CITY OF VANCOUVER
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER SKYLINE STUDY
APRIL 7 AND APRIL 22, 1997
A special meeting of the Council of the City of Vancouver was held
at 7:30 p.m., on Monday, April 7, 1997 in the Council Chamber, third
floor, City Hall. Subsequently, the meeting was reconvened at 7:30 p.m.
on April 22, 1997.
PRESENT: Mayor Philip Owen
Councillor Don Bellamy
Councillor Nancy Chiavario (absent on
April 22 due to Civic Business)
Councillor Jennifer Clarke
Councillor Alan Herbert
Councillor Lynne Kennedy
Councillor Daniel Lee (absent on April 22)
Councillor Don Lee
Councillor Gordon Price
Councillor Sam Sullivan
ABSENT: Councillor George Puil for both meetings
(Civic Business on April 7)
CLERK: Gary MacIsaac
The minutes represent a consolidated record of the proceedings over
the two evenings for ease of reading.
PURPOSE OF MEETING
Before Council was a Policy Report dated February 20, 1997 entitled
Downtown Vancouver Skyline Study - Recommended Option . The meeting
was held to hear submissions from the public regarding this report.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
The Policy Report before Council recommended a policy for downtown
building heights to achieve a preferred profile for the Downtown
Vancouver skyline. A work program and resources for further work were
also put forward for consideration. The report contained the following
recommendations from the Director of Central Area Planning:
A. THAT the recommended skyline and general policy for higher
buildings, as detailed in Appendix C of this report, be
approved as the basis for adjustments to the maximum permitted
heights in the Downtown Official Development Plan (ODP),
noting that in the area covered by this ODP:
- buildings up to but not exceeding 600' high will only be
considered in the current 450' height area of the Central
Business District, north of Robson Street;
- buildings up to 400' high will be considered in the north
westerly current 300' height area of the Central Business
District, generally south east of Bute and Pender
Streets;
- in no case will building heights be considered that
intrude into adopted view corridors (except the Queen
Elizabeth Park view corridor); and
- elsewhere, buildings significantly exceeding current
height specifications will generally not be considered.
B. THAT staff report back with text amendments for the Downtown
Official Development Plan and design guideline amendments
regarding the proposed changes to the permitted building
heights and a process for considering higher buildings.
C. THAT buildings exceeding the current 450' height limit will
not be considered until guidelines, zoning text amendments,
review criteria and a process to enable the consideration of
buildings at this scale are completed.
D. THAT the Skyline Study Advisory Committee be thanked for their
time and effort and, further, that they be consulted during
the implementation and follow-up work that is outlined in this
report.
E. THAT the preparation of the text amendments and design
guidelines for the implementation of the revised height limits
be undertaken as soon as staff resources become available to
do this work, expected to be in 1998; and further that a
budget in the amount of $6,000 be approved in the 1998 budget
(subject to the availability of funds and priorities) for
public
meetings and computer resources to do this work.
The Director of Central Area Planning presented the following
alternative to recommendation E:
F. THAT $18,000, as an addition to the 1997 Operating Budget, be
approved for consultants, public meeting costs and computer
resources to proceed with preparation of zoning text
amendments, design guidelines and the appropriate review
process for immediate implementation of revised height limits
in the Downtown District.
The General Manager of Community Services noted the foregoing
recommendations are adding further complexity to the regulatory
environment, and submitted A-F for Consideration.
Also before Council was a memorandum from the Director of Central
Area Planning (on file in the City Clerk s Office), dated April 4, 1997
which provided Council with an additional view of the recommended
skyline from Choklit Park at 7th Avenue and Spruce Street, and responded
to the point raised by the General Manager of Community Services which
suggested these proposals will add complexity to the regulatory
environment.
STAFF OPENING COMMENTS
Mr. Larry Beasley, Director of Central Area Planning, advised staff
and the consultant are recommending a skyline that would allow some
higher buildings in the core of the Central Business District, north of
Robson Street between Howe and Thurlow Streets, but would limit these
heights to 600 feet to stay below the profile of the North Shore
mountains. Elsewhere, staff recommend taller buildings generally not be
given further consideration.
If Council wishes to see increases in height considered as
recommended in this study, important follow-up work will be necessary to
adjust the zoning, develop the guidelines and finalize the exact
approval process.
Mr. Beasley provided the following summary of the overall findings
of the Skyline Study:
- The build-out prototype is not flat from most vantage points
but we have to acknowledge that it will block many views
that we enjoy today;
- The prototypes are not dramatically different from each other
due to the limited number of development sites, particularly
in the core, and the height restrictions of the view
corridors;
- Landmark towers in the central business district core must be
significantly taller (550 to 750 feet) to be noticeable in the
skyline; and
- Achieving a highly stylized or geometrically structured
skyline is problematic because there aren't many sites to
develop, the view corridors create their own shape and the
evolving skyline is very dynamic;
- The opportunities for buildings above 450 feet is particularly
limited in practical terms. Staff would expect about 5 sites
with 3 of these buildings between 500 and 550 feet and only
two buildings at 600 feet; and
- Given the market, staff do not expect all these sites to be
developed in the short term. These buildings will likely
appear over a 15- to 20-year period.
Mr. Ray Spaxman, consultant, with the aid of a visual slide
presentation, reviewed the following prototypes for Council:
- A Build Out scenario, which shows what may happen should all
development sites in the downtown be developed in accordance
with current height limits, density allowances and design
guidelines;
- A scenario with landmark skylines which features two towers
which punch through the skyline to a height of 600 feet;
- A second scenario with landmark skylines that includes two
buildings near Georgia and Burrard at 750 feet;
- A gap tooth prototype which locates eight buildings between
450 and 550 feet in height to create a number of towers rising
above the surrounding buildings;
- A dome skyline which locates 12 towers between 450-550 feet at
locations centred in the Central Business District and
Triangle West (north of Georgia Street). In this scheme the
highest buildings would be located near Burrard and Georgia
Streets.
Mr. Michael Gordon, Planner, reviewed public feedback and advised
the following messages were received from the open houses and public
meetings:
- The skyline should complement, not compete, with the natural
setting;
- Blockage to mountain views should be minimized;
- The skyline is an important symbol to the city;
- Landmark buildings should achieve a variety of community
objectives;
In summarizing the views of those who attended the open houses or public
meetings, Mr. Gordon advised the comments that were heard and recorded
reflect three different perspectives:
- Some of the public believe that buildings should be no higher
than current limits, and in some cases they should be lower;
- Others believe that some modest increases in heights are
acceptable, if the blockage of mountain views is minimized;
- Others believe that a small number of dramatically higher
buildings (750 feet) are needed to reflect the size and
stature of Vancouver.
Mr. Larry Beasley concluded that the recommended skyline is not one
of the prototypes that was presented at the open houses but consists of
several of them. The recommendations before Council were intended to
achieve the following:
- Contain buildings that exceed current height limits within the
core of the Central Business District;
- Suggest that 600 feet, which is 150 feet or 12-16 storeys
above current height limits, be the maximum height that might
be considered;
- Ensure adherence to the view corridor height limits, with the
exception of the Queen Elizabeth View Corridor. These limits
mean that there will only be the potential for about two
buildings at 600 feet and elsewhere there will be the
potential for about three new buildings above 450 feet.
- Allow the potential for two buildings to be at about 400 feet
near Melville, Pender and Bute Streets;
- Ensure these higher buildings would only be permitted in
extraordinary circumstances and require a special review
process and Council approval to ensure a high level of
architectural excellence is attained;
- Ensure these buildings offer significant community benefits
including significant additions to downtown open spaces, or
assist with the retention of heritage buildings or the
provision of low-cost housing.
Prior to the commencement of the second meeting on April 22, 1997,
Council was in receipt of a memorandum from Mr. Larry Beasley (on file
in City Clerk s Office), which responded to issues raised by the public
at the April 7 meeting. Mr. Beasley outlined the contents of this
memorandum for Council. The intent was to respond to some confusion
over the implications regarding densities and resulting development
impacts in the Downtown that will result from staff s proposal for
increased building heights.
SPEAKERS
The Mayor then called for speakers, and a total of 23 delegations
addressed Council over the two evenings.
The following speakers were not in favour of the recommendations
before Council:
- Lin Bhompas, Fairview Slopes Residents Association
- Gail Davidson
- Jezrah Hearne
- Jean Gerber
- Eleanor Hadley
- Stacey Nixon
- Isabel Minty
- Claire Hurley
- Sheryl Dawson, Strata Plan LMS 2064
- Connie Fogal
- Dr. Linda Buhrenne
- Ian Gardiner
- Jamie Lee Hamilton, City Hall Watch
- Barbara Swiebs
- Gerry Altman
- John Parker
- Hazel Ackner
- Jack Singer
The foregoing opposed the recommendations before Council on one or more
of the following grounds:
- Residents of Vancouver love the current setting with mountains
as a backdrop, and do not want to see the City ruined by
thoughtless development;
- Page three of the staff report states that various people
have commented that Vancouver s skyline lacks visual interest
and there is a need for some taller buildings that reflect
Vancouver s contemporary image . Who are these various
people, and why has staff not stated their identity?
- Residents and visitors find Vancouver spectacular because of
the mountains, not because of tall buildings which will
obscure the mountains. People visit Vancouver because of its
natural beauty, not because it has tall buildings;
- The development industry is behind the recommendations
contained in this report, and developers are motivated by
greed and profit, rather than preserving Vancouver s
character;
- The open houses and public meetings were sparsely attended and
only 221 people submitted comment sheets, of which 17 of these
respondents gave no response to the preferred skyline. This
is not statistically representative and should not be used to
formulate public policy;
- The recommendations in the Council report were never publicly
presented at the open houses or public meetings. The hybrid
option was developed by staff, and this Special Council
meeting is the only public consultation on this option;
- The options presented to the public at the open houses implied
that taller buildings were a given, and the only issue was the
manner in which these taller buildings would be assembled;
- The public process associated with this Special Council
meeting was flawed, and inadequate advertising and
notification was conducted. Also, the staff contact list for
this meeting and the open houses was selective and favoured
those who prefer taller buildings;
- Council appears to be serving the interests of a small group
of developers, rather than the electorate at large;
- A plebiscite should be conducted on this question to hear the
true voice of the electorate;
- The public should be consulted through the public hearing
process, prior to Council deciding on such a significant
issue;
- It appears as if a final decision on this matter has already
been made, and Council is going through the motions of
conducting a public process;
- The City Planning Department appears to be representing the
development community, and not the citizens of Vancouver;
- Any further height relaxations in the Downtown core will
detrimentally impact the residents of Fairview Slopes;
- Residents with vested interests in Vancouver s future should
not be considered as NIMBY s;
- Tall buildings will result in negative environmental effects,
and the Policy Report fails to take this into consideration;
- Tall buildings will further impinge upon safety, quality of
life and mental health of Vancouver residents;
- Activity on the street is necessary to ensure safety in the
downtown core. Taller buildings do not encourage activity on
the street and could lead to a vacant downtown core on the
weekends;
- The rate of growth needs to be slowed down. Growth is
resulting in increased crime, pollution, and taxes and
decreased livability. Council should not consider this change
until it has improved transit. Otherwise a bad situation will
be made worse;
- The potential for growth exists only insofar as it is allowed
to be accommodated;
- The present trend of Vancouver s development appears to be
based on off-shore models in the Pacific Rim such as Tokyo,
Macau and Hong Kong, which are polluted concrete neon jungles.
Council should look to other urban centres in the world using
low-rise models, when enhancing the downtown core;
- Approval of these recommendations will set a dangerous
precedent and pave the way for future relaxations and more and
taller buildings. This is the thin edge of the wedge which
will result in view blockage of the City s mountains;
- The general policy for higher buildings described in the
report is ambiguous and leaves room for loop holes. In
particular, the statement that taller buildings must be of
architectural excellence is open to abuse, as architectural
excellence is difficult to define and is subject to
interpretation;
- The current skyline, with its tall buildings, is more
monotonous than it was 20 years ago;
- If Council favours landmark buildings, it should ensure that
space in each of these landmark buildings is allocated for
low-cost housing;
- This study should look at all of Vancouver, and not just the
downtown.
The following speakers expressed support for the recommendations in
the Policy Report before Council:
- Peter Phillips
- Doug Williams, Downtown Vancouver Association
- Peter Busby
The foregoing supported the recommendations on one or more of the
following grounds:
- Staff should be complimented for the informative and
professional manner in which this skyline study has been
conducted;
- What is missing from the skyline is the visual drama that
needs to be added to change this city s skyline from being
just an interesting profile with numerous non-descript 35
storey buildings, to being a truly spectacular one, with a few
60 storey superior architecturally designed towers,
strategically located around this core, which are respectful
of all of the terms and conditions currently in place;
- The issue of view protection has been properly respected and
addressed as existing view corridors will be protected;
- The recommendations in the staff report are a breath of fresh
air to the development community because they represent a
definitive move in another direction that will result in
significant public benefits;
- The eloquent, powerful and well organized lobby from South
False Creek/Fairview that attended the public information
meetings does not represent the majority of Vancouverites;
- Approval of these policies with the opportunity to develop
landmark towers will help stop the trend of businesses moving
to the suburbs;
- Approval of these recommendations will foster heritage
retention and green space.
Two additional speakers addressed Council. They were:
- Marc Venot
- Mark Hasselbach
- One speaker expressed support for the concept of landmark
buildings which will withstand architectural review and
suggested that Council give consideration to a forest option,
which would see all slender buildings, which widen at the top,
similar to a forest.
- One speaker advised that while growth and subsequent
development is inevitable, wise, far-sighted planning and
stringent guidelines regarding these buildings is of the
utmost importance. Ill-placed buildings cannot be removed,
but conversely elegant and well designed structures which are
well placed and infrequent will add to the City.
COUNCIL DECISION
The hearing of the public having concluded, Mayor Owen advised that
a final decision on this matter would be made at an upcoming Regular
meeting of Council, under Unfinished Business.
RISE FROM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MOVED by Cllr. Bellamy,
THAT the Committee of the Whole rise and report.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
ADOPT REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MOVED by Cllr. Bellamy,
SECONDED by Cllr. Clarke,
THAT the report of the Committee of the Whole be adopted.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
* * * *
The meetings on April 7 and April 22 both adjourned at approximately
10:00 p.m.