Vancouver view cone review

[Vin]

Does this come as a surprise? Seems like many are still clueless: developers still waiting for permits due to backlog? LOL! Truth is,I would say developers have finally given up on this town, and I mean just City of Vancouver and moved somewhere else to build. Viewcones and all the other restrictions are major culprits.



https://www.biv.com/article/2017/7/v...unge-surprise/

Vancouver’s new housing sales have been on a blistering pace over the past two years and the inventory of new condos has fallen to historic lows, so it was a surprise to some when housing starts plunged through the first half of 2017.


Total housing starts in the city of Vancouver have dropped 80% in the first six months compared with the same period in 2016, according to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. (CMHC), from 5,784 to 1,860 units.

Single-family detached starts in the city declined from 708 to 462 houses, while starts of condominium apartments fell from 3,290 in the first half of 2016 to just 880 this year, a 73% decline.

“It is a surprise, considering the high demand,” said Vancouver real estate consultant and author Ozzie Jurock.

A report prepared for the Urban Development Institute, Pacific Region, found that, despite near-record construction levels, there were fewer than a dozen new and unsold condominium apartments in Vancouver in the first quarter – a record low.


Total housing starts across the Metro Vancouver region also fell, but by a smaller margin, to 12,200 units so far this year, compared with 14,840 in the same period a year earlier.

Increases were seen in the larger suburban communities of Burnaby, Surrey, Coquitlam and New Westminster.

Eric Bond, CMHC pprincipal market analysis in Vancouver, noted that the number of homes under construction hit a record high of 39,141 units across all of Metro Vancouver in May and remained near that level in June. He suggested the downturn in Vancouver starts may relate to developer fatigue.

“The constraints on builders are very real in terms of the availability and costs of equipment and materials, which means further increasing the pace of construction is challenging,” Bond said.

Vancouver developer and architect Michael Geller said the lack of condo starts in Vancouver may be linked to a current backlog of applications. “[The developers] are probably waiting for permits,” he said.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Vin

Does this come as a surprise? Seems like many are still clueless: developers still waiting for permits due to backlog? LOL! Truth is,I would say developers have finally given up on this town, and I mean just City of Vancouver and moved somewhere else to build. Viewcones and all the other restrictions are major culprits.

https://www.biv.com/article/2017/7/v...unge-surprise/

Vancouver’s new housing sales have been on a blistering pace over the past two years and the inventory of new condos has fallen to historic lows, so it was a surprise to some when housing starts plunged through the first half of 2017.

Total housing starts in the city of Vancouver have dropped 80% in the first six months compared with the same period in 2016, according to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. (CMHC), from 5,784 to 1,860 units.

Single-family detached starts in the city declined from 708 to 462 houses, while starts of condominium apartments fell from 3,290 in the first half of 2016 to just 880 this year, a 73% decline.

“It is a surprise, considering the high demand,” said Vancouver real estate consultant and author Ozzie Jurock.

A report prepared for the Urban Development Institute, Pacific Region, found that, despite near-record construction levels, there were fewer than a dozen new and unsold condominium apartments in Vancouver in the first quarter – a record low.


Total housing starts across the Metro Vancouver region also fell, but by a smaller margin, to 12,200 units so far this year, compared with 14,840 in the same period a year earlier.

Increases were seen in the larger suburban communities of Burnaby, Surrey, Coquitlam and New Westminster.

Eric Bond, CMHC pprincipal market analysis in Vancouver, noted that the number of homes under construction hit a record high of 39,141 units across all of Metro Vancouver in May and remained near that level in June. He suggested the downturn in Vancouver starts may relate to developer fatigue.

“The constraints on builders are very real in terms of the availability and costs of equipment and materials, which means further increasing the pace of construction is challenging,” Bond said.

Vancouver developer and architect Michael Geller said the lack of condo starts in Vancouver may be linked to a current backlog of applications. “[The developers] are probably waiting for permits,” he said.

"A report prepared for the Urban Development Institute..." LOL, well we know that will be an unbiased spinning of stats.

On the other hand it might just be because 2016 was an anomaly-fuelled bubble year.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by whatnext

What North American city has the same setting as Vancouver? Viewcones have no use in places like Toronto or Winnipeg where there really is no view to protect.

Why just limit view corridors to downtown?

In Vancouver, I see more trees and single family houses blocking my view of the mountains. Let's remove all of them, then everywhere I go in this city I will have unobstructed views of all the north shore mountains.

Originally Posted by whatnext

"A report prepared for the Urban Development Institute..." LOL, well we know that will be an unbiased spinning of stats.

On the other hand it might just be because 2016 was an anomaly-fuelled bubble year.

Everyone takes a side, it's just the soundness and credibility of what one says that makes him or her be heard. You make your own judgement.

If you don't agree with their stats, go ahead and sue them. I'm not sure if you even read the article: they don't sound biased in any way.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Does this come as a surprise? Seems like many are still clueless: developers still waiting for permits due to backlog? LOL! Truth is,I would say developers have finally given up on this town, and I mean just City of Vancouver and moved somewhere else to build. Viewcones and all the other restrictions are major culprits.



https://www.biv.com/article/2017/7/v...unge-surprise/

Vancouver’s new housing sales have been on a blistering pace over the past two years and the inventory of new condos has fallen to historic lows, so it was a surprise to some when housing starts plunged through the first half of 2017.


Total housing starts in the city of Vancouver have dropped 80% in the first six months compared with the same period in 2016, according to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. (CMHC), from 5,784 to 1,860 units.

Single-family detached starts in the city declined from 708 to 462 houses, while starts of condominium apartments fell from 3,290 in the first half of 2016 to just 880 this year, a 73% decline.

“It is a surprise, considering the high demand,” said Vancouver real estate consultant and author Ozzie Jurock.

A report prepared for the Urban Development Institute, Pacific Region, found that, despite near-record construction levels, there were fewer than a dozen new and unsold condominium apartments in Vancouver in the first quarter – a record low.


Total housing starts across the Metro Vancouver region also fell, but by a smaller margin, to 12,200 units so far this year, compared with 14,840 in the same period a year earlier.

Increases were seen in the larger suburban communities of Burnaby, Surrey, Coquitlam and New Westminster.

Eric Bond, CMHC pprincipal market analysis in Vancouver, noted that the number of homes under construction hit a record high of 39,141 units across all of Metro Vancouver in May and remained near that level in June. He suggested the downturn in Vancouver starts may relate to developer fatigue.

“The constraints on builders are very real in terms of the availability and costs of equipment and materials, which means further increasing the pace of construction is challenging,” Bond said.

Vancouver developer and architect Michael Geller said the lack of condo starts in Vancouver may be linked to a current backlog of applications. “[The developers] are probably waiting for permits,” he said.

The housing starts data comes from CMHC. They consider a project started when it hits ground level, so major projects under construction in the City of Vancouver like Burrard Place with nearly 500 units, 8X on the park, with nearly 400 units and The Arc with nearly 600 aren’t counted yet.

The 6 month numbers fluctuate quite a bit, just because major projects like these can cause a huge jump over a single month.

The annual average housing starts in the city over the past decade is a bit under 4,500, so the 2016 numbers are the exception. 2016 saw more CMHC housing starts than any previous year on record, so it’s not surprising that 2017 will be less.

The city’s permit data doesn’t suggest they’re a major impediment. In the 5 months to May this year (the most recent data), the City approved 2,624 new dwellings. In the 5 months to May 2016 they approved 3,386. Those are building permits, which are usually issued just before construction starts. How soon those permits turn into CMHC housing starts depends on how deep the hole is, but many of the 2016 building permits should show up in the CMHC data this year. Last year in total the City approved 6,937 units, and in 2015 7,732.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Locked In

My photo from August 2:


IMG_0966 by 604 City, on Flickr

In between more days of hazy weather due to global warming, short daylight hours and rainy periods during fall and winter, do people still think viewcone corridors are necessary?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vin

In between more days of hazy weather due to global warming, short daylight hours and rainy periods during fall and winter, do people still think view cone corridors are necessary?

I must admit that at times they seem ludicrous. Nevertheless, I fear what would happen if they were abolished. I'd fear some local architect/developer with no taste would try and fit some kind of "Taipei Tower" or such into the skyline.
I'd like the view cones to remain .... but .... (drumroll) ..... tweaked upwards about 50 or 60 meters or so. We'd go nice and tall but not grotesquely tall, and classy designs would not have to be dumbed down they way they currently so often are.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I'd like the view cones to remain .... but .... (drumroll) ..... tweaked upwards about 50 or 60 meters or so. We'd go nice and tall but not grotesquely tall, and classy designs would not have to be dumbed down they way they currently so often are.

Damn right. The towers don't get crimped, the mountains don't get blocked (much), everybody wins.

[speedog]

Maybe I missed it but I did not see any mention of viewcones in that linked news article and thus I'm left wondering why this thread was started with viewcones as the topic? It is apparent that viewcones are a controversial subject but the linked news item did not speak of them in any fashion and as such, how can one reference that news article and blame something when it wasn't even mentioned?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by speedog

Maybe I missed it but I did not see any mention of viewcones in that linked news article and thus I'm left wondering why this thread was started with viewcones as the topic? It is apparent that viewcones are a controversial subject but the linked news item did not speak of them in any fashion and as such, how can one reference that news article and blame something when it wasn't even mentioned?

It wasn't mentioned but those in the industry know why developers are flocking to the suburbs to build instead of developing more tall towers in Vancouver proper. Oh trust me, the viewcones, and other height restrictions, have lots to do with this.

Tell me, does this make sense to you?
From the article, when Bond answered about why developers are fatiqued in downtown Vancouver:
“The constraints on builders are very real in terms of the availability and costs of equipment and materials, which means further increasing the pace of construction is challenging,” Bond said.

If this is true, then why are there huge increases in construction upstarts in the nearby suburbs?

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Damn right. The towers don't get crimped, the mountains don't get blocked (much), everybody wins.

The suburb city centres are definitely winning.

[Vin]

https://www.biv.com/article/2017/8/v...jects-ramp-su/

[Vin]

I guess Toronto can go really tall because the province of Ontario also has a hand in approving tall towers, and decisions can trump local municipalities. Hmmm, interesting. BC should have that too.

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...een-light.html

[ScoCan]

There is a Rezoning Public Hearing for 777 Pacific this week.

If you oppose the loss of Vancouver Public Views speak, write and sign the petition before Monday.

Write Vancouver City Council, Government of BC, and provincial crown corporation PavCo to protect Vancouver's public views.

Sign this petition by Monday, July 9 at 5pm.

Oppose the PavCo (777 Pacific Blvd) Tower :

http://saveourskylineyvr.ca/

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by ScoCan

There is a Rezoning Public Hearing for 777 Pacific this week.

If you oppose the loss of Vancouver Public Views speak, write and sign the petition before Monday.

Write Vancouver City Council, Government of BC, and provincial crown corporation PavCo to protect Vancouver's public views.

Sign this petition by Monday, July 9 at 5pm.

Oppose the PavCo (777 Pacific Blvd) Tower :

http://saveourskylineyvr.ca/

I think you may have misjudged your audience. Time to write a letter with support for a taller tower!

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by ScoCan

There is a Rezoning Public Hearing for 777 Pacific this week.

If you oppose the loss of Vancouver Public Views speak, write and sign the petition before Monday.

Write Vancouver City Council, Government of BC, and provincial crown corporation PavCo to protect Vancouver's public views.

Sign this petition by Monday, July 9 at 5pm.

Oppose the PavCo (777 Pacific Blvd) Tower :

http://saveourskylineyvr.ca/

I am curious, what is so offensive about taller towers?

Many of the most famous views in the world are of dramatic skylines themselves.

And the views of the mountains themselves will not be lost, they will only be obscured from a few select pin points that the city arbitrarily chose decades ago. They will still be visible from hundreds of not thousands of points around the city and our area.

We need higher densities and taller towers around our downtown core / primary transit hubs if Vancouver really wants to consider itself “green”

Write you letter of support for taller towers in Van!

PS, the tallest tower in Van (the Shangri-La) is on its way to being only the 70th tallest tower in Canada... just for some context of modern tower heights.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I am curious, what is so offensive about taller towers?

Many of the most famous views in the world are of dramatic skylines themselves.

And the views of the mountains themselves will not be lost, they will only be obscured from a few select pin points that the city arbitrarily chose decades ago. They will still be visible from hundreds of not thousands of points around the city and our area.

We need higher densities and taller towers around our downtown core / primary transit hubs if Vancouver really wants to consider itself “green”

Write you letter of support for taller towers in Van!

PS, the tallest tower in Van (the Shangri-La) is on its way to being only the 70th tallest tower in Canada... just for some context of modern tower heights.

Self interest in restricting housing supply to drive up prices and hilariously misguided attempts to preserves "public views" at the expense of density and economic efficiency.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by ScoCan

There is a Rezoning Public Hearing for 777 Pacific this week.

If you oppose the loss of Vancouver Public Views speak, write and sign the petition before Monday.

Write Vancouver City Council, Government of BC, and provincial crown corporation PavCo to protect Vancouver's public views.

Sign this petition by Monday, July 9 at 5pm.

Oppose the PavCo (777 Pacific Blvd) Tower :

http://saveourskylineyvr.ca/

Even on these forums we cannot escape the NIMBYs.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I am curious, what is so offensive about taller towers?

Many of the most famous views in the world are of dramatic skylines themselves.

And the views of the mountains themselves will not be lost, they will only be obscured from a few select pin points that the city arbitrarily chose decades ago. They will still be visible from hundreds of not thousands of points around the city and our area.

We need higher densities and taller towers around our downtown core / primary transit hubs if Vancouver really wants to consider itself “green”

Write you letter of support for taller towers in Van!

PS, the tallest tower in Van (the Shangri-La) is on its way to being only the 70th tallest tower in Canada... just for some context of modern tower heights.

Turn it around - what is so great about taller towers? NYC is full of buildings taller than Vancouver's, most of them so banal that if you were shown a picture in isolation you wouldn't be able to identify where they were, much less what the name of the building was.

Vancouver's unique selling proposition is the mountains, there are literally a handful of cities in the world that combine an ocean setting with tall mountains. Why obscure that for private profit and make no mistake, that is what it boils down to. No developer is building with a goal of leaving some outstandingly beautiful tall building as a legacy for the ages, they're doing it to line their pockets.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Turn it around - what is so great about taller towers? NYC is full of buildings taller than Vancouver's, most of them so banal that if you were shown a picture in isolation you wouldn't be able to identify where they were, much less what the name of the building was.

Vancouver's unique selling proposition is the mountains, there are literally a handful of cities in the world that combine an ocean setting with tall mountains. Why obscure that for private profit and make no mistake, that is what it boils down to. No developer is building with a goal of leaving some outstandingly beautiful tall building as a legacy for the ages, they're doing it to line their pockets.

Because a taller building can literally be more building for the same site without increasing the floor plate. Granted, I also like large floor plate buildings.

The point of a tower is that it provides space on a small footprint. That utility of that purpose grows with how much space can be efficiently provided on a small footprint (without having all sorts of terrible windowless interior spaces).

If you're designing a building, and there is demand for more of that building, why not construct it larger on one site instead of spreading the demand around over many rezonings, many excavations, and many land parcels. Would you rather have 400 people take the benefits for living on a site or 600 with marginally more work?

A tall, dense tower is the definition of an efficient urban packaging. The farther away you get from that, the more everyone has to pay for the inefficiencies.

Our view cones basically say that X parcel of land can only be this useful because someone doesn't like looking at a city. In my opinion people who don't want to live near downtown should move to the burbs or any other area in our generally rural province. If you live near the one dense city in this province, you probably should have decided that you like being near a dense city.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Turn it around - what is so great about taller towers? NYC is full of buildings taller than Vancouver's, most of them so banal that if you were shown a picture in isolation you wouldn't be able to identify where they were, much less what the name of the building was.

Vancouver's unique selling proposition is the mountains, there are literally a handful of cities in the world that combine an ocean setting with tall mountains.

Why not have both? "Manhattan Under the Mountains" has a nice ring to it.

[Lancaster]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Turn it around - what is so great about taller towers? NYC is full of buildings taller than Vancouver's, most of them so banal that if you were shown a picture in isolation you wouldn't be able to identify where they were, much less what the name of the building was.

Vancouver's unique selling proposition is the mountains, there are literally a handful of cities in the world that combine an ocean setting with tall mountains. Why obscure that for private profit and make no mistake, that is what it boils down to. No developer is building with a goal of leaving some outstandingly beautiful tall building as a legacy for the ages, they're doing it to line their pockets.

Hong Kong is one of those cities that has mountains and ocean, but also has plenty of skyscrapers (built on the side of the mountain!). I don't think it's that bad?

Usable land in the lower mainland is scarce. What's better - having tall towers that obstruct some views of the mountains, or building low density development right up the side of those same mountains? You either do one of those two things or watch housing development become impossible.