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

[officedweller]

Also see this blog here:

http://voony.wordpress.com/2012/10/2...istory-part-1/

http://voony.wordpress.com/2012/10/2...downtown-core/


http://voony.wordpress.com/2012/10/2...istory-part-1/


http://voony.wordpress.com/2012/10/2...istory-part-1/



http://voony.wordpress.com/2012/10/2...istory-part-1/


http://voony.wordpress.com/2012/10/2...istory-part-1/


http://voony.wordpress.com/2012/10/2...downtown-core/

[Bcasey25raptor]

As much as I love CoV and Downtown, I have to be honest.

I think that Burnaby will see the next 200m + skyscraper in Vancouver, Probably around either brentwood or metrotown.

Theres just way more space around there and burnaby has no view cones.

[red-paladin]

As 180+m buildings are being proposed in Burnaby right now, I see no reason other than demand why 200+m buildings won't eventually happen.

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

As much as I love CoV and Downtown, I have to be honest.

I think that Burnaby will see the next 200m + skyscraper in Vancouver, Probably around either brentwood or metrotown.

Theres just way more space around there and burnaby has no view cones.

I'd have to agree. I think Burnaby will have more 200+ meter buildings, and soon too. Vancouver, it'll be difficult for them, since view cones are so sacred. they won't ever build 200+ meters of any kind of building in my lifetime.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

As much as I love CoV and Downtown, I have to be honest.

I think that Burnaby will see the next 200m + skyscraper in Vancouver, Probably around either brentwood or metrotown.

Theres just way more space around there and burnaby has no view cones.

Originally Posted by Vancity

I'd have to agree. I think Burnaby will have more 200+ meter buildings, and soon too. Vancouver, it'll be difficult for them, since view cones are so sacred. they won't ever build 200+ meters of any kind of building in my lifetime.

Trying to find the positive aspect to the height issue, think of it this way; Vancouver will be very distinctive
among world cities as being about the only one where the suburbs are built higher than downtown. That is certainly not the "norm" at present.

[spm2013]

Well I guess it depends on the economics of someone buying the Burrard Building and making a business case for building a skyscraper there. Though its hard not to see Burnaby getting one first.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by spm2013

Well I guess it depends on the economics of someone buying the Burrard Building and making a business case for building a skyscraper there. Though its hard not to see Burnaby getting one first.

Someone told me that the Burrard Building site was restricted by viewcones. Nonetheless, I'd love to see "the big one" built there.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Trying to find the positive aspect to the height issue, think of it this way; Vancouver will be very distinctive
among world cities as being about the only one where the suburbs are built higher than downtown. That is certainly not the "norm" at present.

I believe you live in one of those cities at present.

Downtown will always be downtown, regardless of how tall Surrey or Burnaby build.

That said I hope to see Burnaby Surrey etc... go tall, because I love tall buildings and if we could get clusters of them in Burnaby and Surrey with downtown remaining the livable, medium height area that it is I think that would be the best of both worlds.

Looking out from your downtown condo to skylines in burnaby 200-300M tall would be a pretty damn cool sight

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I believe you live in one of those cities at present.

Downtown will always be downtown, regardless of how tall Surrey or Burnaby build.

That said I hope to see Burnaby Surrey etc... go tall, because I love tall buildings and if we could get clusters of them in Burnaby and Surrey with downtown remaining the livable, medium height area that it is I think that would be the best of both worlds.

Looking out from your downtown condo to skylines in burnaby 200-300M tall would be a pretty damn cool sight

And imagine the views from Metrotown when you look west and see downtown Vancouver, North and see Brentwood, and East and eventually see Surrey + New West + Edmonds.

For skyscrapers and skyline views, Metrotown may end up being where its at in that regard. Not to mention you still get a pretty good view of the mountains. That to me would encourage further tall residential towers in the area.

[spm2013]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Someone told me that the Burrard Building site was restricted by viewcones. Nonetheless, I'd love to see "the big one" built there.

Yeah, but they're making an exception for that some landmark buildings. The Burrard Building site was specifically outlined on some other map for being one of those landmark sites by the city.

General Policy for Higher Buildings
The following should be considered when reviewing proposals for Higher Buildings (i.e. those which significantly exceed current height limits and/or enter into the Queen Elizabeth View Corridor):

Higher Buildings will only be permitted within the areas identified below in Figure 1;

The tallest buildings ( i.e. ~ 550-700’) should be located within the Central Business District with the tallest buildings (i.e. ~ 700’) located on one of Vancouver’s three primary streets: West Georgia, Burrard and Granville;

Secondary heights may be considered for buildings at the Granville and Burrard Bridgeheads with a single prominent tower (~ 500’) in axial alignment with the Burrard Bridge, and two towers framing the Granville Bridge Gateway (~ 425’);

All other application for additional height at these two bridgehead locations should be analyzed to ensure that the experiential intent of these gateways is maintained;

All Higher Buildings must establish a significant and recognizable new benchmark for architectural creativity and excellence, while making a significant contribution to the beauty and visual power of the city’s skyline;

Higher buildings should demonstrate leadership and advances in sustainable design and energy consumption and as a result must be subjected, not only to current review requirements, but also to review by a Council appointed panel including respected community leaders, notable local and international design experts, and leaders in sustainable design;

All Higher Buildings must significantly demonstrate and advance the city’s objective for carbon neutrality for new buildings with a stated objective to achieve a 40-50% reduction in energy consumption from 2010 levels;

An enhanced review for buildings with a proposed height of 550’ or more as well as for the Granville Bridge Gateway buildings (~ 425’) and the landmark building in axial alignment with the Burrard Bridge (~ 500’) will include two international design experts joining the panel in addition to the two local experts.

There will be special public engagement, such as a public forum, or guest lecture, should be held featuring the guest panel members and experts to expand public discussion and education around architectural excellence and green design in Vancouver.

http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/report...n-2013-nov.pdf

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by jhausner

And imagine the views from Metrotown when you look west and see downtown Vancouver, North and see Brentwood, and East and eventually see Surrey + New West + Edmonds.

For skyscrapers and skyline views, Metrotown may end up being where its at in that regard. Not to mention you still get a pretty good view of the mountains. That to me would encourage further tall residential towers in the area.

Yup. Metrotown really is the only place that has spectacular north, west, and east facing views of the mountains and the city town centres. Being perched on a hill helps, as well as being geographically centered in the GVRD. Some people can tacitly consent to Metrotown being the new future core.

[Procrastinational]

I have a feeling that somewhere down the road, maybe in 10 years, maybe in 30, real estate prices continuously rising in Vancouver will put a lot of pressure on height restrictions. If they aren't eventually lifted, I could see most, or even all of the offices being squeezed out of Downtown, and into Burnaby or Surrey.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

Yup. Metrotown really is the only place that has spectacular north, west, and east facing views of the mountains and the city town centres. Being perched on a hill helps, as well as being geographically centered in the GVRD. Some people can tacitly consent to Metrotown being the new future core.

That being the case, they'll have to spiff up Kingsway (and the adjacent streets) greatly. Kingsway is still tacky and suburban-looking, and few people seem to care.

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

I have a feeling that somewhere down the road, maybe in 10 years, maybe in 30, real estate prices continuously rising in Vancouver will put a lot of pressure on height restrictions. If they aren't eventually lifted, I could see most, or even all of the offices being squeezed out of Downtown, and into Burnaby or Surrey.

ALL the offices squeezed out of Vancouver? Or just a lot of them? If they are ALL pushed out, then that would mean that the Marine Building, the MNP Tower, the Royal Centre, TD Centre, etc etc, will either need to be converted to residential, abandoned , or demolished (which I rather doubt). Anyway, it would make Metro Vancouver one of the most diffuse cities in the world by land and building use. Or am I wrong?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

I have a feeling that somewhere down the road, maybe in 10 years, maybe in 30, real estate prices continuously rising in Vancouver will put a lot of pressure on height restrictions. If they aren't eventually lifted, I could see most, or even all of the offices being squeezed out of Downtown, and into Burnaby or Surrey.

I am intent on starting the trend. To me, having viewcones is the silliest policy, ever. Metrotown will never be downtown because it is not the region's financial, tourist and commercial centre, at least for the foreseeable future. It also does not have a coast that has made Vancouver's downtown so vibrant in many ways. Very tall residential buildings in Metrotown or other suburb centres will never be the same as downtown.

To start, I would love to see the Broadway corridor going really tall. It has to, eventually, as it is an extension of downtown.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

That being the case, they'll have to spiff up Kingsway (and the adjacent streets) greatly. Kingsway is still tacky and suburban-looking, and few people seem to care.


ALL the offices squeezed out of Vancouver? Or just a lot of them? If they are ALL pushed out, then that would mean that the Marine Building, the MNP Tower, the Royal Centre, TD Centre, etc etc, will either need to be converted to residential, abandoned , or demolished (which I rather doubt). Anyway, it would make Metro Vancouver one of the most diffuse cities in the world by land and building use. Or am I wrong?

It can happen in the future if the regional cities offer way more modern and tall office towers than the minuscule ones that downtown Vancouver has.

[GMasterAres]

Unless something drastic happens to the region and Vancouver as a whole, I have my doubts that it will ever stop being the major "downtown" for the region. Burnaby and Surrey are decades behind and have a lot of major challenges, largely road grids that form a good downtown core, and in addition for Surrey, a reputation that is going to be difficult to ultimately shake.

Vancouver's grid was really well built for the notion of a downtown with back alleys and lane ways everywhere.

It also has 50+ years of time over the others and was compressed forcing towers to be built 50+ years ago. Look at major cities that aren't quite so compressed like Los Angeles. LA is not terribly smaller than New York City but it has a huge amount of land to build on and as such has sprawled out and its downtown core, for a city with nearly half the population of Canada combined, is not huge. Then you have New York City which has a lot of land constraints, and blamo thousands of towers.

I certainly think Burnaby and Surrey will come into their own eventually, and it seems Burnaby is really pushing these days and succeeding. I actually think we may, in 5-10 years, need to also add Coquitlam to the chorus of major town centers outside Vancouver itself.

But Vancouver will always be the center, and most likely for the next 20+ years when you're speaking to people outside the region, you'll continue (like I do) to say you live in Vancouver even if you don't technically just because that's what people recognize. Let's face it, it wasn't the Whistler, West Vancouver, or Richmond Winter Olympics even though a large bulk of events didn't even happen in the borders of Vancouver.

It was the Vancouver Winter Olympics. That's what is recognized, and will continue to be in our lifetimes.

[spm2013]

Anyone know of any other large cities around the world that uses viewcones?

EDIT: Answered my own question

A protected view or protected vista is the legal requirement within urban planning to preserve the view of a specific place or historic building from another location. The effect of a protected view is to limit the height of new buildings within or adjacent to the sightline between the two places so as to preserve the ability to see the landmark as a focus of the view. The protection may also cover the area behind the place or building concerned.

For example, in London views of St Paul's Cathedral[1] are protected from various prominent locations around the city. In Edinburgh, a 2005 skyline study compiled a list of almost 170 key views which will now be protected in the planning process.[2]

Protected views are not unique to the UK, also existing in places such as San Francisco which has some of the strictest limits in the world;[3] Portland, Oregon where the size of downtown blocks is kept low to maintain the views of Mount Hood from the West Hills; and the city of Vancouver which has protected "view cones".[4][5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_view

[rofina]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Unless something drastic happens to the region and Vancouver as a whole, I have my doubts that it will ever stop being the major "downtown" for the region. Burnaby and Surrey are decades behind and have a lot of major challenges, largely road grids that form a good downtown core, and in addition for Surrey, a reputation that is going to be difficult to ultimately shake.

Vancouver's grid was really well built for the notion of a downtown with back alleys and lane ways everywhere.

It also has 50+ years of time over the others and was compressed forcing towers to be built 50+ years ago. Look at major cities that aren't quite so compressed like Los Angeles. LA is not terribly smaller than New York City but it has a huge amount of land to build on and as such has sprawled out and its downtown core, for a city with nearly half the population of Canada combined, is not huge. Then you have New York City which has a lot of land constraints, and blamo thousands of towers.

I certainly think Burnaby and Surrey will come into their own eventually, and it seems Burnaby is really pushing these days and succeeding. I actually think we may, in 5-10 years, need to also add Coquitlam to the chorus of major town centers outside Vancouver itself.

But Vancouver will always be the center, and most likely for the next 20+ years when you're speaking to people outside the region, you'll continue (like I do) to say you live in Vancouver even if you don't technically just because that's what people recognize. Let's face it, it wasn't the Whistler, West Vancouver, or Richmond Winter Olympics even though a large bulk of events didn't even happen in the borders of Vancouver.

It was the Vancouver Winter Olympics. That's what is recognized, and will continue to be in our lifetimes.

I agree, but I also think that a quiet exodus of business and residents will continue into the surrounding cities.

Burnaby is making a strong push into establishing itself into an independent city, building up MetroTown, Brentwood. The key is that the city is not just focused on residential density but office and retail too. Metropolis has long been a destination mall for Metro Vancouver. I think the new vision for Brentwood will too make it a destination, not unlike what Metropolis accomplished nearly 30 years ago.

Not to mention the cost of building in Burnaby is a fraction of DT, between land prices and logistics DT is a nightmare. Suitable building sites are hard to come by now too.

I think economics over the next few decades favour the models Burnaby, Surrey, etc are working with.