Some Vancouver ‘view cones’ could be scrapped under proposed review

 https://globalnews.ca/news/9990941/vancouver-view-cone-review

Toronto, Calgary & Edmonton are allowed to build taller than what's in Montreal. Of course stubborn watered down Vancouver is an exception.

Vancouver & BC was unable to build a wall or generate a forcefield around it like something out of STAR TREK. Thus, a stunted approach was implemented, which was all about slowing down the influx of people. Vancouver doesn't have the authority to restrict Canadian immigration or restrict people from moving into the region from other parts of Canada.  

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-view-cones-review-housing-impacts-motion

At a certain point, the BC part of Canada will be forced to put more money into proper size infrastructure.

https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/protecting-vancouvers-views.aspx This has been such an ingenious way to hold the city back. So much of BC is mountainous wilderness that will never be blocked out.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-view-cone-restrictions-policies

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouvers-shrinking-skyline Fortunatly, Vancouver doesn't have control over the entire region, so the demand for taller buildings is still possible in the surrounding area.

So many urban restrictions were put into Vancouver during the 1970s, 80s and 90s by a mostly White power structure. In theory, if a city & urban area is continually stunted like Greater Vancouver, then less people will be likely to move there. Calgary & Seattle were never under anything like the extreme Vancouver limitations. Thus, those cities have much taller buildings, wider roads & bridges & any of their underground train stations are much longer than what Vancouver has ever built. The Toronto Subway & the Montreal Metro have stations that are at least 152m or about 500 feet, when stunted Vancouver only built 50m to 80m Skytrain stations.

If Vancouver was ever allowed to become a big city & region like Sydney, San_Francisco & Montreal, that would mean accommodating more people of color. It's not that the predominantly White power structure of the 1970s, 80s and 90s officially had a, KEEP THEM OUT agenda, but any slow growth initiative can certainly slow down the influx of people & the local economy. 

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-tower-building-shadowing-solar-access

Indeed, by continually promoting a half size approach to such stunted infrastructure, it shows a reluctance towards accommodating more people. As it so happens, most of the people on the planet aren't of European descent. Thus, anly slow growth initiative is a very clever way to, KEEP PEOPLE OUT. Unfortunately, even if there is finally enough people that want Vancouver & other parts of BC to have big cities, there is quite a tangled mess of laws, ordinances & restrictions that would have to be changed.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/larwill-park-office-towers-vancouver-concept

One would think that especially for a region such as Greater Vancouver with so many narrow roads & streets, there should have been a metro on the scale of what Montreal has. But so much about Vancouver & BC is about congestive planning.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/translink-2017-kevin-desmond-canada-line-built-skytrain Why build 152m long stations linke in Montreal & Toronto when you can build absurd 50m stations? This is a fine example of the reluctance to build without allowing for future expansion. Don't think like a big city or urban region where a train could eventually reach the ferry terminals. It's much better to take the congestion approach.

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=building+shadowing+policies

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=SkyTrain-Canada+Line

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=Montreal

The small Westin Bayshore Hotel in Vancouver

 https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/westin-bayshore-vancouver-best-luxury-hotel  

https://vancouversbestplaces.com/vancouver-hotels/vancouver-westin-bayshore-hotel

Of course the Vancouver location wasn't allowed to be as big as the Westin in Seattle. Just like the Hotel+Vancouver wasn't designed to be as tall and especially as wide as the Royal+York+Hotel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westin_Seattle "The hotel originally consisted of a single 40 story tower, today's south tower, reaching a height of 121 m (397 ft). The tower was topped out in January 1969 and the hotel opened on June 29, 1969." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westin_Seattle#History "The 137 m (449 ft), 47-story north tower opened in June 1982..." 

While Vancouver is only warm for half of the year, at best, the old Bayshore Inn wasn't allowed to be as big as anything in Waikiki. 

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/council-approves-new-policy-address-vancouvers-hotel-room-shortage.pdf 

https://corporatemeetingsnetwork.ca/2025/05/01/tackling-vancouvers-hotel-shortage-crisis/

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/no-rooms-at-the-inns-knock-on-effects-of-vancouvers-hotel-shortage 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/vancouver-s-last-undeveloped-waterfront-site-could-house-convention-centre-hotel-according-to-city-memo/ar-AA1vO3Bz 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Westin_Seattle_from_Olive_8.jpg
Unlike Seattle, Vancouver no longer has its first 40 story hotel. Perhaps if the city had allowed a much taller condo tower, the hotel tower could have been saved. Or, a new double tower combination of a 55 story hotel and 65 story condo tower. Instead, the old landmark was replaced with 2 stumps that have less than 40 stories.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Empire_Hotel_Landmark.jpg/330px-Empire_Hotel_Landmark.jpg 

Other cities seemed to be more interested in cultivating their hotel and tourism industry. Even encouraging more hotel towers. However, Vancouver with its very strict (multigenerational) imposed height restrictions, kept falling behind.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/sep/27/wipe-out-era-1970s-vanish-vancouver 

After several decades of keeping Vancouver hotels short and small, now the city realized that there aren't enough hotel rooms for the tourism industry. 

https://globalnews.ca/video/11127278/biv-vancouver-needs-thousands-more-hotel-rooms

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-tourism-risk-hotel-development-construction-policies 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_Seattle Vancouver has yet to permit a big, bulky hotel like this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainier_Square_Tower While this isn't a hotel, its 60m taller than the tallest building in Vancouver.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telus_Sky No hotel, just an office and residential tower. However, its about 22m taller than the tallest in Vancouver. 

The (unofficial) rule is that almost everything in Vancouver has to be scaled back or watered down in size.  

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=hotels  

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=Hotel+Vancouver

The office stumps of Vancouver, BC

No office tower in Vancouver has eve been permitted to have a 40th floor.

https://skyscraperpage.com/b106925/vancouver/the-stack

https://skyscraperpage.com/b63/vancouver/royal-centre

https://skyscraperpage.com/b5828/vancouver/b5

https://skyscraperpage.com/b66/vancouver/park-place

https://skyscraperpage.com/b64/vancouver/four-bentall-centre

https://skyscraperpage.com/b65/vancouver/the-scotia-tower

https://skyscraperpage.com/b98113/vancouver/the-exchange

https://skyscraperpage.com/b67/vancouver/toronto-dominion-tower-at-pacific-centre

https://skyscraperpage.com/b41476/vancouver/b6

https://skyscraperpage.com/b100729/vancouver/vancouver-centre-2 

https://skyscraperpage.com/b7191/vancouver/200-granville-square

https://skyscraperpage.com/b68/vancouver/three-bentall-centre

https://skyscraperpage.com/b6162/vancouver/320-granville 

https://skyscraperpage.com/b60/vancouver/harbour-centre The office floors don't even get above 28. https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/vancouver/harbour-centre/4144 If the Harbour_Centre office floors had continued right up to the base of the flag-pole, it would be equivalent to 40 stories. However, the revolving_restaurant is more equivalent to 35 floors. With the height to the tip of the antenna as being 177.1 m (581 ft), the flag could be considered to be at the equivalent of 48th floors. But there are no floors in the flag-pole.

Had the flag-pole or antenna not been built, the Harbor Centre would have been slightly shorter than the original height of the tallest Giza_pyramid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza "Initially standing at 146.6 metres (481 feet), the Great Pyramid was the world's tallest human-made structure for more than 3,700 years." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza#Pyramidion_and_missing_tip

https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=117075754&page=1 

Only 2 buildings in restrictive Vancouver have been allowed to be taller than the Cairo_Tower and the Space_Needle. Only 1 building in Vancouver has been allowed to be taller than the Calgary_Tower. 

Vancouver is about implementing short buildings, short trains and narrow bridges. Since the multigenerational power structure can't build a wall around the city to keep people out, the next best thing is to symbolically take a small scale approach to things. Thus, its very difficult for proper BIG city stuff to get built in backwards Vancouver. 

BC is 23 times larger than Switzerland, yet it doesn't even have the population of one CH. 

Despite Canada being the 2nd largest nation in overall area, it has less than half of 1% of the worlds population. Thus, Canada is but a spec of the worlds population. 

Vancouver 450 ft and Fahrenheit 451

Was a 450 foot height restriction just by chance, or was it intentionally made to be very close to 451 Fahrenheit? Despite being around the same size as Paris, Boston & SF, Vancouver remains as a very restrictive city. 

Any tall building in SL City is under 450 feet. Honolulu is still stuck around the 450 foot maximum, while San Diego is stuck at 500 feet. Even Rio DeGennaro still has shorter buildings than Vancouver, BC. Washington, DC has strict height limitations like Paris. However, W,DC could eventually set up their own equivalent of La_Defense. Its a fine example of allowing tall buildings just beyond the city limits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451 (1953) By the 1950s, so many things were already banned, watered down or scaled back in provincial backwater Vancouver. Generations later, there was the No Fun City mind virus that further tried to cancel out things in such a small city with so much red tape and other ridiculous obstacles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451_(1966_film) By the mid and late1960s, the city made sure that its first office tower to have more than 29 floors wouldn't be until the 1970s. Its highly doubtful that Vancouver will have an office tower at, or over 40 stories by 2030. However, Burnaby and Surrey could, because they aren't under the extreme restrictions of the Vancouver Mind Virus (VMV). 

It wasn't until 1973 when Vancouver allowed its first building to be taller than the Los_Angeles_City_Hall. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_City_Hall 

The Scotia_Tower (stump) is a good reference point to visualize the small scale of backwater Vancouver, as its about the same height as the Los_Angeles_City_Hall at 453'. 

https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/scotia-tower/4396 453'

https://skyscraperpage.com/b65/vancouver/the-scotia-tower 452' 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Wall_Centre It opened in 2001 at 157.8 m (518 ft). Its 49 feet shorter than the Philadelphia_City_Hall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_City_Hall Opened in 1901 at 548 ft (167 m).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451_(2018_film) By 2018 it was quite apparent that Vancouver was in the process of allowing for more buildings over 450 feet. However, nothing has been permitted to reach 700 feet, so far. A tower over 1000 feet would help to water down its provincial mindset. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Vancouver_panorama_%2849988799796%29_%28cropped%29.jpg/3840px-Vancouver_panorama_%2849988799796%29_%28cropped%29.jpg

SF, Sydney & Auckland are just as scenic as Vancouver & warmer throughout the year. They all have taller building than what Vancouver currently permits. Seattle is just as scenic as Vancouver, but its allowed to function like a proper big city, because it doesn't have the imposed restrictions like Vancouver has. While its cold, damp & depressing like Vancouver during the fall & winter, Seattle usually gets noticeably hotter summers than Vancouver, BC. The tallest building in Seattle is the 76 story B of A office tower. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/LA_Skyline_Mountains2.jpg/1280px-LA_Skyline_Mountains2.jpg While the L.A. City Hall looks like a stump there, in Vancouver it would still be one of the prominent buildings.

Everything is so small or scaled back in Vancouver. Even the Greater Vancouver mountains aren't allowed to be as tall as the ones in L.A. While the San_Francisco_Bay & Port_Phillip Bay by Melbourne are big next to their cities, English_Bay in_Vancouver is so much smaller. Its even smaller than Elliott_Bay by Seattle. 

Vancouver really needs to have bus and HOV bridges built next to its mostly narrow & congested bridges. Only a 5 car Skytrain is the max on the first 2 lines and ultimately, just a 2.5 car joke of a train on the YVR-Canada Line. 

Selective+Door+Operation can allow a short train to have an extra car at each end, despite a shorter platform. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Vancouver_sunset_%28J%29.jpg/3840px-Vancouver_sunset_%28J%29.jpg 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/Los_Angeles_with_Mount_Baldy.jpg/3840px-Los_Angeles_with_Mount_Baldy.jpg

Australia like the USA, has some big & tall cities on the Pacific Rim. However, Vancouver symbolically kept watering down its size, because that's how you demonstrate a reluctance towards proper urban planning & growth. 

Oddly enough, the imposed small scale Vancouver mentality & agenda wasn't adopted by most cities around the world. Officially, there is no Vancouver Mind Virus (VMV), but somehow something like it keeps manifesting, just like the BCMV. 

Despite its size, Canada has less than 1% of the worlds population. Its been difficult enough just for Canada to even have half of 1% of the worlds population. 

One expects Melbourne and Sydney to be proper big cities. However, Australia has big stuff at both ends of the country. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Leo_Hielscher_Bridges#Design Its a 12 lane crossing in Brisbane. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrows_Bridge_(Perth) 10 lanes with 2 commuter train tracks in the middle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane_Skytower It has 90 floors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q1_(building) Almost has 80 floors.

Perth Central_Park_(skyscraper) at 51 floors and 108_St_Georges_Terrace at 50. Very restrictive Vancouver still won't permit any office tower to have a 40th floor. Calgary and Seattle each have a few over 50 stories.

So far, provincial Halifax hasn't been allowed to be on a similar scale as Boston and Montreal. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_L._Macdonald_Bridge 3 lanes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._Murray_MacKay_Bridge 4 lanes. 

The scale of Vancouver is kept below that of Calgary & Seattle or even Auckland, in some ways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions_Gate_Bridge A classic 3 lane BC bottleneck-chokepoint. No parallel bus and truck tunnels and especially, no LRT tunnel. 

Provincial backwater Victoria isn't allowed to be on a similar scale of Wellington, NZ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Street_Bridge Another BC 3 lane wonder.

The Typical Vancouver Size Stump Building

 Given that most proper big cities around the world are permitted to build much taller & wider buildings than what is allowed in strict & stubborn Vancouver, BC, a curious thing has happened over the decades. When a tall tower is built in another city, next to it will be a Vancouver size stump of a building. However, the Vancouver stump isn't always part of the complex, The Vancouver Size Stump might be across the street or a block or so away. Yet, such a stumpy building can provide an excellent example of the larger scale that most big cities are allowed to exist upon. 

The Royal_Banck_Centre_in_Vancouver, B.C. The windows only go up to the 36th floor, but there are 3 more levels above that. It's only 475 feet in height and equivalent to 39 floors..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Centre_(Vancouver) "The skyscraper stands at just under 145m tall and 37 storeys. Royal Centre was the tallest building in Vancouver upon completion in 1973..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Canadian_Place The windows go up to 72 stories, plus a few levels above that. The BMO tower in Toronto is about twice the height of the RBC in Vancouver. The 32 story BMO tower in Vancouver is a stump when compared to the 72 story BMO tower in TO.

The Scotia_Tower in Vancouver, stands at 138 m or 35 storeys tall and completed in 1977. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Scotia_Tower_Vancouver The windows only go up to 34, but there are a few levels above that. The Toronto version has its windows go right to the 68th floor. Its twice the height & twice the width as the stump in backwater Vancouver.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotia_Plaza 275 m (902 ft) with 68 floors.

A Vancouver Size stump in tall Toronto.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_Tower It's a 36 storey 146 m (479 ft) tower in the First Canadian Place complex of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Due to the strict zoning restrictions in Vancouver, its difficult to even have an office building with 36 floors.

A Vancouver Size Stump in Perth, WA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_Tower,_Perth It's a 40-storey skyscraper in Perth, Western Australia. Completed in 1992, the 146-metre (479 ft). Stubborn Vancouver just won't permit any office building to have a 40th floor. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Perth_skyline_from_KS1%2C_November_2017.jpg The former AMP has become a stump in Perth, yet in Vancouver, it would still be a predominant tower. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/140_St_Georges_Terrace "140 St Georges Terrace is a 30-storey skyscraper in Perth, Western Australia. Opened in 1975, the 131-metre (430 ft) tower was known as the AMP Building..."

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Elizabeth_Quay_February_2016_%28cropped%29.jpg/640px-Elizabeth_Quay_February_2016_%28cropped%29.jpg The former AMP is a good example the stump size building that stubborn Vancouver wants to hold onto. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/AMP_Bankwest_gnangarra.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Perth

https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/perths-mining-boom-to-blame-for-lack-of-heritage-20130315-2g4xl.html

Vancouver is a very tiny part of the BC land area. Even in the Greater Vancouver Region, Vancouver is a small component. Thus, while stubborn Vancouver wants to keep its stumpy agenda, other BC cities are more accepting of allowing significantly taller structures. https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?stateID=1&status=15

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=stump

Vancouver, BC & Other Cities

So far, Vancouver hasn't had the same scale of urban development that's common in several other cities. The buildings, roads, trains & bridges are half the size of many of the big cities. Vancouver#Incorporation 1886

Vancouverism : Urban_planning

Vancouver hasn't entered the big leagues of tall buildings. By Canadian standards, BC buildings aren't allowed to be as tall as what many other places permit.

{http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2011/05/vancouver-fantasy-skyline/}

The tallest_buildings_in_Vancouver are among the smaller big buildings of the world. Seattle, Toronto & LA all have an office tower over 70 stories. No office building in Vancouver has been permitted to reach 40 stories, around 500 feet (152.5 m) as of yet. No residential building or any other Vancouver structure is expected to reach 7oo feet (213.5 m) in the near future. The big money of the world hasn't been that interested in Vancouver, but perhaps some year, Vancouver might have an office tower as tall as the 748' MLC_Centre in Sydney. However, this would only happen if the big money really wants to change the height limitations, as was the case for LA and Sydney.

The roof of Vancouver's Living_Shangri-La is 197 m (646 ft)

http://www.shangri-la.com/en/property/vancouver/shangrila

http://www.emporis.com/application/?nav=building&lng=3&id=livingshangrila-vancouver-canada

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=9790

The Living Shangri-La is about the same size as the Millennium_Tower in San_Francisco.

The World_Tower at 230 m (750 ft) is the tallest residential building in Sydney & remains as one of Australia's tallest.

No Vancouver building makes it onto the first page.

The 1st & 2nd tallest make it onto the 2nd page.

The 3rd & 4th tallest buildings make it onto the 3rd & 4th page.

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=51870368&offset=100

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=51870368&offset=125

Australia, Asaia, Europe & the Americas have so many office towers over 40 stories. It remains part of Vancouver's urban character to not have an office level reaching to or above a 40th floor.

Although the Houston_City_Hall is of a similar shape to the Vancouver_City_Hall, Houston really started to think big & tall ever since the 1960s. BC only has 1 building taller than the 630 ft (190 m) BG_Group_Place. 1700_Pacific in Dallas would be the tallest office tower if it were in BC. Although Bankers_Hall was never quite the tallest in Alberta it still would be if it were in BC.

The RBC was the first office building in Vancouver to have more than 35 floors & reach at least 460 feet. The windows go up to 36 & there are 3 more levels above the 36th. Altogether it rises 39 floors above the street.

So its a little taller than the LA_City_Hall. 138 m (453 ft)

The RBC is about as tall as 650_California_Street: 34 story, 142 m, (466 feet) However, what would still be a tower in Vancouver is almost a stump in SF. 650 California Street opened in 1964 & 5 years later was the B of A tower, or 555 California_Street.

The 1914 LCS & the 1973 RBC

It took almost 60 years for Vancouver's planning department to allow something on the scale of the 37 story, 1914 Smith Tower is 141 m (463 ft).

The main section has 35 floors, but there is a hidden level below & also above the 35th floor. http://www.emporis.com/application/?nav=image&id=504517

The floors with windows total 37 which is really at the 39th level, but the overall building is still equivalent to 42 levels. That's because the original owner wanted to credit even the windowless floors. http://www.emporis.com/application/?nav=image&id=334689

So the top floor window is at level 39 & there is the equivalent of 3 more levels above that.

This is the 42nd floor but some of them simply have no windows. http://www.smithtower.com/Facts.html

While this little white building has become a stump in Seattle, it would still be the tallest office tower in Vancouver.

http://www.emporis.com/application/?nav=image&id=717159

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?stateID=24

The RBC is around the same height as the LCS & when it opened in 1973 it was Vancouver's tallest building.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/65654681@N00/2086042348/

http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains/photos/cpr_facilities/vancouver_aerial.htm

http://www.6717000.com/blog/2010/11/the-proposed-burrard-gateway-vancouver-real-estate-development-500-million-project-with-48-37-storey-vancouver-skyscrapers-plus-13-storey-office-building-7-storey-mix-use-vanco/

Calgary, like Seattle, is not subject to the building limitations of Vancouver. The Pacific_Northwest & Western_Canada continue to develop differently than BC.

The shorter building of Seattle's Union_Square would be among Vancouver's largest office buildings. This is the same case with Calgary's Suncor_Energy_Centre.

http://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/2011/07/seattle-calgary.html

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/2022/11/buildings.html

No fireworks in downtown Vancouver for New Year's Eve or the rest of 2026

 https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-fireworks-2026-new-years-eve-nye 

While Vancouver hasn't been able to get most other cities across Canada and around the world to stop, ban or cancel their NY Eve fireworks, bizarre Vancouver will retain this part of its NO FUN CITY (NFC) mentality and agenda. 

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/local-news/fireworks-banned-halloween-vancouver-fire-department-9726922 Why just ban them in October and January, when you can ban them throughout the year? 

https://www.ehnewspaper.ca/articles/third-year-of-vancouvers-fireworks-ban

For some strange reason, backwards Vancouver hasn't been able to get other cities around the world to adopt the same bizarre idiosyncrasies.  

Officially, there isn't supposed to be a Vancouver+Mind+Virus, but the backwards city is so stunted and strange. Other cities in a scenic setting such as Sydney, Auckland, San_Francisco and Seattle are able to have wider bridges in or close to their city centers. 

Despite warm and scenic Honolulu having some very short bridges, they are still wider than what extremely restrictive Vancouver allows. These two short bridges in Honolulu provide 4 lanes each way. Thus, they form an 8 lane crossing and they aren't even part of a freeway.  

There is also a very short 6 lane bridge in Honolulu. In addition to its 6 lanes, there is a turning lane and a one lane wide median, which makes it equivalent to being 8 lanes wide. Plus, there are 2 wide sidewalks, which are wider than the original sidewalks on the Granville Bridge in Vancouver. In other words, no bridge in Vancouver is allowed to be as wide as it. Despite regional population growth, the Granville Bridge was reduced from 8 lanes to 6 lanes. 

Considering how Vancouver has such a narrow road system, one would think that a regional network of bus and bike bridges would be essential. Of course the backwards city and greater urban region is too cheap to fund such infrastructure and rather opted for a congestive transportation approach.

In contrast, The+Helix+Bridge in Singapore is fine example of what backwards Vancouver refuses to build. No lanes had to be removed from the 6 lane Bayfront+Bridge or the 10 lane Benjamin+Sheares+Bridge. Stubborn Vancouver could really benefit from something like the Helix Bridge. 

While Vancouver went backwards after Expo 86, Brisbane really took of after Expo 88. The Kangaroo_Point_Green_Bridge, Goodwill_Bridge, Kurilpa_Bridge, Jack_Pesch_Bridge and the Go_Between_Bridge are all great examples of what strange Vancouver refuses to build. What's really amazing from a backwater Vancouver perspective is that those bike and foot bridges in Brisbane never required any lanes to be removed from the cities road bridges. 

In comparison, Vancouver removed 2 lanes from the Burrard St. Bridge (BSB), 1 lane from the Cambie Bridge and 2 lanes from the Granville Bridge. If urban planning in Vancouver was wise and the city never got rid of its trams or streetcars, perhaps something like the Tilikum_Crossing could have been built across False_Creek.

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=fireworks

Why Greater Toronto Has Several Skylines

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI9WJa9Q8dA 

Of course many large urban areas around the world have more than 1 or 2 skylines or tower clusters. 

For the longest time, no building in Vancouver or BC, was allowed to be as tall as the 1930s CIBC tower, which is now a stump.

https://www.blogto.com/city/2017/05/toronto-lost-observation-deck-commerce-court-north/

https://www.torontojourney416.com/canadian-bank-of-commerce-building/ 

https://www.25king.ca/the-history 

It wasn't until the early 1970s when stumpy, Vancouver allowed a building to be taller than the L.A. City Hall, or the Smith Tower in Seattle. 

The 1930s CIBC tower, the L.A. City Hall and the Smith Tower, would still be prominent towers in Vancouver, but stumps in their own cities. 

Despite Vancouver being divided by an inlet and a river, the city wasn't able to build a huge wall along Boundary Road. Thus, the KEEP THEM OUT agenda was a little thwarted. The various White city councils tried to do the next best thing. That was to symbolically impose various restrictions as a reluctance to think, plan and build on a BIG city scale. The time especially from 1960 to 2000 had predominantly White City Hall and its councils continually impose several overlapping restrictions. 

Since Vancouver can't control immigration or the movements of non-white people, keeping things small and backwards, means that less people will move there than to Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton. However, with a mild winter climate, more and more people want to move to backwards BC, especially small-minded Vancouver and provincial Victoria. 

In spite of immigration and Multiculturalism, Vancouver was to perpetually promote its small scale agenda. 

While the first Skytrain line can finally run 5 car trains, the stations weren't designed to become long enough to eventually accomodate 9 car trains like the big city Montreal Metro has. 

The 2nd and 3rd Skytrain lines are still only running 2 car joke trains. Running 8-10 car trains is what a proper big city would do, but not backwards Vancouver. 

Narrow bridges provides strong symbolism of the cities narrow-mindedness. When bridges are too narrow, its difficult to have a proper express or rapid bus system. The reluctance to build parallel bus and HOV bridges helps to maintain the congestive planning approach that is vancouver and the Greater Region. 

Vancouver's refusal to build parallel bike bridges has meant that 2 lanes were removed from the Burrard Bridge, 1 lane from the Cambie Bridge and 2 lanes from the Granville Bridge. 

Keeping buildings symbolically short when compared to what scenic Sydney, Auckland, SF and Seattle allow, also helps to maintain Vancouver's reluctance to enter the big and tall urban scale. In fact, the scenic setting that Vancouver is in has been used as the main excuse to continually scale the city down. Yet, several scenic cities around the world are either able to have wider bridges, wider roads, longer trains or taller buildings. 

The world is mostly composed of non-white people. Canada has less than 1% of the world's population and stubborn Vancouver symbolically remains as a small provincial backwater on the Pacific Rim. 

https://centralparktower.com.au Unlike Perth, Vancouver forbids 50 story office towers and Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne size residential towers. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/108_St_Georges_Terrace In fact, no office building in Vancouver has been permitted to have a 40th floor. However, since Burnaby and Surrey aren't under the restrictive controls of Vancouver, they will eventually allow office towers over 40 stories. 

Despite Australia having less people than Canada, Perth is allowed to have taller buildings, wider bridges and longer trains than Vancouver. Taller buildings, wider bridges and longer trains are even less likely in Halifax than whats in Brisbane or Queensland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q1_(building) To see buildings on a similar scale of what Brisbane allows, one has to get to Greater Toronto. Brisbane is allowed to have some buildings that would even be impressive in Melbourne and Sydney. 

While Montreal is allowed to have taller buildings than Vancouver, Montreal isn't allowed to have Sydney size towers. Especially not on the scale of what Melbourne and Toronto permit. 

Vancouver Park Board to consider extended beach hours around summer solstice

 https://www.ctvnews.ca/vancouver/article/legalize-sunsets-vancouver-park-board-to-consider-extended-beach-hours-around-summer-solstice/ 

Vancouver is such a strange and backwards provincial city.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/vancouver/article/no-fun-city-calls-to-extend-hours-at-vancouver-beaches/

For a city that claims that it doesn't have a NO FUN CITY (NFC) vibe, it occasionally keep emerging. 

https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2024/06/25/vancouver-police-english-bay-beach-sweeps-questions/ 

Fortunately, the mind virus that is Vancouver hasn't caught on with most cities around the world.

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/local-news/people-escorted-off-vancouver-beaches-2024-9130597 

It's one thing if some people living close to the beach don't want to hear drinking parties going on until 2 or 3 AM. However, reasonably behaved people should be able to enjoy summer sunsets from a beach vantage point. Summer goes by too quickly in BC, so the best time to enjoy the beach is during the summer. 

To think that there used to be a Vancouver Sea Festival. Fortunately, Vancouver was unable to get Seattle to give up on its Seafair. https://www.seafair.org/what-is-seafair

Vancouver was never able to waterdown the Calgary_Stampede. https://www.calgarystampede.com 

Vancouver should be making it easier to have summer festivals, not more difficult.

https://vancouversun.com/news/vancouvers-african-descent-festival-shutters-amid-dispute-over-city-imposed-costs 

Hopefully, the Vancouver Mind Virus (VMV) will never be accepted in proper cities around the world.

https://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/unpermitted-african-descent-festival-aug-2025.aspx 

https://vancouversbestplaces.com/events-calendar/festivals-and-events/african-descent-festival  

Fortunately, the Caribana Festival is far away from backwards Vancouver.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caribana#Economics_and_impact May it never be watered down or cancelled by anything like the Vancouver Mind Virus. The VMV is so horrible, don't let it take over your city.

The Stack Tower, or is it just another stumpy office building in Vancouver, BC?

 https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/the-stack-office-tower-1133-melville-street-vancouver-tallest-greenest

It's all about Stumps+and+Towers.

There is no office tower in Vancouver or BC that has ever been allowed to have a 40th floor. Seattle has the 76 story B of A tower & Toronto has the 72 story BMO tower. That's because those cities aren't under anything like the restrictions and limitations that Vancouver has. If you can't build a wall around BC, the next best thing is to limit or reduce the scale of things. Then continually fall behind with the overall infrastructure.

Vancouver not only has limited the scale of office towers, but residential towers as well. It would seem that there is more of a demand now for residential towers than office towers.

Seattle, Calgary & Edmonton all have allowed a residential tower to be taller than anything in Vancouver. 

https://thedigitallabyrinth.blogspot.com/search?q=Vancouver+House

London, UK for the longest time, refused to permit taller buildings. Then eventually as the land became so expensive, they eventually started to allow some towers that even rivaled that of Paris & Frankfurt. Some of the towers would not even be stumps when compared to those in NYC & Chicago.

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/no-rooms-at-the-inns-knock-on-effects-of-vancouvers-hotel-shortage If the city would allow taller buildings, then the hotel companies could build more rooms on the lower half, while providing condos on the upper half. Or, visa versa. 

https://storeys.com/vancouver-hotel-shortage-council-motion Fortunatly, many other cities are able to keep up with getting more hotel rooms built. https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2023/09/08/vancouver-hotels-shortage-city-councillor/

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/metro-vancouver-hotel-supply-shortage-demand

https://www.bcbusiness.ca/Land-Values-How-the-hotel-shortage-in-Vancouver-is-coinciding-with-a-boom-in-tourism

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/city-of-vancouver-hotel-room-shortage-new-policies

Of course by the late 1800s, Montreal & Toronto had a sense of becoming major cities. Then by the early & mid 1900s, it became even more apparent. In the early 21st century, Vancouver is still stuck in a multi-decade rut of wanting to stunt, thwart or hold back the city in any way possible.

https://thedigitallabyrinth.blogspot.com/search?q=The+No+Fun+City

Most of the regional bridges or crossings have been deliberately kept so narrow that it's almost impossible to have a proper regional express bus network to compliment the short sighted Skytrain stations.

All the narrow bridges should have had additional Bus+and+HOV+Lane bridges by now.

https://thedigitallabyrinth.blogspot.com/search?q=HOV

The stump city has so much potential, but only if Vancouver reaches for the sky.

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=stumps

Brisbane City Hall and the Old City Hall in Toronto

The Brisbane_City_Hall (BCH) is 91 m, or 298.56 feet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane_City_Hall#Opening

The Old_City_Hall (OCH) opened in 1899 at a height of 103.64 m (340.0 ft).  Even in the 21st century, many parts of Downtown Vancouver aren't allowed to have buildings taller than Toronto's Old City Hall. 

For such a long time, buildings around the main library in Vancouver have been kept shorter than Toronto's Old City Hall, even the Brisbane City Hall. Yet, in those proper BIG cities, building are allowed to be much taller than BCH & OCH. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Torontos_Old_City_Hall_2009.jpg If you are visiting from Toronto or Montreal, Sydney or Melbourne, you might be shocked as to seeing how small and backwards Vancouver is. Various imposed restrictions have cause a multigenerational watering down of what should actually be a properly functioning big city and greater metropolitan region.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Front_of_Old_City_Hall_in_July_2024.jpg Being from backwater Vancouver, its always amazing to see what cities like Brisbane, Toronto, Montreal, Sydney,  Melbourne, Seattle, SF & LA are permitted to do. They and most other cities just don't have anything like the Vancouver Mind Virus (VMV) to thwart them.

The Post is a stumpy building+complex in Vancouver. Despite the high land costs, strict Vancouver wouldn't permit it to be taller than Toronto's Old City Hall. The Stump, rather The Post, should have been taller than the LA City Hall, the Philadelphia_City_Hall and the Manhattan_Municipal_Building. It should have really been closer in size to that of the Seattle_Municipal_Tower or even the Tokyo_Metropolitan_Government_Building. 

Library Square in Vancouver just like The Post, wasn't allowed to have 25 floors, when they both should have been well over 50 stories.

https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/library-square/25126 84.1 m / 276 ft 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_Public_Library#Central_Library 

https://www.greenroofs.com/projects/vancouver-public-library-library-square-building

https://www.da-architects.ca/projects/library-square Strict Vancouver just doesn't allow buildings in that part of the downtown to be taller than The Old City Hall in Toronto.

https://viewpointvancouver.ca/2018/10/05/library-square-best-new-public-space-in-vancouver 

https://montecristomagazine.com/design/secret-garden-top-vancouvers-library-stayed-hidden-20-years#gsc.tab=0 

Unfortunately, Library Square and The Post are so scaled back or watered down, they would hardly be impressive in most proper big cities around the world. Library Square and The Post should have both been in the 50-60 story range, but don't even have a 25th floor. This was another lost opportunity for Downtown Vancouver to have a proper size big city and government complex.

The Simpson_Tower opened in 1968. It has 33 floors and is 144 m (472 ft) high. It would be equivalent to being the tallest building in BC until 1973. Even in 2025, most office towers in Vancouver aren't allowed to be taller than this 1968 Toronto stump.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Simpson_Tower_2022.jpg 

The Simpson-Tower is only 18 feet taller than the LA+City+Hall.

The Simpson Tower has become just like another Vancouver size stump in Toronto.

It's really astounding that not only did The+Post+in+Vancouver have to be shorter than the Toronto Simpson Tower and the LA+City+Hall, it had to be shorter than the Old City Hall in Toronto. Now that's very small, but it fits in with the small-minded Vancouver mentality. Indeed, Vancouverization is about a backward, rainy city that has a multigenerational restrictive agenda to water everything down. Even the mountains north of Vancouver are shorter than the mountains north of L.A. WTH?   

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=The+Post+building+complex 

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=Vancouver+Mind+Virus The VMV 

World Cup lodging shortfall predicted in Vancouver

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/airbnb-wants-str-rules-relaxed-for-upcoming-2026-fifa-world-cup-in-vancouver-1.7649128  

The proposed 27-storey hotel tower at the edge of Stanley Park is drawing pushback from West End residents over its scale https://vancouversun.com/news/proposed-west-end-tower-that-aims-to-fill-vancouvers-hotel-shortage Parking lots and almost delapadeted buildings should be selected first. This building still seems to be in reasonable shape. 

https://www.biv.com/news/real-estate/vancouver-needs-10k-more-hotel-rooms-says-report-10508458

https://vancouversun.com/news/vancouver-major-hotel-policy-overhaul-room-shortage

https://www.destinationvancouver.com/media/media-releases/BC-hotel-association-provides-recommendations-to-spur-new-hotel-development 

Lots of people in some parts of the West_End end are still accustomed to stumpy buildings, despite the very high land costs. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Vancouver-stanley-park.jpg/960px-Vancouver-stanley-park.jpg Many other cities aren't afraid to build tall close to the water or parks.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Vancouver_west_end.jpg/960px-Vancouver_west_end.jpg People shouldn't be displace just becaus of a new development. An agreement should be reached so that they can still remain in the new structure. However, it's the height issue that usually keeps popping up. A lot of people that still remember Vancouver as a provincial backwater of a city want it to remain that way for as long as possible.

https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/2030-2038-barclay-st , https://stop2030barclay.ca 

https://henriquezpartners.com/projects/2030-barclay The height proposal is at lest a dozen floors too short, it should be about 20 stories taller.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/2030-barclay-street-vancouver-stanley-park-hotel-tower

https://storeys.com/marcon-barclay-street-vancouver-hotel The issue here is that a lot of people don't want a stump replaced with an atempt of a taller building. The people that live there should have the option to live in the new building. If the city and the developer could reach an agreement to allow the current residents to move into the lower floors of the tower. Then remain there at a reasonable rental rate for as long as they want. Then eventually after all the former residents have moved on or passed on, the lower floors could be repurposed into hotel rooms. If a developer in such a situation could agree to that, then the city should allow them to build 15-20 floors higher than 27 stories.

That gets back to the height restriction issue in Vancouver. Other cities have allowed tall buildings right up to the edge of a park. It seems that no one from Vancouver was able to ever stop Sydney. Rather, the Vancouver Mind Virus (VMV) never made it there to thwart big, bustling Sydney.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Sydney_CBD_on_a_sunny_day.jpg/960px-Sydney_CBD_on_a_sunny_day.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Global_Citizen_Festival_Central_Park_New_York_City Anything like the VMV would have thwartted NYC so badly. 

Of course it would have been great if there was future space south of the Hotel+Vancouver (with only 507 rooms) to build a 55-65 story tower. A VPL and Hotel+Vancouver tower could have been started there in the mid 1950s, but Vancouver was still too much of a provincial backwater then. The Fairmont_Royal_York is nice and wide with 1,363 rooms. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westin_St._Francis "...the St. Francis one of the largest hotels in the city, with more than 1,254 rooms and suites." 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilton_San_Francisco_Union_Square "Renovated in 2017, it is the largest hotel on the West Coast,^[8] with 1,921 rooms."

Fortunately, Sydney, Melbourne, SF and Toronto were never under anything like a Vancouverization agenda. Somehow that backwards mentality was never adopted in most real cities.

https://bcbusiness.ca/industries/real-estate/land-values-how-the-hotel-shortage-in-vancouver-is-coinciding-with-a-boom-in-tourism The BC Mind Virus is so firmly entrenched that its still very difficult to properly upgrade things.

 https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=BC+hotel+shortage