Review of Vancouver’s view corridors an ’empty measure:’ former city planner

A former director of planning for the City of Vancouver says a motion passed by city council to review Vancouver’s so-called “view cones” policy will do nothing to improve housing affordability in the city.

Larry Beasley says when he and the rest of the Vancouver City Council first implemented the policy in 1989 to preserve Vancouver’s world-famous views, it received overwhelming support from residents and councillors.

“We found tens of thousands of people were worried about the loss of views with all the towers… and that we’d just become a block of buildings without any kind of respite,” Beasley said.

On Wednesday, Coun. Peter Meiszner brought forward a motion during the Standing Committee on Policy and Strategic Priorities meeting calling for a review of the city’s View Protection Guidelines.

Meiszner says given the low vacancy rates and sky-high rents in the city, he thinks it’s time to see if some of these protected view corridors can be put to better use.

The 26 protected view corridors were adopted in an effort to preserve views of the ocean and mountains in Vancouver by limiting the height buildings are allowed to be built up to.

Views of the North Shore Mountains, downtown skyline and False Creek from public viewpoints such as arterial roadways and the Granville Bridge are some of the sights the policy aims to protect.

Beasley says at the time, it was the first move he was aware of that a city took to protect the relationship residents had with their setting.

“We were one of the first cities in the world to understand that the views and the quality of our setting was essential to our economic and social competitiveness,” he said. “It’s a major treasure of the commonwealth of our city. Enjoyed by everyone.”

Related Articles:

• B.C. receives failing grades in national poverty report card

• University students experiencing homelessness as B.C. housing crunch worsens

• Greater Vancouver homeless count reveals 32% increase since 2020

Now, Beasley says he thinks a lack of understanding about how affordable housing works means this motion will do little to bring down the cost of living in the city.

He says the motion is an “empty measure” that will only benefit speculators by increasing the value of land and privatizing treasured views.

“You have a view that thousands of people are enjoying, someone puts a building there, now the only people that can see that view are the people that are on the view side of that building,” he said.

Existing zoning allowances are already high enough, he adds, without opening up these view corridors.

“This is not going to add that much more supply,” Beasley said. “What it will do is increase the value of the properties involved… to supply the wealthiest, richest housing.”

A diagram of an example of a view corridor in Vancouver. (City of Vancouver)

Beasley says he’d like to see policies similar to Burnaby’s Affordable Units Policy implemented in more areas of the Lower Mainland.

The policy requires new multi-family developments in Burnaby to ensure 20 per cent of new units are for non-market rental housing, targeted towards low-to-moderate income households.

In Vancouver, Beasley says enforcing a similar policy would allow developers to build expensive homes alongside affordable units, as a way to secure housing while ensuring they continue to make profits.

However, Meiszner says this policy is already in place in parts of the city, including where he lives in the West End. He says if the view cone policy is lifted in these areas, it will make a difference in affordable housing.

He adds there are several examples of rental and social housing buildings in downtown Vancouver that are affected by these view cone policies.

“This really is not going to be a dramatic change in terms of the views people are used to and enjoy, such as the big panoramic views from Queen Elizabeth Park,” Meiszner said.

“This is about making tweaks to the smaller view cones that are less known, many of which are obscured by buildings, trees, or vegetation… to free up development capacity.”

-With files from Greg Bowman and Robyn Crawford