Vancouver view cone review

[Canadian Mind]

View cones were scaled back a few years ago. I think that as taller buildings go up, the city culture will be more accepting of them, and more viewcones will be shaved down and more tall buildings will come. Already we're seeing an upward trend. 10 years ago the norm was for 100 meter developments, 130 meters was the exception. Then Shangri-La and Fairmont came along and suddenly 140-160 meters became the norm and 200 meters the exception. We might sit at this trend for awhile now, but it's better than the way it was.

There isn't a lot of developable land left; however, there are a lot of sub-100 meter buildings that could be torn down and redeveloped into 200 meter buildings when the time comes. Examples would be across Thurlow from Shangri-La. There are two small office buildings in that block that do not sit in a view cone. Someday, those can be torn down, their lots amalgamated, and turned into something that is at least 200-250 meters tall without adjusting any viewcones.

[mukmuk64]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

So you think we should eliminate the viewcones then? Because it is nonsensical to advocate for the viewcones while simultaneously claiming they are unnecessary.

I have no absolutely idea what you are talking about. When did I state that the view cones are unnecessary?

[mukmuk64]

Originally Posted by Vin

I've always thought that if the original Olympic Village development were to be allowed to go a lot taller, each unit would have been sold cheaper.

What I'm getting at is if that the maximum height of the buildings in the olympic village area were restrained by view cones (I don't even know if this is true but let's go with it) the value of the land would have taken that into account, as the view cone policy is well established and well known. If the view cones allowed for buildings that were 10 stories higher, the land value would reflect this. In both cases the amount of profitability the developer can achieve is the same. Land is cheaper in the shorter building scenario, more expensive in the higher building scenario.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

What I'm getting at is if that the maximum height of the buildings in the olympic village area were restrained by view cones (I don't even know if this is true but let's go with it) the value of the land would have taken that into account, as the view cone policy is well established and well known. If the view cones allowed for buildings that were 10 stories higher, the land value would reflect this. In both cases the amount of profitability the developer can achieve is the same. Land is cheaper in the shorter building scenario, more expensive in the higher building scenario.

When the Olympic village was being constructed this was debated. When it came down to it, the density of the Olympic village was the same as developments on the peninsula. However, instead of the buildings being tall and widely spaced, they were flattened out and built closer together. I can't remember the exact reason why they did this, but it is a very European style of development. Either way, the number of units and total usable square footage wouldn't have been higher if they were built taller, they would be exactly the same.

The high prices are partially due to all the enviro-tech that went into building the village, partially because of the value of the general area, and partly because it's the Olympic Village. Prices have almost nothing to do with the height of the building themselves. The most influence the height could have had on price is the whole supply-demand principle: High demand for units in mid-rise developments, not a whole lot of midrise developments.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

When did I state that the view cones are unnecessary?

So you are conceding that it would be more economically efficient for developers to build taller than the viewcones allow?

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Delirium

really? how to do you explain that 7 class AAA office buildings totalling 2.2million sq/ft are expected to come to market between now and 2017?

have the view cones limited condo development? nope. too long of a list to name all the residential projects on the go right now.

so.. yeah. ok. real hurdle to development.

Having a hurdle in place does not equal inability to build. It does equal out to greater costs to both the developer, and consumers.

Ill boil this point down for simplicity.

There is a finite amount of building sites left in the Downtown peninsula.
These sites are further restricted in their use by view cones, lot size, set backs, etc.

There is a real scenario where downtown gets built out, no developable land left, unless restrictions are lifted and it becomes economically feasible to take something down and compensate for in greater FSR.

You have to consider that we impose very strict requirements on development here, for instance the requirements for park space, etc.

Something has to be accommodating - arbitrarily imposing hight restrictions on one of the most densely populated downtown cores seems silly.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by rofina

Having a hurdle in place does not equal inability to build. It does equal out to greater costs to both the developer, and consumers.

Ill boil this point down for simplicity.............
.......You have to consider that we impose very strict requirements on development here, for instance the requirements for park space, etc.

Something has to be accommodating - arbitrarily imposing hight restrictions on one of the most densely populated downtown cores seems silly.

Well said. Precisely. Thank you.

[mukmuk64]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

So you are conceding that it would be more economically efficient for developers to build taller than the viewcones allow?

I don't know what "economically efficient" means.

My position is that the view cones have no bearing on the profitability of developers' buildings, nor on the price of the units.

[mukmuk64]

Originally Posted by rofina

Having a hurdle in place does not equal inability to build. It does equal out to greater costs to both the developer, and consumers.

Ill boil this point down for simplicity.

There is a finite amount of building sites left in the Downtown peninsula.
These sites are further restricted in their use by view cones, lot size, set backs, etc.

There is a real scenario where downtown gets built out, no developable land left, unless restrictions are lifted and it becomes economically feasible to take something down and compensate for in greater FSR.

You have to consider that we impose very strict requirements on development here, for instance the requirements for park space, etc.

Something has to be accommodating - arbitrarily imposing hight restrictions on one of the most densely populated downtown cores seems silly.

Sounds like I can sign you up as a supporter for my plan of building condos in Stanley Park.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

My position is that the view cones have no bearing on the profitability of developers' buildings...

So there is no difference between building a 21-storey office building and a 48-storey office building? In either case, the amount of money a developer stands to make from the one is no greater than from the other, ceteris paribus?

Thus, you are back to claiming that the viewcones are unnecessary?

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

I don't know what "economically efficient" means.

My position is that the view cones have no bearing on the profitability of developers' buildings, nor on the price of the units.

That right there is a case of economic efficiency.

If FSR is no limitation, then in theory you could build as high as you can go and make more money for every floor you build. IIRC, it was said somewhere on SSP that your greatest return on investment is around the 800 foot mark for office buildings and 600ish for residential. Higher then that you still make money, but as a percentage of profit it begins to drop.

Example, 600 foot tower costs 500 million to build, but you get 600 million back (20% return). 800 foot tower costs 650 million to build, but you get 800 million back (23% return). 1000 foot tower costs 850 million to build, but you get 1 billion back (15% return).

So, if there is demand for a 600 foot tower, but view cone restricts you to 450 feet, you are forced to build an economically inefficient building. This is offset somewhat by the reduced demand (and thus higher prices), but is still inefficient compared to the 600 foot tower you could have built and made more money on.

[mukmuk64]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

That right there is a case of economic efficiency.

If FSR is no limitation, then in theory you could build as high as you can go and make more money for every floor you build. IIRC, it was said somewhere on SSP that your greatest return on investment is around the 800 foot mark for office buildings and 600ish for residential. Higher then that you still make money, but as a percentage of profit it begins to drop.

Example, 600 foot tower costs 500 million to build, but you get 600 million back (20% return). 800 foot tower costs 650 million to build, but you get 800 million back (23% return). 1000 foot tower costs 850 million to build, but you get 1 billion back (15% return).

So, if there is demand for a 600 foot tower, but view cone restricts you to 450 feet, you are forced to build an economically inefficient building. This is offset somewhat by the reduced demand (and thus higher prices), but is still inefficient compared to the 600 foot tower you could have built and made more money on.

Ok good I understand what we're talking about now when we talk about "economically inefficient" in this hypothetical sense.

My position that I'm working from is that in the real world the value of the land has a relationship to the zoning. I would expect the price of the land zoned for an 800 ft tower to reflect the potential value if one built a 800 ft tower there. So next door, which happens to be zoned for 600 ft, one would expect it to be a less expensive piece of property supposing there is no effect from people speculating that the zoning could be changed.

So in the real world scenario I've just explained doesn't the lessened price of the land that has been rendered economically inefficient due to zoning changes compensate the developer somewhat?

(I am a layperson, not a developer, not an economist, so honestly genuinely curious about this topic and well willing to believe my initial assumptions were incorrect)

[mukmuk64]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

So there is no difference between building a 21-storey office building and a 48-storey office building? In either case, the amount of money a developer stands to make from the one is no greater than from the other, ceteris paribus?

Thus, you are back to claiming that the viewcones are unnecessary?

Very much not ceteris paribus. I'm curious about the impact on zoning on the value of buildings in a real world situation. For example the difference in opinion between CP and CoV regarding how valuable the Arbutus Corridor is.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

I would expect the price of the land zoned for an 800 ft tower to reflect the potential value if one built a 800 ft tower there.

The price of the land does reflect the potential value of the land. But the potential value of the land is greater to the developer than the increased price he pays for it. Otherwise, there would be no point in spending his money if what he wants to buy is worth no more to him than what he must pay for it.

That's the entire rationale for the viewcone restrictions. In the absence of viewcone restrictions, developers would in many cases build taller than those restrictions currently allow. Why? Because it makes greater economic sense to do so. If it did not make greater economic sense to sometimes build taller than the current restrictions allow, then the necessity of the viewcone restrictions would cease to exist, since developers build for economic gain.

So a person cannot coherently advocate for viewcone restrictions while simultaneously claiming that developers have nothing to gain by building taller than those restrictions allow.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Vin

100s of viewcones in East Vancouver??! Views are not viewcones.

What's the difference. Why, for example, is the view at Jonathon Rogers Park in Lower Mt. Pleasant not designated?

[mukmuk64]

Prometheus I totally agree with everything you're saying. I understand the role that economic efficiency plays in terms of how a developer selects the height of the building, but what I was wondering about when I originally quoted you was about was whether for Joe Office Renter the effect of economic efficiency on his rental expenses was dominated by the effect of the land price.

For example is it possible for the situation to exist where Building A zoning allowed for a height with greater economic efficiency, but the land price was such that the developer saw similar returns to Building B, where the zoning allowed for lesser economic efficiency, but the land price was lower?

Or is this entire point I'm bringing up already factored into the optimal return on investment numbers that Canadian Mind explained?

Again I'm a layperson, not a developer so I'm very comfortable with being incorrect here.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

For example is it possible for the situation to exist where Building A zoning allowed for a height with greater economic efficiency, but the land price was such that the developer saw similar returns to Building B, where the zoning allowed for lesser economic efficiency, but the land price was lower?

I am a layperson too. But the reason why higher zoning justifies higher prices is because more intensive uses generate greater economic returns.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by mukmuk64

I don't know what "economically efficient" means.

My position is that the view cones have no bearing on the profitability of developers' buildings, nor on the price of the units.

The only reason why you don't see a noticeable price drop for a condo unit of a taller building in Vancouver: such a site is so rare! Hence the huge appreciation of the hard-to-come-by land price once it's rezoned. The imposition of viewcones makes the situation worse because every developer is clamoring for the priced piece of land allowed for taller structures. If sites allowed for taller buildings are more widely available, like along West Broadway, Olympic Village and parts of East Vancouver/Vancouver West-side, we would definitely see an ease of rising housing costs.

Vancouver's height restriction is actually a boost for suburban centre developments (Notice the condos there are getting taller and taller?). Those are places where developers do not have to worry too much about land-purchase competition, height restrictions, nimbys etc.

There would be no need to expand so far out with a sprawl if Vancouver were to allow much higher densities and heights.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

What's the difference. Why, for example, is the view at Jonathon Rogers Park in Lower Mt. Pleasant not designated?

The difference is, there is no real need for viewcones to be imposed in East Vancouver because it is mostly facing port lands and not the CBD. Trying to curtail tall buildings downtown isn't necessary in East Vancouver. Same thing why there is no imposition of viewcones on the West-side/UBC simply because there is no need (Most parts are facing Spanish Banks and Kitsilano beach).

But the point is, since we already have so much view of the Northshore mountains, why is there a need to impose heights of downtown structures just to protect the view corridors of selected areas immediately south of the peninsula? Are the people living around City Hall/Shaughnessey/Fairview Slopes more superior than those living elsewhere?

[mukmuk64]

Originally Posted by logan5

What's the difference. Why, for example, is the view at Jonathon Rogers Park in Lower Mt. Pleasant not designated?

Probably because it's in an industrial area with not a lot of community around to push city hall to protect the view. (I like it though!)

In contrast one of the newest protected views is the Olympic village, which is entirely residential and on a seawall corridor that receives tons of foot traffic.