Vancouver view cone review

[Hed Kandi]

..

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

Abolish the view cones and bring on the supertalls!

I'd rather not do that either. I'd like a view where the skyline and mountainline constantly cross eachother, so you have some views of mountains, some of buildings with heights limited only by economics or severe shadowing concerns.

JL, you looking for us to answer the presented questions on here?

Also, link to page with viewcones involved: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...yareascope.htm

[jlousa]

Move to Dubai and spend your time dreaming of view cones.

Sure comment on here, the boards are still read by staff at COV although not as much as in the past.

[Hed Kandi]

..

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

I do feel that the view cones policies are an important initiative, however the city's natural beauty can be preserved - and yet the skyline can benefit by having a greater sense of vertical scale if the height below the view corridors is raised.

I'd rather have it articulate from that view, so have it low to the left, peak above the mountains where wall centre is (so instead of a 150 meter tower have towers in 200-250 range), back down again in the area between wall and Shangri-la, where it woudl go up again over the CBD to allow anything in the 200-250 (300?) range, then back down lower over gastown and the east with structures not more than 100-150 meters.

From the PDF JL put up:

What factors affect the value you place on a view?
-Importance of the public place
-Quality of the view
-Size or expanse of the view
-Duration of enjoyment
-Accessibility of the viewpoint

Which views do you value most?

What options are acceptable to modify views?

Importance of public place. Viewcones shouldn't be here there and everywhere, but in 3-4 notable locations that people would already be attracted too for other reasons (Granville Island, Science World, A spot in SEFC, and possibly something from further south up on the hill)

Quality of View & Size/Expanse. if there are going to be viewcones showing mountains, shwoing the very tip that could simply be mistaken for the top of buildings under the viewcone, or clouds when snowcovered is simply limiting growth potential without any real effect other than showing sky. I'd suggest that any viewcone make it obvious that it is a mountain in the back, either by having it real wide, real deep, or a combination of both. If I can't stick my hand out infront of me along viewcone and see mountain all around the sides, op and bottom, or both, then there is no point having it (say a 10cm by 10cm square or 2.5cm by 15 cm 1 meter away from focal point shoudl be minimum) within the hight limitations half has to be mountain, other half sky (so real views would be 5cm and 7.5cm of mountain respectively per view).

With that comes views being too big, and I'd suggest for anythign wider than 15cm at 1 meter that buildings be allowed to intrude on the established view to break it up. (so a 15cm wide by 10cm high view would have one building within 2.5 cm of middle to break it up).

Duration and Accessibility. Aside from any dramatic over the hill views when you are driving from the south, all views should be accessed by pedestrians and cyclists only, and the duration beign as long as a person is willing to stand there and take it all in. views while moving are no good for tourists or locals taking pictures, where you only need one vantage point. while they do provide enjoyment for the moving commuter as they go by, a commuter shoudl be focusing on the congested roads and not the city views. the responsible driver would park the car to enjoy the view while stationary.


I don't really value any specific view at present, they all contribute to Vancouvers overall lustre, though the really skinny or really high ones should simply be eliminated.

Options acceptable to modifying views are as I said above, the skyline shoudl interact with the mountainline via building peaks, every view should have a minimum size and expsure of mountains, etc.


3.1, 3.2, 9.1, 9.2, E1, and E2.1 are all examples of views where the Skyline could and should be allowed to interact with the mountainline. In the Case of E1 the arc for development has already been established by the Harbour Centre, and any development within that arc should be allowed to go as high as economically feasable pending any other viewcones.

D, 12.1.3, and C2.1 are all examples of where the mountain views are diminished enough that the economics of higher buildings overweigh the view of a sliver of mountain. A, 12.1.2, 12.2, and C1 are also possible locatiosn where this may also apply, however more mointain is visible and aslong as nothing has disturbed the views as seen in those photograhs, they could be good as they are and shoudl be left.

12.2 deserves a notable acception as based on the picture you can see Mt. Seymour through the canyon that is granville. I will go against what i said above about interacive viewcones, and would encourage an increase of the canyon effect for this view by increasing allowable height long the sides and tightly-spaced infill in areas where development is still permitted. this would cause the view to open up and widen as commuters travel towards the Harbourside, which could attract tourists in rental cars or just pedestrians towards the harbourside even more, making it feel like the open and welcoming part of the city. The New Convention centre in addition to Canada place, the recent harbourside developments, the floatplane terminal, and the future Waterfront transit hub are already centering this location as the public place to gather in the city, much more than Robson square ever could.

Any viewcones I have not mention I feel should not be modified to any significant extent, and are the models which I feel other views (either modified from current or totally new views) should be modeled from.



What are your guy's thoughts on this?

[jlousa]

Hed please read the boards and you'll see that while what you've done looks good (only in that one spot). It would kill the views from practically ever viewcone. The city has taken countless hours in preparing the documents and there is a lot of research into them, I'm sure taking 20mins to go over them won't hurt as it's obvious this is a big deal to most of the forumers that visit here.

[raggedy13]

After looking over the presentation boards posted by jlousa (thank you), I can't help but feel that some of the view cones are entirely unnecessary (like that one sliver one from the Granville Street Bridge (who is going to notice that while speeding by in their car, and how many people really walk across the Granville Street Bridge on a regular basis??), while I feel others like the "unframed" ones take up unnecessarily large swaths of the skyline. For example, the ones from Queen Elizabeth Park could easily at least have the lower part of the view cone raised - I'd rather look at tall downtown towers than suburban housing crawling up the mountainside on the North Shore - and without compromising the actually visually interesting parts (the peaks). I'll comment more later.

[jlousa]

There are only two that I'd eliminate completely, 3-4 that I'd leave completely intact, the rest I'd narrow slightly and raise a couple of them, there is two that I'd narrow and raise. I imagine that is pretty close to what we're going to end up seeing in the end.

The biggest thing from the boards is the amount of developable properties effected by the this study, just goes to show that Vancouver's core is no where near built out and won't be for a few decades.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by jlousa

There are only two that I'd eliminate completely, 3-4 that I'd leave completely intact, the rest I'd narrow slightly and raise a couple of them, there is two that I'd narrow and raise. I imagine that is pretty close to what we're going to end up seeing in the end.

Post em so we can critique.

[DTLivin]

For those of you who didn't have a chance to make it to any of the open houses that were held, the project website now has an electronic copy of the survey that can be filled out.

Link: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...y/feedback.htm

[sacrifice333]

I cast my vote to keep most of them.

A couple of the larger ones I said could handle a taller building or two inside the view cones and a couple I suggested could be narrowed somewhat.

The view cones are part of what has made Vancouver's skyline quite special IMHO. The view cones made Shangri-La more than just a very tall square building and influenced the beautiful design for the currently defunct Ritz Carlton.

Downtown centers can feel very dark, cold, and congested. Vancouver, and it's view cone policy, has allowed for spaces of light and views amidst the congestion which is priceless and IMO why Vancouver's core has seen the astounding residential success that it has.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by sacrifice333

I cast my vote to keep most of them.
Downtown centers can feel very dark, cold, and congested. Vancouver, and it's view cone policy, has allowed for spaces of light and views amidst the congestion which is priceless and IMO why Vancouver's core has seen the astounding residential success that it has.

You are very right about this point. I have yet to visit a downtown in another city that feels as open and naturally lit as DT. Vancouver does.
The biggest thing is mandating separation between buildings, and it is this separation that could be the key to permitting some taller buildings. Who would object to a gap-toothed skyline with a few 600ft buildings intruding into a view cone here or there, provided that the majority of the view is still preserved.... does a building REALLY draw that much attention away from the moutains behind it if it is taller than the mountain crest?

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by Mininari

You are very right about this point. I have yet to visit a downtown in another city that feels as open and naturally lit as DT. Vancouver does.
The biggest thing is mandating separation between buildings, and it is this separation that could be the key to permitting some taller buildings. Who would object to a gap-toothed skyline with a few 600ft buildings intruding into a view cone here or there, provided that the majority of the view is still preserved.... does a building REALLY draw that much attention away from the moutains behind it if it is taller than the mountain crest?

I think having the skyline interacting with the mountainlien would make the skyline seem all that more interesting, meaning some areas where height is unlimited, but building spacing must maintain X amount of spce away from the next building for any given amount of height.

[Hed Kandi]

..

[Locked In]

Not sure if this event has been mentioned on here yet - this info is from Gordon Price's blog, 'Price Tags':

Vancouver wants your views
September 22, 2009

The SFU City Program is hosting an evening to discuss perhaps the most important issue on the public realm in this city – revising the view corridors.

VIEWS ON VIEWS: Perspectives on view corridors in Vancouver

October 5, 7 pm

Venue: SFU Segal Business School, 500 Granville Street (at corner of Granville and Pender), Vancouver.

Last October, City Council decided to review heights and protected views in the Downtown. As part of the public process, the SFU City Program is hosting an exchange of views by two (possibly three) advocates who, with their different perspectives, will help the public understand the trade-offs and issues.

City Planning Director Brent Toderian will set the stage with a briefing about the history of view protection and the issues Council wishes addressed. Past City Planning Co-Director Larry Beasley and architect Richard Henriquez will argue their positions with passion and insight. More on the study here.

Admission is free; reservations are required. To reserve, go here.

Source: Price Tags

[Hed Kandi]

..

[LeftCoaster]

^Hed the viewcones are based off of more than one single hand picked view. Please do some homework and maybe even take the survey... anyone bringing in that picture would get laughed out of the meeting, as they are completly missing the point.

[MechMike]

Is there a map of all the the view cones? It would be interesting to see if theres a place that leaves some sort of slivered opening for an under conned building

[Hed Kandi]

..

[Vonny]

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

I won't be able to make it that night due to work. However, for those who are planning to attend, print the picture below (super sized if need be) and vouch for the vision of my idealized Vancouver skyline. Kick and scream if you must, but get it approved!

why the skyline looks good (currently) from this view cone?

because it more or less respect the golden ratio φ; meaning
height of building * φ = height of the mountain

The Golden ratio defines beauty since the Greek ages if not more

so thing needs to keep like it

PS: Thought the building height are relatively short by NA standard, sense of verticality is brought by the teetering and so it needs to be preserved too (in order to avoid a wall barrier). No need to compete with Dubai or Chicago, even Hong Kong, Vancouver has something else to offer. if you want build very tall building: Surrey is a good place to start.

on a side note:
I believe the city should be better to spend its time on rezoning the area around Canada line rather than to open a can of worm by revisiting the view cones in downtown (which noone can deny has shaped Vancouver skyline in a commendable way).