Vancouver view cone review

[Vancity]

I agree that the city should spend more time thinking about how it can densify housing in and around the C-line stations. Do they have development plans for this?

[cabotp]

The biggest hurdle is going to be all the nimbies on cambie. If you thought the herritage boulevard and trees was bad. You wait until they want to buy out some housing or commercial property to build bigger condos.

I would say they probably have the best chance in between King Edward and 12th. In that they could buy out some of the commerical property and then redevelop it to mixed use residential with commercial on the ground. So a store if it can wait can move back into the same sport more or less. The problem is that it is no where near a station in that area. and becomes pointless.

My guess is your going to see a massive change around cambie and broadway.

Otherwise all the other stations are single family homes and all the nimbies that come with them.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Vonny

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).

I deny it.

[twoNeurons]

Change the zoning and the housing will eventually follow the $$$.

I guarantee that if you make the C-line corridor medium to high density around stations, the value of the land will make people think twice about not selling their home.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I deny it.

Me too

[Vonny]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Me too

I should rephrase it: Vancouver skyline is attractive enough to be one of the main selling feature of the city, and it seems by the amount of tourist buying postcard or other material featuring the Vancouver skyline that people are pretty delighted by it

[ckkelley]

Vonny wrote:

"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)"

I'm in your camp Vonny.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Vonny

I should rephrase it: Vancouver skyline is attractive enough to be one of the main selling feature of the city, and it seems by the amount of tourist buying postcard or other material featuring the Vancouver skyline that people are pretty delighted by it

Vancouver's skyline is attractive. But the skyline is not attractive because of the view cone restrictions; it is attractive in spite of them.

The view cone restrictions have been suppressing the full potential of Vancouver's skyline, not nurturing it. Indeed, the very point of the restrictions is to ensure the skyline remains subordinate to the mountains. The purpose of the restrictions, therefore, is to promote the mountains' beauty, not the skyline's.

Liberated from the oppressiveness of these restrictions, however, Vancouver's skyline could be much more than attractive; it could be majestic.

[jlousa]

I disagree completely with the above statement. W/O the viewcones we would have some taller buildings but a lot less of them. The viewcones are responsible for the need to build dozens upon dozens of highrises. I rather prefer our skyline with hundreds of ~300fters over one that would have had a cluster of supertalls. Which one do you think makes the city more liveable?

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Vancouver's skyline is attractive. But the skyline is not attractive because of the view cone restrictions; it is attractive in spite of them.

The view cone restrictions have been suppressing the full potential of Vancouver's skyline, not nurturing it. Indeed, the very point of the restrictions was to subordinate the skyline to the mountains.

Liberated from the oppressiveness of these restrictions, however, Vancouver's skyline could be much more than attractive; it could be majestic.

So true. And so well put I might add.

[johnjimbc]

Having lived in an absolutely wonderful city with incredible neighborhoods and street-life (DC), in which no building was taller than about 14 floors due to extreme height restrictions, I always find this talk about skyscraper heights to seem rather "phallic" . I think some of the streetscapes here are quite nice, but they pale in comparison to the scale of buildings and quality of the sidewalks and street fronts and facades there. And I am NOT talking about the federal buildings downtown. The neighborhoods outside the federal area are amazing . . . great scale of people to buildings, outdoor cafes, great attention to the building facades (due in part to the lower buildings), a much broader city of neighborhood hubs. Paris is the only city I've seen that does it better, and not in all aspects.

If you think having a parade of monoliths makes a city livable or more impressive, you should really rethink your ideas of cities and visit a few more (i.e. not just hong kong or others on the Pacific rim). Vancouver does not have the street widths - or land area downtown - to be another New York or Chicago. It would become a monolith of shadows with the narrow streets that dominate most of downtown. You might get a postcard or two out of the deal, but it could easily destroy the very ambiance that makes downtown Vancouver special.

Review the view cones, certainly, but what I always read in discussions here sounds more like angry vitriol calls to abolish them all together, which would just be pathetically dumb. The city would suffer if that were to happen.

[Hed Kandi]

..

[Vonny]

Originally Posted by johnjimbc

Having lived in an absolutely wonderful city with incredible neighborhoods and street-life (DC), in which no building was taller than about 14 floors due to extreme height restrictions, I always find this talk about skyscraper heights to seem rather "phallic" . I think some of the streetscapes here are quite nice, but they pale in comparison to the scale of buildings and quality of the sidewalks and street fronts and facades there. And I am NOT talking about the federal buildings downtown. The neighborhoods outside the federal area are amazing . . . great scale of people to buildings, outdoor cafes, great attention to the building facades (due in part to the lower buildings), a much broader city of neighborhood hubs. Paris is the only city I've seen that does it better, and not in all aspects.

If you think having a parade of monoliths makes a city livable or more impressive, you should really rethink your ideas of cities and visit a few more (i.e. not just hong kong or others on the Pacific rim). Vancouver does not have the street widths - or land area downtown - to be another New York or Chicago. It would become a monolith of shadows with the narrow streets that dominate most of downtown. You might get a postcard or two out of the deal, but it could easily destroy the very ambiance that makes downtown Vancouver special.

Review the view cones, certainly, but what I always read in discussions here sounds more like angry vitriol calls to abolish them all together, which would just be pathetically dumb. The city would suffer if that were to happen.

agree, Washington is a very good example of how nice can be a city with no skyscrapper.
That says, it is a very expensive city, so the buildings can be nice too

Also beside Georgetown, I didn't see "incredible" street life, and even there nothing impressive, and rest of the city looked too me pretty dead after 5pm, so curious to know which neighborhood you refers (anyway, it was still pretty good by American standard)

bottom line you mention 2 cities which have among the most stringent urban restriction, and see how architect have worked out well with it, and resort to do great thing, the restriction helping to give some coherence to the whole.

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

Singapore, with its imposed 750ft height cap, serves as a better example of a model city for Vancouver. Its skyscrapers are not overbearing; cast very few shadows; do not deter from street ambiance; and still provide for a remarkable looking skyline.

At least the Washington DC example can still apply to Richmond

[phesto]

Originally Posted by Vonny

agree, Washington is a very good example of how nice can be a city with no skyscrapper.
That says, it is a very expensive city, so the buildings can be nice too

Also beside Georgetown, I didn't see "incredible" street life, and even there nothing impressive, and rest of the city looked too me pretty dead after 5pm, so curious to know which neighborhood you refers (anyway, it was still pretty good by American standard)

bottom line you mention 2 cities which have among the most stringent urban restriction, and see how architect have worked out well with it, and resort to do great thing, the restriction helping to give some coherence to the whole.

At least the Washington DC example can still apply to Richmond

Not sure which areas you visited in DC, but next time you go, check out areas like Adams-Morgan, Dupont and Penn Quarter. In my experience, these areas alone kill Vancouver in terms of street life - particularly after 5 pm because of the number of restaurants, bars and clubs.

[Canadian Mind]

With regards to abolishing viewcones, I don't think they should eb eliminated entirely... Just eliminate some of the useless ones. From there, establish the rest not as binding rules, but more guidelines, and where there are no viewcones have no height restrictions whatsoever. Then from there the city could have even more pull with regards to development... plus if developers can get more condo's per plot of land, they have more money per plot of land for city amenities/beautification.

[johnjimbc]

Not to stray off topic too far, but to answer Vonny's question. In addition to the DC neighborhoods already mentioned (Dupont, Adams Morgan, & Penn Quarter), Logan Circle and the U Street corridor were also two of my favorites, both neighborhoods growing into their own over the past decade. Columbia Heights / Mt Pleasant (they have a "Mt Pleasant" as well ) has come a long way in the past few years. Capitol Hill does tend to be a bit quieter. It tends to be a bit more residential but even there the street life on the retail corridors is lively and diverse, with wide sidewalks of cafes and coffee shops.

DC is just a good example of a city that had the right "ingredients" but needed the finances and investment and will to bring it together, which fortunately they've been able to do over the past couple of decades. The reason the fabric was there, though, was in large part because of the design and zoning restrictions. Without them that city would have been lost in a sea of interstates and highways 30 years ago.

I don't expect Vancouver to be DC. I just cringe a bit when I see the arguments that seem to scream for dropping the provisions that have helped shape Vancouver in the past twenty-five years. The future growth needs to remain smart growth. And you don't get smart growth by just throwing the doors open to whatever comes down the pike. You might get a few creative flourishes, but you might well end up with a hodgepodge that does little or degrades the livability of the city. I think it would be wiser to "stretch the city out a bit further" than to have policies that encourage a fortress of super-highs in the downtown corridor. Vancouver simply doesn't have the avenue-style streets needed to support it. A typical street in Manhattan is about twice as wide as the typical street in downtown Vancouver, with wider sidewalks as well. And the density of towers (in the sense of towers in scale to their surroundings - not height) is, aside from a few sections, not much greater than downtown Vancouver has now.

I do think there is a place in Vancouver for taller towers, and a review of view cones is a good idea. But I think that any change should be considered carefully, very carefully . . . not subject to random whims or fads. Vancouver needs to consider the shape of the city 20, 40, even 50 years out in the future. And it should carefully ensure that the qualities that make the downtown great now remain in place for the most part.

[delboy]

Originally Posted by johnjimbc

Not to stray off topic too far, but to answer Vonny's question. In addition to the DC neighborhoods already mentioned (Dupont, Adams Morgan, & Penn Quarter), Logan Circle and the U Street corridor were also two of my favorites, both neighborhoods growing into their own over the past decade. Columbia Heights / Mt Pleasant (they have a "Mt Pleasant" as well ) has come a long way in the past few years. Capitol Hill does tend to be a bit quieter. It tends to be a bit more residential but even there the street life on the retail corridors is lively and diverse, with wide sidewalks of cafes and coffee shops.

DC is just a good example of a city that had the right "ingredients" but needed the finances and investment and will to bring it together, which fortunately they've been able to do over the past couple of decades. The reason the fabric was there, though, was in large part because of the design and zoning restrictions. Without them that city would have been lost in a sea of interstates and highways 30 years ago.

I don't expect Vancouver to be DC. I just cringe a bit when I see the arguments that seem to scream for dropping the provisions that have helped shape Vancouver in the past twenty-five years. The future growth needs to remain smart growth. And you don't get smart growth by just throwing the doors open to whatever comes down the pike. You might get a few creative flourishes, but you might well end up with a hodgepodge that does little or degrades the livability of the city. I think it would be wiser to "stretch the city out a bit further" than to have policies that encourage a fortress of super-highs in the downtown corridor. Vancouver simply doesn't have the avenue-style streets needed to support it. A typical street in Manhattan is about twice as wide as the typical street in downtown Vancouver, with wider sidewalks as well. And the density of towers (in the sense of towers in scale to their surroundings - not height) is, aside from a few sections, not much greater than downtown Vancouver has now.

I do think there is a place in Vancouver for taller towers, and a review of view cones is a good idea. But I think that any change should be considered carefully, very carefully . . . not subject to random whims or fads. Vancouver needs to consider the shape of the city 20, 40, even 50 years out in the future. And it should carefully ensure that the qualities that make the downtown great now remain in place for the most part.

Well said. I agree.

Vancouver's downtown area is perched on a very small, although pristine, piece of land. I think the city has done a good job preserving what is beautiful about the place for all to enjoy. Happen there can be some amendments to the view cones with a handful of taller buildings, but I don't think we need them - it's really quite nice already. Maybe a few would had some scale, just don't think we need to become 'Vanhatten' to be a great city.

There are plenty of other areas that can evolve and take shape. The steps and bounds that this place has undergone in the past couple of decades, is nothing short of astounding.

[vansky]

Originally Posted by johnjimbc

Not to stray off topic too far, but to answer Vonny's question. In addition to the DC neighborhoods already mentioned (Dupont, Adams Morgan, & Penn Quarter), Logan Circle and the U Street corridor were also two of my favorites, both neighborhoods growing into their own over the past decade. Columbia Heights / Mt Pleasant (they have a "Mt Pleasant" as well ) has come a long way in the past few years. Capitol Hill does tend to be a bit quieter. It tends to be a bit more residential but even there the street life on the retail corridors is lively and diverse, with wide sidewalks of cafes and coffee shops.

DC is just a good example of a city that had the right "ingredients" but needed the finances and investment and will to bring it together, which fortunately they've been able to do over the past couple of decades. The reason the fabric was there, though, was in large part because of the design and zoning restrictions. Without them that city would have been lost in a sea of interstates and highways 30 years ago.

I don't expect Vancouver to be DC. I just cringe a bit when I see the arguments that seem to scream for dropping the provisions that have helped shape Vancouver in the past twenty-five years. The future growth needs to remain smart growth. And you don't get smart growth by just throwing the doors open to whatever comes down the pike. You might get a few creative flourishes, but you might well end up with a hodgepodge that does little or degrades the livability of the city. I think it would be wiser to "stretch the city out a bit further" than to have policies that encourage a fortress of super-highs in the downtown corridor. Vancouver simply doesn't have the avenue-style streets needed to support it. A typical street in Manhattan is about twice as wide as the typical street in downtown Vancouver, with wider sidewalks as well. And the density of towers (in the sense of towers in scale to their surroundings - not height) is, aside from a few sections, not much greater than downtown Vancouver has now.

I do think there is a place in Vancouver for taller towers, and a review of view cones is a good idea. But I think that any change should be considered carefully, very carefully . . . not subject to random whims or fads. Vancouver needs to consider the shape of the city 20, 40, even 50 years out in the future. And it should carefully ensure that the qualities that make the downtown great now remain in place for the most part.

I thoguht the shape of the region in the future has already been determined, multi-city centers...the thing is we need a good fast train to connect them...why not have the west coast express do a loop, from tri cities to surrey to richmond then to downtown....or from mission to ab to lanley to surrey...using existing train tracks...

[Mininari]

I have changed my opinion from earlier years on the viewcones.

I used to hate them... but after visiting some large American Cities recently, I have to say I think the viewcones HAVE done a wonderful job of promoting high-density development over the whole downtown area (but not too high density). So a building can only go 300ft tall or 400ft tall... fine, then the developers build more buildings on more sites. Several downtowns that I've seen in the US have a smattering of very large-floorplate, tall, office towers, and then nothing all that interesting to support them ... and little for downtown life.

The spacing requirements (between buildings) in Vancouver are exceptional. You really notice the shadowing effect in other major cities, along with the lack of blue sky. In Vancouver, the spacing between buildings lets the light reach the ground, and keeps the city feeling more open... breathable if you want.

However, I'm still a stickler for some taller buildings... especially a taller office tower (or 2 or 3). I'm of the opinion that 2 or 3 taller (600-750') buildings should be permitted (strongly encouraged to be office space), and permitted so to create a gap-tooth effect. I really like how Chicago's supertalls are spaced apart (Hancock, Aon, Wills).

Yes, these buildings probably would jut into a viewcone or two, but I don't think that 2, or 3 or even 4 would kill the mountain skyline.

[flight_from_kamakura]

dc! i love adams morgan, mt pleasant/georgetown yadda yadda, but jesus christ, the idiotic zoning has made the core absolutely useless. seriously, dc's ridiculously low height limits encourage sprawl and discourages residential developments in the core. vancouver obviously needs wider sidewalks and taller towers, but jesus christ, dc is about the worst possible model to follow, there's very literally no other u.s. city like it. there are no towers = it's a low rise, badly distributed (and far far less elegant) american version of paris. vancouver can take almost no lesson from dc.