HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #641  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 4:03 AM
Infrequent Poster Infrequent Poster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 613
"Edmonton (yes, little Edmonton) will be passing Vancouver's skyline by in terms of vertical boldness within the next three years. All of the new towers depicted above (with the exception of the curved stubby one to the right of the tallest) are currently under construction or imminently beginning construction. The tallest (Stantec) is already under construction and will tower over Vancouver's Shangri-La by 54 metres when completed in 2018."


I agree. Its kind of pathetic in my opinion. I mean really I see Vancouver's suburbs as soon to be (in some ways all ready are) passing by the city of vancouvers skyline.

It crushes me seeing some of the fantastic proposals coming up for Vancouver at such modest. modest heights.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #642  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 6:24 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Shangri-La and Trump are midgets compared to Edmonton's newest tallest under construction.



Edmonton (yes, little Edmonton) will be passing Vancouver's skyline by in terms of vertical boldness within the next three years. All of the new towers depicted above (with the exception of the curved stubby one to the right of the tallest) are currently under construction or imminently beginning construction. At 251 metres, the tallest (Stantec) is already under construction and will tower over Vancouver's Shangri-La and Trump by 54 metres and 63 metres, respectively, when completed in 2018.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilman View Post
^ Exaggerate much??? Six months ago the parkade floors were still being poured. The podium takes a while as it is bigger/different than the normal floors above it. Looks like they are on floors 8 or 9 right now with the elevator shaft growing at a rate of around 1 floor per week.






http://www.rogersplace.com/time-lapse/
Serious skyscraper construction in Edmonton now, without the hindrance of stupid viewcones, of course.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #643  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 7:57 PM
s211 s211 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 8,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
Serious skyscraper construction in Edmonton now, without the hindrance of stupid viewcones, of course.
Actually, they are benefiting from the removal of airport overlay height restrictions!
__________________
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
     
     
  #644  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 8:53 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by s211 View Post
Actually, they are benefiting from the removal of airport overlay height restrictions!
Yup, sounds more forward thinking than what we have here. At least they remove something redundant.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #645  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2015, 11:34 PM
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,829
Building tall is a whole lot easier and less contentious in Calgary and here in this example, Edmonton, simply bacause the lanscape is flat.
There are no sacred downtown splinter views of mountain peaks that are considered so sacred that blocking them will cause the Great Spirit to call the Raven to take your soul away.
Oh, and never mind the fact that if the mountains are not visible from your home, office, and certain parks and street intersections,
they are alwys visible from Burnaby, Queen Elizabeth Park, the beaches of Point Grey and Stanley park, among aother locations.
Can you see Twin Peaks, BOTH bridges, Marin County from every home or office window, or every street corner in SF? Obviously not!
But such parallel local scenery views are easy to come by in SF, as they are in Vancouver.
End the Viecones. End of rant. Thank you for your time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #646  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2015, 6:33 PM
Vancity's Avatar
Vancity Vancity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Richmond, BC
Posts: 1,637
Vancouver is a city with tremendous, great potential in every aspect. yet, what holds this city back in so many ways is it's leadership, or lack thereof. i love the mountains, as the next vancouverite, but c'mon. they ain't going anywhere. let's move this city on up, either remove those viewcones, or relax them to the point where architects can actually design taller, beautiful buildings. i hate the tabletop view of downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #647  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2015, 6:08 PM
EastVanMark EastVanMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vancity View Post
Vancouver is a city with tremendous, great potential in every aspect. yet, what holds this city back in so many ways is it's leadership, or lack thereof. i love the mountains, as the next vancouverite, but c'mon. they ain't going anywhere. let's move this city on up, either remove those viewcones, or relax them to the point where architects can actually design taller, beautiful buildings. i hate the tabletop view of downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #648  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2015, 7:15 PM
itom 987's Avatar
itom 987 itom 987 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,046
Don't look towards Edmonton, look at Seattle and Hong Kong for inspiration, those cities has mountains and tall buildings. Vancouver's downtown is situated in an area where tall buildings would look absolutely amazing among the mountains and water. Vancouver could be even more photogenic than it is now. The view cones are a joke.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #649  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2015, 3:18 PM
s211 s211 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 8,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by itom 987 View Post
Don't look towards Edmonton, look at Seattle and Hong Kong for inspiration, those cities has mountains and tall buildings. Vancouver's downtown is situated in an area where tall buildings would look absolutely amazing among the mountains and water. Vancouver could be even more photogenic than it is now. The view cones are a joke.
Seattle has a new tallest in the design stage right now.

However, back in the 90s they did institute a height cap in response to NIMBY backlash when they went throught a big office development spurt in the late 80s / early 90s, which was subsequently dissolved, but I don't recall the details.

__________________
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
     
     
  #650  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2015, 3:37 AM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,182
These two renderings are from Westend Community Plan and Nelson on the Park project's open house material. Posting them both in here for our records and future discussions.



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #651  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2015, 3:37 AM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,182
So this is from the Nelson on the Park project's open house material. My question is regarding this picture and the idea about a Dome shape skyline when viewed from west.

Is this an official direction how the City wants our skyline to evolve? I don't recall such 2035 plan having been mentioned before, so I find it very interesting. If yes, why would the shape be from west? That is one of the directions where there is no natural place to see it like this (Cypress outlook is NW), so why would our skyline need to evolve around this kind of priciple? Perhaps the dome could be seen from Burnaby Mountain, but not much elsewhere.

Can anyone name where those tall new sites that I numbered might be at? I have hard time remembering any sites allowing such tall towers around those locations. Where did they pull these from?


Last edited by Klazu; Nov 3, 2015 at 4:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #652  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2015, 5:01 AM
Locked In's Avatar
Locked In Locked In is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,974
From what I gather, the dome-shaped skyline idea came up during the height review in 1996-97. There are a bunch of related documents here that discuss the various options the City was considering: http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...tudy/index.htm
See page 17 of this PDF for some primitive renders: http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...study/appa.pdf

Interesting that the "750 foot landmark" skyline option was by far the most popular at the open houses: http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...study/appf.pdf.
There are some illustrations of the "750 foot" option on page 9 of this PDF - it also indicates that there are "many alternative sites" for 1 or 2 towers of that height - the more recent height review narrowed it down to one site at Georgia and Burrard... http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...study/appa.pdf

A few of the City's current policies still refer to the dome shape (it gets passing mention in the West End Plan).
__________________
My Flickr Photostream
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #653  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2015, 5:12 AM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 6,848
"Gap-Tooth Skyline" lol. Thats where the skyline seems to be headed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #654  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2015, 6:47 AM
Infrequent Poster Infrequent Poster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
So this is from the Nelson on the Park project's open house material. My question is regarding this picture and the idea about a Dome shape skyline when viewed from west.

Is this an official direction how the City wants our skyline to evolve? I don't recall such 2035 plan having been mentioned before, so I find it very interesting. [B]If yes, why would the shape be from west? That is one of the directions where there is no natural place to see it like this (Cypress outlook is NW), so why would our skyline need to evolve around this kind of priciple?[/B] Perhaps the dome could be seen from Burnaby Mountain, but not much elsewhere.

Can anyone name where those tall new sites that I numbered might be at? I have hard time remembering any sites allowing such tall towers around those locations. Where did they pull these from?

Yup I agree thats a head scratcher, but not entirely surprising. I can see someone at city hall having been on the ferry or a boat, and deciding that they need to plan the development of the entire downtown core for the next 30 years because they liked the view from there. Despite the fact no resident of the city can even see that view from within city limits.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #655  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2015, 3:58 PM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,182
I know you are joking, but that's indeed what comes to mind. I do like the idea of dome shape skyline and have no problem with it. That 2035 skyline actually looks impressive but I would hope it to be visible. Although if it is going to be a three-dimensional dome, then the same shape should appear from other directions as well.

To return to my other question, does anyone have any idea what those numbered mystery lots would be? I cannot think of them all being part of the sites identified in the Westend Community Plan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #656  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2015, 5:58 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
They are just placemarks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #657  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2015, 6:16 PM
EastVanMark EastVanMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locked In View Post
From what I gather, the dome-shaped skyline idea came up during the height review in 1996-97. There are a bunch of related documents here that discuss the various options the City was considering: http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...tudy/index.htm
See page 17 of this PDF for some primitive renders: http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...study/appa.pdf

Interesting that the "750 foot landmark" skyline option was by far the most popular at the open houses: http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...study/appf.pdf.
There are some illustrations of the "750 foot" option on page 9 of this PDF - it also indicates that there are "many alternative sites" for 1 or 2 towers of that height - the more recent height review narrowed it down to one site at Georgia and Burrard... http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...study/appa.pdf

A few of the City's current policies still refer to the dome shape (it gets passing mention in the West End Plan).
Thank you so much for posting those documents! Had seen them before, but just could not locate them online. They are a textbook example of what residents truly think about the skyline; not just rhetoric, and the imposition of personal views and tastes from certain elements of City Hall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #658  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2015, 6:40 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,218
It's such a shame that no tall buildings are included near the waterfront area in the CBD based on the dome model, meaning CBD office towers are always deemed to be on the short side in that part of town, made even worse when coupled with viewcone policies. Therefore I do not like the fact that cities must stringently grow based on the dome concept. Again it restricts potentials, and is just one of the many barriers on top of viewcones, shadowing, OCPs and a few others.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #659  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2016, 10:15 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,218
https://www.biv.com/article/2016/1/o...treet-new-sur/

Looks like viewcones and height/other restrictions are solely to blame on why we can't have more office towers, especially the tall ones, and also why rents are so expensive. Our potential to grow as an international city is heavily curtailed.

The same theory can be applied to other commercial spaces like retail as well as residential.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #660  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2016, 10:33 PM
s211 s211 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 8,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
https://www.biv.com/article/2016/1/o...treet-new-sur/

Looks like viewcones and height/other restrictions are solely to blame on why we can't have more office towers, especially the tall ones, and also why rents are so expensive. Our potential to grow as an international city is heavily curtailed.

The same theory can be applied to other commercial spaces like retail as well as residential.
I'm not a fan of view cones one bit, but it's highly spurious to claim they curtail potential office development, and just as spurious to claim they're to blame for high rents.
__________________
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
     
     
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 > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:52 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.