Montreal and Vancouver are both notorious for having hieght restrictions due to mountains. Some people say that these restrictions make the city look better, while others don't think that any height restriction (except for areas near airports) is good.

What do you think?

Montreal and Vancouver are both notorious for having hieght restrictions due to mountains. Some people say that these restrictions make the city look better, while others don't think that any height restriction (except for areas near airports) is good.

Should these restrictions be raised or removed?

Montreal (Thanks to You are to blame)
http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/6585/231207226acf7f39b2b4my.jpg
Vancouver
http://img303.imageshack.us/img303/9229/44944090c90eafd0db0gssmaller9p.jpg

Doesn't Edmonton have a height restriction aswell?

Before that happens, I'd rather see the zoning changed in the areas surrounding the downtown peninsula (for Vancouver) so they accomadate buildings higher than two or three stories. Otherwise you just have this massive cluster of phallic symbols surrounded by low density stuff. That would look silly in my opinion.

Sorry, duplicate thread, please merge ;)

Someone was posting while I was editing apparently

Yes we do. Which sucks as in some cases its as low as 12 stories.

For Vancouver: No, I would prefer a height limit set at about 650 ft. Vancouver has worked so hard to put together such a dense and balanced skyline with the majority of its visible buildings 20s-40s. Blocking the mountains really isn't an issue for me but if Vancouver starts building too mnay tall towers (700-1000 ft), the shorter buildings will be unnoticed.

Montreal: Not really, I would like to see Montreal build more towers in the 300-500 ft. range to densify the skyline.

I think Vancouver could use a few super talls, the skyline is already super impressive because it is so dence. Keep it balanced and add about six 200m+ buildings.

Montreal lacks dencity and although it has a few taller buildings than Vancouver it still needs a couple 300m+ buildings.

Before that happens, I'd rather see the zoning changed in the areas surrounding the downtown peninsula (for Vancouver) so they accomadate buildings higher than two or three stories. Otherwise you just have this massive cluster of phallic symbols surrounded by low density stuff. That would look silly in my opinion.

That makes absolutely no sense. All areas surrounding the downtown peninsula have higher buildings than two or three stories with the obvious exception of Stanley Park.

South of the peninsula from False Creek to 16th is quite built up with buildings as high as 20 storeys, and many 10-15 storeys. There are about 10 cranes up south of the peninsula right now too, so the area is only densifying.

To the East is Chinatown, City Gate, and the False Creek Flats. All of which have buildings over 2-3 storeys. The average is probably 6 storeys.

SE False Creek as anyone who follows urban issues in Vancouver would know, is all zoned for mid-rise apartments and retail.

The only areas left are to the West and North, but thats water.

I see what your saying about a skyline sticking out like a sore thumb, however this is not the case in Vancouver. There is good transition to the lower density areas. I think Calgary has a bad transition from Downtown to Single Family residential neighbourhoods. Their downtown sticks out in the middle of a flat city, with hardly any higher density development anywhere else across the whole metro.

IMO, I think Vancouver should allow some buildings in the 250m range, like around 3, but that is about it.

I think Vancouver could use a few super talls, the skyline is already super impressive because it is so dence[sic]. Keep it balanced and add about six 200m+ buildings.

Montreal lacks dencity[sic] and although it has a few taller buildings than Vancouver it still needs a couple 300m+ buildings.It may be a pun, or you may just be an idiot.

Regardless; can't developers ask for more height, more density through the density transfer, etc? This way, if a developer wants to build some 30 story balconied monstrocity, they can go ahead; if they want more height, they have to design something less terrible.

That makes absolutely no sense. All areas surrounding the downtown peninsula have higher buildings than two or three stories with the obvious exception of Stanley Park.

South of the peninsula from False Creek to 16th is quite built up with buildings as high as 20 storeys, and many 10-15 storeys. There are about 10 cranes up south of the peninsula right now too, so the area is only densifying.

To the East is Chinatown, City Gate, and the False Creek Flats. All of which have buildings over 2-3 storeys. The average is probably 6 storeys.

SE False Creek as anyone who follows urban issues in Vancouver would know, is all zoned for mid-rise apartments and retail.

The only areas left are to the West and North, but thats water.

I see what your saying about a skyline sticking out like a sore thumb, however this is not the case in Vancouver. There is good transition to the lower density areas. I think Calgary has a bad transition from Downtown to Single Family residential neighbourhoods. Their downtown sticks out in the middle of a flat city, with hardly any higher density development anywhere else across the whole metro.Your right. I was exaggerating. There are buildings above 2-3 stories in the immediate vicinaty, but not as much as I'd like to see. Did you say False Creek Flats??? Also, there are other areas where I believe should be higher density - look at all those main drags that run south of Broadway like Cambie, Granville, Main, Oak etc. Not a lot of high density there. It's amazing to me to see single unit houses sitting along these busy streets. Anyway, if Vancouver added just a few really tall suckers, that would be enough. We're not in any position to be competing for the grandest skyline. Prettiest maybe.

How about Seattle? Do you think that Van is in a position to compete with Seattle's height? Would that kind of development suit the city?

Ottawa has height restrictions aswell, so does Halifax. Calgary and Toronto are the only major Canadian cities without them, and hence also have the tallest buildings in the Country. I think all height strictions are dumb idea's.

^ Height competitions are for what? I'd go for functionality before ego.

I have to say, Montreal would look more impressive with taller buildings but I think that by not premitting the buildings to be taller than Mont. Royale, it keeps the natural feeling of the city strong.

Your right. I was exaggerating. There are buildings above 2-3 stories in the immediate vicinaty, but not as much as I'd like to see. Did you say False Creek Flats??? Also, there are other areas where I believe should be higher density - look at all those main drags that run south of Broadway like Cambie, Granville, Main, Oak etc. Not a lot of high density there. It's amazing to me to see single unit houses sitting along these busy streets. Anyway, if Vancouver added just a few really tall suckers, that would be enough. We're not in any position to be competing for the grandest skyline. Prettiest maybe.

Yes I said False Creek Flats. Have you not heard that term or are you just unaware of the 6-7 Storey office buildings in that area?

I agree, it would be nice for Vancouver to densify and build up along those main routes. It most likely won't happen though as Vancouver is the NIMBY capital of the world. Things are improving slightly though with a few projects along Kingsway as well as Main & Cambie Streets.

It's just a really difficult process to go in and buy up single family lots to put in higher density development. People living there do not want to move, and the homeowners adjacent to those sites don't want to see high-rises in the backyards. It's a tough situation. So piece by piece they will keep developing these larger projects where it's easier (former industrial sites, infill densification around downtown and false creek, some sites along Kingsway). Until all that land is completely used up I dont think there will be much pressure on re-developing these low density areas.

The best we can hope for is that RAV will spark some major re-development around Oakridge. I heard the mall is suppose to undergo major upgrading. I think that intersection is the best prospect for a new "Density Node" in Vancouver.

How about Seattle? Do you think that Van is in a position to compete with Seattle's height? Would that kind of development suit the city?

Seattle has nothing over Vancouver. The buildings may be taller but it really doesnt mean much when there is nothing at ground level. I'd stick with the shorter buildings we have now and the vibrantness of our core over what Seattle has. Anyone who has been to both city centres will tell you how much more vibrant and busy downtown Vancouver is. Buildings are just the books cover. It's sorta like Calgary, looks nice from a far but when you actually go down there, it's lacking in soul.

Heyyy...I resent that comment.

Yes I said False Creek Flats. Have you not heard that term or are you just unaware of the 6-7 Storey office buildings in that area?I'm aware of the buildings on the outside of the Flats, along Terminal, 2nd Ave, and the big stores like Home Depot at the eastern end. I think of the Flats as the area covered by the railyards. The last time I checked, there was nothing there yet. :)

I've never understood Montreal's height limit, given that Mt. Royal is more like a hill, and taller buildings wouldn't really affect any views or general asthetics.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. DOwn with the damned height restrictions in this city! I'm not proposing that we get 350 meter tall towers. But I think a couple of 250 meter tall towers wouldn't dwarf Mont-Royal, and it would make the skyline look better.

Somebody said that Montreal had no "dencity". First of all, it's DENSITY not "dencity", and second, you look at pictures taken from the top of the Olympic tower looking west towards downtown, and then tell me there's no density. Montreal is plenty dense, it's just that we don't really see it when we look at Downtown from the south or the north. You have to look at it from the west or the east.

I've never understood Montreal's height limit, given that Mt. Royal is more like a hill, and taller buildings wouldn't really affect any views or general asthetics.

Well Mont-Royal is 234 meters tall. WE can call it a hill as much as we want, it doesn't change the fact that it's a mountain nonetheless.

Taller buildings(ie: over 250 meters) would affect the views. BUt i say once again, i think a couple of 240 or 250 meter tall buildings would look great!

Ottawa has height restrictions aswell, so does Halifax. Calgary and Toronto are the only major Canadian cities without them, and hence also have the tallest buildings in the Country. I think all height strictions are dumb idea's.

I'm actually not aware of any height restriction in Halifax. I am aware of the regulations as to where buildings can be built though. They can't block the designated view corridors set up so that people can see the harbour from Citadel Hill, and buildings also can't be built too close to the hill so that the view of the hill isn't blocked from the rest of town.

Are there other restrictions that I'm not aware of?

Also, Edmonton's restrictions are due to the proximity of a city centre airport, so the height restriction really isn't just an arbitrary decision based on subjective aesthetic concerns like in MTL & Van.

I'm also not in favor of height restrictions, except for around airports.

A definite no for Vancouver. Vancouver's most impressive skyscrapers are over 4,000ft tall and aren't even in the downtown core.

REALLY?!?! They have buildings 4000ft tall?!

Well Mont-Royal is 234 meters tall. WE can call it a hill as much as we want, it doesn't change the fact that it's a mountain nonetheless.

I don't know why Montreal doesn't simply dump 50m worth of clean waste (old concrete, soil from excavation, etc.) onto the top of it and bump the building height to match.

Increasing a mountains height is better than making islands.

I'm aware of the buildings on the outside of the Flats, along Terminal, 2nd Ave, and the big stores like Home Depot at the eastern end. I think of the Flats as the area covered by the railyards. The last time I checked, there was nothing there yet. :)

All of that area would be considered the False Creek Flats. Where the twin "Radical" buildings are (10 storeys or so), Sprint Canada, and there is another high-tech office building about 7 or 8 storeys at the tip of those rail yards.

I don't know why Montreal doesn't simply dump 50m worth of clean waste (old concrete, soil from excavation, etc.) onto the top of it and bump the building height to match.

Increasing a mountains height is better than making islands.

It'd have been possible in the last decades, but not since Mont-Royal is an official Historic and Natural District :
http://www.mcc.gouv.qc.ca/mont-royal-english.htm

REALLY?!?! They have buildings 4000ft tall?!

the north shore mountains

Bottom line, Vancity would actually see taller buildings if the height restriction was nixed. Montreal wouldn't in the near future.

Montreal has a lot of dense neighbourhoods, including, from past stats posted on this site, the most dense neighbourhood. Instead of towering condos, they have dense midrises/row houses.

Van yes, MTL, indifferant. Mountain views benefit only a few, and are nothing special. If they were the ONLY mountains in the world, now that would be a different story.

i think Vancouver looks great already as it is... its quite unique from other cities where the majority of their residential buildings are glass and it creates a sleek and shiny effect/look. If they were to add taller buildings... all those buildings would dissapear and no one would notice them anymore.

For Montreal... i love this city, and i believe it should be aiming for the sky and not the preservation of that mole hill (sorry =_='') ... but with montreal's current state the scale of it reminds me of the Peak lookout in Hong Kong.. however, i believe the Peak is much higher... and the buildings in hk much higher so whatever it all balances out.

"the north shore mountains" - kind of desperate, don't you think.

^ Yeah were desperate for taller buildings thats why we have to compensate by claiming the North Shore mountains to be our "1000 footers". :|

Vancouver could easily have tall buildings by now, along with massive freeways, the whole nine yards. They have all been proposed, they have also all been shot down. It all has to do with policies of communist local government who are against.

The difference in Vancouver is, just because you want to build something here, doesn't mean they are going to let you. In fact if its a tall building, you better go somewhere else. Vancouver's council doesn't want it. It's not that we can't or havent had the proposals for taller buildings by any means.

Vancouver could easily have tall buildings by now, along with massive freeways, the whole nine yards. They have all been proposed, they have also all been shot down. It all has to do with policies of communist local government who are against.
We can only assume that when you say communist –– you mean socialist. The problem with that is, of course: Vancouver's socialist governments have been elected… So yea, screw proportional representation and democracy. Let's go back to feudalism! Or better yet, let's set up a theocracy.

^ Either way, it doesnt falsify the fact that there have been proposals, and many developers who would take up the opportunity to build a tall building in an instinct. The fact that Vancouver has a lot of socialists is irrelevant.

Couldnt Vancouver allow some 200m buildings in an area so that most of the city will still have a mountain view...
As for Montreal, i completely disagree with the restriction, its canada's second city it should have taller buildings as long as nothing old is demolished for it. I dont see why they cant have 250m buildings, Mt Royal isnt that great...
Id like to also see a 200m building in Ottawa and Edmonton as well

Vancouver is getting a nearly 200m building the Shangri-La will be 197m the cities Tallest.

http://realestateassignment.ca/assignmentlogos/LivingShangriLa.jpg

Seattle has nothing over Vancouver. The buildings may be taller but it really doesnt mean much when there is nothing at ground level. I'd stick with the shorter buildings we have now and the vibrantness of our core over what Seattle has. Anyone who has been to both city centres will tell you how much more vibrant and busy downtown Vancouver is. Buildings are just the books cover. It's sorta like Calgary, looks nice from a far but when you actually go down there, it's lacking in soul.

As a visitor to both Seattle and Vancouver I have to say that Vancouver was far more vibrant and I'd choose it as a place to live any day over Seattle. From the ferry coming into the bay though Seattle looked much more impressive. I can't understand why Vancouver couldn't allow a limited number of 300m+? Main thing is to only allow it in a very specific area so that one cluster stands out amongst the already dense buildings. One thing I liked about Vancouver over Seattle or Toronto was it's denseness. Toronto especially had loads of gaps with parking lots, that spoilt the place.

Vancouver is getting a nearly 200m building the Shangri-La will be 197m the cities Tallest.

http://realestateassignment.ca/assignmentlogos/LivingShangriLa.jpg
I think it will be the fifteenth (or something) tallest building in Canada, at least for awhile.

^^Toronto is getting a Shangri-La hotel as well. Check my sig. :)

Cool is there a rendering?

^ It looks nearly identical to Vancouver's. Same architect.

Here is the elevatiosn rendering by the city:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Gingerbread_Man/srl-1.jpg

No official rendering has been released yet but I think all that could be changed when they have an official press release. And Westcoast is kind of right, judging from this, the tower could be very similar in shape, the architect is James Cheung who also designed Vancity's Shangri-La, Shaw Tower, and many other Vancouver condo towers.

They both look great already, they don't need to lift the height restrictions.
NouvelleEcosse I'm sure you know about Halifax's height restrictions? They're way more, well, restricting.

...NouvelleEcosse I'm sure you know about Halifax's height restrictions? ...

Perhaps you wouldn't mind giving me a refresher?

There are a number of viewplanes radiating from Citadel Hill (basically unobstructed lines of vision between the Hill and the harbour) which in theory is a great idea except that most of them pass straight through downtown, and I don't mean the streets. This makes it quite difficult to infill in the downtown grid (I'm pretty sure the Midtown and the Alexander were both appealed because of viewplane restrictions, and I doubt that either of them are actually in an actual viewplane). These are also responsible for the Maritime Centre's odd shape and position, it was designed that way so the viewplanes would "miss" it. There's also some rule that buildings built after year x can't be visible from the Citadel's parade square, and I think there's even a rule that buildings within a certain distance can't be taller than the Citadel (which explains why all the taller office buildings are close to the waterfront).

The end result of all this is that the skyline isn't really visible from anywhere except for Dartmouth.

yes Mont. no Vancouver, I love Vancouver just as it is...

The height restriction in Montreal is around 800 feet. Going beyond that would not add too much potential to a Montreal skyline, but would take away alot. You can accomplish alot visually with 800 feet. Many cities do so with much shorter buildings. London and Athens come to mind. A height restriction would also encourage more numerous development. Montreal is a very human scaled city. This should be encouraged.

Vancouver's #1 visual asset is it's mountains. This should not be compromised at any cost. A 1000 foot tower would also make a somewhat striking skyline look quite underwhelming.

Perhaps a compromise for both cities would be to designate a small no height restriction zone.

In Vancouver it could be the inland river system around New Westminster. It could turn in to a mini-Chicago River type cityscape. In Montreal the area south of downtown close to Verdun on the St.Lawrence could be such a zone. Neither of these areas would interfere with the natural geographical assets these 2 cities are blessed with.

^^ Which natural geographic assets in Montreal are you referring to? Other than Mount Royal (which is more of a hill than a mountain) most of Montreal's assets are in its older collection of architecture mostly centred around Old Montreal. You can only see Mount Royal from downtown Ste Catherines from one vantage point now as it is, and the fact it is still visible is thanks to Phyllis Lambert who spearheaded a movement to prevent a rather ghastly Eaton Centre from being built.. but for the rest of Ste Catherines the existing buildings block the view. I see no reason why taller buildings cannot be built in quite a few areas of Montreal, especially in the business district. To me the height limit of the top of the Olympic stadium seems arbitrary and unnecessary. As for buildings blocking the view in Vancouver, do you think a 30 storey building is any less "view blocking" than a 60 storey building? I don't think there are really a lot of spaces left to build taller buildings in the existing downtown core. The mountain view in Vancouver is already blocked by mid height highrises and will not be further blocked if they had been higher. People like to think they are preserving a view of the mountains in Vancouver but the truth is the view has been obscured for a good generation, unless you are right on the waterfront looking north. I think some very tall buildings in Vancouver would do wonders for the skyline.

You are right to a point. Mont Royal is already blocked quite a bit due to it's lack of height. I believe their argument is a view of Mont Royal from points further south of downtown. The other geographical assets would be the south mountains.

I'd rather see 10 quality 400 - 700 footers in Montreal than 5 double that height. Montreal simply isn't going to grow fast enough to warrant alot of tall buildings. The result would be 1 or 2 very tall buildings that would look out of place for a long time.

Montreal is absolutely stunningly elegant and grand. I'd rather see downtown completely filled in with buildings of the scale and grandeur of London UK than go tall. There's a definite massive but medium/low height theme in Montreal that looks great: (Palais de Congres, Casino de Montreal, Habitat, St. Joseph's Oratory) It works very well. I'm not saying tall couldn't work, but I'm abit hesitant when it comes to this city.

Have you seen BishopsGate in London, and the Gherkin? This is the type of development that Montreal needs.

Montreal is absolutely stunningly elegant and grand. I'd rather see downtown completely filled in with buildings of the scale and grandeur of London UK than go tall. There's a definite massive but medium/low height theme in Montreal that looks great: (Palais de Congres, Casino de Montreal, Habitat, St. Joseph's Oratory) It works very well. I'm not saying tall couldn't work, but I'm abit hesitant when it comes to this city.

Have you seen BishopsGate in London, and the Gherkin? This is the type of development that Montreal needs.


You think the Palais de Congres looks great? Or the Casino? Listen, I like Montreal as much as the next person, but I think you are romanticizing the city just a tad. However, I am not here to alter anyone's mental images of another city, as that is always a fruitless task and leads to City vs City warfare, with bloody noses all 'round.
Yes I have seen BishopsGate and the Gherkin and I have to tell you I am not as big a fan of the novelty-shaped architecture sprouting up in London as Londoners are. Sorry, but I do not think it suits London one iota. Dubai yes; London no. Buildings shaped like corkscrews, buttplugs, walkie talkies, toasters, etc.. are all very cute in 2005, but will look dated faster than you can say "Bob's yer uncle". :)

^ Please, who r u kidding? Buttplug-shaped buildings never get old! :hahaha:

Taller you completely forgot that Montreal is an island, thats its natural asset.

You have a downtown tucked in a very narrow flat piece of land between the mount (from where the city got its name) and the river which was the "highway" that got european so far inland and name this land Canada. They couldn't go further and had to stop where Montreal is because of the rapides (lachine rapids aka china where explorer thought they were).

The mount might not be big as the rockies, but its the only mount in a very big flat area (all of greater Montreal is very flat). So yes it does stand out.

And the view to protect is the one from the st-laurence river not from the sidewalk on ste-catherine.

Its all about symbols and historic perspective.

As for my opinion, I believe we should keep the height limit and if an exceptional project arise a permission might be granted (like the st-joseph oratory which is higher than the mount).

At this point there is no reason to maintain height restrictions in Montreal. There are no views to protect, and there isn't much demand for real tall buildings anyway. In the near future I can imagine 1 or 2 developments wanting to exceed the restrictions, and I think they should be allowed to.

As for Vancouver, the place is a disaster. Too bad they don't have a municipal board.

Taller: perhaps the Gherkin wasn't a good example, but yes, I do like the Palais de Congres and the Casino. I wouldn't want the whole city to look like that, but they offer contrast and interest in their respective surroundings.

The Casino suits it's locale, another spot, probably not.

Skyscraper03 in the BC forum made this diagram, a comparisson of what would've happened if Vancouver had chosen to relax all height restrictions earlier in its history compared to what it is today:
http://image.dcinside.com/viewimage.php?id=building&no=29bcc427b49d3fa762b3d3a70f9e2628aa52c045d404722f073e8f77ae9227c57a5170efbb8e9f088b12abb74d4d5b1d8bd8f91df9f50287ecd89ec0f64c0c&f_no=3abfd219f5de39a820b5c6b2

I, like many other Vancouverites, would rather have a large number of densely packed mid-rises than a few short tall buildings......it's supply and demand, with mid-rises spreading out that supply. Vancouver has gone the right direction with this, but now that we are running out of space in the core it is time to relax height restrictions as the only place to build now is up.

Taller: perhaps the Gherkin wasn't a good example, but yes, I do like the Palais de Congres and the Casino. I wouldn't want the whole city to look like that, but they offer contrast and interest in their respective surroundings.

The Casino suits it's locale, another spot, probably not.

Well.. a great deal of the city does look like that, isaidso. A great deal of the city was built with exposed concrete and Brutalist architecture- think "Bonaventure" hotel.. Montreal is a modern North American city and is not to be confused with a European city like London or Paris. I personally believe some supertalls in the business section, or in some other parts of downtown would be amazing in Montreal. Had the entire city of Montreal been like Old Montreal, I would agree with you, but... that is not the case. I think there are plenty of locales in Montreal that would be perfect for highrise development.

I'm not completely opposed to supertalls in Montreal, but don't think Montreal should have them just for the sake of having them. I fully acknowledge the difference between Old Montreal and modern Montreal and agree that Old Montreal is a non-starter for supertalls.

The newer modern downtown Montreal is definitely North American. I could be convinced regarding supertalls here, but am partial to the type of modern low rise large scale developments they presently have built. There are tonnes of newly proposed and approved projects currently in Montreal that follow in this vein.

In addition, exposed concrete Brutalist architecture like Bonaventure shouldn't be dismissed simply because they are so jarring. There is a beauty to be found in Brutalism when it is done right. Montreal does it better than any one.

I admit to perhaps having a romanticized view of this city, but open to departures from it's current makeup.

I guess I just don't understand or agree with the idea of an arbitrary height limit for either Montreal or Vancouver.. such ideas are from decades past when suburban sprawl was encouraged. Modern thinking encourages more density, and additional height is part of that. Each project should be evaluated on its own merits instead of being pre-determined that height is limited. Also, I will admit I am not such a big fan of browning exposed concrete buildings that were built in the Brutalist manner. It was a cheap and cheerful method at the time (hence was popular all across Canada in every city), but to my eye many now look depressing, institutional and prison-like. I think interspersing some tall, elegant point glass towers amongst them is just the tonic to add some sparkle to the landscape!

Arbitrary, city-wide hight restrictions defy common sense. They have more in common with religion than good planing.

Having heigh restrictions for geographically abundant features like mountains don't make sense. Anyways, there will always be people with blocked views. Having a clear shot of the mountains with the city below is for postcard purposes doesn't make anything more than a physcolocial difference for some city inhabitants, but none for others. Its not like, wow, those mountains are taller than the city buildings, lets visit.

Having restrictions around historical and culturally significant structures like the tower bridge, or surronding the effiel tower makes a ton of sense as they are significant money making for those cities, and are important culturally.

But its not like Montreal needs to build taller, vancouver on the other hand could benefit obviouosly a lot more.

Having heigh restrictions for geographically abundant features like mountains don't make sense. Anyways, there will always be people with blocked views. Having a clear shot of the mountains with the city below is for postcard purposes doesn't make anything more than a physcolocial difference for some city inhabitants, but none for others. Its not like, wow, those mountains are taller than the city buildings, lets visit.

Having restrictions around historical and culturally significant structures like the tower bridge, or surronding the effiel tower makes a ton of sense as they are significant money making for those cities, and are important culturally.

But its not like Montreal needs to build taller, vancouver on the other hand could benefit obviouosly a lot more.

My thoughts exactly.

Having heigh restrictions for geographically abundant features like mountains don't make sense. Anyways, there will always be people with blocked views. Having a clear shot of the mountains with the city below is for postcard purposes doesn't make anything more than a physcolocial difference for some city inhabitants, but none for others. Its not like, wow, those mountains are taller than the city buildings, lets visit.

Having restrictions around historical and culturally significant structures like the tower bridge, or surronding the effiel tower makes a ton of sense as they are significant money making for those cities, and are important culturally.


so for Montreal it makes sense since its the only mountain for kms, and it has its historical/cultural importance.

Don't they all!

LOL!

i didn't know Vancouver had one - as far as i know it has been removed with approval - otherwise shangra la couldn't have been built...

so i think whatever the city is doing is fine

Oh Vancouver very definitely has height restrictions and Shangri-La is the first tower to breach those limits. ShangriLa will be 179 metres and the height limit in Vancouver is 150 meters. It will be interesting to see if they allow other towers to breach it too... I think it is a good idea to examine each case individually.

I think it would be best to scrap those restrictions altogether, especially for office space. Protecting views? Of what? I'm always amazed when people prioritize the view of the mountains over the city itself. The mountains and scenery are nothing special--that entire part of the continent looks about the same way. Vancouver is a city and the priority should be good urban planning.

Well, in this day and age of curbing suburban sprawl, it is getting harder to argue in favour of arbitrary height limits.

I think it would be best to scrap those restrictions altogether, especially for office space. Protecting views? Of what? I'm always amazed when people prioritize the view of the mountains over the city itself. The mountains and scenery are nothing special--that entire part of the continent looks about the same way. Vancouver is a city and the priority should be good urban planning.We've got the whole Lower Mainland full of one and two story dwellings. Lot's of other areas can increase in height, not just the downtown. I think you might be in the minority with regards to the view, but I hear what you are saying. We could easily have a few more Shangri-la type buildings without taking away from the skyline, just as long as they're sexy looking.

Well, as has been pointed out before, the view of the mountains in much of Vancouver is already gone. A 10 storey building does an amazingly good job of blocking the mountains, too.

You probably are refering to the downtown portion. The rest of Vancouver is pretty clear of highrises. Even from the south side of False Creek, the downtown allows people to view at least the top third of the mountains, which is the most important part. You have to pretty much cross the bridge into downtown before you lose the whole view.

If you get up high enough, you can see part of the mountains, from the False Creek area:

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/9152/iviewkv3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


I think a person would have to have xray vision to see the mountains from the sidewalk, but I am not
entirely sure. I have spent a great deal of time in Vancouver in my lifetime, but I don't really pay that
much attention to the mountain view when I am in the city. You are right that the further you go from downtown the better the views can get, but also the demand for supertalls is less, too. Tall prestigious office towers or luxury hotel/condo projects like to locate downtown. My point is people make sweeping statements about protecting the view of the mountains in downtown Vancouver without really stopping to think about the fact that the view is already pretty much obscured. So, it becomes an imaginary protection of that mostly imaginary mountain view when you have an arbitrary height cap. Each location should be studied on its own merit, to decide if there is an existing mountain view (from streetlevel, obviously) and whether it can be protected. Also, I don't think people properly acknowledge the fact that mid height projects (like the one in my photo that are going up everywhere ) are blocking the view just as much as if they had been twice the height. THIS, below, is the view to protect, and you don't see this from False Creek, or from sidewalks in a lot of downtown if my memory is correct. Maybe Vancouverites can help me on that one.:

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/8761/ivancouverviewhb8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

A 10 storey building does an amazingly good job of blocking the mountains, too.

That's what has always bugged me about the height restrictions. I'm not even six feet tall--a 2 story house would block my view of anything.

More to the point, no one is threatening the mountains themselves. If you like them and want to go see them, they're there for you. But to make them a part of downtown urban planning? My God!

It makes sense in Montreal on, I believe McGill, where there is only one view left of Mount Royal, from Ste Catherines downtown. That should be protected.

It makes sense in Montreal on, I believe McGill, where there is only one view left of Mount Royal, from Ste Catherines downtown. That should be protected.

Sure. There's no reason why you can't protect any view if people like it enough--why not? What I'm against is protecting all mountain views as a principle of planing.

If you get up high enough, you can see part of the mountains, from the False Creek area:

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/9152/iviewkv3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)This picture is on the north side of False Creek, basically in downtown, so of course you'll have a tough time seeing the mountains. :)

THIS, below, is the view to protect, and you don't see this from False Creek, or from sidewalks in a lot of downtown if my memory is correct. Maybe Vancouverites can help me on that one.:
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/8761/ivancouverviewhb8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)There won't be any problem here, because you have Burrard Inlet in front of you. You can also go east or west of downtown (Point Grey/Dunbar and East Van) and get great views there too. Regarding False Creek..., the south side is a different story than the north. Obviously the further south you go the more unabstructed it is.

:cheers:

But most of the demand for tall highrises is in the downtown core, is it not? So a blanket height restriction to "protect" an already vanished view is a bit silly. As for the South side of the creek, do you say that by going across that small body of water you can see the mountains from the sidewalk? Can you actually see mountains from Granville Market? I can't remember seeing mountains from almost anywhere around there in Vancouver from the sidewalk level. Maybe they should build some talls so that you can see the mountains, as shown in my photo! LOL!.

"But most of the demand for tall highrises is in the downtown core, is it not?" <<< Yup.

"So a blanket height restriction to "protect" an already vanished view is a bit silly."<<< I don't know. I'm just telling you where the views are. :)

"As for the South side of the creek, do you say that by going across that small body of water you can see the mountains from the sidewalk? Can you actually see mountains from Granville Market? I can't remember seeing mountains from almost anywhere around there in Vancouver from the sidewalk level. Maybe they should build some talls so that you can see the mountains, as shown in my photo! LOL!."<<< Like I said, the further away you get from downtown the more you'll see.

Anyhow, will be interesting to see if the city of Vancouver allows more talls to breach the bylaw limits.

Vancouver needs a municipal board. How about the BCMB? Sounds good.

I doubt if that will happen. The City of Vancouver planning department has been very successful in tightly controlling the size, shape, height and especially colour of buildings that have gone up this past
decade. They regard the sameness of these factors to be a success of planning and control. I doubt if they want to lose any control.

They control colour? I bet they are opposed to colour. It would explain the complete absence of it in favour of glass. Transparent is not a colour. What is it with Vancouverites and glass? I recognize the benefits of being able to see through it just like the next dude, but I'm only willing to Windex for so long.

Gotta be able to see the mountains! Yes, but you don't need glass at toe level to accomplish that. I really don't want to see that much of buddies apartment either.

They control colour? I bet they are opposed to colour. It would explain the complete absence of it in favour of glass. Transparent is not a colour. What is it with Vancouverites and glass? I recognize the benefits of being able to see through it just like the next dude, but I'm only willing to Windex for so long.

Gotta be able to see the mountains! Yes, but you don't need glass at toe level to accomplish that. I really don't want to see that much of buddies apartment either.

Oh yes, the design approval board in Vancouver would not allow any highrise that was not blue or green or clear glass clad. Their theory was that those colours of glass would make the building sort of "transparent" or "invisible" thus less intrusive on the skyline. They actually halted construction of the tallest building in Vancouver and ordered the builders to switch from dark glass to a clear glass, so the building is two-toned. Anyone who has actually seen a highrise will tell you there is nothing on earth can make a structure invisible, and the result is a huge amount of buildings that are green/blue or clear glass. The basic mentality is that highrises are ugly beasts and must be disguised as much as possible, instead of regarding the built environment to be almost as important as the natural one.
I think it is a healthy exercise for people once in awhile to re-examine theories and rules.. because sometimes they are made at a conference table by people far removed from reality.

I doubt if that will happen. The City of Vancouver planning department has been very successful in tightly controlling the size, shape, height and especially colour of buildings that have gone up this past
decade. They regard the sameness of these factors to be a success of planning and control. I doubt if they want to lose any control.

I doubt they would want that also, but it wouldn't be their choice.

Taller: thank you for shedding light on that. If I ever meet one of those design approval board members I'll request that they only wear blue, green, or clear so that they become less intrusive.
:ohno:

I think it would be best to scrap those restrictions altogether, especially for office space. Protecting views? Of what? I'm always amazed when people prioritize the view of the mountains over the city itself. The mountains and scenery are nothing special--that entire part of the continent looks about the same way. Vancouver is a city and the priority should be good urban planning.


I was in Vancouver just a few weeks ago, and I assure you that the view of the mountains is nothing less than stunning.

In regards to Vancouver, I don't see the height restriction really having a positive or a negative effect on views of anything... theoretically, if all the buildings are the same height, they could effectively block out a view to the north, depending on where you are.

Forget about 'views' though, I find the restriction to have an interesting and refreshingly different effect on the built mass of Vancouver's (and Montreals to a lesser extent) downtown. I guess what I'm saying is I'm entirely satisfied with what exists in both cities. Just an opinion.

Protecting views? Of what? The mountains and scenery are nothing special--that entire part of the continent looks about the same way.

http://www.wilmott.com/i/authorsicons/Troll%20Alert%20Icon.gif

^^ You jerk. You have a post-count of one and you call me a troll for giving my honest opinion? I wasn't attacking Vancouver or you. If you disagree with me on something, just say so. Otherwise join another forum.

^^ You jerk. You have a post-count of one and you call me a troll for giving my honest opinion? I wasn't attacking Vancouver or you. If you disagree with me on something, just say so. Otherwise join another forum.


You go join another forum.

I'm not the one trying to get on people's nerves with obvious flamebait.

^ Yeah were desperate for taller buildings thats why we have to compensate by claiming the North Shore mountains to be our "1000 footers". :|

Vancouver could easily have tall buildings by now, along with massive freeways, the whole nine yards. They have all been proposed, they have also all been shot down. It all has to do with policies of communist local government who are against.

The difference in Vancouver is, just because you want to build something here, doesn't mean they are going to let you. In fact if its a tall building, you better go somewhere else. Vancouver's council doesn't want it. It's not that we can't or havent had the proposals for taller buildings by any means.

nimby's, or in this case Vimby's. lol:rofl:

van and montreal have great skylines. taller would be good. van if far more short on tall in fact montreal is plenty tall. vancouver would be one of the worlds best skylines with 3 or 4 1000 plus footers.

van and montreal have great skylines. taller would be good. van if far more short on tall in fact montreal is plenty tall. vancouver would be one of the worlds best skylines with 3 or 4 1000 plus footers.

that would be too tall. really, the height limit should be 750-800 feet. otherwise, it would be all out of balanced.

Personally, I think if Vancouver added even 5-10 buildings the height of Calgary's 5-10 tallest it would have one of the world's greatest skylines.

Personally, I think if Vancouver added even 5-10 buildings the height of Calgary's 5-10 tallest it would have one of the world's greatest skylines.

i so agree with you. :cheers: thankfully, we have Brent Toderian as our new city planner for Vancouver City Centre. Brent was formerly a Calgary planner, and he's promising to bring change to Vancouver.