Do you think there will be anymore 200+ meter towers in the lower mainland?

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by whatnext

That type of attitude shows a funadamental misunderstanding of what Vancouver is about. It's the juxtaposition of city, mountains and sea that everyone from homebuilders to tourist organizations trade on. To crowd out those iconic views for buildings that could be built anywhere from Chengdu to Chicago would be a tragic mistake.

On the one hand, I think that the view cones are artificial and arbitrary. So what if I can't see the mountains from city hall. I can go to Spanish Banks, or Stanley Park or any number of places to get my mountain / ocean views.

Having said that, there are a number of global cities that are outstanding in their own way without the need for a massive skyline (Vienna and Prague come to mind). It's the built form and urban environment that matters.

I think we'll eventually see a 200m skyscraper. But I guess I'd prefer to see more interesting developments in whatever shape and form that enhance Vancouver's urban appeal -- as Whatnext alludes to above.

[memememe76]

On the one hand, I think that the view cones are artificial and arbitrary. So what if I can't see the mountains from city hall. I can go to Spanish Banks, or Stanley Park or any number of places to get my mountain / ocean views.

That's one of my favourite parts of the city to see the mountains!

When I leave the Fitness World in City Square Mall and walk down Cambie towards Broadway/Olympic Village, I really, really love that view towards Downtown.

[logan5]

I'd say this scenario has a descent but outside shot at materializing...

When B.C. becomes an LNG powerhouse, the way Alberta is an oil powerhouse, you will see 10 new major office towers related to LNG built in Vancouver, with 7 between 165m and 197m, and 3 over 200 meters with heights ranging between 212m - 236m. Since there's these viewcones to deal with in Vancouver, no viewcone restrction Metrotown will inherit all these tall Skyscraper projects and become a downtown district that rivals dt Vancouver. We may as well start planning the Willingdon/41st ave Metrotown connector right now.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by logan5

I'd say this scenario has a descent but outside shot at materializing...

When B.C. becomes an LNG powerhouse, the way Alberta is an oil powerhouse, you will see 10 new major office towers related to LNG built in Vancouver, with 7 between 165m and 197m, and 3 over 200 meters with heights ranging between 212m - 236m. Since there's these viewcones to deal with in Vancouver, no viewcone restrction Metrotown will inherit all these tall Skyscraper projects and become a downtown district that rivals dt Vancouver. We may as well start planning the Willingdon/41st ave Metrotown connector right now.

I think this is probably pretty close to the truth. Not unlike what Telus once did in moving its headquarters to Burnaby.

I think the appeal of Burnaby is clear, cheaper, well serviced by transit, pro-density, and willing to work with developers on height restrictions.

Wouldn't be surprised if some big players set up shop in yet to be built office towers in Metrotown and Brentwood.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by Laniatus

I caught a news bit on Global just a few hours ago that was talking about increasing density in the West End. They briefly mentioned the possibility of a 70 storey tower.

I believe the news story is referencing the West End Community Plan Draft October 2013 which can be seen herehttp://vancouver.ca/files/cov/west-e...013-oct-22.pdf. Page 43 shows a building max height of 700ft/213.4m tower bounded by Georgia/Burrard/Thurlow/Alberni. Again, all building heights are subject to approval though and I don't see the buildings on the South side of Georgia, West of Burrard being taken down anytime soon.

The building in the southeast corner of the block has viewcone restrictions, the same one that goes over the RBC tower. However I've long pointed out the central tower and the tower across the street from Shangri-La as a site that could support a major office development some day. If the city keeps with it's 700' office limit promise and the general rule of total height +10%, in theory you could throw a 770' office tower there. Being as it is situated directly across the street from the tallest in the city, I think to build it at any less of a height would be a waste. I'd also like to see it built bulky, so it would be as thick as from Georgia to Alberni, and as wide as the length of both parcels. Aiming for 1 million + square feet. Of course the market would have to support it, which is why I think these parcels should be saved for such a time when a developer has the money and willingness to build such a structure on the site.

Of course, the developer would have to find a way to get the density requirement for such a build. Both they and the city would need to make a lot of concessions.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

The building in the southeast corner of the block has viewcone restrictions, the same one that goes over the RBC tower.

If you are referring to the Burrard Building (which sits on the southwest corner of Burrard and Georgia), then that is not quite accurate. Only the eastern half of the Burrard Building site falls under the view corridor that affects the RBC Tower. The western half of the site is unencumbered by any view restrictions (with the exception of the Q.E. Park view corridor). Indeed, it is on the Burrard Building site that the city has suggested a building of "generally 700 feet" in its higher building policy and where it depicts a 70 storey building on p.4 of its West End Community Plan: http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/west-e...rd-streets.pdf

[officedweller]

The other interesting thing is the plan suggests two 55-60 storey towers (skinny, i.e. residential) on the south side of Alberni as well.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

If you are referring to the Burrard Building (which sits on the southwest corner of Burrard and Georgia), then that is not quite accurate. Only the eastern half of the Burrard Building site falls under the view corridor that affects the RBC Tower. The western half of the site is unencumbered by any view restrictions (with the exception of the Q.E. Park view corridor). Indeed, it is on the Burrard Building site that the city has suggested a building of "generally 700 feet" in its higher building policy and where it depicts a 70 storey building on p.4 of its West End Community Plan: http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/west-e...rd-streets.pdf

True, but that would be a very slender 300 feet of tower, I suppose they could make it look good, or would they be willing to edit the viewcone to allow for full or majority use of the site?

With what OD said about the residential towers (sounds like 600' range) would make for a nice peak in the skyline

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

True, but that would be a very slender 300 feet of tower...

Actually, the view corridor slices diagonally through the northeast corner of the site, leaving about 60% of the site unrestricted. Using an angular design similar to Shangri-La, a building with a significant floor plate could still be built. If you zoom in on the render in the top right of p.5 of the city's West End Community Plan, you can see a possible design for the building: http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/west-e...rd-streets.pdf

So, like Shangri-La, it would look slender from some angles and quite fat from other angles.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Actually, the view corridor slices diagonally through the northeast corner of the site, leaving about 60% of the site unrestricted. Using an angular design similar to Shangri-La, a building with a significant floor plate could still be built. If you zoom in on the render in the top right of p.5 of the city's West End Community Plan, you can see a possible design for the building: http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/west-e...rd-streets.pdf

So, like Shangri-La, it would look slender from some angles and quite fat from other angles.

Well that is a plesant suprise! I was more under the impression it would only be 40% of the site. Wonder if the city would allow a building height of 777' to upsurp the Bow? In the link comparing Shangri-La to the office tower outline put the office tower at 740-750' & those residential towers around 600' Maybe save that central lot for something in the 800' range. Seems like the city warms up to another 100' every decade or so.

[Prometheus]

However, according to the website Changing Vancouver, the leases currently on offer at the Burrard Building are for up to 10 years. So, redevelopment of the site isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

[vansky]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

That seems a pretty accurate assessment IMO. But when you say you
can't wait to see the new projects: which projects, more precisely?

rogers, granville, surrey central, solo...they are pretty much in construction. if you count those, there are around 10 projects on the scene. does shangri-la really look that much taller and grandious than fairmont? ironically, it does...not so much in terms of visual effect, but more like..."our heart of desire and hunger for height have gone up after all these years of constructions" I still remember the days when I wnt to downtown to see a 120m condo being completed, because everything else was just 30 floors, and you woudl think a 150m looks any different now days.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by logan5

I'd say this scenario has a descent but outside shot at materializing...

When B.C. becomes an LNG powerhouse, the way Alberta is an oil powerhouse, you will see 10 new major office towers related to LNG built in Vancouver, with 7 between 165m and 197m, and 3 over 200 meters with heights ranging between 212m - 236m. Since there's these viewcones to deal with in Vancouver, no viewcone restrction Metrotown will inherit all these tall Skyscraper projects and become a downtown district that rivals dt Vancouver. We may as well start planning the Willingdon/41st ave Metrotown connector right now.

Road or transit? Pardon a dumb-sounding question, but this is a major consideration.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by whatnext

That type of attitude shows a funadamental misunderstanding of what Vancouver is about. It's the juxtaposition of city, mountains and sea that everyone from homebuilders to tourist organizations trade on. To crowd out those iconic views for buildings that could be built anywhere from Chengdu to Chicago would be a tragic mistake.

Ask yourself if view cones make sense: views from on top of Burrard, Cambie and Granville bridges, and even the peak of QE Park. With a 101 other spots to view the north shore mountains, why should our architecture and heights of downtown buildings be sacrificed? If I want to have a good view of the north shore mountains, I would go view them from the expansive Spanish banks or Kitsilano beaches and would not do so from, say, Granville bridge. Besides, downtown buildings do not block the views of the majority of residents in the Lower Mainland, and there is certainly no lack of spots around Vancouver to view those mountains.

While other cities around the world have awesome skyscrapers that achieve greater heights and architectural excellence, we in Vancouver are still obsessed with mountain views from absurd locales like City Hall and on top of bridges, and hence continue to churn out mediocre buildings that do not keep up with the times. If the pioneers of Vancouver had that kind of mentality, iconic structures like the Marine building and Hotel Vancouver would have never been built.

We don't just want to be the same as Chicago and Chengdu: we want to be better than them, especially when it comes to skyscraper designs and heights.

As for folks who hate really tall buildings, they can choose to live AWAY from downtown Vancouver. Cities like Nanaimo and Victoria are mostly low-rise. Even most parts of Vancouver are mainly low-rise. Downtown and its surroundings are the only areas around the entire province that we can showcase a really urban environment complete with tall buildings, but yet tall building haters and the absurd view cone lovers are always there to prevent them from being built.

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by Vin

.... As for folks who hate really tall buildings, they can choose to live AWAY from downtown Vancouver. Cities like Nanaimo and Victoria are mostly low-rise. Even most parts of Vancouver are mainly low-rise. Downtown and its surroundings are the only areas around the entire province that we can showcase a really urban environment complete with tall buildings, but yet tall building haters and the absurd view cone lovers are always there to prevent them from being built.

Have you thought that maybe the same goes both ways?
People that hate Vancouver's style of urbanism and only care about tall towers can always move to Toronto.... I don't hate tall buildings, clearly. But I support generally the height regime in the city, viewcones and all.

[spm2013]

Who cares, let Surrey and Burnaby build them.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vin

As for folks who hate really tall buildings, they can choose to live AWAY from downtown Vancouver. Cities like Nanaimo and Victoria are mostly low-rise. Even most parts of Vancouver are mainly low-rise. Downtown and its surroundings are the only areas around the entire province that we can showcase a really urban environment complete with tall buildings, but yet tall building haters and the absurd view cone lovers are always there to prevent them from being built.

I agree that it would be nice to have a couple more really tall buildings downtown.
However, when you say "showcase a really urban environment," please remember that that applies equally, perhaps even more, to street-level.
Hötorget in Stockholm, Washington DC (designed be de L'Enfant of France), Central Copenhagen, Trafalgar Square in London,
the great boulevards of Paris, the city of Rome itself, ......

All of these - and others - create a "showcase urban environment" without being contingent on building height.
Sure, I LOVE tall well designed buildings. But elegance, accessibility to downtown plaza and park space, elegant street furniture, well-defined neighbourhoods,
bright lighting, snazzy shopping areas, elegant sidewalk pavements, fountains, planting, beautiful window fronts .....
all these comprise just as much if not more than simply having the biggest and the tallest buildings.

Having said that, I very much hope that Georgia and Burrard will one day see a stunning 200+ meter building that will turn heads upward
in amazement at its aesthetic beauty, while at the same time offering a smart plaza or public amenity to the Georgia Street Canyon.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

People that hate Vancouver's style of urbanism and only care about tall towers can always move to Toronto.

Why do you feel that "Vancouver's style of urbanism" and taller towers in the central business district are mutually exclusive?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Vin

Ask yourself if view cones make sense: views from on top of Burrard, Cambie and Granville bridges, and even the peak of QE Park. With a 101 other spots to view the north shore mountains, why should our architecture and heights of downtown buildings be sacrificed? If I want to have a good view of the north shore mountains, I would go view them from the expansive Spanish banks or Kitsilano beaches and would not do so from, say, Granville bridge. Besides, downtown buildings do not block the views of the majority of residents in the Lower Mainland, and there is certainly no lack of spots around Vancouver to view those mountains.

While other cities around the world have awesome skyscrapers that achieve greater heights and architectural excellence, we in Vancouver are still obsessed with mountain views from absurd locales like City Hall and on top of bridges, and hence continue to churn out mediocre buildings that do not keep up with the times. If the pioneers of Vancouver had that kind of mentality, iconic structures like the Marine building and Hotel Vancouver would have never been built.

We don't just want to be the same as Chicago and Chengdu: we want to be better than them, especially when it comes to skyscraper designs and heights.

As for folks who hate really tall buildings, they can choose to live AWAY from downtown Vancouver. Cities like Nanaimo and Victoria are mostly low-rise. Even most parts of Vancouver are mainly low-rise. Downtown and its surroundings are the only areas around the entire province that we can showcase a really urban environment complete with tall buildings, but yet tall building haters and the absurd view cone lovers are always there to prevent them from being built.

You're still not getting it. Vancouver's setting is what makes it unique. it is mind boggling anyone would want to cover up that incredible juxaptoistion of water, buildings and mountains. Who wants to have to schlep out to Spanish Banks just to see it? Supertalls can be built anywhere: As for folks who like really tall buildings, they can choose to live AWAY from downtown Vancouver. Cities like New York and Shanghai are mostly high-rise.

As to the view cones, sure they're arbitary but they had to to select a point to start.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Vancouver's setting is what makes it unique. It is mind boggling anyone would want to cover up that incredible juxaptoistion of water, buildings and mountains.

The mountains are big and wide. How do you suppose a small number of exceptional towers concentrated in the downtown core would cover-up that juxtaposition? Indeed, why do you think a few majestic buildings rising in harmony with the mountains would do anything other than enhance it?