved adoption of the Queen Elizabeth Park long-range vision. In the guiding-principles section of the report, they agreed to ensure that any new park buildings or spaces are of a multi-use design and "cater to a variety of different park users and activities". The report also expressed the need to "ensure that all commercial ventures are consistent with this long-range vision for the park".
Publish Date: April 12, 2007

[mr.x2]

This is pretty cool:
http://en.structurae.de/files/photos/88/killesbergturm01.jpg
http://www.yale.edu/opa/v33.n11/story12.jpg
http://www.prague-pictures.cz/images/21.jpg
http://www.gymnasium-gerlingen.de/Freizeit-Tipps/Killesberg_Turm.jpg



or even better, instead of a tower, how about a London Eye-like ferris wheel:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2006/big.city.travel/interactive/gallery.london.101/03.london.eye.jpg

[cornholio]

^The QE tower would be great in my opinion but if it goes through the city and parks board should make sure its iconic since it will be visible from many parts of the city. It could realy make the skyline outside of downtown that much more interesting by adding something to focus on...something that will hopefully stand out and make people notice it from many different locations.
The secobd picture you posted is of Petrinska observation tower in Prague, its 60m tall so thats close to the 150 foot hight. Here is another picture.
http://www.prague-pictures.cz/images/73.jpg
Its built in 1891 and its suposed to resembel the eiffel tower though i think it could look much better with a bit of fixing up.
In anycase they have the oportunity to build something iconic.

[tintinium]

Why not make a shorter tower with city money and make it free so we all can enjoy the view and not primarily tourists.

[officedweller]

Something Like Calatrava's communications tower in Barcelona would be cool - scaled bigger to fit people. It would require an "inclinator" rather than an elevator, but it's do-able. Depends whether the proponent wants a restaurant in the tower (which would add to the bulk and compete with the existing restaurant)

http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/MontjuicTower/index.htm

http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/MontjuicTower/Montjuic1.jpg

[LeftCoaster]

Caltrava is exactly who I was envisioning to design such a tower... and his Barcelona communications mast was the exact peice that made me beleive he would be the perfect architecht for the project. His designs would fit in so well with vancouver's aura and its existing architechture that im surprised he hasnt built anything here before. However I doubt he, or any starchitecht for that matter, would be working on this project as I doubt the backers have that kind of money. If it got corporate sponsorship however, it could have the money, and it would make someone like caltrava much more feisable becuase if a company is putting its name behind a structure they want it to be as iconic as posisble.

As for a resturant, as cool as that would be, im sure it wouldnt be possible as this proposal is going to have a tough enough time gettin past the nimbys as it is, let alone with a bulky restaurant on top.

[mr.x2]

Tower proposed for Queen E. Park

Linda Nguyen, Vancouver Sun
Published: Friday, May 25, 2007

VANCOUVER - The Vancouver park board will vote Monday on a proposal for a privately funded tower in Queen Elizabeth Park aimed at revitalizing the tourist attraction.

Park commissioner Loretta Woodcock said she's still unsure what impact the tower, which would include an observation deck, might have on the surrounding community.

"My initial feeling is that I'm not enthusiastic about it," she said Thursday night. "But . . . public consultation could tell me if there's an issue with the community [about this]. Then it's an issue with me."

A report going to the board outlines plans from a private group called Observation Tower Inc. to construct and operate a viewing tower adjacent to the plaza and the Bloedel Conservatory.

The group put forward a design for a $10-million project, but did not specify the height of the tower.

The report going to the board says that if the idea of such a project is approved, the board would consider bids from other groups who want to fund and design the new tourist attraction.

If it's approved, a public consultation will be held online and at the local community centre to solicit feedback before the project proceeds.

"The essence of the proposal is to restore the views without significantly modifying the Little Mountain woodlands and revitalize a tourism asset," says the proposal.

A portion of proceeds from ticket sales to the tower would go to the park board.

Woodcock said one of her concerns is whether the board would be left with financial responsibility if the tower cannot be maintained privately in the future.

According to the proposal, Queen Elizabeth Park used to be a "must-see" destination because it was the highest point in the city of Vancouver at 153 metres (501 feet) above sea level.

Trees have since grown up, blocking the view.

The proposal said the number of visitors to the Bloedel Conservatory in the park dropped from 119,000 in 2001 to 65,000 in 2006.

But Woodcock said there's still plenty of reasons for tourists to go to the park even without an observation deck.

"Although we want more tourist dollars, the deck isn't a priority right now," she said.

lnguyen@png.canwest.com


© The Vancouver Sun 2007

[mr.x2]

Park board to study $10-million tower dream
Queen Elizabeth Park structure would stand 50 metres high

Anupreet Sandhu Bhamra, Vancouver Sun
Published: Saturday, May 26, 2007

VANCOUVER - Architect Richard Henriquez dreams of building a $10-million observation tower at Queen Elizabeth Park that will jut more than 50 metres into the sky and allow an unrestricted panoramic view of the city.

His proposal, which goes before the Vancouver park board on Monday for an initial review, has been years in the making. If it's approved, the board will consider bids from other groups to fund and design the new attraction.

As well, a public consultation will be held to solicit feedback.

Henriquez, of the architectural and urban design firm Henriquez Partners Architects, says he thought of the idea when he was hired years ago to do the design for the plaza at Queen Elizabeth Park, and he thought "it looked unfinished."

So he proposed to the park board of the time that an observation tower be built then. But nothing came of that idea.

"It sat for years," he says, until recently when he discussed the idea with John Norton, a local developer and lawyer. Together, they formed Observation Tower Inc. and made a new proposal to the current board for a tower.

Queen Elizabeth Park is Vancouver's highest point at 153 metres above sea level. But the site, which has afforded a panoramic view of the city since the park's inception, has been lost due to the growth of trees.

The park board agrees. A staff report on the tower proposal states that the park has seen a decline in tourists, and something needs to be done to "restore the views".

The report says the number of visitors to the Bloedel Conservatory has declined from 119,000 visitors in 2001 to 65,000 visitors in 2006. Of these, 28,000 were tour bus entrants in 2001, and in 2006, the number was 940.

It says further that the board needs "to find ways to encourage people to return to the park."

"There is a combination of factors for the decline in the number [of tourists]," says board vice-chair Korina Houghton, including construction of the Canada Line.

But if the tower proposal is approved, she says, the board is expecting some "strong opinions" from the public.

A public review process will include on-site signage, a website, stakeholder and user outreach and an open house.

If approved, the tower will be built next to the plaza and conservatory. But before that happens, the board will consider bids from other groups who may want to fund and design the proposed tourist attraction.

The company that submits the winning bid will bear the cost of the tower's construction and operation.

A business model has yet to be finalized, but an admitting fee of $10 has been proposed, which is comparable to similar attractions in the United States.

A portion of proceeds from ticket sales would go to the park board as well.

abhamra@png.canwest.com

[officedweller]

Sorry - no pic on-line.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=bcb0466a-8e9e-4483-abff-5c22c8322cd8&k=88904

Park board to study $10-million tower dream
Queen Elizabeth Park structure would stand 50 metres high
Anupreet Sandhu Bhamra, Vancouver Sun
Published: Saturday, May 26, 2007

VANCOUVER - Architect Richard Henriquez dreams of building a $10-million observation tower at Queen Elizabeth Park that will jut more than 50 metres into the sky and allow an unrestricted panoramic view of the city.

His proposal, which goes before the Vancouver park board on Monday for an initial review, has been years in the making. If it's approved, the board will consider bids from other groups to fund and design the new attraction.

As well, a public consultation will be held to solicit feedback.

Henriquez, of the architectural and urban design firm Henriquez Partners Architects, says he thought of the idea when he was hired years ago to do the design for the plaza at Queen Elizabeth Park, and he thought "it looked unfinished."

So he proposed to the park board of the time that an observation tower be built then. But nothing came of that idea.

"It sat for years," he says, until recently when he discussed the idea with John Norton, a local developer and lawyer. Together, they formed Observation Tower Inc. and made a new proposal to the current board for a tower.

Queen Elizabeth Park is Vancouver's highest point at 153 metres above sea level. But the site, which has afforded a panoramic view of the city since the park's inception, has been lost due to the growth of trees.

The park board agrees. A staff report on the tower proposal states that the park has seen a decline in tourists, and something needs to be done to "restore the views".

The report says the number of visitors to the Bloedel Conservatory has declined from 119,000 visitors in 2001 to 65,000 visitors in 2006. Of these, 28,000 were tour bus entrants in 2001, and in 2006, the number was 940.

It says further that the board needs "to find ways to encourage people to return to the park."

"There is a combination of factors for the decline in the number [of tourists]," says board vice-chair Korina Houghton, including construction of the Canada Line.

But if the tower proposal is approved, she says, the board is expecting some "strong opinions" from the public.

A public review process will include on-site signage, a website, stakeholder and user outreach and an open house.

If approved, the tower will be built next to the plaza and conservatory. But before that happens, the board will consider bids from other groups who may want to fund and design the proposed tourist attraction.

The company that submits the winning bid will bear the cost of the tower's construction and operation.

A business model has yet to be finalized, but an admitting fee of $10 has been proposed, which is comparable to similar attractions in the United States.

A portion of proceeds from ticket sales would go to the park board as well.

abhamra@png.canwest.com

© The Vancouver Sun 2007

[marmorek]

(pic changed)

[GreatTallNorth2]

How about building a tower like this one? This is Spinnaker Tower in Portsmouth, UK.

http://www.giftservice.co.uk/images/townimages/hampshire/portsmouth.jpg

[EastVanMark]

:previous: :previous: They both look really sharp and would provide a great boost for the park.

[paradigm4]

I think as long as it fits with Vancouver's style, and is iconic without being too "out there", then I have no problem with it. Towers are generally big tourist attractions, and while I've no heard of QE Park being referred to as a must-see destination, I think the addition of a tower would certainly boost it's rating in tourist guides. It'd also be a nice source of revenues. I say, why not?!

[tintinium]

i be nimby! i be say no!

[djh]

I think as long as it fits with Vancouver's style, and is iconic without being too "out there", then I have no problem with it. Towers are generally big tourist attractions, and while I've no heard of QE Park being referred to as a must-see destination, I think the addition of a tower would certainly boost it's rating in tourist guides. It'd also be a nice source of revenues. I say, why not?!

I think buildings generally become tourist attractions because they *are* "out there", and quite often they do not fit the style of the the city they are in. Think of any tourist attraction (building) that you've ever been to - it's because they look *different* to what's around them. The whole point of a tourist attraction is it is something that did not settle for a mediocre design or fitting-in, hence people find it worthy of examination.

So yes, if they make an iconic, out-there building (such as the 2 amazing towers in the photos above) then I think it will draw a lot of tourists to QE Park.

[tintinium]

true enough... Parisians hated la tour d'Eiffel, but it's iconic now. San Franciscans hated their big skinny pyramid too.

Then again, expecting something of that calibre in Vancouver is asking a lot.

How I'd love to see anything that Calatrava puts his mind to in this city.

Wouldn't you love to see a Calatrava designed bridge or tower gracing Vancouver?

[Canadian Mind]

maybe a big bridge going from UBC to West Van, this would be to small.

[LeftCoaster]

Lol, i think that would win the award for most pointless bridge of all time!

[hollywoodnorth]

I wonder what happened to this puppy....the Dinos died in Stanley Park.....but this one actually MADE sence.....and nothing on it for 6 months? not a good sign....

[Hed Kandi]

I wonder what happened to this puppy....the Dinos died in Stanley Park.....but this one actually MADE sence.....and nothing on it for 6 months? not a good sign....

Pick up the newest issue of Georgia Straight. There's an article on it. They want to increase the height to 2oo ft and have submitted the proposal to the city.

[mr.x2]

http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/info/planning/qetower/images/qetower1.jpg
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/info/planning/qetower/images/siteplan_zoom.jpg
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/info/planning/qetower/images/qetower3.jpghttp://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/info/planning/qetower/images/qetower5.jpghttp://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/info/planning/qetower/images/qetower_6.jpg
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/info/planning/qetower/images/qetower7.jpghttp://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/info/planning/qetower/images/qetower8.jpghttp://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/info/planning/qetower/images/qetower9.jpg
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/info/planning/qetower/images/qetower_10.jpghttp://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/info/planning/qetower/images/qetower_11.jpg

Queen Elizabeth tower grows even taller

Straight Talk By Carlito Pablo
Publish Date: November 1, 2007

The proposed observation tower at Queen Elizabeth Park has grown taller since proponents presented the concept to members of the Vancouver park board last March.

Long-time Riley Park resident Ned Jacobs told the Straight that a flyer from the park board indicated that the tower will now rise to at least 56 metres from the ground. "I think they feel they need extra capacity," Jacobs said, referring to private proponent Observation Tower Inc. "I suspect that this will even go higher to 20 storeys or 200 feet [60-61 metres] with its spire."

Vancouver architect Richard Henriquez of Observation Tower Inc. stated at the March presentation that the tower could be as tall as 46 metres. According to the park board's Web site (www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/info/planning/qetower/index.htm ), the proposed design will feature three viewing decks at 47, 52.5, and 56 metres reachable by elevator.

The board will hold public consultations on November 10 and 20 on the $10 million project, which would be privately operated and charge fees. The structure will also have a gift shop and a snack bar.

COPE commissioner Spencer Herbert questions the idea of imposing a fee to get a view over the city. "We are a public park board and not a private park board," Herbert told the Straight . "There are a number of options wherein we can put a platform that allows people to have a view of the city for free. There is this fixation at the board that it has to be private."

[Canadian Mind]

looks like something the Jetsons would live in... I'm not a fan.

I like the idea of n observation tower, but not this shabby looking, and not this small. Although I suppose the point is that it wont stand out to much.

[hollywoodnorth]

great news! I love the design!

[officedweller]

The design looks too jumbled up. Too many elements. Should be cleaner looking.

[Canadian Mind]

to many sharp edges. Should be gentle curves to fit with the Sphere.

[SunCoaster]

/\ Huh, what's going on with this proposal as I thought it was dead and buried alongside the robotic dinos proposal for Stanley Park? :shrug:

[MolsonExport]

Here's George Jetson. His boy, Leroy! Daughter Judy. Jane, his wife!

[Rusty Gull]

This project is definitely still on. In fact, an open house is this Saturday afternoon at Riley Park -- if you want to check out the renderings first-hand (and keep the Nimbies at bay).

[SunCoaster]

:previous: Errrrrrrrrrr on this particular project I'm actually leaning toward the NIMBY side :banana:

I just see this project becoming another 150 foot 'white elephant' ... or more percisely 150 foot phalic symbol ... if the tourists (yes tourists as I don't see too many locals making use of this facility once the novelty wears off) need great views of the downtown peninsula and northshore mountains then, to me, they're much better off going to say Jerico Beach or Burnaby Mountain etc ...

[cornholio]

this will be privately built and operated so I dont see the problem. anyways it ads to things to do in Vancouver for tourists and visitors, even if not all of them go see it. i only see potential in the development so i am all for it.

[officedweller]

Personally I think that in a manmade park where the landscape is in effect, artificial, why can't they prune the trees or even remove them?
The City routinely removes street trees that are causing problems (like its quashed plan to remove the Linden trees along West Broadway because of sidewalk heaving and sap drippings - or its current plan to remove all of the existing trees on the Granville Mall and replace them with neat straight double rows of new trees)

The least drastic means of restoring a view is to prune/remove the trees - and the view would be more accessible to everyone.

[Rusty Gull]

I'm glad to support it as long as the architecture and idea is right. I just find Q.E. Park lacking any sort of appeal currently -- outside of Nat Bailey Stadium and perhaps the pitch 'n putt.

But the atmosphere of the place might be different if it was home to something iconic. For example, any native Ontarians or Canadian history buffs on this forum might know of the Isaac Brock Monument at Queenston Heights Park in Niagara Falls. It truly enhances the atmosphere there.

My only beef is the notion of charging folks to go to the top.

[Rusty Gull]

There was a story about the proposal yesterday on Global by reporter Michelle Miller -- including an interview with the architect.

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/bc/index.html

In short, some residents were supportive, but others were visibly upset. One fellow argued that it was an architectural ego-trip.

Personally, I found the renders to be under-stated. I was hoping for something a bit more aggressive and iconic, but that's just me.

I have a feeling that this project will fizzle out. It's a great idea, but most people have written off Q.E. Park anyways, so there's little interest from the public. The future of the park is as another urban forest that's mostly ignored -- with the exception of the tour bus crowds and a handful of locals.

There's one other issue. Besides the view north (and perhaps west), South Vancouver is not the best place for a viewing tower. The views south and east would basically entail residential sprawl, the airport and the Fraser River.

Other forumers have said it before -- if we're going to build a "Space Needle", it should be set at the periphery of downtown. But in the meantime, if you haven't been to the top of Harbour Centre lately, the perspective from there is still fabulous.

[mr.x2]

The future of the park is as another urban forest that's mostly ignored -- with the exception of the tour bus crowds and a handful of locals.

Actually, the tour bus crowd is pretty much depleted. About 10 years ago, when the park still had a great view there were 1 million tourists/year from tour buses visiting the park. Today, it's something like 50,000.

[crazyjoeda]

I really hope they build it. It would be nice to have view of the city, the ocean, and the mountains from that vantage point. Simply trimming the trees would not provide the same view as a 150ft tower with a 360 degree view.

[jlousa]

i agree they should build a tower, but not the current design. Do something iconic, I still like the idea or a giant inukshuk or maybe a giant artificial tree. Personally I love the Inukshuk idea.

[mr.x2]

i agree they should build a tower, but not the current design. Do something iconic, I still like the idea or a giant inukshuk or maybe a giant artificial tree. Personally I love the Inukshuk idea.

the whole idea is to build a simple and slender structure that works with the park, an inukshuk nor an artificial tree would not work.



There was a story about the proposal yesterday on Global by reporter Michelle Miller -- including an interview with the architect.

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/bc/index.html

that guy who called it a ego-trip is a moron.

[deasine]

actually I'm starting to like the design after looking at the renderings in the report. it blends into the slender and majestic trees. =)

[officedweller]

Had a look at the view cones at the City's website.
Here is the QE Park viewcone. Roll your mouse over the view area - the footnote says that future pruning will open up the view!!

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/views/viewcones/3.htm

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/views/viewcones/images/3_photo_f2.jpg

[cornholio]

This is unfortunate, guess the NIMBY's won again. Thanks to a voicefull minority of about 200 or so people. Im sure that if you did a petition of the city then a majority would be for it. Im starting to think that the idea of creating some type of group to battle it out with these NIMBY's isnt such a bad idea. Also they clearly say what the purpose of this park was and is, I just dont understand why they even bother listening to these people. I mean really whats the problem with having a small observation tower next to the concrete dome to take advantage of the views, exactly the reason the park is there in the first place.

Park board topples tower, and curtain of trees remains
A greater question involves the fate of the conservatory at Queen Elizabeth Park
Pete McMartin, Vancouver Sun
Published: Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Here is the view from Queen Elizabeth Park: You still cannot see the forest for the trees.

On Monday night -- some hours after this column was written -- the Vancouver park board unanimously defeated a motion to erect a 50-metre tall observation tower in it.

Its defeat was a sure thing, at least to park board vice-chairman Ian Robertson, who had come to this towering conclusion before the vote was taken.

"I'm so convinced we won't approve it," he said Monday morning, several hours before the vote, "that I would bet next year's salary on it."

That's an $8,000 bet in Robertson's case. (Park commissioners get chump change.) It's also a safe bet.

It was to have been constructed, owned and operated by a private company called Observation Tower Inc., was to have cost an estimated $10 million.

Its purpose:

To offer panoramic views of Vancouver.

The reason for its proposal:

In Queen Elizabeth Park -- originally established because of its panoramic views, since Little Mountain is Vancouver's highest elevation above sea level; the park has in the intervening years given rise to a curtain of trees that have blocked most of those views.

"It's what I would call 'benign neglect,' " said the park's superintendent, Alex Downie.

"Many of the trees were planted in plantation-style blocks and were allowed to grow without any thinning, so that now they resemble something like a hedge."

Locals, of course, like it this way.

Views, they can do without.

But a forest next door? Who wouldn't want that?

But Queen Elizabeth was intended to be more than a forest, and something other than a place where the locals can go to have a picnic. It was planned as a destination park for both Vancouverites and tourists, and the views were integral to that end. It is the reason the park boasts formal gardens, a plaza, a high-end restaurant and the Bloedel Conservatory.

Nonetheless, when the park board held a couple of information meetings about the tower proposal, the expressed view of the 300 people who attended was unequivocally and overwhelmingly against a tower.

Add on written submissions, e-mails and angry letters, and almost 70 per cent of comments were against the proposal.

So, the likely result?

Locals and the park will end up with a compromise. There will be no tower, but its opponents will have to live with the idea that trees blocking the views will have to be culled or trimmed. To replace the number of trees that do come down -- none of which, by the way, are rare or endangered species -- the same number will be replanted elsewhere in the park.

"There's 120 acres in the park," Downie said, "and plenty of places in it that can take more trees."

(As predicted, Wednesday night's meeting produced a compromise: The park board directed staff to develop a tree-management project to open up the views at the park.)

A greater and unanswered question will remain, though, about the Bloedel Conservatory.

What should its future be, and should it have a future?

It has been hemorrhaging revenue for the last few years, to the point where its net cost to the park board is approaching $400,000 a year. A tower nearby would have acted as a draw it could have profited from

But the tourists have stopped coming. The Canada Line construction along Cambie, the resurfacing of the reservoir that erased 160 parking spaces, the tired and unchanging display of exotic plants and birds -- they've conspired to drive attendance down at the Conservatory while costs have climbed. In 2001, tour buses brought 28,000 tourists to it: In 2006, they brought 940. Overall attendance dropped to 60,000 in 2006 from 120,000 in 2001. (Ask yourself: When was the last time you visited the Conservatory? For me, 25 years at least.)

"More importantly than the tower vote," Robertson said, "we have to take a step back and think about the future of the Conservatory and what we can put up there. What should we do with it? Should we think about new displays? Should we consider things like holding symphony concerts in it?

"Should it be torn down or replaced?"

The last option is unlikely, since the dome is designated a heritage site. But whatever the park board does, it will cost money. Downie estimates the Conservatory would need about $1 million in repairs.

The structure is tired. It leaks. A geodesic dome might have been a novelty in 1969, but the gaskets between the Conservatory's 1,490 translucent roof panels are failing and haven't been replaced for 20 years. The panels need replacing, too. Most of them have clouded with age, and some of them have fractured from -- wait for it -- being walked upon.

Kids, who find it an easy climb, like to scramble up to the top of the dome when security isn't looking.

It seems the top of the dome offers the best views of the city.

[mr.x2]

this is sad....it could have really brought back tourists to the park. i remember when i was little, there were whordes of people up there taking pictures. 12 years later, it's quite empty.

we're really an unprogressive bunch (at least the park board), driven by NIMBY's.

who wants to start a petition?

[David]

so sad that this one is dead.

[agrant]

I would rebuild the Conservatory to have a platform on top, in addition to the tree thinning. Tourists always go for views, and this would bring em in. One of the best views of the city from the south, we need to milk it for all its worth.

[SFUVancouver]

I was never in love with the design of the tower, though I am keen on a formal lookout of some sort. So I guess I'm with the Parks Board on this one. Lop down the trees and come up with a comprehensive plan to revitalize the park as a destination.

[Rusty Gull]

The decision was inevitable. There were too many neighbours against it -- and the fact that the park board was ruling on this made the outcome a given.

My concern is that the folks who live nearby believe it is their private playground. Heaven forbid more than a dozen people should enjoy the park on any given summer afternoon.

I appreciated that the Vancouver Tai Chi society came forward to support the project, since they would like Q.E Park to have more tourist appeal. Too bad their enlightenment was quashed at the hands of the Ned Jacobs crowd.

I guess the question now becomes: how willing are Vancouver taxpayers willing to subsidize the other amenities in this park, since tour groups (and most Vancouverites, for that matter) really have no interest in it?

What's really a shame is the signal it gives to progressive architects in our city, such as Richard Henriquez -- that it's not worth coming up with interesting ideas, since the Nimbies will ridicule almost anything that represents development.

I know that Henriquez will be disappointed with the outcome... but he was also disappointed with the process. The media, for the most part, never gave him or the project a fair shake.

[TwoFace]

The media, for the most part, never gave him or the project a fair shake.

I think it's more to do with the fact that the structure looked foreign and out of place in a Park environment.
If anyone is to blame it's the architect, who should have been more sensitive and worked with the natural environment and not against it.
Personally, I like the park for what it is, view or not. At the same time, I think that if they put forth some type of proposal that would feature incorporating a large decking into the side of the hill, and only removing selected trees, it would have gone ahead.
The City could do that on their own, no need for private business to capitalize on a view.

[Rusty Gull]

Like SFUVancouver, I was never in-love with the actual renderings. However, I was in love with the notion of putting something iconic at the top of Little Mountain. Especially from one of Vancouver's most recognized architects.

I'm sure the architect would have been open to revising his renderings... but he was never given the chance. The shrill Nimby-ism sent him packing faster than you can say "Q.E. Park: Visitors Not Welcome" ten times fast.

[Rusty Gull]

Park board topples tower, and curtain of trees remains

A greater question involves the fate of the conservatory at Queen Elizabeth Park

Pete McMartin
Vancouver Sun

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Here is the view from Queen Elizabeth Park: You still cannot see the forest for the trees.

On Monday night -- some hours after this column was written -- the Vancouver park board unanimously defeated a motion to erect a 50-metre tall observation tower in it.

Its defeat was a sure thing, at least to park board vice-chairman Ian Robertson, who had come to this towering conclusion before the vote was taken:

"I'm so convinced we won't approve it," he said Monday morning, several hours before the vote, "that I would bet next year's salary on it."

That's an $8,000 bet in Robertson's case. (Park commissioners get chump change.) It's also a safe bet.

It was to have been constructed, owned and operated by a private company called Observation Tower Inc., was to have cost an estimated $10 million.

Its purpose:

To offer panoramic views of Vancouver.

The reason for its proposal:

In Queen Elizabeth Park -- originally established because of its panoramic views, since Little Mountain is Vancouver's highest elevation above sea level; the park has in the intervening years given rise to a curtain of trees that have blocked most of those views.

"It's what I would call 'benign neglect,' " said the park's superintendent, Alex Downie.

"Many of the trees were planted in plantation-style blocks and were allowed to grow without any thinning, so that now they resemble something like a hedge."

Locals, of course, like it this way.

Views, they can do without.

But a forest next door? Who wouldn't want that?

But Queen Elizabeth was intended to be more than a forest, and something other than a place where the locals can go to have a picnic. It was planned as a destination park for both Vancouverites and tourists, and the views were integral to that end. It is the reason the park boasts formal gardens, a plaza, a high-end restaurant and the Bloedel Conservatory.

Nonetheless, when the park board held a couple of information meetings about the tower proposal, the expressed view of the 300 people who attended was unequivocally and overwhelmingly against a tower.

Add on written submissions, e-mails and angry letters, and almost 70 per cent of comments were against the proposal.

So, the likely result?

Locals and the park will end up with a compromise. There will be no tower, but its opponents will have to live with the idea that trees blocking the views will have to be culled or trimmed. To replace the number of trees that do come down -- none of which, by the way, are rare or endangered species -- the same number will be replanted elsewhere in the park.

"There's 120 acres in the park," Downie said, "and plenty of places in it that can take more trees."

(As predicted, Wednesday night's meeting produced a compromise: The park board directed staff to develop a tree-management project to open up the views at the park.)

A greater and unanswered question will remain, though, about the Bloedel Conservatory.

What should its future be, and should it have a future?

It has been hemorrhaging revenue for the last few years, to the point where its net cost to the park board is approaching $400,000 a year. A tower nearby would have acted as a draw it could have profited from.

But the tourists have stopped coming. The Canada Line construction along Cambie, the resurfacing of the reservoir that erased 160 parking spaces, the tired and unchanging display of exotic plants and birds -- they've conspired to drive attendance down at the Conservatory while costs have climbed. In 2001, tour buses brought 28,000 tourists to it: In 2006, they brought 940. Overall attendance dropped to 60,000 in 2006 from 120,000 in 2001. (Ask yourself: When was the last time you visited the Conservatory? For me, 25 years at least.)

"More importantly than the tower vote," Robertson said, "we have to take a step back and think about the future of the Conservatory and what we can put up there. What should we do with it? Should we think about new displays? Should we consider things like holding symphony concerts in it?

"Should it be torn down or replaced?"

The last option is unlikely, since the dome is designated a heritage site. But whatever the park board does, it will cost money. Downie estimates the Conservatory would need about $1 million in repairs.

The structure is tired. It leaks. A geodesic dome might have been a novelty in 1969, but the gaskets between the Conservatory's 1,490 translucent roof panels are failing and haven't been replaced for 20 years. The panels need replacing, too. Most of them have clouded with age, and some of them have fractured from -- wait for it -- being walked upon.

Kids, who find it an easy climb, like to scramble up to the top of the dome when security isn't looking.

It seems the top of the dome offers the best views of the city.

[djh]

The Park Board are anti-park-change (NO to zoo, NO to Aquarium expansion, NO to dinosaurs, NO to tower, NO to tree-trimming, etc).

They aspire to be City Councillors when they grow up, who are anti-ANYTHING changing (NO to more rapid transit, NO to denser development, NO to stadium, NO to hospital, NO to trams, NO to tall buildings)...or at least they don't actually 'say' no, they just stall making decisions and slow down the processes so much with consultations and paper-shuffling and bylaws and bureaucracy that the project dies. It's just they're too chicken to actually say 'No' to people.

[Smooth]

I think the view cone from there should be removed if the park board doesn't want the site to be used for its views of Vancouver.

[Rusty Gull]

^Agreed. What's the point of the Little Mountain viewcone when only a seagull relieving itself on the top of a tree can enjoy the vista?

[TwoFace]

So, the likely result?
Locals and the park will end up with a compromise. There will be no tower, but its opponents will have to live with the idea that trees blocking the views will have to be culled or trimmed. To replace the number of trees that do come down -- none of which, by the way, are rare or endangered species -- the same number will be replanted elsewhere in the park.
"There's 120 acres in the park," Downie said, "and plenty of places in it that can take more trees."


This sounds like a good compromise. This way Vancouver taxpayers wont have to "pay" to enjoy views of their city and mountains. No doubt the tourists will come back as well.

[officedweller]

To me, the biggest issue with the tower was privatizing the view (making people pay for the view). I think that trimming or removing the trees is the sensible solution and will serve more Vancouverites than a tower aimed at tourists. Can you imagine taking a carload of family visiting town and having to pay $10 per head? We used to go up there all the time with visiting friends and family to show off the view - and now we'll be able to do that again.

Even in the article - it asks when the last time you were inside the Bloedel Conservatory? There's an entrance fee for that facility. Maybe that's why people don't go in very often.

Keeping the view free for all to enjoy is the best solution.

[Canadian Mind]

Just scrap the viewcone.

[djh]

Just scrap the viewcone.

?
What's your reasoning? If we scrap that viewcone, er, we might have no view from the highest point in Vancouver, once developers block the view that people (used to) go up there for. The viewcone isn't the problem, Trees are the problem that are blocking the view.

[Canadian Mind]

Yea, and the park board doesn't want to cut down the damned trees. Therefore, scrap the viewcone. If people want views of Van-city I still say an observation/communications tower should be built somewhere south/south-east of downtown

[djh]

Yea, and the park board doesn't want to cut down the damned trees. Therefore, scrap the viewcone. If people want views of Van-city I still say an observation/communications tower should be built somewhere south/south-east of downtown

That has nothing to do with the viewcone at QE Park! I'm just not following your logic.

[Rusty Gull]

Well, Canadian Mind is expressing a point of view -- that we are all exhausted from these NIMBIES running rough-shod across Metro Vancouver.

These local residents have been so successful in making Q.E. Park their own private backyard that almost nobody visits the place anymore. As McMartin's article points out, in 2006, the park brought in a marginal 940 tourbus visitors.

Do the math: That's less than 3 a day!!!

Good for the tourists, I say. They have better things to do than look at some rather mundane forests and flora in South Vancouver. And they're voting with their feet.

But taxpayers will have to make up for their giving Q.E. the thumbs down, through increased subsidies to the conservatory. How long can this go on for?

Perhaps I'm being cynical, but if we turned over the parkland to Concord Pacific and Bob Rennie we would probably get more public amenities out of the site than we are now.

[cornholio]

To me, the biggest issue with the tower was privatizing the view (making people pay for the view). I think that trimming or removing the trees is the sensible solution and will serve more Vancouverites than a tower aimed at tourists. Can you imagine taking a carload of family visiting town and having to pay $10 per head? We used to go up there all the time with visiting friends and family to show off the view - and now we'll be able to do that again.

Even in the article - it asks when the last time you were inside the Bloedel Conservatory? There's an entrance fee for that facility. Maybe that's why people don't go in very often.

Keeping the view free for all to enjoy is the best solution.

I partially agree with you but no matter how much you trim the trees your not going to get a 360degree view of the region from Surrey, Baker to Burnaby mountain to the US border to the airport, Vancouver Island English bay, Downtown and the Nnorth shore mountains and everything in between. There is no place where you can get a view like that and without a tower you can only get a view of downtown and the mountains from the park. There are no other places in the city that can match the potential of this locations since all other places would be too far from the ocean and downtown or not high enough to fully clear the hills to see to the south. The only other place that can come close is Burnaby mountain but no mater how good a observation tower would be there it still wouldn't be as good as the one in Queen Elizabeth park. By the way im also surprised that there is no observation tower on Burnaby mountain, very surprised(whats the tower at the university used for?). The north shore mountains also offer a nice view, but you dont get the mountains in it.

Anyways personally I would of wanted the tower built, and the trees trimmed. The tower would still offer a superior experience but with the trees trimmed you would still get a decent view for free when just enjoying the park.

[SpongeG]

this pic is from around 1992 ish

there was still somewhat of a view than

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v62/spongeg/qepark.jpg

[Canadian Mind]

That has nothing to do with the viewcone at QE Park! I'm just not following your logic.

Doesn't it have everything to do with the viewcone? If there is no view, ie. blocked by trees that wont be cut down, then scrap the viewcone that is there to protect the non-existent view. Makes prefect sense to me.

Next point: If people want views, build an observation/communications tower south or southeast of downtown on industrial lands, then you got a 360 degree view of the whole region, and not as many NIMBYs to deal with.

[officedweller]

The main view from QE Park has always been to the north. I don't even think that the proposed tower was 360 degrees. Both Grouse Mountain and the free Cypress lookout provide good views to the south.
I would have been OK with trimming the trees and having the tower - that would at least give people an option. I suspect that the tower would have gone the way of Storyeum (but that would have allowed the City to buy it cheap on receivership).
The tower on Burnaby Mtn is owned by BC Hydro and is used for communications (by all major carriers).

[zivan56]

Just top the trees and plant some new ones in that pointless plain at the south end of the park. It's not like QE has a shortage of trees, and it will appease the tree huggers.

[mr.x2]

but what about the trees outside Queen Elizbabeth Park? from what i remember the last time i went there, those trees lining city blocks have also grown and are also blocking the view.

[officedweller]

This is an isolated case.

[dreambrother808]

When will Vancouver topple its little old ladies and gentleman once and for all? I'm sorry but the city is no longer and never will be again what it once was, and thankfully. There is still an established base of folks that can't deal with this fact and therefore can't deal with change. So, so frustrating. It's that old, repressed, Brit factor. The tower was a great idea. It's lack of success is the kind of thing that drives younger folk and more adventurous older folk to want to move to somewhere with more guts, more drive... perhaps Toronto even!!! At least they have some guts when it comes to architectural design and change!!

[mr.x2]

When will Vancouver topple its little old ladies and gentleman once and for all? I'm sorry but the city is no longer and never will be again what it once was, and thankfully. There is still an established base of folks that can't deal with this fact and therefore can't deal with change. So, so frustrating. It's that old, repressed, Brit factor. The tower was a great idea. It's lack of success is the kind of thing that drives younger folk and more adventurous older folk to want to move to somewhere with more guts, more drive... perhaps Toronto even!!! At least they have some guts when it comes to architectural design and change!!

To be honest, i feel the same way as well...my days in this city are probably numbered. There's a progressive attitude in Toronto, and wow....Hong Kong. I've been there quite a few times, and i am just impressed. It pisses me off how NIMBY's are preventing progress in this city.

[deasine]

I know it's so sad to see this project get scraped away.

I have to say the Cambie residents are very stubborn....... worst than the Arbutus ones.

[bils]

To be honest, i feel the same way as well...my days in this city are probably numbered. There's a progressive attitude in Toronto, and wow....Hong Kong. I've been there quite a few times, and i am just impressed. It pisses me off how NIMBY's are preventing progress in this city.

there's nothing progressive about toronto, dude.

[mr.x2]

there's nothing progressive about toronto, dude.

To a certain extent, it's better than Vancouver. They certainly don't go insane over every little detail or change.

[bils]

you might be right - but i don't think you could ever claim that NIMBYism was solely a vancouver phenomenon. it's simply human nature to resist change <in different ways for different people>

don't forget, it's NIMBYism that prevented freeways in the downtown core back in the 60's and 70's.

[dreambrother808]

there's nothing progressive about toronto, dude.

Look at the new AGO, the ROM transformation, the Alsop design for the School of Art & Design, to name a few... is there anything even REMOTELY that interesting being built in Vancouver? NO. Don't get me wrong. I love Vancouver. I have lived in Toronto but obviously choose to live here now. Still, this city needs to wake up, big time. I offered Toronto as an example because it is the best burr in the side of the average, especially homegrown Vancouverite. I don't have to mention the far more obvious examples out there in the world.

[deasine]

I would say lifestyle in Vancouver is the best. It may seem that other cities such as Toronto, Calgary, etc. are much better - but it's very different living there than travelling.

If I were to move, I think I'll move down to San Francisco, where the lifestyle is similar...

[dreambrother808]

I would say lifestyle in Vancouver is the best. It may seem that other cities such as Toronto, Calgary, etc. are much better - but it's very different living there than travelling.

If I were to move, I think I'll move down to San Francisco, where the lifestyle is similar...

Yes, the lifestyle here has some advantages, although i tend more to Coupland's "Everything's Gone Green" school of that, i.e. the laidback, friendly, progressive vibe Vancouver once had is now a myth buried under lots of soulless, yuppie money.

Still this has nothing to do with my point. Architectural daring, or even let alone interest, can happen in any city that has the balls to choose that path. Set aside lifestyle and whatnot, I still want to see something interesting being built in this city rather than everyday watching more valuable property being wasted on another meaningless cookie-cutter building.

[bils]

sure, toronto has some stunning architecture - but if you're looking for just about any other element of *livability*, i would take vancouver hands down, any day.

[Yume-sama]

sure, toronto has some stunning architecture - but if you're looking for just about any other element of *livability*, i would take vancouver hands down, any day.

Agreed, and for a number of reasons...

[mr.x2]

holy crap, i was just watching the Noon News Hour report on this and the majority of those who were at the decision-making meeting were....SENIORS!

BURN DOWN ALL THE COUNTRY KITCHEN BUFFETS IN THE WORLD!

[dreambrother808]

sure, toronto has some stunning architecture - but if you're looking for just about any other element of *livability*, i would take vancouver hands down, any day.

It's not about Toronto vs. Vancouver and then coming up with some defensive argument for either side. It's a simple truth. Vancouver has some things to learn, some things to wake up to, period. The city could be learning them from London or New York or anywhere. Like i said, Toronto is simply an evocative example meant to hit a nerve with Vancouverites.

[jlousa]

Guys don't get so worked up, that proposal was just not right. The current solution of a free viewing area is in fact superior. Who knows maybe there will be a different observation tower proposed in the future that fits in better and is accepted. Sometimes the nimbys aren't nimbys they're just right.

[bils]

It's not about Toronto vs. Vancouver and then coming up with some defensive argument for either side. It's a simple truth. Vancouver has some things to learn, some things to wake up to, period. The city could be learning them from London or New York or anywhere. Like i said, Toronto is simply an evocative example meant to hit a nerve with Vancouverites.

fair enough. perhaps we can agree that both cities have a lot to learn from each other.

[dreambrother808]

fair enough. perhaps we can agree that both cities have a lot to learn from each other.

I very much agree with that. Unfortunately, Toronto can't "learn" to have mountains, ocean, and a milder climate. We have so much to build from here. We just need to fully take advantage of it.

[giallo]

I'm not that disappointed by the decision. I thought the design was pretty weak actually. It looked like it belonged to the 'Harbour Center School of Architecture'. I'd support a massive trimming to open up the views for the public. I think it's the more sensible plan.
Oh, and don't feel too sorry Richard Henriquez. He's doing quite well in Vancouver.

[Rusty Gull]

Guys don't get so worked up, that proposal was just not right. The current solution of a free viewing area is in fact superior. Who knows maybe there will be a different observation tower proposed in the future that fits in better and is accepted. Sometimes the nimbys aren't nimbys they're just right.

Well put, mostly.

Nerves are frayed a bit because of how this all played out -- as if a lynch-mob of South Van Nimbies derailed yet another interesting Vancouver project (next up for the Nimbies: the Foot of Lonsdale Tower in North Vancouver :hell: ).

Mr. X and others are right that we are seeing a generational gap right now. A younger, more daring age group that envisions an edgier, denser, more international and daring Vancouver. And a more reserved, lifestyle-oriented seniors/baby boomer demographic that wants to preserve the idyllic and laid-back Vancouver of old.

But I digress.

In the case of the Henriquez Tower, perhaps cooler heads will prevail and all parties will get back to the drawing board for a solution everyone is happy with.

[zivan56]

holy crap, i was just watching the Noon News Hour report on this and the majority of those who were at the decision-making meeting were....SENIORS!

I noticed this as well. Who else would be able to attend these open houses except people who have too much time on their hands?
From what I have seen, seniors will complain about getting new furniture in a care home so it's kind of obvious how they would react to the proposals (not this specific one, but any in general). One NIMBY said the trails in QE park were its greatest asset! How is this related to trails??
Overall, it was actually hilarious listening to the seniors arguments. Although someone proposed an alternative, but it wasn't mentioned in the news. While I don't agree with the current proposal, I would like to see the view situation improved one way or another.

[giallo]

Nerves are frayed a bit because of how this all played out -- as if a lynch-mob of South Van Nimbies derailed yet another interesting Vancouver project (next up for the Nimbies: the Foot of Lonsdale Tower in North Vancouver :hell: ).

Now that's something that will really ruin my day when it eventually happens. The difference between Lonsdale and QE is that in Lonsdale the nimbys will protest because they feel they should be the only ones in North Vancouver that get a decent view.

[SpongeG]

holy crap, i was just watching the Noon News Hour report on this and the majority of those who were at the decision-making meeting were....SENIORS!

BURN DOWN ALL THE COUNTRY KITCHEN BUFFETS IN THE WORLD!

hey offer free coffee and donuts and you can get seniors to show up for anything

[zivan56]

but what about the trees outside Queen Elizbabeth Park? from what i remember the last time i went there, those trees lining city blocks have also grown and are also blocking the view.

I don't recall of any. Look at this (http://www.iwdstudio.com/slike/vancouver/pano.jpg) picture I took this summer. I guess they somewhat hide some low rises, but its not too bad...

[Nutterbug]

You would think that seniors who have been around a long time would have the wisdom to understand something about tourism, the economy, and the overall good of the community. Why do they instead turn into such a bunch of selfish shits who are more intent on turning the area into a tranquil environment to suit themselves in their dying days at the expense of the rest of society?

[Phil McAvity]

^Good point Nutter.

Since Vancouverites worship trees and absolutely refuse to cut them down, couldn't the parks board just move the trees from the northern part of the park to the southern part of the park and replant them? Thus, the trees can continue and the park can reclaim it's fantastic views.

Remember folks, no trees were harmed in the making of this post.

[officedweller]

Why do they instead turn into such a bunch of selfish shits who are more intent on turning the area into a tranquil environment to suit themselves in their dying days at the expense of the rest of society?

The "me" generation.

[AylmerOptimist]

http://www.newsgd.com/pictures/construction/200511280039_52211.jpg

Nobody could honestly oppose to this!


:)

[Yume-sama]

http://www.newsgd.com/pictures/construction/200511280039_52211.jpg

Nobody could honestly oppose to this!


:)

Guangzhou TV Tower? Oh, I'd love to see the freak out if we proposed a 2001' tower :yuck:

[AylmerOptimist]

But it would look pretty damn cool!

[deasine]

It was on the news a few days ago:

Now the NIMBYs are complaining about the trees being chopped down. So they want to propose a miniature structure that will just be enough to see the views over the trees but it won't be "an eyesore"

Gosh... make up your damn minds.

[mr.x2]

These people are retards. Wasn't that one of the alternate proposals to the observation tower? I remember seeing a conceptual rendering somewhere, it's only like 3-storeys high with a staircase.


And i still fail to see what's wrong with the previous proposal:
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/info/planning/qetower/images/qetower1.jpg
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/info/planning/qetower/images/siteplan_zoom.jpg
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/info/planning/qetower/images/qetower3.jpghttp://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/info/planning/qetower/images/qetower5.jpghttp://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/info/planning/qetower/images/qetower_6.jpg
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/info/planning/qetower/images/qetower7.jpghttp://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/info/planning/qetower/images/qetower8.jpghttp://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/info/planning/qetower/images/qetower9.jpg
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/info/planning/qetower/images/qetower_10.jpghttp://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/info/planning/qetower/images/qetower_11.jpg

[giallo]

Now the NIMBYs are complaining about the trees being chopped down. So they want to propose a miniature structure that will just be enough to see the views over the trees but it won't be "an eyesore"

Gosh... make up your damn minds.


It's called Alzheimer's disease ;)

[Nutterbug]

It was on the news a few days ago:

Now the NIMBYs are complaining about the trees being chopped down. So they want to propose a miniature structure that will just be enough to see the views over the trees but it won't be "an eyesore"

Gosh... make up your damn minds.

Are you sure it's the same people?

I too wouldn't want the trees chopped down. Nor would any other naturalist.

[Nutterbug]

holy crap, i was just watching the Noon News Hour report on this and the majority of those who were at the decision-making meeting were....SENIORS!

BURN DOWN ALL THE COUNTRY KITCHEN BUFFETS IN THE WORLD!

On further thought, are all seniors in general to blame, or just those retirees who migrated from other areas that have no attachment to the local community nor concern for the local economy?

I figure those who grew up and lived here all their lives and have kids or grandkids working in the local economy or used to work in it themselves would have some more respect for it.

[cornholio]

On further thought, are all seniors in general to blame, or just those retirees who migrated from other areas that have no attachment to the local community nor concern for the local economy?

I figure those who grew up and lived here all their lives and have kids or grandkids working in the local economy or used to work in it themselves would have some more respect for it.

Its actually the ones that have lived in a area for a long time and are attached to it that are the problem. Hence areas with high numbers of immigrants have a much easier time of getting projects pushed through that would never see the light of day in areas such as the west side of Vancouver. Personally I think there should be a age limit for voting, you cant vote when your 16 and you shouldent be able to vote when your 70, they are not part of the economy and their mental state is deteriorating rapidly. Most of you might think that thats just evil, but I really believe in it...though the only problem is making the seniors feel like they have a place in society and some sort of imput, but at the same time like I said you cant let them sabotage and ruin everything for those of us that still have a whole life time to live on this rock and in this city. There is a reason for death, out with the old and in with the new, change, progress, adaptation etc. Senoirs should not be able to vote, their ideas are no longer important nor relevant, at one point in time they were important because they held lots of information and history, now a days we have wikipedia...I would propose a age limit of 18-60 for voting. I think iv made my point.

[Architype]

They should make the tower look like an olde English Castle, then everybody most people would be happy.
Problem solved. :)

[mr.x2]

^ how about a giant tree, like the one on the right? (including the big smiley face)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2213/2090675898_ff0de0e78c_b.jpg

[Nutterbug]

They should make the tower look like an olde English Castle, then everybody most people would be happy.
Problem solved. :)

They should serve Olde English 800, then everybody would be happy.

[excel]

yea OE solves everything.

[Hed Kandi]

^ how about a giant tree, like the one on the right? (including the big smiley face)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2213/2090675898_ff0de0e78c_b.jpg

Love that picture! :)

[TwoFace]

This is the view after the tree removal. Now isn't that better than some Space Platform.
* photo by me

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2079/2930847264_181a38cc1e_o.jpg

[Hong Kongese]

Nice pic, thanks.

[Overground]

Ahh...I remember that view.

The Shangri La sure stands out eh?

[cornholio]

This is the view after the tree removal. Now isn't that better than some Space Platform.
* photo by me

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2079/2930847264_181a38cc1e_o.jpg

Its a nice view but a tower would give you 360 degree unobstructed views of downtown and the region. You would be able to see Richmond, Metrotown, Oakridge, Brentwood, everything. What they have now is great but the view is very limited.
In a ideal world the trees would be trimmed and the tower built.

[NetMapel]

This is the view after the tree removal. Now isn't that better than some Space Platform.
* photo by me

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2079/2930847264_181a38cc1e_o.jpg
Makes me wish we have some sort of CN Tower or Space Needle around downtown so we can get a good view around metro Vancouver :P

[SpongeG]

they should open the top floor - not the roof just th top inside floor at metrotown as an observation deck/level or soemthing that would be cool

[Smooth]

Makes me wish we have some sort of CN Tower or Space Needle around downtown so we can get a good view around metro Vancouver :P

The view from Grouse Mountain is far better than the view that any observation tower could provide. Even the views from Burnaby mountain can give a pretty good view of most of Metro Vancouver.

Toronto needs a observation tower because it's really flat there.

If anything, I'd like to see an observation tower brought back to Playland. I believe there used to be a decent sized one there. Not sure why they tore it down.

EDIT: Here's a link to some info on that tower: http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu?id=pnespirotower-vancouver-canada

[vanlaw]

Its a nice view but a tower would give you 360 degree unobstructed views of downtown and the region. You would be able to see Richmond, Metrotown, Oakridge, Brentwood, everything. What they have now is great but the view is very limited.
In a ideal world the trees would be trimmed and the tower built.

I'll take this beautiful view for free over a 360 degree view for $10 or whatever they would have charged.

[Rusty Gull]

Speaking of Grouse, the viewing platform from the proposed windmill will offer some outstanding views of Metro Vancouver and the North Shore mountains.

[Dave2]

If anything, I'd like to see an observation tower brought back to Playland. I believe there used to be a decent sized one there. Not sure why they tore it down.

EDIT: Here's a link to some info on that tower: http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu?id=pnespirotower-vancouver-canada

Who can forget the ads on TV for the "350 Foot Spiro Tower"? IIRC, it was moved to San Diego in the late 70s or early 80s... a quick google search shows a "Sky Tower" at Sea World which does look like it is the old Sprio Tower.

[dreambrother808]

I'll take this beautiful view for free over a 360 degree view for $10 or whatever they would have charged.

yes, and that still would have been your choice had the tower been built

[vanlaw]

yes, and that still would have been your choice had the tower been built

I don't believe there was a plan to reinstate the view with tree trimming prior to this project being cancelled, so the choice may not have been there.