Vancouver City Council approves review of view cone impacts on housing

Views of the mountains through this view cone from South False Creek are absent on a rainy day in Vancouver. (Kenneth Chan/Daily Hive)

Protected mountain view cones in Vancouver will go through two main stages of review over the coming months, following Vancouver City Council’s unanimous decision today approving a member motion.

The review will determine the amount of additional housing, job space, hotel space, and public benefits that could potentially be built on sites currently impacted by building height restrictions due to view cones deemed to be “obsolete” and/or “no longer functionally relevant.”

There are 26 view cones that cross over Vancouver’s central areas of the downtown Vancouver peninsula and the Central Broadway area, as well as the northern areas of East Vancouver. The view cones protect the mountain view from a public space deemed to be important.

You might also like:

The largest is View Cone 3, which emanates from the top of Queen Elizabeth Park, spanning a wide area both over downtown Vancouver and Central Broadway. The second largest is View Cone 27, which emanates from the south beach of Trout Lake, spanning much of the Grandview-Woodland and Hastings Sunrise neighbourhoods, including the Hastings Street corridor.

But City Council’s direction will not aim to review such “panoramic” view cones for the consideration of their removal.

“This motion is not about eliminating panoramic views that we all value, treasure, and love. This is about taking a smart look to review smaller framed lower priority view cones that we could perhaps make adjustments to,” said ABC councillor Peter Mesizner, who put forward the member motion, during the public meeting.

It will instead target “obsolete” and/or “no longer functionally relevant” view cones, such as protected mountain views that are obscured by trees and the sail masts of boats in a marina, and even protected mountain views from a moving vehicle on a False Creek bridge.

vancouver view cones protected mountain views f

Existing protected mountain view cones. (City of Vancouver)

“This motion really comes down to one central question: do we have a view crisis in Vancouver or a housing crisis?” said Meiszner.

“Our city is missing out on not just housing, but office space and the jobs that go with it, and millions of dollars of amenities that we can deliver like community centres and parks,” continued Meiszner.

With the approval, City staff are now directed to report back before the end of 2023 on preliminary findings and potential view cone removals as the first stage of the work. This will be followed by a full report by the end of the second quarter of 2024 as the second and final stage of work, with a detailed review on view cone impacts on housing and the economy, and a comprehensive list of all “enforced framed and panoramic views and/or view cones in the city.”

830-850 Thurlow Street 1045 Haro Street Vancouver Intracorp

The proposed tower at 830-850 Thurlow Street and 1045 Haro Street, as seen from View Cone D emanating from Leg-in-Boot Square on the South False Creek seawall. The view cone is blocked by both sailboat masts next to the marina and the tower. (Patkau Architects/Intracorp)

Army & Navy 15-27 West Hastings Street 8-36 West Cordova Street Vancouver rezoning

Protected mountain View Cone J 1.1 and 1.2 from the Creekside Park playground next to Science World, obscured by trees and playground structures. (City of Vancouver)

This will be Vancouver’s first major review of its view cone and corresponding height restriction policies since 2010/2011, which actually resulted in the addition of four view cones. Vancouver’s protected mountain view regime was first enacted in 1989 when the modern post-World’s Fair downtown skyline began to rise.

Prior to the motion’s unanimous approval, several amendments were made, including an unanimous amendment to soften the language to “revise” and “refine” instead of “eliminate.”

“If we can look at revising and altering some view cones that make sense to enable all types of housing, including affordable and social housing, let’s put that discussion on the table,” said ABC councillor Rebecca Bligh, who put forward to key amendments that were unanimously approved.

“We require the level of analysis to back this up with data, since evidence-based decisions are critical for housing.”

Both Green city councillor Pete Fry and OneCity city councillor Christine Boyle made comments suggesting taller buildings and density should also be introduced outside of Vancouver’s central area.

“Views are important for context for our city. It doesn’t necessarily presuppose that we need to put all the density in downtown. We need to also put density outside the downtown peninsula,” said Fry.

Green city councillor Adriane Carr said it makes sense to use the review to make sure the criteria for establishing a view cone makes sense, but at the same time she asserted the importance of the mountain view for livability and tourism. “The setting of Vancouver is the star attraction,” she said emphatically.

Increasingly, developers and advocates for housing and economic development have noted that the view cones — especially when combined with other height restriction policies, such as the relatively new guidelines that restrict new building shadows on public parks, public plazas, retail strips, and major intersections — have made it onerous to achieve broader city-building and housing affordability objectives, especially in central areas close to the main cluster of economic opportunities and attractions, and major public transit investments.

Earlier this year, City Council approved the elimination of non-mountain protected view cones that face to the south from False Creek and the downtown Vancouver peninsula to protect landmark views of the 1936-built heritage Vancouver City Hall building at the corner of Cambie Street and West 12th Avenue. This policy stems from a 1976 guideline.

You might also like: