Vancouver view cone review

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

There were really only 3 practical and good (great views of City Hall) viewcones and those 3 have a lot of recent development under them already. So not really a loss. Wish they kept the Rogers park one tho.

The other 5 many were blocked by trees or other parts of buildings or had shoddy slivers of view from weird viewpoints. We expected nothing less from talking with Staff earlier so this is reassuring.

Do you have a list of those viewcones? I only saw this in that Urban Design Guideline

New development in the blocks between 6th and 10th, Heather to Cambie should not obstruct views of City Hall from the downtown and bridges crossing False Creek. Roof elevations should not exceed the city elevation of 250 feet (6 storey maximum).

https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/guid...l-broadway.pdf

[whatnext]

This makes sense it’s just a building (not the mountains). Plenty of more interesting architecture has been boxed in that used to have much more visibility.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Do you have a list of those viewcones? I only saw this in that Urban Design Guideline



https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/guid...l-broadway.pdf

Ya there's that and then a few on the other side. I only know the exact position of them because an architect gave them to us from another project. I think they are in the Broadway Report that's before council next week.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by chowhou

How many people are crossing the Cambie Bridge and taking the time to admire City Hall? These views have zero value to anyone.

I like the view of City Hall from Cambie

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I like the view of City Hall from Cambie

Alright prove me wrong why dontcha! Personally when I've walked across the Cambie bridge my eyes are drawn to False Creek, Yaletown, and SFC, not the tiny city hall in the distance, but you do you!

Hopefully you wouldn't mind if there was a bigger rectangle in front of city hall.

[GenWhy?]

To be honest the total lots affected by the revised viewcones with development potential is very low. The largest area of development potential requires buying the lane from the City and a massive amount of lot assembly, I guess there's also the City -owned lots by the subway station, 2 potential development sites west along Cambie with 1 proposal we've already seen for about a 12-storey office building.

The 2nd viewcone,(K) affects only the development potential of the current Cactus Club site. It's all fairly harmless.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Alright prove me wrong why dontcha! Personally when I've walked across the Cambie bridge my eyes are drawn to False Creek, Yaletown, and SFC, not the tiny city hall in the distance, but you do you!

Hopefully you wouldn't mind if there was a bigger rectangle in front of city hall.

Lol, I enjoy the view but I would not throw a fit if it was lost.

[Migrant_Coconut]

IIRC the proposed office building at 8th (replacing the liquor store) lost a couple floors because of the 'cone; is it possible for them to reapply?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

IIRC the proposed office building at 8th (replacing the liquor store) lost a couple floors because of the 'cone; is it possible for them to reapply?

Probably due to the viewcone facing north?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

IIRC the proposed office building at 8th (replacing the liquor store) lost a couple floors because of the 'cone; is it possible for them to reapply?

I'm not sure there's an application to replace the liquor store yet. There is an office building across the lane on West 8th, that was rezoned from 3 FSR to 6.5 FSR that was required to meet the to View Cone 9.2.1, Cambie Street, and Central Broadway C-3A Urban Design Guidelines for the Fairview Slopes. Initially it was 9 storeys, but that was was just in the view of City Hall, so they revised the design to 8 storeys, but still with the same floorspace. In terms of revised policy it's all a bit theoretical now, as it's been built.

[Feathered Friend]

Ara Ghougassian @araghougassian
Ken Sim isn't it your words that we don't have a "shadow crisis we have a housing crisis" Woudn't it make sense to ask staff to update the view cones? Peter Meiszner it's limiting our cities growth, in a time where we need more housing then ever. Any plan to change this?

Peter Meiszner 裴智勵/裴智励 @PeterMeiszner
Hi both, I have a motion coming forward Oct. 4 on this precise issue.
4:02 PM · Sep 22, 2023

https://x.com/PeterMeiszner/status/1...220328717?s=20

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I'm not sure there's an application to replace the liquor store yet.

Here's a 6 storey proposal that never made it to rezoning.

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public...ectId=76859322

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://x.com/PeterMeiszner/status/1...220328717?s=20

This is great news. We recently landed some huge gains when they got rid of a few City Hall viewcones and I imagine the same for potential condo towers downtown.

QE viewcone would be a game-changer for rental, however.

[Jimbo604]

Non-Twitter reference:

https://council.vancouver.ca/2023091...0230912min.pdf

At last council meeting he submitted a councilor's notice of motion on the "modernization of view protection to unlock new housing and economic opportunities" that "may be placed" on the Standing Committee on Policy and Strategic Priorities' Oct 4th meeting agenda.

Just over a week away...

[logan5]

Curious to see what the proposal is. Would the CoV consider abolishing the QE viewcone altogether? Probly not.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by madog222

Here's a 6 storey proposal that never made it to rezoning.

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public...ectId=76859322

It's not clear whether something was submitted, or just inquired about. CRS's website suggest something was submitted.

[WarrenC12]

I'd ditch any "shadow studies" before view cones. Those are a waste of effort and pointless. People often want shade FFS.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'd ditch any "shadow studies" before view cones. Those are a waste of effort and pointless. People often want shade FFS.

Somewhere in the craziness it was deemed acceptable to block building developments for causing too many shadows, then demand more trees get planted in order to provide much needed shade!

[Migrant_Coconut]

I'm guessing most of the affordable supply gains would be between Oak and Main? Downtown basically only gets a prettier silhouette by lifting the cones.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'd ditch any "shadow studies" before view cones. Those are a waste of effort and pointless. People often want shade FFS.

It's probably sampling bias - City Hall staff, council and their focus groups are more likely to be the demographic that likes cloudless 30°C weather.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I'm guessing most of the affordable supply gains would be between Oak and Main? Downtown basically only gets a prettier silhouette by lifting the cones.

I can only answer for south of False Creek, but viewcone analysis we did for Broadway Plan, under the current heights we're allowed, on the specific lots we looks at and due to those site's height above sea level...

The QE viewcone with the most impact was the old 3.2.4A. The revised version under the Plan cut a few potential towers from the max height allowed in the plan down to about 14-storeys, and now we can get 17 with max allowable FSR.

I don't have any sites yet between Columbia and Heather south of 10th Ave, but the hospital and the Ukrainian church are high points so you might only be allowed 14 to 16 storeys under current policy in most areas?