Because I have time to kill, I am going to go through every single viewcone afecting downtown and nearby area as listed on the city website, and suggest which ones I feel should be eliminated, kept, or mdified (and how I would modify them).
First, a nice colourful map from 96 showing where the downtown affecting viewcones are:
Some of the pics on the Vancouver website make it hard to judge what you are seeing because of cloud cover, and frankly if clouds are the best they can do for pics to showcase the view, it only weakens the position that the view is relevant.
Viewcone A - Two options here. Either scrap it, or modify it. But the cloud cover makes it difficult to judge just how high the mountain is, and therefore hwo to best modify it. Though if you notice the little cut-out in the wall of buildings at the bottom left, maintaiing that cut out while removing most of the rest might make for a more drmatic sea to peak view. Designated viewcone A1.1 would be the cut-out, while A1.2 could be the cut off to allow the actual peak of the mountain to show, while the rest of the viewcone is removed.
Viewcone B1 - It may be too late for any (re-)development to take advantage of a heightened viewcone. So leave it as is.
Viewcone B2 - Scrap it. It limits the height of future office redevelopment near Coal Harbour. In addition to this, it is far to narrow to provide a significant view.
Viewcone C1 - Keep it for same reason as B1
Viewcone C2 - It's hard to judge the mountain height due to cloud cover. Eastern half of viewcone will also be swallowed by trees within the next 10-20 years. This future cut off kills the significance of the viewcone. It also would do the same to milit future office development as B2. So I suggest scrap it.
Viewcone D - Significant viewcone in tht it has given us the Shangri-la as we know it, aswell as the future RC should that project ever climb out of it's hole. However, in this picture I can't see Lions very clearly, either because of cloud cover or because you can only see the peaks of the mountains. If it is because only the peaks are showing, I'd scrap it in favour of allowing greater development long the few sites left below it to be developed, partly because B1 and C1 both lready grant an impressive view of the Lions not impeeded by sailboats.
However, if the picture is merely decieving, and the Lions do infact have a significant presence, then leave it as it is. I recognise that it is one fo the more popular spots to take a picture of vancouver, combining the elements of water, sailboats, skyscrapers, mountains, and the sky above.
Viewcone E1 - Move the viewing point close to the Stadium, and move the actual viewcone frame of reference to the right, so that it covers all above BC Place, but no further to the left or right then the edges of the Stadium, perferabley inset just a touch. Would provide an excellent backdrop for the stadium both in it's current and future form, especially if framed by a couple 400+ foot Skyscrapers.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Woodwards would intrude on this new viewcone. Aside from Woodwards and possibly one other signature building, I wouldn't allow any other structures to intrude. For a second building to intrude, it would have to be very narrow when viewed from this angle, but the height could be allowed up to 600+ feet. A smart developer would buy up land from all over gastown and fill it with mid-rises up to the viewcone limit to allow density for this landmark structure. As a prerequisit for this the heritage feel of the area must be preserved, so using existing facades as the base levels and siding the building in a similar fashion to Woodwards would be desired. Once this is done, all future opportunities for intrusion would be eliminated.
Viewcone E2.1 ans E2.2 - Instead of two viewcones, maintain only one called E2, and move the viewing point in conjunction with E1 for greatest overall visual impact from that point on the bridge.
Viewcone 10 - Scrap it. You can see the mountains and ocean under the bridge, and the sky above it. All this viewcone is doing is preventing greater height and density in future West End developments.
Viewcone 12.1.1 - Keep it
Viewcone 12.1.2 - Keep it
viewcone 12.1.3 - To small to be significan't, so I'd suggest scrapping it, or atleast make it optional should a really good proposal come along for one of the sites under the viewcone.
Viewcone 12.2 - Keep it.
Viewcone 3, QE park - Raise 3.2.1-3 to the lower peaks on the left hand side of 3.2.3. Raise 3.2.4 up a significan't amount, but not neccisarily as much as 3.2.1-3.
Viewcone 9.1 - Narrow view from left to be inline with Harbour Centre. Narrow it from right to about the stop-light post. Lower portion over BC place too roof Level of BC Place and allow 3-5 landmark towers (must be 200+ feet over base of viewcone to be landmark towers) to propagate the cone for some visual interaction with mountainline when viewed from the south, and towers to stand out and significantly extend the skyline east when viewed from the north.
Viewcone 9.2 - Eliminate the western portion fo the viewcone (9.2.1), and narrow 9.2.2 to align with treeline on the right, and tuck in the left a touch aswell. Allow 1 or 2 buildings to propagate viewcone.
Viewcone 20 - Very impacting viewcone. Raise it above housing line in North Van, widen it from street edge to street edge. Allow for several (5+) towers to propagate new viewcone.
Viewcone 21 - Narrow it to align with treeline on the right. Allow 3-5 towers to propagate viewcone.
Viewcone 22 - Raise it closer to level of towers on left. Allow several towers to propagate the viewcone.
Where I speak of buildings propagating viewcone, what I'm suggesting is that sites be selected where landmark or stand-out buildings can be placed i order to give the skyline more visual appeal, whilst providing least visual interference to viewcones. I suggest this for only the widest viewcones, as narrow towers in the distance wont do much to affect the overall view. Infact, it is hoped that having some buildings propagating the viewcone would add to the visual stigma of a mountain backdrop for a modern city by the sea.
I also tried to hint at it with my suggestions, but viewcones should be orientated down main streets, and across certain landmark structures such as BC Place. This would serve to make the landmarks more visually impacting and photogenic, while not criss-crossing development sites.
Without being able to run around the area with a camera, it is hard for me to come up with ideas for possible future viewcones that, while providing dramatic views fo the mountains with downtown in the foreground, would do the least to impact the vertical development of downtown.
Thoughs?
Prev
Linear Mode
