78 replies to this topic

[G-Man]

I have been thinking lately that viewcones are really quite a stupid idea. I used to think that they were the best thing since gravy but the more I think about it the more I worry about the way they are used.

Now I think there may be some legitimacy if the view is of a natural object. Mountain, River, Waterfall etc.. But what about buildings? This is where my problem begins. If we are going to preserve viewcones of buildings then I think they have to be hugely justified. In Victoria I think that you can argue for the Legislature and the Empress but beyond that I think that we are now looking at a person's or group's personal taste.

Yes Oxford I stole your line :-D

Please dicuss.

[VicHockeyFan]

I find them about as useful as ice cream cones in January.

[Mike K.]

Everything in moderation, I guess. I understand its important to preserve views of some things from some angles, but in Victoria NIMBYs and anti-development councillors maintain we should protect view of everything from everywhere.

In their world if you're not blocking the Empress, you're blocking the distant Sooke Hills. If you're not blocking either the hills or the Empress, you're blocking sunlight when standing directly in front of the street. And on it goes...

[VicHockeyFan]

^ Today's NIMBY crowd would never allow projects like the Empress, or the Legislative Buildings.... even though now they are what we cherish.

[aastra]

I think preserving specific view corridors is a futile exercise. In Segger's book they claim Orchard House spoiled views of the legislative dome. But did it really? For whom? From where? It sure didn't spoil views of the legislative dome for anybody I know.

I'm more interested in preserving view corridors generally. The forms buildings take and their positions/orientations in relation to one another should be taken into account in order to protect (and enable) views generally (rather than specific views of something in particular).

Just because some guy happens to enjoy an obscenely wide panorama of the Olympic Mountains at the present time doesn't grant him the right of perpetual exclusivity. New buildings can be added, so long as the view from any one building is not completely destroyed. We don't want situations where all you can see is the building right beside you. That's bad for everybody.

It would be so easy to put something like this into effect. But it would also mean the end of the fatscraper.

[Holden West]

Orchard House stands behind the dome. Whether that detracts from it is a matter of taste. I hardly notice it. It's just there.

However, Orchard House does block what would have been a stellar view of the Olympics when coming south on Douglas. But then, it's hard to place a wide 22 storey tower anywhere without blocking an cherished view.

[gumgum]

I don't have a problem with Orchard House blocking that view. I have a problem with Orchard House.

[aastra]

However, Orchard House does block what would have been a stellar view of the Olympics when coming south on Douglas.

For whom? For the guy walking south on the east sidewalk between Fort and Broughton?

Segger says CIBC blocked views of St. Andrew's. I can't remember how he phrases it but he sort of implies that all over downtown there were these great views of the spire and CIBC eliminated them. This is absolutely false! Just walk around and try to find a spot from which the view of the spire has been blocked by the CIBC building.

[aastra]

Whose view of what are we trying to protect and from where?

[Scaper]

I hate the Orchard House as I can't see the Roberts House...I love that building...damn Orchard House ruins every thing.

The Nimby's use the Church steeples as reasons not to build high....it will destroy the views of the churches.

At the APC for the Juliet the chair spoke saying how much he loved the building but because it was taller than St. Andrews Cathedral he couldn't accept it...then Carlson stood up and said...it's actually much shorter than the Cathedral actually......He said...Oh...Well....then Yeah I love it...no problem.

The guy was going to vote against it just because he thought it was taller than the church steeple. By the way...it was Pam who started that church steeple comment at that meeting. Her face went gloom when this happened.....Like her whole plot fell apart or something.

[aastra]

People don't realize how tall those spires are. As we've noted many times, St. John the Divine and St. Andrew's are both about 175 feet tall. That's the equivalent of what, almost 20 stories?

Christ Church is something like 155 feet tall.

It's a good ploy as far as the anti-development types are concerned. Tell people you oppose tall buildings because they'll overshadow heritage buildings, but then don't ever bother to mention the actual heights of the heritage buildings in question. And don't ever bother to define what "tall" means, either.

[Scaper]

Like that article in the News group the other day regarding the Songhees...."really tall buildings" ....."10 and 11 stories" :shock: :roll:

unreal.

I hope that these buildings in Colwood get built and people will realize we don't have any tall buildings downtown and that they will actually look really nice and maybe just maybe some minds will change.

[Scaper]

actually not many minds will change anyways as most people don't share the JBNEA mind set....

that's why they will get built in Greater Victoria....it's just the councilors are too scared to stand up and make a stand....they are all wishy washy.

[zoomer]

while I'm not a big fan of view corridors/cones, I do believe they are appropriate in some cases.

The Olympic mountains are so far away, and not easily visible, that views from downtown towards these mountains should be protected. Of course the main location right downtown that you can see the Olympics are on Douglas as mentioned. So that would simply mean not building a tall building on a very small thread of land (too late they did)



but, yes Orchard House does look cool when viewed from a distance, particularly when the setting sun strikes it and the rest of the area is no longer in the sun. Still, we can build Orchard House's almost anywhere, but why there?

One of my favourite views is early morning or late evening (when the mountains appear darkest and most visible) is walking down Cook or Vancouver, looking at the very end of the street and seeing the Olympics...how beautiful and cool is that.. the USA at the end of the street. Why ruin that view cone, it would be a shame! Although I don't know if any building could block that view on these streets anyways.

As for other view cones, I think the best way to preserve them is through slimmer buildings.

[aastra]

For the guy walking south on the east sidewalk between Fort and Broughton?

Zoomer seems to have proved aastra's point, no?

Anyway, I suppose you're right. I suppose Orchard House should have been restricted to maybe 12 stories or so, to protect the view of the mountains for the guy walking south on the east sidewalk between Fort and Broughton.

[aastra]

Whoops, my mistake. It seems 12 stories would have blocked the mountains just as well as 22 stories. Maybe height restrictions don't protect views after all?

[zoomer]

Yes, I think that you're right, the views of the Olympics from downtown can only be seen from that part of Douglas. So it's not asking (was not) much to preserve that view corridor by permitting only lowrises in that area. Think of the thousands and thousands of people everyday who enjoy that view and how much better it would be without the obstruction. Otherwise, there aren't many view corridors that need to be preserved here, although I do disagree with the walling off of views with fatscrapers.

Oh, another view corridor I would like preserved, although I think it will be lost with the construction of Aria...is the view of the Parliament building dome inbetween Astoria and Belevedere. Wonderful view walking down Blanshard, although how many people do that, and it's only a view that lasts for about a block or so.

[zoomer]

This nice picture doesn't quite do the view justice (taken from the belvedere thread, courtesy gumgum), it's more pronounced if you take the pic more to the left of this location.

looks like it will be lost.

[aastra]

So it's not asking (was not) much to preserve that view corridor by permitting only lowrises in that area.

I'm thinking those older highrises on Douglas may have already blocked out the mountain view by the time Orchard House came on the scene.

[Scaper]

Aastra can you photo shop some new glass towers around the orchard house.....please ohhh please.....

This is what I have always invisioned in my mind.