What is the biggest industry in the province? It is construction, and it employs thousands of people. When the ex Premier Christy Clark was extolling the virtues of a multi-billion dollar Massey Bridge that was overbuilt and in the wrong location, she said it needed to be constructed because of “Jobs!”
And the ex Premier was right. Construction and people associated with construction drive this place and the economy. The Northeast False Creek plan will have lots of jobs for designers and construction, and the current rezoning before council contains a too tall tower and massing that is substantially over the size recommended. It is no surprise on the day that the Northeast False Creek rezoning is going to be considered for Council approval that an article in the The Hive is written suggesting that the view cones “have hurt the city’s true economic potential”.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The View Protection Policy was designed to ensure that significant views of the mountains and ocean could be seen from 27 view points established in the city. Set up in 1989, view cones limit building heights at key locations to allow for expansive mountain and ocean views from all over the city.
This policy is groundbreaking in that it protects in perpetuity universal access to the city’s most iconic attraction~significant views. This policy has been admired and replicated by other cities, but often too late, when significant views have already been lost.
Build outside the view cone corridors and there are NO such restrictions on height. But it is no surprise that developers, architects, and real estate agents want to maximize profit and build the tallest buildings possible to privatize what are under public policy protected views for all citizens within the view cones.
The misunderstanding of the importance of maintaining the view corridors is also lost on Mayor Gregor Robertson who remarked that this precedent is “a small change in terms of view corridors” which shows that this Council does not value nor understand Vancouver’s uniqueness in public access to the city’s well loved iconic views.
The current Vancouver city council is considering an application from PAVCO as part of a plan to build a “gateway” of three over-height towers in the Northeast False Creek Plan. The extra height over 30 storeys proposed for three towers will corrupt the Cambie view cone which provides views down Cambie Street from Queen Elizabeth Park.
Despite the fact that three 30 storey buildings could be built as per the design guidelines for the site, the plan is overbuilding the site by 20 per cent and also insisting on three towers~two at 42 storeys and a “smaller” tower at 40 storeys. What no one is saying is that additional height the City is giving to the developer is equivalent to an additional 32 storey tower, as well as allowing the overbuild of 20 % more density on the site. And the Community Amenity Contributions collected from the developer for the too tall towers and additional density? NONE.
Three previous Directors of Planning have spoken out against piercing the view cones, all pointing out that the development could be built within the view cones. Indeed, the developer has also submitted in the council report an “Option B”, a design that fits within the view cones, and has a better relation and massing to the street.
But perhaps the best word is from well-loved and respected global urbanist Larry Beasley, the former co-director of Vancouver City Planning. Larry in the Globe and Mail stated that while he liked other aspects of the Northeast False Creek plan, “allowing the tall towers undermines the city’s ability to resist other developers who want the same.”
As Larry Beasley observes: “If Vancouverites were asked to weigh in on what public amenities matter to them, the view cones will be right up there with the seawall and beaches as a treasured public asset.”
Calling the “current willingness” of the city to bend the policy in Northeast False Creek a “disaster”, Larry stated “The first intrusion means the view is gone. You can’t let one group in and not others. How do you look everyone else in the eye?”
In my view (ha ha) Kenneth Chan is largely right. So is my old prof Doug Patterson who once said while participating in the original Greenway planning process, “Vancouver is a setting in search of a city.” That was a generation ago and it’s still true today, with a small handful of notable exceptions.
To invest so much in looking outward has been to the detriment of building the city’s inward urban design heart. If our public parks are our backyards, our public streets should be our living rooms. But our streets are largely inhumanly utilitarian, and too often downright brutal. Georgia Street is supposed to be our Ceremonial Way. In reality it’s a big unarticulated conduit for traffic.
While the seawall can be called one of Vancouver’s most stunning achievements accommodating public access for humans at the edge of the city (I spoke with a couple from NYC who said their city has no equivalent to Harbour Green Park), it has no counterbalance in the inner heart. We are so intent on preserving an eagle’s nest of view cones that sail right over the city that we have lost sight of the higher urbanist value of creating meaningful public space in the centre. The VAG plaza doesn’t cut it. Anyone who has read Jan Gehl would understand why, and it’s a shame that the Planning Department seemingly accepts it as a token gesture while emphasizing the grandness of mountain views kilometres outside the city.
View cones are so last century. It’s time to focus on public space and architecture within.
Yes Yes Yes! So much this.
I have no strong opinion about view cones. All else being equal, sure. But all else is seldom equal. I care a thousand times more about the experience on the ground than one more glimpse of mountain (or, for that matter, massing of towers). I think we focus too much on easier-to-express aesthetic judgments about towers and mountains rather than working out the tricky trade-offs of making public spaces. Add to which, many people seem wedded a (real? imagined?) city of a nostalgic past, and don’t want anything to change.
The city we live in is the city we build. Everyone and their dog praises nature, but it’s no substitute.
Are Paris’ height restrictions in the core “so last century”? Or those of many other European cities?
The outgoing council, many who are not running again, have no moral authority to throw away a policy that has served us well for decades.
Paris’ view corridors protect the city, not the view beyond while ignoring the city. Paris and many of the other beautiful, great cities of the world do not have settings like Vancouver’s. Vancouver does not have urbanism remotely comparable to Paris and those other cities. Why not start to work on an urban design plan for Vancouver, starting with the streets and other public space? Create a city worthy of its beautiful setting?
Public space matters. View corridors not so much.
Well said, Alex. We’re a city that happens to have scenic views, not the other way around.
None of the things you wish for need entail blocking our unique mountain views.
Indeed.
But view cone policy is easy and cheap because it ignores the city except where some object dares to puncture through. It’s the course of least resistance, and also a source of reactionary counter planning. I am not interested whether the NEFC tower pierces an arbitrary view cone, but I am hugely interested in the quality of design of the tower that purports to do so. Currently, the justification is that it is some kind of a “gateway” by dint of only its mass. How limited.
Who would object if the fine Art Deco Marine Building was originally built at three times its height? What would be a planner’s response with subsequent view cones? Go around it with a split cone? Or make it part of the view by putting it exactly in the centre of its own view axis? Why are we so resistant to building a much better city with higher quality elements that are the focus of protected views?
A more mature urban design outlook is much harder and will cost more invariably because space will have to be taken away from something else (e.g. roads) to create high quality public open space that would become increasingly treasured over time.
Further, imposing higher architectural standards cannot possibly be left to those who have invested so much in the limited vision of view cones.
There’s nothing contradictory about view comes and public spaces. If anything, I do love public spaces with a view.
I do not believe that the height of these towers will do anything to help create a vibrant public space at the street-level. Having viewed the plans, I think the public spaces included are good, very good in fact. The tower heights are not. We don’t need to sacrifice one to get the other.
I do not live in Vancouver for mountains.
I live in Vancouver for the city.
I know I am not alone in this, but all we ever hear is how every right thinking Vancouverite stares at the mountains all day.
Maybe city life is just not for those who prefer looking at mountains?
I have no particular opinion on this rezoning, it’s just so… unimportant. Let’s focus on what is important – how much of the city is off limits to even 4 storeys?
That’s fine, none of the things you wish for need entail blocking our unique mountain views.Then why not move somewhere else, your cost of living will decrease drastically. What does urban Vancouver offer that scores of other cities do not?
I generally agree with you Bob, but do we have to suggest everyone move away? We’re often talking about people who were born and grew up in the city. They shouldn’t be forced to move away just because of the cost of housing. I don’t consider it unreasonable to want to live in your hometown.
You misunderstand. The poster said he lives “in Vancouver for the city”. I meant if he does not value Vancouver’s unique setting that much, why stay? Certainly the urban charms of Vancouver are not so special that they can’t be found in scores of cities in North America.
I still don’t see it, Sandy. The Cambie St viewcones only preserve views of “North Shore Mountains”. The guidelines furthermore do not state just how much of the range’s full-extent horizon or individual massing must remain visible. These mountains are still clearly visible with these proposed buildings there.
The fear is the proposed building s would just be the thin end of the wedge. For politician, catering to developers is like the old saying about eating potato chips: “you can’t have just one”. Once you’ve set the precedent the floodgates will open.
We are a relatively young city. Why on earth can’t we identify the best practices from around the world and just follow them?
https://marcgawley.com/2014/03/02/londons-protected-views/
Nice – plenty of views from around the city, yet enough gaps in between for some decent architecture.
Thank you for that link, Keith. I note that views of the dome of St Paul’s Cathedral ** and the Houses of Parliament are featured most prominently. In other words, views of city landmarks.
If we feel Vancouver doesn’t have that many important landmarks (I’d argue that the Marine Building and its position on Hastings Street was completely missed by the same crowd who gave us the overly powerful view cone policy …) then it’s time to plan, design and build more. And public open space should be given equal priority as buildings.
** Apparently the St. Paul’s dome was used as a focal point for the German Luftwaffe bombers to get their bearings when bombing London’s docklands during he Blitz. You can see the bomb line quite clearly where the ancient wharfs of Shad Thames and Wapping give way to much newer buildings just east of St Paul’s and Tower Bridge.
I’m a perpetual sightseer. The view above is great, but is it iconic?
I was at that very location a few days ago; wheeled my bike up the ramp (appreciate that) at City Hall to see what was growing. Never crossed my mind to look at this view – have seen it before . So what. Have spent a total of not even 5 mins, mouth agape, admiring this view in 25 years in Vancouver. My kids have never pointed it out. If it were soiled with higher buildings, we wouldn’t notice. It wouldn’t matter. It has no bearing whatever on our appreciation of this great city. Zero.
Maybe motorists like it – a quick look up before they bomb down Cambie to the bridge.
“Build outside the view cone corridors and there are NO such restrictions on height.”
There really are no areas on the downtown peninsula zoned for very tall buildings that are not impacted by view cones. Even the “Higher Buildings Policy” despite allowing tall buildings is subject to (overridden by) the view corridor height restrictions.
The biggest problems arise from the “distant” view corridors – like Cambie & 12th.
The height restrictions may preserve the distant views, but do so at the expense of the local streetscape where short, fat, canyon-inducing buildings result form the height restrictions.
Just look at the Main Post Office redevelopment.
Likewise, the Hudson’s Bay parkade site (adjacent to Granville SkyTrain station) lies under a similar (or the same) view corridor and the “ice pick” tower at Waterfront Station is prevented from being taller – resulting in more encroachment on the adjacent station building.
Restrictions on height should not be single-mindedly imposed (ie for a view of the mountains) without taking into account other considerations – need for density near rapid transit stations, massing for compatibility with adjacent buildings or avoiding street canyons.
Likewise for other height restrictions imposed by the City – including the policy that restricts building height south of Robson so as to not casting shadows on Robson St. See 1040-1080 Barclay Street report (page 27) here:
https://imgur.com/yCkS0vM
https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/1040-1080_barclay/documents/15-Sustainabilityandhigherbuildingpolicy.PDF
I’s be more inclined to keep the height restrictions that maintain sunlight into the core. It’s really hard to find sun downtown when we most need it. We get long stretches of dark cloudy/rainiy weather and when the sun finally comes out there are only a couple of places downtown to enjoy it.