Burrard Place | 168m, 112m, 56m | 54fl, 36fl, 13fl | 938,000 sqft | U/C

[Dylan Leblanc]

The view corridors are silly. There is no end to the areas of the city where the mountains can be seen. If downtown were built up with taller skyscrapers it would impact only a tiny fraction of the available mountain views.

Anyways, I think I read in one of the news articles that the 13 storey building proposed for Burrard Street will be an office builing. Did anyone else catch this?

[SpongeG]

yah - in the piece by frances bula she led it with the office component

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by mr.x

I don't even know where to start...apples and oranges. And you can see mountain views from almost anywhere.

Stringent View corridors, which are btw ridiculously arbitrary, inhibit the economic well-being of the city.

And yes, what about people who want to see some nice tall buildings?

don't read the comments at CBC

one of them wants Vancouver to return to the way it was in the 1970's/1980's when it was simpler and the mountions were clearly viewed

[officedweller]

I agree that the view corridors are arbitrary - step a few feet to one side or allow a tree to grow and - poof - it's blocked.

Compare to NYC - which allowed a proposal for a tall building a few blocks from the Empire State Building that was criticized for interfering with the views of the Empire State Building and its presence on the skyline.

You don't have a right to a view - you could buy on the seawall and trees grow in the park across the street.

Look at the old buildings here (Vancouver Block, Seymour Building, etc.) and in other cities - they were built in anticipation of other buildings butting up against them with light wells
- they weren't built with the view "I was here first, get out of my way".

[wrenegade]

Yes. No mention of a grocery store either. Link to the PDF below:

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.c..._F_968169a.pdf

[officedweller]

I was wondering about that too - maybe the lot size is too small for two towers and a grocery store (since the alley is staying put)? i.e. two elevator cores piercing through the ground level retail space on the Hornby side, and the car dealership taking up the bulk of the Burrard side.
The prototype to follow would be Metropolitan Towers and Nestors, where the large retail space is offset to one side (but still on the small side). Maybe if they do get the Davie frontage, they'll add the grocery store. .

[p78hub]

The comments on the CBC story are hilarious. Overreaction, much? With that said, I support this. The Toyota dealership as it stands now is really not interesting to look at and doesn't fit with the rest of the neighbourhood.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I was wondering about that too - maybe the lot size is too small for two towers and a grocery store (since the alley is staying put)? i.e. two elevator cores piercing through the ground level retail space on the Hornby side, and the car dealership taking up the bulk of the Burrard side.
The prototype to follow would be Metropolitan Towers and Nestors, where the large retail space is offset to one side (but still on the small side). Maybe if they do get the Davie frontage, they'll add the grocery store. .

the one rendering looks like it has 3 towers - a short one on burrard for office and two on hornby

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

the one rendering looks like it has 3 towers - a short one on burrard for office and two on hornby

Yeah, but it looks like the alley is remaining in place, so if the Toyota dealership takes up the above ground and underground space on Burrard, the only place left for a grocery store is on the Hornby side - where there are 2 towers and 2 elevator cores - like Metropolitan Towers.

[Metro-One]

In my view it is not taller towers downtown destroying the view of the mountains, but having sprawling sub divisions being built high up their slopes that is. Maybe allowing extra height and density downtown and along the North Shore waterfront will help curb this forest removal blight...

[jlousa]

Coldrsx is completely right the viewcones are one of the best things ever implemented by city council. People may only seem them as providing views from a few set points, but fail to realize that working backwards those cones allow sunlight to enter across the core from the south. It was completely unintended but has done wonders for livability in our core.
Sprawl will happen regardless with a growing population, you could build hundreds of additional 60storey towers and you would still have people buying sfhs out in Ladner/Maple Ridge/Panorama Ridge etc different market completely. We aren't HK, if you eliminated sfhs in the region somehow, you would see a significant portion of that segment of the population leave.
The city is not short sighted people, our view cones are copied world wide for a reason. I understand this is a skyscraper forum, but urbanism is much more important. Take any of the cities that are on top of the most liveable lists and see how they fare skyscraper wise.

Back on topic, I'm not so sure the last few properties will make it into this project, they would've had their chance to sell but probably held out for more money, now they've realized they missed the boat and will be worth less as they will have limited developablity. A little surprised of no mention of a supermarket but I still think it's on the table.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by jlousa

People may only seem them as providing views from a few set points, but fail to realize that working backwards those cones allow sunlight to enter across the core from the south. It was completely unintended but has done wonders for livability in our core.

I am often grateful for the amount of sunlight we have downtown compared to some other major cities.

[Architype]

Parts of downtown (residential areas) are so built up that there are no possible views of any consequence anyway. This is not a way I enjoy living; fortunately I can have a nicer view and more sunlight by not living downtown.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Sprawl will happen regardless with a growing population, you could build hundreds of additional 60storey towers and you would still have people buying sfhs out in Ladner/Maple Ridge/Panorama Ridge etc different market completely. We aren't HK, if you eliminated sfhs in the region somehow, you would see a significant portion of that segment of the population leave.

that needs to change. The most beautiful vistas in the region can't be wasted on only the 60 thousand people in SFH's on the north shore. They all need to be redeveloped as higher density, not downtown scale... more like Argyle or The Properties by Quigg in west van.

[EastVanMark]

The view cones came about to this city much in the same way that neon signs were outlawed. Its an idea that was born amongst a small group who decided they knew what's best for the rest of us. The view cones have been modified over the years, and with them some higher buildings have been built with little effect on the views. As for this "more sunlight" argument, the exact same effect can be accomplished by constructing buildings further apart. Besides, Ive yet to see any science supporting the notion that 40 floors allows enough sunlight while 41 doesn't allow enough.

[wrenegade]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Coldrsx is completely right the viewcones are one of the best things ever implemented by city council. People may only seem them as providing views from a few set points, but fail to realize that working backwards those cones allow sunlight to enter across the core from the south. It was completely unintended but has done wonders for livability in our core.
Sprawl will happen regardless with a growing population, you could build hundreds of additional 60storey towers and you would still have people buying sfhs out in Ladner/Maple Ridge/Panorama Ridge etc different market completely. We aren't HK, if you eliminated sfhs in the region somehow, you would see a significant portion of that segment of the population leave.
The city is not short sighted people, our view cones are copied world wide for a reason. I understand this is a skyscraper forum, but urbanism is much more important. Take any of the cities that are on top of the most liveable lists and see how they fare skyscraper wise.

I do agree that the view cones have had a very positive side effect in the amount of light in the core, but there are some areas where the view cones hinder development where the effect on the amount of light on the street level would be minimal. I'm specifically thinking about the area from Seymour east on Georgia street. It is so wide open and it would be fantastic to have some landmark buildings along that corridor.

This discussion should probably be moved to the hight limit or view cone thread.

[officedweller]

Sunlight to the street has more to do with building separation (80ft in Downtown South) than the view cones - you could build shoulder to shoulder at 10 storeys, be well under view cones and hugely shadow the streets.

In my view, who wouldn't see either sky, water or mountains in the course of their daily grind in Vancouver? And in order to even take advantage of many of the view cones (i.e. south False Creek seawall) you're already outside enjoying the landscape!

[Hed Kandi]

http://www.straight.com/article-3547...de-art-gallery

[Dylan Leblanc]

super cool!

[mr.x]

^ loving it! Needs work, but it's a good start.

Originally Posted by officedweller

Sunlight to the street has more to do with building separation (80ft in Downtown South) than the view cones - you could build shoulder to shoulder at 10 storeys, be well under view cones and hugely shadow the streets.

In my view, who wouldn't see either sky, water or mountains in the course of their daily grind in Vancouver? And in order to even take advantage of many of the view cones (i.e. south False Creek seawall) you're already outside enjoying the landscape!

Well said!!!