Many people likely aren’t aware that many of the city's mountain views – such as the iconic one from Broadway and Cambie – are the intentional result of a view cone policy that was adopted in 1989.Oliver Crook/Getty Images
Vancouver’s mountain views are easily the city’s best feature, which is why city council’s recent decision to obscure some of those vistas with taller towers is such a contentious one.
Many people likely aren’t aware that many of the sights – such as the iconic one from Broadway and Cambie – are the intentional result of a view cone policy that was adopted in 1989. Those guidelines meant developers couldn’t obscure sightlines from key points throughout the city.
But on July 10, city council voted to eliminate some of those protected views and drastically shrink others – including the one at Broadway and Cambie – without adding any new view cones, following a city staff presentation and comments from the public.
Of 38 views, 14 have been eliminated, 11 reduced or altered and 13 unchanged. There was some effort by a few councillors to conduct a separate vote on some of the more important views, but ultimately the ABC party-dominated council voted to not cherry pick.
The ABC party did not campaign on changing the views. It was only after Mayor Ken Sim won the 2022 election that he endorsed altering them, citing a need for housing over scenery. Last year, Mr. Sim and ABC councillor Peter Meiszner introduced the idea to review the city’s view and shadow policies.
City staff estimate an additional 15,000 to 75,000 additional housing units could potentially be delivered into current view cone boundaries over the next 30 years. Coun. Meiszner cited advantages to the new policy, including economic benefits, the inclusion of 20 per cent below market housing in new market-rate residential developments, and community amenity contributions that would result from rezonings.
The decision went through without robust public consultation, for what is the biggest change to view protections since they were originally introduced.
“There is no purity of outcome,” said Josh White, new general manager of planning, at the meeting.
“This decision has to be defensible to the public, because we are taking away a public benefit,” said councillor Rebecca Bligh. “So then, what public benefit are we delivering back?”
Mr. White argued that views are still being protected, while achieving a balance with new development.
Melody Ma, member of Save Our Skyline YVR, said “the loss is massive.”
“And I think that we’re going to start to feel it quite soon, sooner than people think,” she says, noting that city staff have already identified several sites that will benefit.
“Once those sites come online, we won’t see the mountains. … Now it feels like this wholesale privatization that is very short sighted.”
She was surprised by the erosion of the iconic Cambie Street view, which will become more important as the Broadway corridor opens to thousands of commuters who would see it every day.
“That entire view is going to be diminished to this little postcard [view] on the side. … So yeah, that one was especially egregious.”
Also, the loss of views on Granville Street is ironic, she says, because the city wants to pedestrianize its bridge, and the view while crossing is a major part of that experience.
One staff slide showed a reduced view of the mountains from Granville, with only the very tops of the summits visible in newly drawn boundaries. This doesn’t mean the view would all be infilled, said staff. Rather, there’d be a variety of building heights and a “layered urban context.”
The chipping away of a key feature of the city could also be the beginning of an overall erosion of its other attributes, say critics.
Ms. Ma could see some people arguing that Stanley Park should also get reduced because of the need for housing.
Long-time realtor Lorne Goldman says the shrinking of views is an irreversible decision that should have had far greater public consultation, considering what’s at stake.
“The view cones benefit all residents of Vancouver, both rich and poor. You are going to take them away, and that harms the public and it harms tourism,” he says.
Architect Gregory Henriquez phoned in to the meeting to support the changes. He said for 35 years, he’s had an intimate relationship with view cones, floor plates and shadows, and designed dozens of buildings as he’s navigated policies and financial feasibility. The view cones, he said, had been limiting housing development in recent years.
Developer, planner and real estate consultant Michael Geller had always felt some of the view protections were “silly,” such as the need to slice off a bit of the Shangri-La tower to protect the view of The Two Sisters, also known as the Lions.
But he refutes the claim that citizens are losing views in the name of housing affordability.
“It is naive to believe this will result in more affordable housing,” he says. “There are definitely other areas where additional density could be accommodated without blocking views or negatively impacting established neighbourhoods.”
Former co-director of planning, Larry Beasley, played a key role in establishing the original view cones. He says he’s particularly sad about narrowing of views from Alder Terrace, Olympic Village, Cambie Street, Granville Street and Granville Island. “Who cares what is left as they are only slits that will not register in one’s consciousness,” he says.