Vancouver’s Tallest Buildings

• View a complete list of contests ⟩⟩

13 Comments  —  Comments Are Closed

1. Cameron HeroldMonday, January 10th, 2011 — 12:49pm PST

   And I’d LOVE to know who the Shangila bribed to build SO MUCH higher than the limit – what a joke gov’t is.

2. LisaBMonday, January 10th, 2011 — 1:26pm PST

   Cameron – the Shangri La falls under Vancouver’s Higher Building policy which allows buildings in the 600ft range.
   http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/guidelines/H005.pdf

3. Rebecca BollwittMonday, January 10th, 2011 — 1:28pm PST

   Thanks LisaB, I have added that link to the post!

4. MarcMonday, January 10th, 2011 — 2:45pm PST

   …of course the height limits should be raised!
   Why not?
   Don’t give that, “I can’t see the mountains” excuse….it’s old and tired.

   I have heard year after year how world-class Vancouver is and the burgeoning metropolils it is when in reality, it’s not.

   Those who can’t see the mountains anymore and long for that daily experience will have to move I suppose.
   I do live in Kits and can see every single mountain with no obstruction at all.
   Better yet, I can drive to the mountain to see it too!
   I know, strange.

   I say build baby build!
   The higher and more glamorous, the better.
   Thanks.

5. Toby SullivanMonday, January 10th, 2011 — 2:58pm PST

   Given the Higher Building Policy that LisaB provided, I don’t think the building limit necessarily needs to be increased. In fact, reading the Higher Building Policy makes it very tempting to vote against this as it encourages higher quality development in Vancouver’s downtown core that is beneficial to all the people of Vancouver while still allowing much needed dense development.

   However, I would be very willing to support expanding the selection of streets permitted to house taller buildings (currently only West Georgia, Granville and Burrard according to the Higher Building Policy). Also, if too many valid applications are being rejected, we could consider reviewing why but I doubt that’s the case.

6. matteroffactMonday, January 10th, 2011 — 8:46pm PST

   Change is scary. I myself get a little nervous when I move to another city or start a new job, so I understand why people get apprehensive when it comes to changes in Vancouver’s built form. What once was recognizable is now not. The problem with trying to avoid change or at the very least watering it down, is that it doesn’t leave much room to grow (figuratively and literally). If Vancouver wants to thrive by provide enough built space for more and more offices and residents it has to up it’s density. I’d far rather have a bit of a mountain view blocked than have dozens and dozens of housing units (that could have been a single highrise) spreading up the mountain-side like a rash.

7. JPTuesday, January 11th, 2011 — 5:57pm PST

   Here is a link to the larger 1997 study>> http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/PLANNING/archives/skylinestudy/policyrpt.pdf Also a ton of conversation here on the subject>> http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=167028&page=3

8. TrudyTuesday, January 11th, 2011 — 5:58pm PST

   No way!! There goes the view of our mountains – which is already compromised. Have a height contest in a boring landscape, please.

9. Vania WongTuesday, January 11th, 2011 — 10:20pm PST

   Great list Miss 604! What a big difference between the Shangri-La and the second tallest building in Vancouver proper!

   Burnaby will experience a similar situation with the upcoming Sovereign (luxury residences, hotel, retail) by Bosa Properties. Sovereign will rise 511 ft in the sky and will top out at 900′ above sea level – taller than any other building in Burnaby by far! It will definitely change the Burnaby landscape.

   I found the information here:
   http://www.bosaproperties.com/sovereign/project.php

10. RyAwesomeWednesday, January 12th, 2011 — 11:15am PST

    There’s a lot more to this issue than height and seeing the mountains. City planning certainly isn’t easy… Metro Vancouver’s growth is restricted from the north (mountains), the west (Pacific Ocean) and the south (United States), and can only grow so fast out towards the Fraser Valley. Also, growing east means more expensive public transit and a lot more traffic. The City of Vancouver will continue to expand… and it’s going to be up.

    Take a look at Vancouver from Kits and think how tall a building would have to be to block the view of the mountains. Drive up to West Van and do the same…

11. RonThursday, January 13th, 2011 — 3:49pm PST

    Here’s the link to the current proposals.

    http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20101216/documents/penv3presentation-ImplementationofVancouverViewsandOpportunitiesforHigherBuildingsintheDownt.pdf

    You’ll note that the proposal to increase heights is subject to (i.e. limited by) the existing view cones that crisscross downtown.

    On the map of the downtown in that presentation note the asterisk with the reference to view cones – so the blue area is completely misleading as to being “up to 600 ft”. The “600 ft” designation across the Central Business District is merely lip service to that height, since almost all sites within the CBD fall under view cones that have lower height restrictions (much lower in some cases (i.e. the Bay parkade site can only go to about 300 ft)). The only CBD sites not affected by view cones are along Alberni St., Georgia St (1000 and 1100 block) and Melville St. – that’s whi the Snagri-La and the (former) Ritz-Carlton proposal are located where they are.

    And that’s why the newly proposed sites for the higher buildings seem to be in oddball locations.

12. Jon StovellSunday, January 16th, 2011 — 2:31pm PST

    This is one of the proposed high buildings at one of the six high building sites:

    http://www.burrardgateway.ca

    http://www.burrardgateway.ca/news.html

13. TerrySaturday, February 18th, 2012 — 10:54am PST

    The height restriction of the downtown buildings should only be allowed increased in certain areas where it’s deemed appropriate.