NY Times on Vancouver Planning

Vancouver was recently profiled in the New York Times, with a story on our 'zoning policy that worked too well.' (Link to full article here).

Besides providing a nice pic of the Pomaria and Elan developments, the article lets slip a couple interesting pieces of information.

For one, it sounds as though the City may be contemplating the relaxation of some view-cone height restrictions, in order to encourage more office space to be built downtown. And it looks as though the Bay Parkade site will be the first test of that new policy direction:

Planners are considering several options, including raising the limits on building height, offering incentives to developers, and capping residential construction.

The article goes on to say:

As part of a proposed deal with the city, Mr. Lim would be allowed to increase the residential density of his Bay Parkade site...in return for expanding the commercial component. But Mr. Lim also said he 'would like some flexibility on height'.

Aside from Mr. Lim's comments, the main thrust of the article focuses on the need for more downtown commercial development, as vacany rates for Class A office space have now fallen to 3.3%.

And finally, one other interesting bit of information: it appears that the Holborn Group is now calling their 1153 West Georgia project, 'Vancouver's Turn'.

Let's hope that they rethink their marketing on that one.

Comments

[ron]

Hopefully the view cone will be relaxed. 291ft is too low for a site that can be directly connected underground to the Granville Station ticketing hall (which is under Seymour St. in front of the site).

"Vancouver's Turn" - bad choice.

[Paul Hillsdon]

I never knew about view cones before. It's really a smart idea, and just one of those little things that makes Vancouver such a liveable city. I hope council doesn't get too lax with the coning spec.

[Chris]

I hope they don't relax zoning by-laws too much. The current rules are part of what makes downtown such a livable and pedestrian friendly neighborhood.

Maybe it would be a bit harsh, but couldn't they put a moratorium on condo development? Or encourage mixed development, with retail shops on the first floor, commercial on the bottom few floors, and residential up top?