Thanks for your questions. Last time I checked (over the weekend) the diagrams in the "applicant's booklet" remained incorrect. There is a separate posting by city staff with corrected shadow diagrams, except they are still the wrong times. The graphic at the head of the post shows what was originally on offer (a) compared to reality (c). Regarding your question D, you need two screens to compare all of the original versus changed. The original shadows presented were both wrong angle and way too short—hence our concerns. Shadowa are one of the several things being played fast and loose on several applications. CityHallWatch has previously noted the shadows shown with the 1477 West Broadway application (NE corner Granville and Broadway—39 storeys) are so long they are cut off in the application booklet—nobody at city hall seems to mind this. CHW's analysis showed that proposed building's shadows going all the way doen to and into False Creek on some days. One final clarification—all of CHW's shadows are shown at the standardized times, it was the applicant's work that was incorrect. I'm glad you care—nobody at city hall seems to! Tke care and stay safe, Brian
Thanks for the reply and clarification. If this is a systemic issue across various application presentations, e.g. having false information in them, then we should undertake a historic cross-analysis of these and identify the issue in general to the larger public and see if there are any potential bad-faith actors who are consistently grifting the public with these types of "mistakes." I am happy to help do the comparison by overlaying the images to establish any discrepancies. ; )
Thanks to you for your interest. What you are describing is a mammoth undertaking, more than I can manage—if you read my posts you will see I am covering a lot of ground. The best folks to contact re 3D modeling issues are the folks at CityHallWatch. They may be able to work in a more systematic fashion. At the moment, there are so many different kinds of issues arising at Vancouver City Hall that I am pretty flat out trying to cover the range. Cheers!
As I wrote on CHW comment page to this story, there is another fundamental issue with this application - the floor to floor heights. Instead of the usual 9 to 10 foot span, this proposal seems to have floor to floor spans of more like 13 to 14 feet. This is a huge difference on an 18 storey building.
As I said, if this building is approved and built as currently proposed,the extra building height will be very obvious, but too late to correct.
Thanks Adam. We are wondering if, in fact, the applicant shadow diagrams were generated assuming 2.75 m floor to floor when the application is 3.5m f to f. We can’t figure out why they need 3.5m, are worried they may come back later and say “we need another 6 storeys to make this work.” CHW and I have identified this in previous posts.
Is the updated shadow accurate now?
It would be helpful to see the true shadows produced by:
a) original presentation shadows
b) shadows shifted by one hour
c) true differential between a & b
d) are the other building shadows similarly changed throughout the model?
e) true shadows produce for CHW at standardized times and comparative differences
Thanks for your questions. Last time I checked (over the weekend) the diagrams in the "applicant's booklet" remained incorrect. There is a separate posting by city staff with corrected shadow diagrams, except they are still the wrong times. The graphic at the head of the post shows what was originally on offer (a) compared to reality (c). Regarding your question D, you need two screens to compare all of the original versus changed. The original shadows presented were both wrong angle and way too short—hence our concerns. Shadowa are one of the several things being played fast and loose on several applications. CityHallWatch has previously noted the shadows shown with the 1477 West Broadway application (NE corner Granville and Broadway—39 storeys) are so long they are cut off in the application booklet—nobody at city hall seems to mind this. CHW's analysis showed that proposed building's shadows going all the way doen to and into False Creek on some days. One final clarification—all of CHW's shadows are shown at the standardized times, it was the applicant's work that was incorrect. I'm glad you care—nobody at city hall seems to! Tke care and stay safe, Brian
Thanks for the reply and clarification. If this is a systemic issue across various application presentations, e.g. having false information in them, then we should undertake a historic cross-analysis of these and identify the issue in general to the larger public and see if there are any potential bad-faith actors who are consistently grifting the public with these types of "mistakes." I am happy to help do the comparison by overlaying the images to establish any discrepancies. ; )
Thanks to you for your interest. What you are describing is a mammoth undertaking, more than I can manage—if you read my posts you will see I am covering a lot of ground. The best folks to contact re 3D modeling issues are the folks at CityHallWatch. They may be able to work in a more systematic fashion. At the moment, there are so many different kinds of issues arising at Vancouver City Hall that I am pretty flat out trying to cover the range. Cheers!
I will connect with CHW, thanks for all your work. : )
As I wrote on CHW comment page to this story, there is another fundamental issue with this application - the floor to floor heights. Instead of the usual 9 to 10 foot span, this proposal seems to have floor to floor spans of more like 13 to 14 feet. This is a huge difference on an 18 storey building.
As I said, if this building is approved and built as currently proposed,the extra building height will be very obvious, but too late to correct.
Thanks Adam. We are wondering if, in fact, the applicant shadow diagrams were generated assuming 2.75 m floor to floor when the application is 3.5m f to f. We can’t figure out why they need 3.5m, are worried they may come back later and say “we need another 6 storeys to make this work.” CHW and I have identified this in previous posts.