HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Downtown & City of Vancouver

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1141  
Old Posted May 16, 2018, 4:28 PM
s211 s211 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 5,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Apparently, the reason for the reduction in height may be even more absurd than that.

This proposal (even when reduced in height) will extend into a city-made viewcone. Therefore, if this project proceeds, it will constitute a rare exception to the city's rigidly-applied viewcone policy. But in addition to obstructing a protected slice of the mountains, the taller version would have extended into some of the empty air above the top of the mountain ridge. The shorter version, by contrast, will still block the same protected slice of the mountains but stop short of extending into the empty air above the top of the mountain ridge. Apparently, the idea is that obstructing a protected view of the mountain may be supported by the city in this case but blocking the view of the empty air above it will not. So, the reduction in height is for the sake of our view of the empty air above the mountain, not the mountain itself.

But if someone knows better, then hopefully they can set the record straight.
If true, then this validates one of the many of my reasons for not pursuing a Masters degree in Planning. I saw the writing on the wall almost 30 years ago. Planners exist in a bubble largely filled to the brim with blindness-causing principles.
__________________
If it seems I'm ignoring what you may have written in response to something I have written, it's very likely that you're on my Ignore List. Please do not take it personally.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1142  
Old Posted May 17, 2018, 3:48 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by s211 View Post
If true, then this validates one of the many of my reasons for not pursuing a Masters degree in Planning. I saw the writing on the wall almost 30 years ago. Planners exist in a bubble largely filled to the brim with blindness-causing principles.
To be fair, that's an ongoing problem with anything designed by committee. Ever watched The Pentagon Wars?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1143  
Old Posted May 17, 2018, 5:41 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by idunno View Post
I've seen quite a few of these that include Chinese characters. Not really a big deal - just catering to the demographics of the city.
I don't agree that the downtown population has such a huge proportion of ethnic Chinese residents that the City should "bow down" to their needs. Richmond or Chinatown maybe, but not this part of Vancouver. Totally unnecessary in my opinion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1144  
Old Posted May 17, 2018, 5:45 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
Yes, that was the official reason, and yes, it is very arbitrary.

For the record I am not 100% against viewvones, but Vancouver has far too many that are far too strict / low and that are far too rigid (especially regarding sites in and around major transit hubs / stations).
I am 100% against Vancouver's viewcones. I can't see anything positive about them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1145  
Old Posted May 17, 2018, 5:49 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by scryer View Post
Even Sarah Huckabee Sanders wouldn't read that shit outloud.
LOL! GOod one!

(GOod shown like this for a reason)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1146  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2018, 5:02 PM
ScoCan ScoCan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 3
Thumbs down Protect the View Cones from Rezoning

The public hearing is this week. Speak, write or sign if you oppose the heights proposed for NEFC.

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/

Last edited by ScoCan; Jul 7, 2018 at 5:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1147  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2018, 5:24 PM
Canucks223 Canucks223 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoCan View Post
The public hearing is this week. Speak, write or sign if you oppose the heights proposed for NEFC.

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/
Those doodles in that link look a little exaggerated. Without a proper rendering of how the towers would actually block the view of the mountains, why should I take it seriously? Also I find it really funny to post something like that on this website where obviously the vast majority here think view cones are ridiculous and total nonsense. But hey they must be desperate at this point for signatures if they are trying here so this is probably a good thing?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1148  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2018, 5:27 PM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 4,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoCan View Post
The public hearing is this week. Speak, write or sign if you oppose the heights proposed for NEFC.

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 respect your views (you like that?) on this matter, but I had to laugh at that a little bit. This is the worst place to get any supporters for your cause. People around here want to see 1000' skyscrapers going up in NEFC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1149  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2018, 5:32 PM
ScoCan ScoCan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 3
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
I respect your views (you like that?) on this matter, but I had to laugh at that a little bit. This is the worst place to get any supporters for your cause. People around here want to see 1000' skyscrapers going up in NEFC.
I respect your views as well. Yes that is a good one!

It is the place for a public forum for us all to be free to share our views.

Skycrapers don't have to block public views to be beautiful and contribute positively to Vancouver.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1150  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2018, 5:51 PM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 4,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoCan View Post
I respect your views as well. Yes that is a good one!

It is the place for a public forum for us all to be free to share our views.

Skycrapers don't have to block public views to be beautiful and contribute positively to Vancouver.

Your more than welcome here as far as I'm concerned. Dissenting views make things more interesting.

We are all not just tower nuts around here, but I do see DT Vancouver as a tower neighbourhood. And I would consider the Broadway Corridor as a tower area at this point in the cities evoloution.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1151  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2018, 7:07 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoCan View Post
Skycrapers don't have to block public views to be beautiful and contribute positively to Vancouver.
They kind of do - if you took a shot for every tower that's been watered down into mediocrity and/or hidden behind the James Cheng Specials, you wouldn't wake up until next week. All for the sake of a slightly better view from QE Park?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1152  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2018, 7:29 PM
Feathered Friend Feathered Friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 789
Plaza of Nations & BC Place Tower - Public Hearing




http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applica...renderings.pdf


https://council.vancouver.ca/2018021...esentation.pdf



Alternatively maybe people should write in for a different reason? 20 letters of opposition and some rather terrible comments.

Quote:
July 10th Public Hearing – A “Concentration Camp” on the Waterfront, “Transient” Renters Bring Chaos to Cedar Cottage, 12 Homes are 10 “too many” for Arbutus – Is this a Despicable new low for Vancouver?

Yes, those comments in our title have actually been made by real people. While that is a horrifying thought, the proof is shown in their letters, which we link to the Plaza of Nations...

...The last two items are part of the conversion of North East False Creek from empty parking lots to an ice rink, community centre, restaurants, hotel rooms, strata and social housing. Of course, such well-rounded applications are the ones facing the largest opposition.

Backlash Expectations
777 Pacific Boulevard (BC Place Tower 10C) – Very High, with 20 letters against
750 – 772 Pacific Boulevard (Plaza of Nations) –High, with a very reprehensible comment
https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2018/0...e-10-too-many/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1153  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2018, 8:59 PM
kaitoe kaitoe is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoCan View Post
I respect your views as well. Yes that is a good one!

It is the place for a public forum for us all to be free to share our views.

Skycrapers don't have to block public views to be beautiful and contribute positively to Vancouver.

Do you have a reference for those black towers drawn in on that skyline picture on the website?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1154  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2018, 9:03 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaitoe View Post
Do you have a reference for those black towers drawn in on that skyline picture on the website?
Drawn by Melody Ma and friends, I believe. It's a slippery slope argument: "if we let these towers slide, then somebody'll suggest even higher towers in the future!"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1155  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2018, 11:59 PM
kaitoe kaitoe is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Drawn by Melody Ma and friends, I believe. It's a slippery slope argument: "if we let these towers slide, then somebody'll suggest even higher towers in the future!"
Yeah, despite my animosity towards the UDP's decisions from time to time, I doubt they'd let something like that happen. Also, those drawings are hilariously awful in scale -- to even remotely resemble those sketches, they'd have to span multiple blocks or be on top of the Cambie Street Bridge. Lastly, those traffic lights are doing a better job at blocking the view than the PavCo and Concord Towers in their picture.

The beauty of Vancouver's buildings is how the skyline and mountains interact, and it's a shame that the view cones are making the skyline look more like a tabletop, because it becomes a bland frame. In my opinion, by having towers that penetrate the view cone, it creates a texture on the skyline that is echoed by the silhouette of the mountains.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1156  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2018, 12:51 AM
VancouverOfTheFuture's Avatar
VancouverOfTheFuture VancouverOfTheFuture is offline
Vancouverite
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 1,360
i do think preserving the views of the mountains is important, personally.

but, that being said. i think a table top skyline does absolutely nothing to make the mountains look good. it just looks dumb and artificial, which it is.

there needs to be some flexibility in the view cones so you can promote great architecture to come up and compliment the mountains. some high peaks, some low peaks and keep it in relation to the mountains.

as an example, where the mountains get shorter and create a valley, let the buildings rise up over the peaks of the mountains next to it. then have the buildings create a valley where the mountains are peaking.

you'd have to try modelling it out, but you cant just have a table top, it looks terrible and doesn't help the view of the mountains. no one would really think mountains look amazing if they were all just level, flat with no height variation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1157  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2018, 12:59 AM
scryer scryer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 763
Height is another restriction that we consistently face in this real-estate mess....

If we look at the future 100 years down the line, and continue to adhere to the ridiculous view cones, then we should expect that Vancouver will look like Sao Paolo one day.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1158  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2018, 4:15 AM
giallo's Avatar
giallo giallo is offline
be nice to the crackheads
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Shanghai/Seoul/Vancouver
Posts: 8,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoCan View Post
I respect your views as well. Yes that is a good one!

It is the place for a public forum for us all to be free to share our views.

Skycrapers don't have to block public views to be beautiful and contribute positively to Vancouver.

Welcome to the forum, and yes, your views are absolutely welcome here. While we are a group that generally like tall, shiny things, we are also very interested in the urban fabric of cities, and the scale of them.

For instance, I think downtown should push harder for taller buildings when it can, but I like and want to retain the low/midrise scale of the Broadway Corridor.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1159  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2018, 5:36 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by giallo View Post
For instance, I think downtown should push harder for taller buildings when it can, but I like and want to retain the low/midrise scale of the Broadway Corridor.
Well, I think we can all agree that Shangri-La or even Marine Gateway would be a bad fit for Fairview.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1160  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2018, 6:31 AM
giallo's Avatar
giallo giallo is offline
be nice to the crackheads
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Shanghai/Seoul/Vancouver
Posts: 8,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Well, I think we can all agree that Shangri-La or even Marine Gateway would be a bad fit for Fairview.
Absolutely, but I also think any building under six floors on the south side of Broadway is way too short.

If I had my way, I'd have a mix of heights along the norths side of Broadway with a cap at around twelve floors (no buildings below four floors), and have the south side of the street up to twenty floors. Have this type of zoning running from Arbutus to Commercial.

I'd also give some density bonuses to blocks around the skytrain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Downtown & City of Vancouver
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:11 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.