[trofirhen]

Yes, it would have been nice. Therefore, the height is not fine. It's too short. This building, like almost every other building in Vancouver, has had its development prematurely arrested 5-10 floors short of its most natural height, not by the laws of economics or the laws of physics, but by the coercive interference of paternalistic politicians and city bureaucrats.

Having to choose between an oversized supertall and a building that is 5-10 stories too short is a false dichotomy. The obvious alternative is to add 5-10 stories, creating a building that is neither too tall nor too short, but just right. The proper approach is to stop imposing arbitrary growth-stunting restrictions and simply allow buildings the freedom to achieve their most natural and beautiful architectural expression, both in form and in function.
:previous:
Right on Prometheus!! The only stumbling block ... try telling the "EXPERTS" at city council that.

[jlousa]

Pretty sure the "Experts" at cityhall know what they are doing a little bit more then a bunch anonymous forumers on a skyscraper board, considering that most of them don't even work in applicable fields. But heck I might be wrong. :rolleyes:

Let me know when Dubai/Las Vegas/pick any city with really tall buildings wins most liveable city in the world. Until then I'll take Urbanism everyday.


I know it's not visible given the angles of the recent photos but HG3 is considerable taller then HG2 which is itself taller then HG1. They are meant to step up as they approach Shaw Tower to the east.

[wrenegade]

I think that HG3 is the perfect height. As Jlousa said, the whole Harbour Green development steps up in height towards Shaw Tower. It also sits directly on Harbour Green park. I spent a fair amount of time in the park last summer and it was a nice place to go as it got sun pretty much all day long after 10am. If the buildings right up against the park were any higher much of this sunlight wouldn't reach the park until after 11am and then likely until 1pm if the Carina and Callisto towers were taller than they are.

I'm all for tall buildings, but they can't and shouldn't be everywhere. Coal Harbour is already fairly dark as it is, it is entirely north facing and much of the sunlight is already blocked by the tall buildings in downtown. I'd much rather see select tall towers throughout the downtown as opposed to a wall of huge towers. It almost seems as if some people got their way we would just have a tabletop skyline in Vancouver again, just 200 feet taller.

[dleung]

HG3 is only 7 metres taller than HG2, but 33 metres shorter than Shaw. This tower and its architecture could have easily justified at least 3 more floors... which would also help make it look more slender.

[officedweller]

I would rather have seen Delta Land's projects (Callisto and Carina) continue eastwards (as was once envisaged) - but they lost out on buying the parcels.
Mind you, the towers would have been much more similar in appearance - perhaps with a lack of variety compared to what's there now.

[Prometheus]

Pretty sure the "Experts" at cityhall know what they are doing a little bit more then a bunch anonymous forumers on a skyscraper board.

You don't get tired of repeating the fallacy of Argument from Authority do you? Your argument has been in effect: "The philosopher kings at City Hall are 'experts' and you are just an 'anonymous forumer,' therefore every building built in Vancouver is the perfect height and your eyes and reason must be deceiving you if you conclude otherwise. Case closed."

Your reasoning is as laughable as it is fallacious.

Besides, the height restrictions concocted by the geniuses at City Hall do not stifle the designs of anonymous forumers (because we do not design buildings), but the designs of professional architects. I suppose you don't think they know what the optimum height of their buildings should be either.




Let me know when Dubai/Las Vegas/pick any city with really tall buildings wins most liveable city in the world. Until then I'll take Urbanism everyday.

If you weren't so knee-jerk in your defence of creativity-stifling, growth-hampering, prohibitive policies, you would have seen that no one was calling for "really tall" buildings, but rather buildings that are built to their natural and proper height, i.e., buildings that are architecturally faithful to the essence of their designs and to their surrounding environments, and not arbitrarily cut-off by a few floors because they happen to conflict with some height restriction imposed by a politician or bureaucrat.

[dubsH]

i.e., buildings that are architecturally faithful to the essence of their design and to their surrounding environment, and not arbitrarily cut-off by a few floors because they happen to conflict with some viewcone invented by a politician or bureaucrat.

Oh neat, I didn't know that the viewcones forced the reduction of this building by several metres. Did it also affect 2HG and 1HG?

[Prometheus]

Oh neat, I didn't know that the viewcones forced the reduction of this building by several metres.

I believe Three Harbour Green is first constrained by non-viewcone policy height restrictions before it reaches a viewcone. In Vancouver, builders are up against multiple layers of height prohibitions, not just one.

[trofirhen]

You don't get tired of repeating the fallacy of Argument from Authority do you? Your argument has been in effect: "The philosopher kings at City Hall are 'experts' and you are just an 'anonymous forumer,' therefore every building built in Vancouver is the perfect height and your eyes and reason must be deceiving you if you conclude otherwise. Case closed."

Your reasoning is as laughable as it is fallacious.

Besides, the height restrictions concocted by the geniuses at City Hall do not stifle the designs of anonymous forumers (because we do not design buildings), but the designs of professional architects.

If you weren't so knee-jerk in your defence of creativity-stifling, growth-hampering, prohibitive policies, you would have seen that no one was calling for "really tall" buildings, but rather buildings that are built to their natural and proper height, i.e., buildings that are architecturally faithful to the essence of their designs and to their surrounding environments, and not arbitrarily cut-off by a few floors because they happen to conflict with some height restriction imposed by a politician or bureaucrat.
:previous:
Thanks Prometheus, once again. You have the guts to stand up to certain "authority figures" who feel that their opinion supercedes the validity of anyone else's simply because they are who they are and the position they occupy. Say no more.

[jlousa]

Nobody said that every building is the perfect height, maybe you should reread what was said. What was said is that I trust the "experts" at cityhall over the so-called "experts" here.
Are you more qualified to state that HG1-HG3 are not at their natural and proper height then the people that designed and approved the building?
As has already been mentioned, there is a park directly to the north of the buildings, the shadow analysis modeling that is required would have played a factor. It's was certainly some attributively decided number.
That's not saying the "experts" don't make mistakes, they certainly do. The height of these towers is not one of them though.

[Prometheus]

Are you more qualified to state that HG1-HG3 are not at their natural and proper height then the people that designed and approved the building?

Any person with a brain, two eyes, and the willingness to think for him or herself is more qualified to judge the aesthetics of a building than a committee of politicians and bureaucrats at City Hall.

Indeed, the height of most downtown skyscrapers is not determined by any aesthetic consideration of the building itself or its relation to its neighbourhood at all, but by whether it blocks a portion of a "protected" view of the mountains from the corner of Cambie and 12th Avenue or some other arbitrary location set by City Council decades ago.



That's not saying the "experts" don't make mistakes, they certainly do. The height of these towers is not one of them though.

But since you concede that the judgment of the "experts" is superior to your own, then on what epistemological grounds are you able to determine when the experts make mistakes and that they haven't made one now?

[phesto]

Any person with a brain, two eyes, and the willingness to think for him or herself is more qualified to judge the aesthetics of a building than the committee of politicians and bureaucrats at City Hall.

Indeed, the height of most downtown skyscrapers is not determined by any aesthetic consideration of the building itself or its relation to its neighbourhood at all, but by whether it blocks a portion of a "protected" view of the mountains from the corner of Cambie and 12th Avenue or some other arbitrary location set by City Council decades ago.



But since you have surrendered your independent judgment to the experts, then on what epistemological grounds are you able to determine when the experts make mistakes and that they haven't made one now?

I presume you can't be bothered to actually look into the specific zoning policy/ background before your resort to the common denominator SSP Vancouver comment to condemn the view cones; but for your reference, the Harbour Green towers were not designed with any consideration for the view corridors....rather, the heights and massing were chosen to minimize shadowing on the park and seawall (as has already been mentioned).

In other words, there weren't really any finite height restrictions imposed, it was more of process. During the mid 90's when the policy was developed (and finalized in 2002), the Planners had a 'blank slate' and decided that taking all urban design/massing factors into consideration, approx. 355 ft was an appropriate height for 3HG, with the towers stepping down in height to the West.

I'm all for taller buildings (as most here are), but I am also fully supportive of the City's policy of conducting shadow analyses to determine impact on adjacent parks. There is an important distinction between the potential impact of shadowing versus something arbitrary like the view cone policy.

In the future, I suggest you do some minor research prior to simply decrying the view cones and lambasting the City every time a building isn't as tall as you'd like it to be...

[flight_from_kamakura]

hah. that said, i suggest the frothy-mouthed forumers turn their ill-informed attention to the virtual absence of commercial space along the seawall, and raise hackles there. seems to me that the thing killing that area the most isn't lack of residential capacity, but rather lack of commercial draw.

[LeftCoaster]

Any person with a brain, two eyes, and the willingness to think for him or herself is more qualified to judge the aesthetics of a building than the committee of politicians and bureaucrats at City Hall.

Indeed, the height of most downtown skyscrapers is not determined by any aesthetic consideration of the building itself or its relation to its neighbourhood at all, but by whether it blocks a portion of a "protected" view of the mountains from the corner of Cambie and 12th Avenue or some other arbitrary location set by City Council decades ago.



But since you have surrendered your independent judgment to the experts, then on what epistemological grounds are you able to determine when the experts make mistakes and that they haven't made one now?

So angry... it's like someone gave Charlie Sheen a thesaurus.

Do you happen to have any opinoins on Chuck Lavine?

[Prometheus]

I presume you can't be bothered to actually look into the specific zoning policy/ background before your resort to the common denominator SSP Vancouver comment to condemn the view cones; but for your reference, the Harbour Green towers were not designed with any consideration for the view corridors....rather, the heights and massing were chosen to minimize shadowing on the park and seawall (as has already been mentioned).

In the future, I suggest you do some minor research prior to simply decrying the view cones and lambasting the City every time a building isn't as tall as you'd like it to be...

I presume you can't be bothered to actually read four posts back. Allow me to quote myself from Post #208:



I believe Three Harbour Green is first constrained by non-viewcone policy height restrictions before it reaches a viewcone. In Vancouver, builders are up against multiple layers of height prohibitions, not just one.

In the future, I suggest you do some minor research (i.e., read at least a few posts back) prior to making a knee-jerk reation to anyone who challenges your favoured growth-inhibiting, prohibitive policies.

As I have made clear, I oppose any kind of arbitrary height restrictions or aesthetic values coercively imposed on creators by politicians and bureaucrats. Viewcones are just one example. Your shadow-based height restrictions are another.

All buildings cast shadows. At 116 metres, Three Harbour Green will cast a big shadow. If shadows are so inimical to quality of life, then why does the city not limit the building to 100 metres, or 90 metres, or 80 metres, or 50 metres? Why 116 metres? Why not 118 metres? What is the formula for objectively determining how long of a shadow is too long? And at what time of day? Does this formula apply to the summer or the winter, or both, despite the fact that the sun travels a different path depending on the season?

The answers to these questions are no less arbitrary than the answer to the question of how much of the view of the North Shore Mountains from Cambie and 12th Avenue is it okay to obscure.

[geoff's two cents]

Don't feed the troll, people. Here I am, clicking on the thread title hoping for updates or pictures, and I hit a wave of 3rd-rate philosophical gobbledegook.

[Canadian Mind]

I presume you can't be bothered to actually read four posts back. Allow me to quote myself from Post #208:



In the future, I suggest you do some minor research (i.e., read at least a few posts back) prior to making a knee-jerk reation to anyone who challenges your favoured growth-inhibiting, prohibitive policies.

As I have made clear, I oppose any kind of arbitrary height restrictions or aesthetic values coercively imposed on creators by politicians and bureaucrats. Viewcones are just one example. Your shadow-based height restrictions are another.

All buildings cast shadows. At 116 metres, Three Harbour Green will cast a big shadow. If shadows are so inimical to quality of life, then why does the city not limit the building to 100 metres, or 90 metres, or 80 metres, or 50 metres? Why 116 metres? Why not 118 metres? What is the formula for objectively determining how long of a shadow is too long? And at what time of day? Does this formula apply to the summer or the winter, or both, despite the fact that the sun travels a different path depending on the season?

The answers to these questions are no less arbitrary than the answer to the question of how much of the view of the North Shore Mountains from Cambie and 12th Avenue is it okay to obscure.

Quite obviously the park, as people have previously stated.

Now, stop being willfully ignorant of city policies, and why the building is at the height it is at.

[wrenegade]

An arbitrary view cone based on a single point on fairview slopes or QE Park is a lot different than a building shadow on an adjacent park. I could care less about shadows on Georgia or Burrard or Pender or some other major downtown street in the CBD, but shadows on parks, especially Waterfront parks are a different kettle of fish.

[officedweller]

Southern exposure versus northern exposure -
That's one of the reasons why at Harbour Green Park it always feels that you're under building shadows - while on the Concord lands, despite there being tall towers just as close, they don't overshadow the parks.

[wrenegade]

Exactly. Which is why the buildings directly on the park are perfectly fine at their height.

[Prometheus]

An arbitrary view cone based on a single point on fairview slopes or QE Park is a lot different than a building shadow on an adjacent park.

Is it? Is an unobstructed view of majestic mountains any less intrinsically valuable than a shadowless park at a specific time of day?

Look, there is no question that when a building is built something is gained and something is lost. The loss may consist of an obstructed view or an unwelcome shadow (although shade is often very welcome on a hot summer day, especially in a park). But there is a question of whether a loss of view, or a loss of sunlight, is sufficient to justify abrogating a person's freedom to build and create.

And for those who think they do have the right to restrict the creative freedom others, there still is the question of whether the specific restrictions they want to impose possess any coherence on their own terms. If sunlight is good, and shadow is bad, then why is Three Harbour Green's height of 116 metres, which casts massive shadows across Harbour Green Park and Jack Poole Plaza, acceptable? In logic, why is the height not restricted to 86 metres, or 56 metres, or 36 metres, any one of which would permit much more sunlight into those public spaces?

No answers have been provided.

The fact is that, despite undergoing a charade of "shadow analysis," Three Harbour Green's height restriction of 116 metres is ultimately an arbitrary figure pulled out of a hat. At the very least we can be honest about it and not make any pretensions of objectivity where there is none.

[dleung]

HG3's height restriction is probably based on trying to hide within existing shadows of taller buildings behind it.

[Canadian Mind]

Is it? Is an unobstructed view of majestic mountains any less intrinsically valuable than a shadowless park at a specific time of day?

Look, there is no question that when a building is built something is gained and something is lost. The loss may consist of an obstructed view or an unwelcome shadow (although shade is often very welcome on a hot summer day, especially in a park). But there is a question of whether a loss of view, or a loss of sunlight, is sufficient to justify abrogating a person's freedom to build and create.

And for those who think they do have the right to restrict the creative freedom others, there still is the question of whether the specific restrictions they want to impose possess any coherence on their own terms. If sunlight is good, and shadow is bad, then why is Three Harbour Green's height of 116 metres, which casts massive shadows across Harbour Green Park and Jack Poole Plaza, acceptable? In logic, why is the height not restricted to 86 metres, or 56 metres, or 36 metres, any one of which would permit much more sunlight into those public spaces?

No answers have been provided.

The fact is that, despite undergoing the theatre of "shadow analysis," Three Harbour Green's height restriction of 116 metres is ultimately an arbitrary figure pulled out of a hat. At the very least we can be honest about it and not make any pretensions of objectivity where there is none.

You're obviously not retarded, because you can use a keyboard. But some days I wonder if it is your opinions that are in fact arbitrarily pulled out of a hat.

116 meters was chosen for a very specific reason, because that was the maximum height allowed to prevent shadowing issues over the park. Based on the shadow analysis of the Burrard Gateway project, my best guess would be that the planners were most concerned about the shadow effect between 1200 and 1400 hours (when the shadow would be at it's largest/greatest effect) on March 21st. In this case, the maximum extent of HG3s shadow, on that date, at that time, is found to have no adverse effect on the park, either because it is within existing shadows from buildings behind it, or it creates a new shadow that doesn't affect the park.

Does this make sense to you now, or you still going to accuse city planners of pulling shit out of their hats?

Further, if you think you can do a better job, why don't you apply for it?

[wrenegade]

It's not totally arbitrary. Obviously if HG3 wasn't there at all, the buildings directly south of it would be casting shadows as well. The shadow studies would also look at whatever impact on the plaza and/or park and try and balance height while mitigating negative shadows. Plus there is the permitted density on site based on zoning. Depending on the size of the building you may come up against the FSR limit before reaching the outright building height limit. This probably isn't the case here (as it most likely has site specific CD-1 zoning) but in many cases it is.

With regards to view cones, yes, I do think a downtown waterfront park (of which there aren't many) is more important than one particular point at QE Park (or elsewhere) where a sliver of mountain view is maintained. There are hundreds if not thousands of places in the city where you can look at a view of the mountains, while there are only two north facing downtown parks (this one and Crab Park) plus Jack Poole Plaza.

I think we ultimately want the same thing here though, taller buildings and a more interesting skyline. I don't think just increasing the allowable height on all new buildings is the way to do that though. Patina is tall, relatively isolated in the skyline (depending on where you look from) and it is extremely bland. On the other hand, the Jameson House is quite fantastic and it would have been great to see that one be much much taller.

If you added 50'-100' to Symphony Place, Patina, Capitol, Richards Living, HG2, The Ritz, Spectrum, Elan and Saphire would our skyline really be better off? Maybe in the case of Capitol, but the rest of the those buildings are extremely bland and would have just added to the table top skyline. The idea the city has about allowing extra height in exchange for architectural excellence is a good idea, however the problem is they don't seem to share the same definition of the word "excellence" as most of us do (as evidenced by Burrard Gateway).

[Prometheus]

116 meters was chosen for a very specific reason, because that was the maximum height allowed to prevent shadowing issues over the park.

Does this make sense to you now, or you still going to accuse city planners of pulling shit out of their hats?

Not just the city planners but you as well.

If you have actually been to Coal Harbour, then you ought to know that Three Harbour Green, Two Harbour Green, and all the other Coal Harbour buildings, cast massive, independent shadows across the entire width of Harbour Green Park and/or Jack Poole Plaza throughout most of the day and throughout most of the year.

The following photograph shows Three Harbour Green and Two Harbour Green on September 22, 2010 (the last day of summer) at around noon. In this photo, Three Harbour Green is half the height of what it is now. And yet, as you can clearly see, it already casts an independent shadow across the entire width of the park to the ramp of the sea plane terminal. Two Harbour Green, which is shorter than today's Three Harbour Green, casts an independent shadow that extends well beyond the entire width of the park and out over the sea:

http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/bc/vancouver/2010/vch2010_0713.jpg


This next photograph shows Three Harbour Green and Two Harbour Green on February 22, 2011 around noon. As you will observe, both buildings cast independent shadows that extend at least a hundred metres beyond the sea wall:

http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/bc/vancouver/2011/vch2011_0139.jpg


As the above photographs demonstrate, restricting the height of Three Harbour Green to 116 metres is utterly useless in preventing substantial shadowing over Harbour Green Park, the sea wall, or Jack Poole Plaza. Even at half that height and during a time of day and time of year when the sun is relatively close to its zenith, Three Harbour Green and Two Harbour Green cast independent shadows over the entire width of the park. Thus, the figure of 116 metres concocted by City Hall is completely arbitrary and without any rational foundation with respect to shadowing, notwithstanding protests to the contrary.

So please remind us exactly whose sunlight is City Hall preserving by restricting Three Harbour Green's height at 116 metres. The mollusks and sea cucumbers that live on the harbour's bottom 125 metres from the sea wall? Because they are the only ones that would benefit from not adding 5 more floors to Three Harbour Green.

[SFUVancouver]

To the best of my knowledge the massing strategy used for the Harbour Green Park precinct of Coal Harbour called for the buildings abutting Harbour Green Park to step up to a peak of what became Shaw Tower and down to the park's mid point and what became Harbour Green 1 and then building back up with Callista and Denia to the last tower that Gregory Henriquez designed. This strategy was created in concert by City staff and architects working on behalf of the landowners. This was decided long before individual architectural firms were retained to design the buildings. The broad concept was a flotilla of vessels coming over the horizon, an idea that the firm IBI-HB took literally for their Delta Lands buildings Callisata and Denia which look like billowing sails.

[dleung]

I can't believe Carina and Callisto are 7 years old, and since then nothing new even comes close in terms of having an iconic shape.

@Prometheus: how bout this view (July 2, early afternoon)?
http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/bc/vancouver/2010/vch2010_0366.jpg
based on the shadow of HG2, it can be assumed that HG3's shadow will be hovering right at the corner of Jack Poole Plaza... any more and it encroaches...

[Prometheus]

@Prometheus: how bout this view (July 2, early afternoon)?

http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/bc/vancouver/2010/vch2010_0366.jpg

What about it? I said that the shadows cast by the Coal Harbour buildings extend across the width of Harbour Green Park or Jack Poole Plaza "throughout most of the day and throughout most of the year." And that's true.

By contrast, you have chosen a photograph taken at an ephemeral moment in time; a fleeting point in the day and season when the sun is truly around its zenith. A little earlier or later in the day or season, and the picture is entirely different.

And despite the special time of day and year depicted in your photograph, the shadows of both Two Harbour Green and Callisto still manage to extend across the width of the park's green space. The shorter buildings cast shadows across half the width of its green space. An hour later in the day (or a month later at the same time of day), they will cast shadows across the entire width of the park too.

What about the morning? What about later in the afternoon? What about the winter, the spring, the fall, the early summer and the late summer? What about the other 90 percent of the day and year when the sun is lower in the sky? Is sunlight any less important or useful during these other times?

Are you actually suggesting that its rational policy to abrogate the property rights and creative freedom of Vancouverites so that the amount of sunshine in Harbour Green Park can be increased by a few square metres for 10 percent of the time?

It should be clear by now that the specific height restrictions imposed by the city in Coal Harbour do not lead to any meaningful or substantial reduction in shadowing in Harbour Green Park and are thus incoherent and arbitrary with respect to shadow prevention.

[dreambrother808]

Everything is very clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt... based upon you showing us two photos. :haha:

I'm sorry but this whole ego-driven, persecuted, intense Ayn Rand schtick is kind of entertaining.

[Prometheus]

Everything is very clear, ...based upon you showing us two photos.

It should be clear to anyone who has spent a day in Harbour Green Park.

[logan5]

Prometheus. Quite a name to live up to.

Peace.

[Prometheus]

Prometheus. Quite a name to live up to.

Peace.

Logan 5, please identify.

What is Sanctuary?

[logan5]

There is no sa...oh wait, wrong thread!

[trofirhen]

Please, everybody, let's puts the knives away and chill a bit.

à propos ... what about a photo series of Three Harbour Green and adjacent area by one or more of our great photographers. Let's get a real feeling of the place; the look; the colours; the design; the texture .... before we go on biting each others' throats out.

A picture is worth a thousand words. The two pictures submitted are good, but perhaps we need a couple of "photo essays" on 3 HG and the surrounding area.

Good for the soul, and a respite from the vitriol.

[Canadian Mind]

Please, everybody, let's puts the knives away and chill a bit.

à propos ... what about a photo series of Three Harbour Green and adjacent area by one or more of our great photographers. Let's get a real feeling of the place; the look; the colours; the design; the texture .... before we go on biting each others' throats out.

A picture is worth a thousand words. The two pictures submitted are good, but perhaps we need a couple of "photo essays" on 3 HG and the surrounding area.

Good for the soul, and a respite from the vitriol.

I like this idea.

Although in addition to that, if someone would be able to dig up the old reports that identified these as the prescribed heights, that would be awesome too. :)

[TwoFace]

But there is a question of whether a loss of view, or a loss of sunlight, is sufficient to justify abrogating a person's freedom to build and create.


Yes, the freedom of the residents of Vancouver to enjoy the view of the mountains and ocean on a daily basis and forever, does trump the freedom of some architect to create his personal dream .... every time.

[ckkelley]

Everything is very clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt... based upon you showing us two photos. :haha:

I'm sorry but this whole ego-driven, persecuted, intense Ayn Rand schtick is kind of entertaining.

:haha: lol

[Prometheus]

Yes, the freedom of the residents of Vancouver to enjoy the view of the mountains and ocean on a daily basis and forever, does trump the freedom of some architect to create his personal dream .... every time.

The discussion was about zoned height restrictions for Three Harbour Green and their relevance to shadow prevention in Harbour Green Park, not viewcones or mountain views. So your comment is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

However, regarding your comment, I couldn't help noticing you seem confused about a number things:

First, until City Hall enacts a law that makes viewing the mountains illegal, Vancouverites' "freedom" to enjoy views of the mountains is not in jeopardy. So you may want to review your working conception of freedom.

Secondly, you might be interested to know that in Canadian common law there is no such thing as a right to a view. On the contrary. Centuries of jurisprudence explicitly hold that a property owner's right to build on his land trumps his neigbour's claim to any pre-existing views. That's why when you live in a condo downtown and someone builds a Patina, or a Capitol, or a Georgia between you and your view of the mountains or sea, you are shit out of luck. So, contrary to your understanding, the notion of view entitlement is not nearly as sacred or established as you seem to imagine.

Lastly, regarding the issue of viewcones, you seem to misunderstand the relationship between downtown development and the loss of views in Vancouver.

Downtown development substantially affects views from only a minute portion of Vancouver, namely a number of square blocks south of False Creek. Views from the remaining 95 percent of Vancouver (i.e., Kitsilano, Dunbar, Point Grey, Shaughnessy, Arbutus Ridge, Oakridge, Kerrisdale, Little Mountain, Grandview-Woodland, Hastings-Sunrise, Renfrew-Collingwood, etc.) are either substantially unaffected or completely unaffected. Furthermore, views from almost every major public park in Vancouver, including Harbour Green Park, Stanley Park, Crab Park, New Brighton Park, Queen Elizabeth Park, Kitsilano Beach, Jericho Beach, Locarno Beach, and Spanish Banks are either substantially unaffected or completely unaffected.

So, as you really ought to see, the notion that liberal downtown development precludes the "freedom" of Vancouverites to view the mountains or sea is patently absurd.

[logan5]

What kind of heights would you like to see? Are you ok with something that's completely out of whack, or is there a certain amount of regulation that is acceptable to you?

[Prometheus]

What kind of heights would you like to see? Are you ok with something that's completely out of whack, or is there a certain amount of regulation that is acceptable to you?

That is an honest question, the answer to which requires a legal component and an aesthetic component. I will try to answer it tomorrow.

In the meantime, I will leave you with this: an endorsement of the freedom to build is by no means an endorsement of the creative choices one makes with that freedom.

[SpongeG]

i like that shaw is the "big" building there HG3 would just compete too much

[TwoFace]

Secondly, you might be interested to know that in Canadian common law there is no such thing as a right to a view.
On the contrary. Centuries of jurisprudence explicitly hold that a property owner's right to build on his land trumps his neigbour's claim to any pre-existing views.

Your confused, every piece of land has "Restrictions" and what can be built on it is highly regulated, be it by current zoning laws or ones which have been registered against the land or adjacent lands in the past, this can range from; size, height, views, use, etc etc
____________

This should get you started..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement

[Prometheus]

Your confused, every piece of land has "Restrictions" and what can be built on it is highly regulated, be it by current zoning laws or ones which have been registered against the land or adjacent lands in the past, this can range from; size, height, views, use, etc etc

____________

This should get you started..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement



Truly hilarious. Did you even read your own link?

If you had, you might have learned that Canadian common law follows the Florida Appellate Court's holding in Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five Inc, in which the "ancient lights" doctrine was unanimously repudiated. Therefore, there is no easement for light in Canadian common law. In other words, there is no common law right to a view.

Every Canadian law student learns this in first year Torts.

So let me repeat what I originally said: Canadian common law does not recognize a right to a view. Thus, under the common law, a person cannot stop his neighbour from building just because a pre-existing view will be lost.

I am getting the feeling that you are not fully cognizant of the distinction between common law and other forms of law and regulation.

Law school should get you started.

[flight_from_kamakura]

wtf? could a mod do something about this? it's annoying.

[ckkelley]

Edit. 4MAR11

[TwoFace]

.
Thus, under the common law, a person cannot stop his neighbour from building just because a pre-existing view will be lost.


How old are you?

Do you ever wonder why all the waterfront homes in Vancouver aren't 5 stories high.

* don't bother answering as I'm done responding to you.

[Prometheus]

How old are you?

Do you ever wonder why all the waterfront homes in Vancouver aren't 5 stories high.

I am old enough to have graduated from law school and practiced law for five years, and the height of those homes, as I have been trying to inform you, is not restricted by any COMMON law right to a view, because no such right in COMMON law exists.

View-based height restrictions can only be established through STATUTORY law (or voluntary contract).

Can. I. Make. Myself. Any. Clearer?

[Canadian Mind]

What developer is going to want to go to the supreme court over view restrictions?

[Prometheus]

What developer is going to want to go to the supreme court over view restrictions?

No developer would, unless he wanted to throw his money away. For he would surely lose. Under our legal system, the law created by politicians (i.e., statutory law) technically usurps the common law in any conflict between the two, even when such statutory law is inconsistent with centuries of legal jurisprudence and precedent. Moreover, in light of the modern Supreme Court's ambivalence toward property rights and its growing tendency to interpret the Charter in statist terms, such a case would be a lost cause, legally speaking.

But any more discussion in this vein should continue under a different thread.

[ckkelley]

But any more discussion in this vain should continue under a different thread.

You just realized this now?

What law firm do you work for? Just curious.

[cornholio]

Hey I like this thread now. Much more interesting. Can actually learn something.

I actually think Promentheos brought up some great points that everyone should consider and try to atleast understand.

[raggedy13]

^Indeed.

Now, as Prometheus has suggested, let's keep this thread on track but feel free to continue this discussion in another more appropriate section of the forum. Thanks! :)

[zahav]

some new pics

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f241/zahav84/DSCF3643.jpg
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f241/zahav84/DSCF3644.jpg
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f241/zahav84/DSCF3645.jpg

[Locked In]

^ Great shots.
My photos (https://picasaweb.google.com/dev.pics.1/VancouverFall2010#5585585283296701074), yesterday:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_9FW9P3-u1EI/TYP8OLGMqpI/AAAAAAAAEMQ/DuiCHc_NL1o/s1000/IMG00144-20110317-1403.jpg
Full Size (https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_9FW9P3-u1EI/TYP8OLGMqpI/AAAAAAAAEMQ/DuiCHc_NL1o/IMG00144-20110317-1403.jpg)

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_9FW9P3-u1EI/TYP8OZEpDBI/AAAAAAAAEMU/QcCN-NIgCUM/s1000/IMG00142-20110317-1353.jpg
Full Size (https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_9FW9P3-u1EI/TYP8OZEpDBI/AAAAAAAAEMU/QcCN-NIgCUM/IMG00142-20110317-1353.jpg)

[LeftCoaster]

It's amazing how much shorter the building looks with the higher ceiling height floors.

[trofirhen]

... I gotta admit; that intense emerald green and granite combination is classy ... almost like something a jeweler would use ...

[Yume-sama]

Nice pics, it is looking pretty good.

[dreambrother808]

To me, the colour combo is dated, but overall, I'm impressed. I like the fact that the setbacks are somewhat unique in their placement yet also harmonious.

[trofirhen]

To me, the colour combo is dated, but overall, I'm impressed. I like the fact that the setbacks are somewhat unique in their placement yet also harmonious.
:previous:
I can agree that the colour combo may be dated, but realistically EVERYTHING becomes dated. * Remember the 1980s, the "Yuppie" era? EVERYTHING was teal, turquoise and pink. EVERYTHING. Now that's dated !!!

[red-paladin]

It definitely wins the award for 'the most spandrel to window ratio"

[trofirhen]

... can't believe (... well, I can, I guess ....): 15 hours since the last post on this thread. Perhaps colour isn't always that important to viewers, or they're too familiar with it already, but I'm surprised nobody has posted.

[SpongeG]

about what?

[Locked In]

Harbour Green (and Georgia) from the seabus - my BB photo (https://picasaweb.google.com/dev.pics.1/VancouverFall2010#5586321805469851746):

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_9FW9P3-u1EI/TYaaFaAMoGI/AAAAAAAAEMk/V6vXwlR0CQk/s720/IMG00147-20110320-0849.jpg
Full Size (https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_9FW9P3-u1EI/TYaaFaAMoGI/AAAAAAAAEMk/V6vXwlR0CQk/IMG00147-20110320-0849.jpg)

[Yume-sama]

Ooh, that's a really nice photo. I should brave the seabus one of these days just to get one like it.

/probablywilljusttakeharbourcruise

[dleung]

They're almost done
http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/7435/hg3b.jpg

On another note, I never understood the white trim they have around the punched windows in the podium (below pic, bottom)... why couldn't they get it perfectly flush like with the windows in the tower (right)

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f241/zahav84/DSCF3645.jpg

[SpongeG]

what white trim?

[Locked In]

^ Around the two windows at the very bottom of the above pic.

Nice render dleung - looks good.

[SpongeG]

oh that pic never showed up before for me - it does look off

[trofirhen]

In the top photo, looking at the skyline, it's nice to see the Georgia almost finished, along with Harbour Green. (nice photo, dleung)

OK. Now ..... look at Granville Square. Now look at Harbour Centre and imagine it without the circular rooftop deck;

Now THERE are two GREAT, unabashed examples of concrete "Stalinist" brutalism, IMO. They make me gag, both of them. Sure, the're from the late 60s and early 70s, but what is going up today is generally paradisiac compared to those two ugly beasts. I'd like to see them demolished ....(but that's not for another 50 years :() oh well .........

[SFUVancouver]

Harbour Green Three from Canada Place Way and Burrard Street.
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/4171/harbourgreen3march27201.jpg
http://creativecommons.org/images/public/somerights20.png (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ca/) Taken by SFUVancouver, March 24th, 2011.

[red-paladin]

I vote we change the name of this tower to 'Spandrel-la' :jester:

[Jebby]

Now THERE are two GREAT, unabashed examples of concrete "Stalinist" brutalism, IMO. They make me gag, both of them. Sure, the're from the late 60s and early 70s, but what is going up today is generally paradisiac compared to those two ugly beasts. I'd like to see them demolished ....(but that's not for another 50 years :() oh well .........

I don't think you know what Stalinist architecture looks like, but it was nothing remotely close to brutalism or those buildings you mentioned.

[trofirhen]

I don't think you know what Stalinist architecture looks like, but it was nothing remotely close to brutalism or those buildings you mentioned.
:previous:
Maybe I wasn't careful enough with my language, so I'll lower the intellectual tone and put it this way: IMO, the Harbour Centre is a hideously ugly concrete block (rectangular of course) with square windows, that make it look loike an institutional building (military mental hospital, as you like ....). Granville square is slightly better, but drab and concrete. The effort to produce a tapering effect falls flat. (unlike La Tour de la Bourse in Montreal) and the building is, again IMO, really ugly.

Maybe I'm ignorant of Stalinism and Brutalism, but I do not like the two aforementioned buildings and I wish they would go away.

[SpongeG]

i love those two buildings

[trofirhen]

I vote we change the name of this tower to 'Spandrel-la' :jester:
:previous:
I agree the spandrels rather ruin it. Imagine it without spandrels!! An emerald structure! The colour is beautiful, though, IMHO.

Those other buildings with the turquoise glass and metal finish may be modern, but they remind me of the old BC Hydro (now Electra) with turquoise glass and grey metal.

Hard to believe it!! Looking through old books and magazines, the old BC Hydro building was once THE great new skyscraper of Vancouver!!

[navazan]

Harbour Green Three from Canada Place Way and Burrard Street.
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/4171/harbourgreen3march27201.jpg
http://creativecommons.org/images/public/somerights20.png (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ca/) Taken by SFUVancouver, March 24th, 2011.

good to finally see a 30 floor residential box being built in vancouver. :jester:

[Locked In]

Nice pic SFU, thanks.

[hankthetank]

:previous:
Maybe I wasn't careful enough with my language, so I'll lower the intellectual tone and put it this way: IMO, the Harbour Centre is a hideously ugly concrete block (rectangular of course) with square windows, that make it look loike an institutional building (military mental hospital, as you like ....). Granville square is slightly better, but drab and concrete. The effort to produce a tapering effect falls flat. (unlike La Tour de la Bourse in Montreal) and the building is, again IMO, really ugly.

Maybe I'm ignorant of Stalinism and Brutalism, but I do not like the two aforementioned buildings and I wish they would go away.

"Maybe"? Relax man, all your comments in the forums are so negative. Maybe you should move to a city where you love every single building in it.

[dleung]

at least he's marginally more-informed than navazan... the latter thinks HG3 is a box :haha:

Boxes need 4 sides and a top... having one barely-flat facade does not a box make

[Jebby]

"Maybe"? Relax man, all your comments in the forums are so negative. Maybe you should move to a city where you love every single building in it.

That's why he doesn't live in Vancouver.

[trofirhen]

"Maybe"? Relax man, all your comments in the forums are so negative. Maybe you should move to a city where you love every single building in it.

at least he's marginally more-informed than navazan... the latter thinks HG3 is a box :haha:

Boxes need 4 sides and a top... having one barely-flat facade does not a box make

That's why he doesn't live in Vancouver.
:previous::previous::previous::previous::previous::previous::previous::previous::previous::previous::previous:
Wheeeew!! My ill-informed statements really triggered some "ad hominem" reactions here. I must admit that overall, I do prefer Paris to Vancouver architecturally, but it does have grossly ugly (often newer) buildings here and there (usually toward the Périphérique, or the immediate suburbs), and some districts that are .... hmmm ... "not nice at all."

[Jebby]

I wasn't attacking you, simply pointing out that you don't live in Vancouver.

And yes, Paris has infinitely better architecture than Vancouver, but that's like comparing...well Vancouver and Paris. Its just not a fair comparison. But Paris does have buildings that are way worse than Vancouver.

Btw, where in Paris do you live? I have a flat right beside parc de monceau in the 8th district.

[hankthetank]

:previous::previous::previous::previous::previous::previous::previous::previous::previous::previous::previous:
Wheeeew!! My ill-informed statements really triggered some "ad hominem" reactions here. I must admit that overall, I do prefer Paris to Vancouver architecturally, but it does have grossly ugly (often newer) buildings here and there (usually toward the Périphérique, or the immediate suburbs), and some districts that are .... hmmm ... "not nice at all."


:haha:

I was just messing around dude. "Relax, man" hardly qualifies as triggering a big reaction. :cheers:

ps: Wheeeeew!!

http://skew.dailyskew.com/uploaded_images/ric-flair-woooo-779108.jpg
(daileyskew.com)

[trofirhen]

I wasn't attacking you, simply pointing out that you don't live in Vancouver.

And yes, Paris has infinitely better architecture than Vancouver, but that's like comparing...well Vancouver and Paris. Its just not a fair comparison. But Paris does have buildings that are way worse than Vancouver.

Btw, where in Paris do you live? I have a flat right beside parc de monceau in the 8th district.
:previous:
My apartment is tiny and humble, and I live in the 20è. The closest "repère" is Place Gambetta. I must admit that I do love my neighbourhood. If you're serious about having a flat (you're English, perhaps?) on Parc Monceau, excuse me for being familiar or rude, but wow, you must have a good job!! That's one of the ultimate spots in Paris for me.

Strange, I was daydreaming about living on Parc Monceau just the other day! Really. No lie, no BS. :yes:

[Jebby]

No I'm not one of the lucky people who technically have parc monceau as their private park after sunset when it closes to the public, but our flat is across the street and overlooks the park.

[metroXpress]

Photos from a different angle:


http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5134/5573353662_e5cbc35c7b_z.jpg

You can see Harbour Green I, II and III in the next two:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5264/5573353656_8e3ba00bf1_z.jpg


http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5148/5573353666_8e3ba00bf1_z.jpg

All photos by me.

[Phil McAvity]

Wow, it must be such an exciting change to see a tall, green-glass, residential building go up in Vancouver.

[Locked In]

Great photos, thanks!

[Denscity]

Wow, it must be such an exciting change to see a tall, green-glass, residential building go up in Vancouver.


Ya but its a "new" green :). Years from now other cities will copy this colour too.

[officedweller]

It's more of a 1980s green - like the Harbourside Park towers - what's old is new again?

Photos from a different angle:

You can see Harbour Green I, II and III in the next two:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5264/5573353656_8e3ba00bf1_z.jpg

All photos by me.

I see the Italian flag....

[trofirhen]

No I'm not one of the lucky people who technically have parc monceau as their private park after sunset when it closes to the public, but our flat is across the street and overlooks the park.
:previous:

Nice!! hey, how often do you come to Paris? We might go for a coffee and discuss urbanism next time you're here ... unless your apartment is revenue property, and thus you don't come here often.

[metroXpress]

I see the Italian flag....

Good observations ;)

[Phil McAvity]

^I give up. Where is it?

[LeftCoaster]

The three buildings colour...

Good call OD, strangley these towers are products one of the few non-italian developers in town :)

[Jebby]

:previous:

Nice!! hey, how often do you come to Paris? We might go for a coffee and discuss urbanism next time you're here ... unless your apartment is revenue property, and thus you don't come here often.

I'll probably be in Paris for a week in June. I'll let you know and we can have our SSP Vancouver members abroad meetup.

With regards to this building, I quite like it. Yes it's green, but not the green we're used to and it seems to be very good quality materials being used. I would have loved it though if they had done a taller, mixed use building. It's a bit of a waste to have no retail at grade and some price floors for this location. Maybe a 35 story (8 office, 27 residential with retail at grade) would have been perfect..?

[SpongeG]

some pics i took on tuesday - pics by me

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/8510/dsc02097i.jpg

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/9263/dsc02099pp.jpg

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7831/dsc02098y.jpg

http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/9379/dsc02100ty.jpg

[Locked In]

My photos (https://picasaweb.google.com/dev.pics.1), today:


https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_9FW9P3-u1EI/TZdjxaTsDYI/AAAAAAAAENs/q9SMRXZY7L8/s1000/IMG-20110402-00021.jpg
Full Size (https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_9FW9P3-u1EI/TZdjxaTsDYI/AAAAAAAAENs/q9SMRXZY7L8/IMG-20110402-00021.jpg)

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_9FW9P3-u1EI/TZdjSfVYSbI/AAAAAAAAENo/8kY3lhTZq5w/s1000/IMG-20110402-00022.jpg
Full Size (https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_9FW9P3-u1EI/TZdjSfVYSbI/AAAAAAAAENo/8kY3lhTZq5w/IMG-20110402-00022.jpg)

[Otis_Van]

Do you think those yellowish panels on either side of the balconies are the final finish? If so, um, yuck?

[Canadian Mind]

Looks liek insulation to me dude.

[Otis_Van]

Looks like insulation on the first five floors.