Now you view them, soon you won't
CC#133 Are the much-misunderstood view cones approaching their doom—and ours?
Buildout of the Broadway Plan based on latest City Council approvals. The 30+ storey tower at Broadway and Granville is the articulated beige mass at the lower right…if you can find it! Some of these towers depend for their height on reducing or eliminating existing view cones. Model by Stephen Bohus, BLA.
The post below is 606 words, takes 3-1/2 minutes to read—30 seconds more than citizens are now allowed for presentations at Vancouver Council meetings.
It’s been more than three years since I first wrote about threats to Vancouver’s 35-year old view cones. I have written periodically as attempts have been made to chisel here, block there, obliterate everywhere. I readily admit that the view cones are somewhat (but not entirely) arbitrary, but they have had the effect of preserving for two generations and counting many views of the water and mountains for all citizens and visitors from countless viewpoints at grade, not simply for those who can afford to live on high. To be clear, the development community, urban designers and architects have somehow managed to build what we have around those view cones.
Regardless whether there is logic in preserving the view from Choklit Park or the Granville Bridge or, or, or, the reality is that at the moment, as we walk in many parts of the city we can see the setting of our city for the price of our footsteps.
But it looks as if the endgame for publicly-accessible views has arrived. On July 10th, a report to Vancouver City Council with the innocuous name of “Citywide Development Guidelines Early Actions – Public Views, Solar Access, and Residential Tower Floorplates” will be tabled for adoption. If approved, its fans insist it will “enable up to 215 million square feet of additional building floor area for housing and job space.”
Excited? The math is even more breathtaking. If even 50% of that total (so conservatively, 100 million square feet) becomes residential, that equates to more than 166,000 additional homes at an average size of 600 square feet, which seems to be what the industry is building for rental and sale. That’s enough for an additional 350,000+ residents (at 2.2 average per unit) in a city with a current population of 700,000—a 50% population increase arising from view loss.
166,000 additional homes! Excellent! Now remember, that’s in addition to the development that does not need view cone relaxation: the 200,000+ homes in the pipeline from the various ODPs and megaprojects (at least 170,000) and smaller scale development (estimated at 50,000) over the next 30 years. That brings us up to 366,000+ homes or an added population of 800,000+ when view cone erasing development is included.
Wait! That’s more than our entire existing population. Is that what we want? Especially when no level of government is offering any more schools, community centres, hospitals or parkland. The basic numbers mean all of these facilities will be twice as full as they already are. And it’s clear from developer and city staff emphases on high density high-rise that almost all of those new neighbours will be living way up high, if they can afford the prices and rents. Presumably they’ll like that so much they won’t need the at-grade schools, parks, etc. All good!
So it’s not just the location of views in the air or on the ground that’s at risk here; rather it’s the social fabric of the entire city, built for a population that government and industry seem happy to see at least double in the next generation. Whether or not we should be able to see the mountains matters less when there’s half as much room to breathe, space to relax in and care for our physical and mental health. But they’re intrinsically linked. So when you think about whether we should compromise our views by a slice here or a wedge there, recognize that for every visual loss in the air there’s a very real loss on the ground.
With a July 10th deadline, you only have until end of business July 9th to express your views to City Council. I urge you to write each Councillor directly—emails sent to “Council” get curated, i.e., authorship and content is diluted.
If you appreciated this post, please share to your social media and consider becoming a free subscriber to City Conversations at
Brian Palmquist is a Vancouver-based architect, building envelope and building code consultant and LEED Accredited Professional (the first green building system). He is semi-retired, still teaching, writing and consulting a bit, but not beholden to any client or city hall. These conversations mix real discussion with research and observations based on a 50-year career including the planning, design and construction of almost every type and scale of project. He is the author of the Amazon best seller and AIBC Construction Administration course text, “An Architect’s Guide to Construction.” and hoping to start in 2024 a book about how we can Embrace, Enhance and Evolve the cities we love.
A pretty flawed logic presented in this argument that Vancouver should not continue to grow it's population due to the opinionated perspective that existing cultural, social, physical, natural amenities are at capacity. In any healthy city a natural equilibrium is achieved since tax bases increase thus civic amenities (community centres, schools, hospitals) grow and access (trains, buses, cable cars) to natural amenities increase along side population growth. The inherent carrying capacity of metro vancouver are is very high considering the quality access to ample fresh water, clean energy and yet we are currently still swindling it on low quality, low density, high carbon impact suburban development that's take up a significant majority of CoV land use.
Cities should always be in flux. Let's turn those empty lawns, parkways, and wide stroads into parks for all to enjoy and welcome the transit oriented development and mid-rise apartments across the city!
I would suggest Brian to take a look at the research and content that Strong Towns is presenting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtJD45cTV9c
I wonder if the developers and their associates realize that obstructed views, poor urban aesthetics, and diminished quality of life will actually lower property values and resale prices. From what I understand, there is already a shortage of construction workers who will need accommodations, and the cost to build is already extraordinarily high. They risk going bankrupt within the first 10% of this effort because nobody will want to live in these closet-sized homes with views of other closet-sized homes, and they won't be able to give them away. It's also notable that this developer-infused, top-down government approach is happening during the highest real estate market Vancouver has ever seen. For example, by the end of this year alone, the province of BC is projected to make $3 billion in property transfer taxes. In my opinion, both developers and government are suffering from short-sightedness, and their get-rich-quick scheme will backfire and Vancouver will be renamed to Vantroit. Afterall, how can you obliterate what is iconic & beautiful about Vancouver and expect to sell & profit? 🤔 If you're thinking "the lovely mild climate" - well, that's changing too.