PT’s exceptionally well-informed commenter Guest typically adds helpful information and insight to posts on Vancouver development. This one in particular deserves its own post:
There are a few brutal examples where view cones screw up a project immensely.
The first is the Main Post Office redevelopment. There are view cones over the site – so what we get is short and squat and closely spaced blocky towers instead of a couple of taller towers.
The next area of concern is the Waterfront Station Hub area. Regardless of the specifics of the “Ice Pick” project, the heights in the vicinity of the biggest transit hub in the region (to the north of the station over the railway tracks) will be limited by the same City Hall / 12th Ave. view cone noted above. (Note the view cone line next to the Harbour Centre observation deck in the pic below.)
The next example is the site of the current Hudson’s Bay parkade (owned by Holborn). The site is adjacent to the Granville Station (whose ticketing hall is directly under Seymour St. next to the parkade, allowing a direct connection akin to the Bentall Centre and Royal Centre connections to Burrard Station). But the Bay parkade site is limited by view cones to about 300 feet.
What you’ll end up seeing built on that site is a short squat project probably similar to the Main Post Office massing – probably with little to no open space.
While the view cones may protect the distant view from a few miles away at Cambie & 12th, the local immediate impact on the streets adjacent to the actual building site is to create a windy, pedestrian unfriendly canyon.
Consolidate PO, Q E & art gallery blocks with hamilton ,cambie & dunsmuir streets & build something creative
I think building a “lid” between the QE and the new art gallery at Larwill Park would be a really good cultural venue, while preserving the city grid. It would the QE Plaza a lot larger.
True, the post office will be an eyesore but that has more to do with a lack of creativity.
Humans can be surprisingly creative when they have to be.
Try harder.
Chipping away at the view cones is not the answer. That’s like chipping away at the ALR because it’s easier than sticking to the plan.
The Post Office site is 130,000 sq. ft. in size. The existing zoning allows 7 FSR, or 910,000 sq. ft. of above grade construction, which is a very substantial development project. (Anything below grade isn’t counted as FSR).
The first version of the proposed development tried to get nearly 13 FSR or over 1,6 million sq. ft. of building onto the site. The revised version, responding to criticism that the massing was just too much, still has 12.08 FSRR or 1,570,000 sq. ft. of construction (including the existing heritage building). That’s still a huge development.
The developers bought the building knowing the limitations of the site, including the viewcone limits across the site. They’ve attempted to maximize the amount of development they can pile on top, without really succeeding in designing something appealing because the spaces between the added blocks is still too mean, and the sheer scale of those blocks is still too much.
Given the trajectory of property values, and especially Downtown land values, the original price would probably seem like a bargain today, so reducing the overall development volume shouldn’t be impossible. That’s even more the case for the Bay Parkade block (which isn’t quite the whole block). Holborn bought that over a decade ago, and it must have appreciated in value substantially, while still earning income from the parkade. As with the Post Office, the viewcones haven’t changed since it was bought.
There’s are interesting comparisons with Toronto developments on similar scale. There’s a large site with heritage buildings that Westbank bought from Honest Ed’s, and are planning a project called Mirvish Village with heights quite similar to those limited by the viewcones here – around 300 feet in a couple of places. Designed by Vancouver’s Henriquez Architects, it has a total density of 5.69 FSR. Another Westbank project in Toronto, with Allied Properties, on King West, despite being designed by Bjarke Ingles, and under 200 feet high, is getting a tough ride from the Toronto Design Review Panel for having too much density.
Apparently there’s a new revised design coming for the Post Office. With luck it’ll be just a bit less massive, and more generous with the spaces between the newly added elements. The density will no doubt be slightly less – but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing – it’ll still be a very large project with substantial employment and housing additions to the Downtown.
Don’t forget the Jenga tower two years ago: http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/jenga-tower-downtown-vancouver/
We all like the mountains, but surely we can appreciate their splendour without constantly hedge-trimming our equally splendid skyline?
The view cone in question originates from the middle of 10th and Cambie intersection; created to preserve a view…. from a car.
Yet, on the other hand, there are no view cones designed to protect views for riders of the Skytrain.
Perhaps, as attitudes have changed and the city has also changed, some of the current view cones do need to be questioned and new view cone locations established.
WHen I emerge of the underground transit, at Cambie, I greatly appreciate the reconnection with the mountains. It could be for a brief instant, but a priceless one
you can enjoy on the crosswalk.
Someone in a previous post mentioned Paris. Paris is littered by viewcones:
below are all the view cones covering the “Champs Elysees” area :
http://www.sppef.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/sppef_plan-des-fuseaux.jpg
the Orange view cone preserve the view on the Louvre museum:
When in the 80, the architect was wanting to enhance the museum, it has little choice, with all the constraint, so Pei Built this:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Y6Qrts0n6No/UL0GKXpqk2I/AAAAAAAAQqg/-OV9h-Oy2zI/s1600/pyramide_du_louvre_1.jpg
it is not infringing the orange viewcone (which is by the way in the middle of a 10 lane avenue) since it is hidden by the historic “carrousel du louvre” arch you see behind the pyramid
In regard of the “brutal example” exposed by “guess”:
is it possible to think the problem resides more with the architect skills than with the viewcone policy?
There is no protected view cone when you emerge from transit at Cambie and Broadway. The NEFC towers in question wouldn’t be seen from that point anyway as the commercial buildings on Broadway block the view of their proposed location and the mountains behind them.
The view point in question is a block south at 10th and Cambie.
Difference is that Paris’ viewcones only block certain corridors; Vancouver’s cover four-fifths of downtown: http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/Canadian_Mind/media/bWVkaWFJZDoxNTI4NzYwMg==/?ref=
If not removed, they definitely need to be relaxed. Doesn’t matter how “skilled” the architect is if his/her creativity gets hidden behind all the cookie-cutter James Cheng condos around it.
There’s also the fact that Vancouver is literally surrounded by mountains on all sides, whereas Paris isn’t surrounded Louvres.
There’s not a lack of mountain vistas in Vancouver unless the weather prevents it. I’m still amazed how they can be considered a precious resource. I used to have a view out my bedroom of Grouse Mountain, now I can see the back of a Library. I can’t complain, having a library is great.
I am pretty sure, everyone understand that sitting a few meter away down from the theoretical view cone origin, doesn’t prevent to enjoy most of its benefits.
I mentioned Paris, in reference to this comment</a., to remind
(1) view cone policy is not a Vancouver specific thing and (2) this policy doesn't prevent great architecture be in Paris or Vancouver (Shangri la example come to mind).
The origin of this post is the 10th avenue viewcone infringement by the NEFC plan.
thought I don't disagree with some comment above (it make more sense to me to have a view cone at Broadway#Cambie rather Cambie#10th since it concerns much more people,), that said I share the Toderian concerns on the precedent setting as he has expressed here:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DU6C5GqVwAAvBn7.jpg
I believe the NEFC plan could go undamaged without infringing into the viewcone (btw, no rationale is provided in the NEFC document for that).
It will be still ample time afterward, to reconsider the view cone issue in a more targeted discussion on the topic encompassing not only the NEFC, but other "iconic" locations such as the canadaPost, or the waterfront station.
In the meantime, I agree with this toderian aphorism "density should follow form, not the other way around"
…And that is what is clearly not done in the Guess example
Voony, Paris’s view cones are OF the city. Vancouver’s are DESPITE the city. Big difference.
An old prof of mine used to refer to Vancouver’s “cult of the view” and Vancouver being a “setting in search of a city.” That was in the 80s and it’s a bit better now. Still, these view “glimpses” seem increasingly outdated today as we turn our attention inward toward the city a bit more each year.
Alex said: Paris’s view cones are OF the city. Vancouver’s are DESPITE the city. Big difference
A couple years ago the Paris chief planner equivalent, Dominique Alba, came to Vancouver and put it in a different way, with admitelly some envy:
the Paris asset is the city itself, when the Vancouver asset is its surrounding: both city try to preserve the “public” views on their assets.
to repeat my previously ill formatted post:
The NEFC plan could go undamaged without infringing into the viewcone (btw, no rationale is provided in the NEFC document for that).
It will be still ample time afterward, to reconsider the view cone issue in a more focused discussion on the topic encompassing not only the NEFC, but other “iconic” locations such as the canadaPost, or the waterfront station.
And before we even consider adjusting view cones we have a whole city that can be rezoned for plenty more density and towers. Just think of all the towers we could fit in the Jericho and Heather street lands alone.
Not that I disagree with upzoning more of the city. but I’d consider it kind of backwards to push developed out into what would effectively be a suburban tower cluster.
“Why can’t more people live downtown?”
“Because some people like to be able to see over it.”
That’s pretty much what it comes down to. I just don’t see the value being there.
Everyone will have a different take on it.
Maybe it’ll become an issue in an upcoming election.
I’d prefer to see rezoning to make the suburbs less suburban and add some visual interest to them.
I see the view cones as good foresight, like the city controlling most of the waterfront for public space, not going crazy with freeways, the province settling aside the ALR etc.
Take away the sporadic mountain backdrop views and you have Edmonton (minus the -40C winters).
“only” 300 feet allowed at Bay parkade site… 30 storeys is a “squat” building? whatever.