Vancouver view cone review

[johnjimbc]

Well, I guess you don't like it then. But to clarify a few points:

The Penn Quarter is right in the downtown core. It is a thriving new residential and retail district that they developed (quite successfully) in part to remedy that issue, which is one of the only weak spots of the city. But, you know, they don't have a down east area either. So I guess every great city has it's weak points, doesn't it? There are also plans for a new mixed-use area where the former - and hideous - convention centre (since demolished) used to sit just north of the federal core.

Besides, what is lacks in residential living in the federal core has NOTHING to do with the ceiling heights. It has everything to do with the fact that it's the nation's capital . . . hence the name "federal core." Having dozens of federal buildings lining a national mall will tend to cause a gap in the residential part of a city.

Incidentally, the other weak point is needing more grocery stores in the downtown residential areas, though they've made great progress on that front as well.

By the way, "sprawl" isn't really the right term to describe a city that has miles of subway (second highest daily ridership in North America, only after NYC, of course) as well as imminently walkable neighborhoods. Adams Morgan & Georgetown - that you supposedly like - are a 20 minute walk from the downtown core you despise. Capitol Hill, the Southwest Waterfront, Dupont, & Logan are even closer - 5 to 10 minutes from the federal core and are mixed neighborhoods in themselves. Many people I knew lived within a few blocks of their work, which is one of those things cities are striving for from my understanding.

Lastly, my only point in even bringing up DC - and Paris as well I might add - is to show examples that having strict height limits doesn't limit a city's capability to be a great city. I also wanted to point out that having a cluster of monolithic skyscrapers doesn't make a city livable or more desirable.

There are many things I love about Vancouver. Some of us manage to love more than one city at a time. I even like the skyscrapers

But I'm curious, how do you propose Vancouver get all those wider avenues and sidewalks to support the scale of the super-talls you want? They just going to recreate the whole downtown grid? Is that part of the 500-year plan?

[Metro-One]

Vancouver does not need supertalls, that being said we do need many buildings in the 150 to 200 meter range and a few 200 to 220 meter signature towers would look nice.

[vansky]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Vancouver does not need supertalls, that being said we do need many buildings in the 150 to 200 meter range and a few 200 to 220 meter signature towers would look nice.

ya, that's what i like as well, if you could show us how it woudl look like.

never knew we r only after nyc...how, we dont have that many lines when d.c,sanfran,etc got more miles...

and skyscrapers or no skyscraper doesn't hurt the rankings, they measure human capital, culture, business infrastructure and etc...paris got architecture, we got boxes, nyc and d.c got the elites in their respective areas....

a great city needs more than skyscrapers...

[Metro-One]

I wish i was good at the rendering programs, but I know there are those on here who are. Would be nice to see the skyline with a few dummy 200 - 220 towers thrown in.

[vansky]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I wish i was good at the rendering programs, but I know there are those on here who are. Would be nice to see the skyline with a few dummy 200 - 220 towers thrown in.

i got some stuff, but never got the chance to upload it, if they would let me post stuff without urls, which i never mind to write down.

but the thing with vancouver is not about skylines...

percapita wise, our architecture styles are limited. the city doesn't have that much interesting stuff as toronto. we got quality but not on a variety in terms of creativity. Then, no classical architecture. No "notable" public areas other than stanley park, no signature building.

[delboy]

Originally Posted by vansky

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...

I've always wondered why they don't make better use of the existing rail networks here. In the UK they are widely used. Maybe there's a reason we are not aware of - seems too easy.

[johnjimbc]

Originally Posted by vansky

never knew we r only after nyc...how, we dont have that many lines when d.c,sanfran,etc got more miles...

I think you misunderstood. I was explaining that DC was second in ridership after nyc, much farther behind them (of course - sheer size difference) but a great deal ahead than other cities in north america for daily ridership. I was responding to a complaint about DC's "sprawl" which related to a discussion concerning neighborhoods from which you could walk to the heart of the federal core or take metro subway. It's one of the more interesting uses of the term I've seen. The DC metro system also spiders out to communities in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs as well, but we were talking about neighborhoods within the district itself.

[Delirium]

here;s a really cool documentary from the National Film Board about Vancouver planning from 1964! check it out. i can't believe how much things have changed. good urban planning?

Building a better city -
• Video Link

part 2
• Video Link

[Metro-One]

Well if no one else will say so, I will, very interesting find!

[vansky]

Originally Posted by delboy

I've always wondered why they don't make better use of the existing rail networks here. In the UK they are widely used. Maybe there's a reason we are not aware of - seems too easy.

if we have trains that can go 100km/hr, you can fly from langley to richmond. shit, that is a real dream.

and the two existing tracks lie within suburban areas of richmond...it won't affect anyone

[Canadian Mind]

For those who did the viewcone survey as part of the capacity study, you should have recieved the following email detailing the next stage of the study & round of public consultations. For those who didn't take the survey, but are interested in hearing potential ideas for viewcone changes and/or want your opinions to be heard, go to one of the 4 open houses next month for more info:

Vancouver Views E-newsletter #5 September 29, 2009
Round Two Public Consultations
With summer holidays over and the fall weather settling in, the City will be hosting a second round of public open houses to present view corridor recommendations and gather further public feedback on the options prepared. Recommendations were formulated in consideration of three key elements:

1. urban design objectives and impacts on the built form of the city;
2. public feedback/priorities and advisory review group input; and
3. benefit capacity opportunities and implications

We invite you to come out and see the view corridor recommendations and compare them with the existing view protection framework. City staff will be gathering feedback via surveys at the open houses, through an online survey on the City web site and through a public opinion poll. Learn more at www.vancouver.ca/capacitystudy

Open House Schedule:

1. Thursday, October 15: 4 - 8 pm
2. Saturday, October 17: 10 am – 5 pm
3. Sunday, October 18: 12 - 5 pm

Vancouver Public Library
Central Branch
350 West Georgia Street


4. Tuesday, October 20: 6 - 9 pm

False Creek Elementary School Gymnasium
900 School Green

Summary of Public Feedback to Date
The results of feedback received from four public open houses in June 2009 and a city-wide random poll have been compiled into a summary document. Please see the Downtown Capacity and View Corridors Study Public Feedback Summary (10.48mb).

View Corridor Options Advisory Review Group
The City of Vancouver has commissioned four urban planning and architecture professionals with extensive skills in urban design, view analysis and city-building to provide advice recommendations created as part of study.

The Advisory Review Group will convene this autumn. Advisors are working with City to refine preliminary recommendations, and provide advice on how to improve the options prior to gathering further public input and ultimately, presenting recommendations to Council.
The following professionals are taking part in the Advisory Review Group:

* Kairos Shen
* Joe Hruda
* Ken Greenberg
* Norman Hotson

Advice from the Advisory Review Group will be made available in a public forum at a date to be announced shortly.

Views on Views: Perspectives on view corridors in Vancouver
In partnership with Simon Fraser University, the City of Vancouver is organizing an evening of debate to discuss perhaps the most important public realm issue in this city – revising the view corridors.

Admission is free; reservations are required.
To reserve, go here: https://websurvey.sfu.ca/cgi-bin/Web...urvey?43330304
When: October 5, 7 pm
Where: SFU Segal Business School, 500 Granville Street (corner of Granville and Pender), Vancouver.

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.

[Hed Kandi]

..

[jlousa]

Sorry no Supertalls coming, nor are there any futuristic buildings that look like Spaceships. Flights are getting cheaper for Dubai though.

Here is the follow up for the original viewcone presentations, the data speaks for itself the vast majority of the city wants them left alone, only has support for change. I recommend you d/l the file first as it's just over 10mb, but a good read.

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...acksummary.pdf

[Hed Kandi]

..

[SFUVancouver]

Hed Kandi, will you be attending the view cone meeting?

[Hed Kandi]

..

[trofirhen]

[QUOTE=johnjimbc;4478146]

Lastly, my only point in even bringing up DC - and Paris as well I might add - is to show examples that having strict height limits doesn't limit a city's capability to be a great city. I also wanted to point out that having a cluster of monolithic skyscrapers doesn't make a city livable or more desirable.
QUOTE]
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exactly!

It's great to have a core cluster of supertalls, but that in itself does not define quality of life. It's the tone and texture of what's happening at street level, between people, the aesthetic environment, safety, lighting, greenery, elegance, the sum total "feel-good" elements that define the quality of life in a city.

Look at Stockholm. No supertalls there whatever. Yet the city retains a park-like feeling with its islands and bays, marinas and museums, quaysides and cultural institutions, church spires and ship masts, all topped off with state-of-the-art transport and modernity that create an urban environment like nowhere else.

And, it's no bigger than Vancouver.

[LeftCoaster]

no, the only way Vancouver will ever be a good city is to build gaudy supertalls that will look rediculious in a matter of years.

its a fact.

Everything vancouver does to promote urbanism is all a waste of time, all it needs are supertalls... Then it will finally be a good place to live.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

I may, but I fear my voice will be quelled by the masses.

It would still be more productive than ranting on a pro-skyscraper forum where most members are in agreement with you on this issue.

[flight_from_kamakura]

^ heh.

as an aside: i'm sort of sliding into a more permanent move to sf here, and as a matter of course, i've been acquainting myself with the scene here. and let me say frankly that i don't think there are nimbys in vancouver anything like those here. these nimbys are rabid, like wild neighborhood-preserving dogs. i happened to pop into a dpr meeting for a development near the transamerica pyramid, and there were some members of the public who were literally foaming at the mouth. it was surreal, these folks, through a wall of spittle and froth, painting an "escape from new york" post-apocalyptic scenario, all over 200k sqf in the financial district.

it really gave me some good perspective on how tame the nimbys in the vanistan really are. i mean, complaining about a 3am closing next door is nothing like taking a stand on principle on a building proposal set to rise in the financial district, where virtually noone lives.

count yourselves (ourselves) lucky.