Are viewcones a useful tool?
#1
Posted 22 September 2006 - 02:53 PM
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.
#2
Posted 22 September 2006 - 02:58 PM
#3
Posted 22 September 2006 - 04:54 PM
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...
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#4
Posted 22 September 2006 - 04:59 PM
#5
Posted 22 September 2006 - 05:51 PM
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.
#6
Posted 22 September 2006 - 06:22 PM
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.
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#7
Posted 22 September 2006 - 06:24 PM
#8
Posted 22 September 2006 - 06:29 PM
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.
#9
Posted 22 September 2006 - 06:34 PM
#10
Posted 22 September 2006 - 07:04 PM
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.
#11
Posted 22 September 2006 - 07:16 PM
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.
#12
Posted 22 September 2006 - 07:24 PM
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.
#13
Posted 22 September 2006 - 07:26 PM
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.
#14
Posted 22 September 2006 - 08:58 PM
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.
#15
Posted 22 September 2006 - 09:18 PM
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.
#16
Posted 22 September 2006 - 09:21 PM
#17
Posted 22 September 2006 - 09:27 PM
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.
#18
Posted 22 September 2006 - 09:36 PM
looks like it will be lost.
#19
Posted 22 September 2006 - 10:37 PM
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.
#20
Posted 22 September 2006 - 11:21 PM
This is what I have always invisioned in my mind.
Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users