Vancouver's View Corridors

Vancouver is known for its compact downtown of office and residential towers, but what you may not know is why the buildings are the height they are. Looking at the skyline from a distance they all look to stop at about the same height, forming a fairly level (and some might say boring) dome-shaped skyline.


This picture is a perfect example, but you'll notice an exception, which is the new Shangri-La tower (explained below). The reason behind these building heights is view corridors. From the City of Vancouver website:
"View Protection Guidelines were approved in December 1989 and establish a number of view corridors (also known as “view cones”) over the downtown peninsula to protect views of the north shore mountains from a variety of locations south of the downtown peninsula. In February 1997 Council endorsed policies resulting from the Downtown Vancouver Skyline Study intended to result in a “dome-like” skyline shape incorporating certain key principles. In line with this decision, in May 1997 Council adopted the General Policies for Higher Buildings which outline where and under what conditions buildings higher than current maximums—up to 600 ft.—could be considered."

Not many cities have such a policy, but few cities have the natural setting that Vancouver does. That being said, downtown is such a small part of the city and region, that this does seem a bit ridiculous. Made more ridiculous by the fact that many of the view cones start from a fairly arbitrary point. The view cones limit not only the height of buildings, but also their shape, which is well represented by the triangular shape of the Shanrgi-La where the architect basically sliced off a corner of the building so as not to obscure the view.

Now in theory, this is a great policy with plenty of merit. But, those mountains in the background are over 4000' feet tall. No building or group of buildings could ever obscure their grandure. To me, some of the view cones to me are laughable while others make sense but could use some tweaking. Fortunately, the City agrees and has begun a review of all the corridors to possibly eliminate some, change others, and possibly even add some. Go visit the City's website to see all about it and to see the view corridors for yourself and why they are reviewing them.

Downtown Capacity & View Corridors Study
Study Area & Scope (here you'll see that the view cones pretty much cover all of downtown.)
View Cone List

Now the fun part - here's my opinion on each view corridor (the ones that are part of this study, at least)! Use the View Cone List to see a photo of each one.

A - Seems random and narrow, I'd scrap it
B1 - Again seems random, but it does show The Lions which are spectactular. Take the V-shaped bottom approach (see below)
B2 - You're kidding right? Scrap it.
C1 - Take the V-shaped approach.
C2 - Scrap it.
D - Mostly obscured by sailboat masts anyways - scrap it.
E1 - V-shape
E2.1 - I think there is development planned at the water's edge there - V-shape it.
3.xx - In general I like these ones - it is one of the great views in the city. I think the buildings downtown could go MUCH heigher though before they'll even begin to impact the mountain view. So I'd say raise the bottom of it significantly.
9.1 - V-shape
9.2 - V-shape or eliminate it - buildings have already cut into the view and it still looks great.
12 - This group of views generally seems pointless - very few people walk or cycle across the bridge, and they would be the ones to see the view. The cars are all whipping along at 80km/h or more, so they sure don't really need a view (and this speed and noise also explains the lack of pedestrians and cyclists travelling it).
12.1 - Scrap it
12.1.2 - Scrap it
12.1.3 - I literally laughed out loud when I saw this image - I think you know my answer.
12.2 - Now this one makes sense - being able to have that long clear view down Granville Street is pretty cool - ideally new towers that get built would help frame the view in the distance.

In general, my opinions may seem rash and illogical with little to back them up. But the way I look at it, developers want to build tall towers, people love to see, live and work in tall towers. Cities like New York and Chicago are fun, lively, vibrant cities and are known by their tall buildings. So let's allow taller (well designed, of course) buildings! It brings even more people into the city, and the opportunity for more office and work space as part of a mixed use project can't be overlooked. And if we're lucky, we'll end up with a truly landmark tower in this city some day - maybe even more than one.