Save Our Skyline YVR issued a candidates questionnaire to all Vancouver mayoral and council candidates on their positions on Vancouver view cones and public views.

There are eight questions below. Candidates were provided with links to resources and policy documents to answer the questions. Answers are organized by order of receipt and then grouped by party if applicable. If a candidate did not answer the survey, but has a voting record (if incumbent) or provided a public position online or at a public hearing, their position will be listed under the appropriate question. Correspondance from candidates who did not respond to the survey are located at the bottom of this page. Answers and correspondance from candidates are unedited.

We will continue to add any late responses to the website if we receive them from candidates before the election date.

To view an overview analysis of the candidate responses on urbanism blog Price Tags, click here.

For more information about each candidate, visit the candidate profiles on the City's website here.


1. What is your favourite public view that is maintained under the current view corridor policy?


Constance Fogal (IDEA): none

John Yano (Indepedent): Did not answer

Ken Sim (NPA): Any view from Queen Elizabeth Park.

Gölök Z Buday (Indepedent): Don't often think of a view as falling under that policy, lost of nice views around, even from my window.


Rohana Rezel (ProVancouver): Queen Elizabeth Park to the North Shore

Raza Mirza (ProVancouver): Trout lake to Crown/Grouse

Franco Peta (Coalition Vancouver): We will consult and take direction from community groups, we will not dictatorially impose drastic change on a community or neighbourhood until all concerns are fully aired and considered and if necessary, voted upon.

Ken Charko (Coalition Vancouver): Hard one.. out of the 27 view corridors i would pick the North Shore Mountains.

Michael Wiebe (Green): Main & 7th

Pete Fry (Green): Main at 6th (though substantially eroded, notwithstanding policy)

Adriane Carr (Green): Queen Elizabeth Park to North Shore mountains

Ted Copeland (Independent): my favorite is maintaining the ability to actually have view corridors in the city

Penny Noble (Independent): All of them. Whether walking, cycling across a bridge, walking anywhere in our city, or walking the dog on the beach, seeing even a glimpse of our spectacular mountain views for just a moment can lift my spirits like nothing else and remind me why I love this city.

Elke Porter (Independent): Cambie Street at 12th

Taq Bhandal (Independent): My favourite walk to do in Vancouver is from Science World to Granville Island Market

Marlo Franson (Independent): I drive down Cambie almost 5 days a week, everytime I hit that hill by City Hall, I always love it. It reminds me of the beauty we have beyond the city. I have many great views but this one has always been one of my favourites.

Derrick O'Keefe, Jean Swanson, Anne Roberts (COPE): The view of downtown from Cambie Street, since I live and walk in the area frequently.

Hsin-Chen Fu (Independent): The view of mountain from Cambie street at City Hall

Maynard Aubichon (Independent): waterfront station (Editor's note: This is not a protected public view under the view corridor policy)

Colleen Hardwick (NPA): The view from the Olympic Village Plaza which is relatively new and entirely public.

Lisa Kristiansen (ProVancouver): Cambie bridge

2. What is your understanding of Vancouver's view cones/view corridors?


Constance Fogal (IDEA): Vision councilhas detroyed our views

John Yano (Indepedent): There currently exists 27 view corridors from specific locations.

Ken Sim (NPA): The city has policies in place to preserve the view of the ocean and mountains that surrounds us while allowing for densification.

Gölök Z Buday (Indepedent): It's a lot of pointless Governance, for people who just want to look busy.


Rohana Rezel (ProVancouver): The Vancouver City Council decided to protect certain view cones in 1989. These view cones must be taken into consideration when calculating the maximum building heights. Despite popular opposition, Vision Vancouver council recently allowed a tower that penetrates these cones.

Raza Mirza (ProVancouver): Originally introduced in late 1980' to protect free public views of north shore mountain and limit height of buildings in downtown peninsula.

Franco Peta (Coalition Vancouver): We will consult and take direction from community groups, we will not dictatorially impose drastic change on a community or neighbourhood until all concerns are fully aired and considered and if necessary, voted upon.

Ken Charko (Coalition Vancouver): Lots more to learn just that there are 27 view corridors, I think the last reveiw was done a couple of years ago an dealt with the downtown view corridor. As a councillor I am in favour of protecting and enhancing that.

Michael Wiebe (Green): Strong, we need to do a comprehensive review of the policy as some cones have changed without proper council approval and some have been compromised by miscalculations. This is a very important tool that needs to be utilized fairly as it has significant power.

Pete Fry (Green): I understand it pretty well, in essence it is a guiding document for developers as to the height they can build in a given area relative to established view cones. Any discretionary encroachments would trigger some sort of public benefit negotiation.

Adriane Carr (Green): They restrict heights of buildings to a maximum to protect view from a particular vantage point.

Ted Copeland (Independent): they were enacted to ensure that the city did not become nothing more than tall towers blocking everything

Penny Noble (Independent): they were protected but now the City has set a precedent, voting to allow the 400 PavCo tower that would disrupt 10th to 12th and Cambie view corridor. With a provision it must all be market housing, but this is NOT a reasonable trade off, and they will NOT be affordable and even if they were there are other ways to create affordable units without destroying the very fabric of what makes Vancouver a spectacular place to live. It is a slippery slope, if one developer is allowed to do this, where will it end? We must NOT privatize our free public views.

Elke Porter (Independent): Higher Buildings must establish a significant and recognizable new benchmark for architectural creativity and excellence, while making a significant contribution to the beauty and visual power of the city’s skyline;

Taq Bhandal (Independent): I'm still learning. As a researcher, I will have to dedicate the first 6 months of office gaining knowledge about the areas in which I need to review more evidence.

Marlo Franson (Independent): That Residential Towers that are gonna be built on the Fraser Creek Corridor will be too high and remove what most people see as natural mountains from the south side view.

Derrick O'Keefe, Jean Swanson, Anne Roberts (COPE): The City’s policies of protecting key view corridors resulted from a recognition that Vancouver’s spectacular setting and mountain and ocean views were a public asset -- a benefit to all residents that needed to be safeguarded.

Hsin-Chen Fu (Independent): The view cones create Vancouver's unique identity as global destination.

Maynard Aubichon (Independent): corridors are atrials kind of

Colleen Hardwick (NPA): View corridors ensure that mountain views are not blocked by buildings. One of former city planner, Ray Spaxman’s legacies is the visual connection with the setting of our City. These values are enshrined by the city through these policies. Compromising the view corridors will be giving up one of the hard fought battles of the late 70s and 1980s.

Lisa Kristiansen (ProVancouver): I read the accompanying materials and understand the protection they have. (sorry last day before vote I have to brief with this survey)

3. If you were elected to be on City Council, would you respect the existing view corridor policies as-is or ask for a review of them? What is your rationale?


Constance Fogal (IDEA): Review to prevent any further loss of view

John Yano (Indepedent): Review, to maintain more view corridors than the current 27.

Ken Sim (NPA): We absolutely want to maintain the integrity of our skyline. When I become mayor I plan to review all existing plans and policies to make sure there is transparency and accountability in city hall. This could include existing corridor policies. That does not mean that we are in a rush to change things. But we will take a thorough look at existing city policies.

Gölök Z Buday (Indepedent): Running for Mayor, not council, and doubt I'd vote for keeping it, if my tie break vote really matters to it.


Rohana Rezel (ProVancouver): I will protect the view cones. What makes Vancouver unique is the magnificent nature that surrounds our city. That view should be shared by all Vancouverites. It's wrong to block those views to make room for Westbank and their ilk to build safety deposit boxes in the sky for the global rich.

Raza Mirza (ProVancouver): Respect, at the very least, the existing view corridor policies but also consider adding others. In particular, view going north on Knight St (south of 33rd ave).

Franco Peta (Coalition Vancouver): We will consult and take direction from community groups, we will not dictatorially impose drastic change on a community or neighbourhood until all concerns are fully aired and considered and if necessary, voted upon.

Ken Charko (Coalition Vancouver): I would want to review in a veiw to expand and make it harder to block the natural view of the city. When someone comes into Vancouver I want them to be amazed.

Michael Wiebe (Green): I would ask for a comprehensive review to ensure all current corridors policies are being followed and that we look at new opportunities moving forward.

Pete Fry (Green): That would depend on the make-up of mayor and council to some degree. But I would support a review, mostly to see where we have gone wrong so far and how we might expand our view cones. My feeling is that current view cone policy tends to focus more on the western half while the migration of large tower view encroachment seems to have been extending eastward and beyond just downtown peninsula. Furthermore, a review would be an opportunity to engage the public about what kind of views they want to see protected. To the best of my knowledge, the last public review was forty years ago

Adriane Carr (Green): Yes. Our Vancouver Greens' election platform states we will protect public view corridors as a public asset.

Ted Copeland (Independent): I would respect what is there but would be open to listening to valid reasons for altering them, it seems we want to cram millions of people into an already overcrowded city so guess what, you cannot have your cake and eat it too, something always falls victim, in this case it is views

Penny Noble (Independent): I would respect the view corridor policies and consider even further protection of such a priceless commodity

Elke Porter (Independent): I would respect them and ask for a review to completely understand.

Taq Bhandal (Independent): I am a 27 year old and as a social and environmental justice researcher. To be frank, I am more concerned about preparing the city for sea level rise, storm water, increased population, and affordable, safe housing spaces. I think the conversation about preserved views is lacking in an analysis of power (across ethnocultural background, gender, socio-economic status, citizenship, ability, etc.) and who gets to "see" the mountains. Environmental scientists have confirmed that high density is the best way for humans to try and live in harmony with the non-human world. High density includes tall apartment buildings in addition to low-rises (such as walk-ups in Montreal and New York).

Marlo Franson (Independent): I already do not like what is about to happen in the Fraser Creek Corridor, not in the culture planning phase, but the fact the restoration of the land in works with all the cultures to bring in a historical area for 1st Nation, restoring Hogan's Alley, China Town and parks is a must. The fact that the plan mentions nothing about these towers or type of towers is very concerning. I know some Councillors will stop the sale of City Land and the stopping the tear down of the viaducts, I will definitely be looking along those terms as well. We need more time to decide what is right for that area and hear the concerns like this one.

Derrick O'Keefe, Jean Swanson, Anne Roberts (COPE): COPE would protect the existing view corridor policies that have over considerable time proven their worth as far as public benefit but also ensured a predictable and fair environment for developers and land owners. We believe that enough density has been gifted to developers of luxury condo towers that do not provide the affordable housing we need and instead have contributed to speculative investment that has worsened the housing crisis.

Hsin-Chen Fu (Independent): Review is needed. It is controversial issue.

Maynard Aubichon (Independent): nope id make new policies

Colleen Hardwick (NPA): If elected I will respect the existing view corridor policies.There is no public benefit to encroaching on the view corridors. These are sacrosanct. If it ain’t broke, don’t fit it.

Lisa Kristiansen (ProVancouver): I would want to review them to ensure they are going to protect the view corridors going forward and possible increase the protection they have.

4. How would you have voted for the PavCo tower (777 Pacific Boulevard) decision if you were on City Council when the decision was being made? Should the tower block the iconic public views protected in the policy? Do you agree with Councillor Raymond Louie's amendment that will only permit the PavCo tower to penetrate the view cone at 400ft if the building was 100% rental? Why or why not?


Constance Fogal (IDEA): No no no because it is wrong policy

John Yano (Indepedent): No, we need affordable rental not rentals that are inherently unaffordable due to their build form.

Ken Sim (NPA): I am not going to comment on a previous decision without having been part of the process. I will say that I do not agree with Councillor Raymond Louie's amendment to tie the project to rental housing. I feel that would be very aggressive and there are other ways to build secure, attainable, purpose-built rental accommodation on existing City-owned land without disrupting our beautiful skyline.

Gölök Z Buday (Indepedent): Against, it doesn't seem like something that benefits the city in any way, and the system is flawed anyway. Until Property Use and Maintenance by-laws are stopped, it doesn't matter what is built, it will all be over priced.

Hector Bremner (YES Vancouver): Did not answer survey. Voting record and past statements: In July 2018, declared conflict of interest for PavCo rezoning hearing

David Chen (ProVancouver): Did not answer survey. Past statements: In July 2018, spoke against the PavCo Tower at the rezoning hearing.

Sean Cassidy (Independent): Did not answer survey. Past statements: In July 2018, spoke against the PavCo Tower at the rezoning hearing.


Rohana Rezel (ProVancouver): I would have voted against PavCo tower. This sets literally sets an ugly precedent.

Raza Mirza (ProVancouver): My understanding is of the 2 options for PavCo tower only one blocks views. One of which the developers themselves haven't had fully considered at the time. We can still negotiate by offering different massing (I understand there are concern about large massing already) or amortized DCLs\CACs for lower height purpose built rentals (just in this case if there are legal challenges), as we really more of them and less condos.

Franco Peta (Coalition Vancouver): Against it, No, NO because it's all a farce even if the building was all rental it's not affordable rental and what's to say it would stay rental.

Ken Charko (Coalition Vancouver): No I would not Rental or not I would not have approved the building.

Michael Wiebe (Green): I would have asked for more information on the reasoning for the increase as it sounded that PavCo wanted the 300ft tower. We need to work out a policy to allow exceptions so I would have voted against the amendment.

Pete Fry (Green): I would have voted against it. I don't think a market rental building in and of itself is a worthy enough public benefit to have negotiated this away on, also I think the process by which Louie's amendment came about deserved far more scrutiny and public engagement.

Adriane Carr (Green): I voted against this application. I did not support Clr Louie's amendment because 100% rental in no way guarantees affordability. Luxury rentals far exceeding the ability of Vancouver residents and workers to pay are far too commonplace in Vancouver.

Ted Copeland (Independent): If you want to cram millions more into this overcrowded city then you must be willing to see almost everything about the greatness of this city destroyed, views,livability, safety etc. When you invite the world you must expect many of them to stay

Penny Noble (Independent): I would have voted no. along with George Affleck, Melissa De Genova and Adrienne Carr. No the tower should not block the views. I disagree with Raymond Louie's amendment. This is a trade off that is simply not worth it. They won't be affordable, the views will be gone forever and other developers will follow suit. There are other ways of creating affordable units without destroying the intangible heritage of our free public iconic views that lift our spirits -and goodness knows we all need that.

Elke Porter (Independent): I would have voted for the project, yet also agreed with Councillor Raymond Louie that if they were to build PBR, we might give them the opportunity to build higher, as affordable rental suites are in high demand.

Taq Bhandal (Independent): Again, I would want to do more research on the topic. I do support the policy of favouring development permits that specify 100% purpose built rentals.

Marlo Franson (Independent): False Creek area is not for towers, we have other areas like South Marine Drive that needs to be our Tower development or Downtown, but False Creak Corridor needs more consultations before moving forward in selling City Land, and allowing Towers to take away the view of others. Gentrification is not in this area and talking with the community is needed. I agree we need Affordable housing but that area needs more family orientated developments, and it's history needs to be recognized and respected before we start building downtown highrises in that area. I know there is big money in this development but we at City Hall will have to think what really needs to be there even if it is 100% rental. I want to see the plans for that area, I have read the one report but with no mention of these high rises, I am concerned what is really going on in that area before we move forward with anything.

Derrick O'Keefe, Jean Swanson, Anne Roberts (COPE): COPE would have voted against the PavCO tower’s incursion into the protected Cambie view corridor. We disagree with Louie’s amendment, because it trades away a public asset in exchange for for-profit housing. Even with the condition that for 400ft, the tower must be rental housing, there was no guarantee that it would be non-profit affordable rental. This is consistent with the outgoing municipal government’s tendency to give away density in exchange for market developments without sufficient guarantees that they will include genuinely affordable housing.

Hsin-Chen Fu (Independent): Against. Mountain view is public asset.

Maynard Aubichon (Independent): no it shouldnt block the view. id have voted no new towers

Heather Deal (Vision Vancouver): Did not answer survey. Voting record and past statements: In July 2018, Voted against PavCo tower at rezoning hearing. Stated that there needs to be more view cones in gathering sapces. Cambie view cones is outdated because it was designed for cars.

Diego Cardona (Vision Vancouver): Did not answer survey. Past statements on Twitter:

  • "Yes to Councillor Jang’s comments, 400ft of rental housing in a housing crisis ✅✅ makes sense to me" (link)
  • "I like this,100% rental housing if is 400ft is a trade off I can make, downtown has projects that as mentioned by staff are/will be much higher and have greater impact on our view corridors. If PavCo decision is to build 400ft, it will not be luxury condos but rentals"(link)

Melissa DeGenova (NPA): Did not answer survey. Voting record and past statements: In July 2018, voted against PavCo tower at rezoning hearing

Colleen Hardwick (NPA): I would have voted against the decision. The tower should not block the iconic public views protected under the policy. I do not agree with Raymond Louie’s amendment, as there should be no intrusion, regardless of whether it is rental. That’s not the point, and it sets a dangerous precedent. There was too much bulk and density on the PavCo site to begin with and to try and correct this by making the tower more slender was disingenuous.

Lisa Kristiansen (ProVancouver): I would have voted no even if the plan was for rental - the iconic public views are priceless and irreplaceable but we can find other sites to build rental housing - the few must not be the only ones who see the iconic views - they are for every one to enjoy for ever.

5. If you were elected to be on City Council, would you reverse the portion of the recent Higher Building Policy amendment that allows for the three view cone-penetrating towers in Northeast False Creek (NEFC) Plan? Why or why not?


Constance Fogal (IDEA): yes because we must try to salvage what views we have left.

John Yano (Indepedent): If financially viable for the city would reverse decision, as I don't support unsustainable building forms.

Ken Sim (NPA): Again, I would like to review this plan. I would be concerned about anything that interrupts the skyline, but I would want do a review of the policies and conduct a public consultation first.

Gölök Z Buday (Indepedent): Why not, it was hasty and didn't even address the water issues. It appears to include no individual property owner, and frankly anything by this planning department should be rethought and suspect.

Hector Bremner (YES Vancouver): In Feb 2018, voted for Higher Building Policy for NEFC plan that allowed PavCo and Concord towers to penetrate view cones


Rohana Rezel (ProVancouver): I will reverse the amendment. As I have said, the views belong to all Vancouverites, not empty condos.

Raza Mirza (ProVancouver): Privatization of public assets, be it parks or views, only for the rich is not acceptable. This is specially important when most people cannot enjoying or afford private space and increasingly rely on outdoor and public spaces for relaxation.

Franco Peta (Coalition Vancouver): Yes,We will consult and take direction from community groups, we will not dictatorially impose drastic change on a community or neighbourhood until all concerns are fully aired and considered and if necessary, voted upon.

Ken Charko (Coalition Vancouver): I don't know enough about these to give you an accuate answer except to say I would take a serious look at it.

Michael Wiebe (Green): The Higher Building Policy needs to be revisited as it unfairly contravenes the view cone policy.

Pete Fry (Green): As a singular councillor I couldn't commit to this, obviously it would require a majority to reverse such this established position. Plus I have no idea what this means in a legal context now that the decision has been made. Given the lateness of this survey, my busy campaign schedule leaves me no time to thoroughly research this option, rather than an empty promise, I have to say: "I don't know"

Adriane Carr (Green): I would look into it. I believe in making sound decisions, and need to investigate the legal and financial implications of doing this, as this kind of reversal has done been done during my term in office.

Ted Copeland (Independent): There would be no False Creek plan, I would vote to save the viaducts, no need to make more developers filthy rich and to sell these places to overseas buyers, which will happen under this plan

Penny Noble (Independent): Yes

Elke Porter (Independent): We need more affordable housing and I am a fan of passive houses. Also, to allow green roofs for noise reduction and eventually heading towards 100% renewable energy use in the City of Vancouver. Not all towers are built the same. It really would depend on the project and how it would solve the problems of housing affordability, be built with green building practices and have opportunities for bike owners to live there (less parking/congestion).

Taq Bhandal (Independent): Need to do more research.

Marlo Franson (Independent): I do not even know what the buildings look like yet, what type of apartments, who is rental to? We need to recognize the area and build for what the community wants. There are a few great people who are historians and more knowable on how to preserve and remember our history in that land that need consulting. I would reverse any development on that property until I know what is really planned. I would then take your issue and review it thoroughly, asking you for more, like any questionnaire info you have taken to the public on this. Let's not build too high towers before we decide if this is the look we want the city to be.

Derrick O'Keefe, Jean Swanson, Anne Roberts (COPE): Yes, we think there is still time to reverse this policy before too much damage is done and too much of our public views are appropriated for private benefit. If we continue to allow amendments, developers will continue to apply for exceptions, and that will stimulate an even more speculative real estate market, with prices spiralling higher. We think it will benefit the public and the private real estate market to stay the course with what has been in place all these years and what has been valued by the public.

Hsin-Chen Fu (Independent): Reverse. Mountain view can bring us tourism revenue.

Maynard Aubichon (Independent): id vote to reverse it yes

Heather Deal (Vision Vancouver): In Feb 2018, voted for Higher Building Policy for NEFC plan that allowed PavCo and Concord towers to penetrate view cones

Melissa DeGenova (NPA): In Feb 2018, voted for Higher Building Policy for NEFC plan that allowed PavCo and Concord towers to penetrate view cones

Colleen Hardwick (NPA): Yes, I would reverse the portion of the recent Higher Building Policy amendment, if possible. It was wholly inappropriate and inconsistent with the Liveable City values that are the legacy of Vancouver planning. In addition, I am not in favour of the NEFC plan in the aggregate. This type of top-down imposed planning is contrary to a citizen-led grassroots planning process. As part of a renewed City-wide Planning process, the NEFC plan must be rescinded, and reconsidered as part of the larger undertaking.

Lisa Kristiansen (ProVancouver): yes i would reverse it for the same reasons i gave above

6. If you were elected to be on City Council, you will be faced with deciding whether or not to allow Concord to build two view cone-penetrating towers of 425ft each as part of the NEFC Plan. The current height level is 300 feet to respect the view cone policy. It is said that the Concord towers, which are also over the FSR (Floor Space Ratio) recommended for the site, will be providing public benefits that will contribute to the funds required to tear down of the viaducts and amenities located in NEFC. The outgoing City Council has mandated the NEFC Plan to be self-financing (i.e. no debt financing, no funding from higher levels of government or contributions from other parts of or sources from the City, etc.). Given this information, would you allow the Concord towers to penetrate the view cone? Why or why not?


Constance Fogal (IDEA): no because we must save the limited views left

John Yano (Indepedent): No, I support the construction of affordable sustainable & location sensitive building forms.

Ken Sim (NPA): Again, I would want to review this with my team before making a decision on this issue.

Gölök Z Buday (Indepedent): As Mayor I woulnd't support it until other factors like the Property Use and Maintenance by-laws are removed. They'd be fools to build with those still in place. A lot of Government there, that could be removed to make things work better.


Rohana Rezel (ProVancouver): I will not allow Concord or any other developer to pierce the view cones. As I have said, the views belong to all Vancouverites, not empty condos. As well, Vision Vancouver lied about the cost of seismically upgrading the viaducts.

Raza Mirza (ProVancouver): First of all we need to review the decisions of tearing down the viaducts itself, as I'm not convinced yet if that is necessary in the first place. Secondly, tearing down viaducts will generate huge profit for private land owners. Any such increase in land value from public spending should be captured for public use either by rezoning for PBRs (under Bill 23) or by in-cash only CACs.

Franco Peta (Coalition Vancouver): No ! We will consult and take direction from community groups, we will not dictatorially impose drastic change on a community or neighbourhood until all concerns are fully aired and considered and if necessary, voted upon. We will keep and improve the Georgia and Dunsmuir Viaducts. We will NOT spend billions tearing them down.

Ken Charko (Coalition Vancouver): No.

Michael Wiebe (Green): I don't believe at this time that the amenities provided are enough to allow 425ft towers to penetrate the view cone. I would want a review of the view cone policy, complete understanding of the amenities provided and an understanding of the needs.

Pete Fry (Green): I would challenge the assumption that this view cone encroachment is the only way to finance the NEFC Plan, and call for detailed 3rd party audited pro formas, and a line item budget to detail the extent to which we need to sacrifice developer profits or public benefits.

Adriane Carr (Green): I cannot answer this question without prejudicing my ability to make a decision at the Council table on these applications. Councillors must retain an open mind on a matter before Public Hearing or else they are ineligible to vote on it.

Ted Copeland (Independent): they wouldn't be built, VISION has almost destroyed Downtown, caused many businesses to fail, anything they had a hand in I am vehemently opposed to

Penny Noble (Independent): No I would not because I believe the whole concept including tearing down the viaducts needs to be revisited. And the views must be protected. Once they are gone they are gone for ever. With a good public consultation process we can come up with other solutions for North East False Creek including revisiting what the goals are and for what benefit.

Elke Porter (Independent): As I am one of the candidates that still aren't 100% sure about the viaducts, I would have to see exactly what positive value that the current residents of the area would be getting - if they are "gentrified" out of the neighbourhood by this, I wouldn't want to support the penetration of view cones only to have the neighbourhood now price out those who seek housing. We all need places to live, especially 2,000 on the street and the tourists and workers that are here for short-term or long-term stays.

Taq Bhandal (Independent): Yes, I would potentially allow them to penetrate the view cone. Again, my approach for building development in Vancouver is focused on preparing for climate change and increased eco-friendly affordable housing for an increasing population.

Marlo Franson (Independent): Everything can change, I will look at the issues and talk about this height issue in City Hall before we move forward with anything. I have already stated I want to slow down current development and fast track affordable and low income housing immediately. We need to get development companies to start taking the contracts for these construction units. So I would slow down this plan immediately for review, the new City Hall needs to look at the numbers and the community before we move forward. In the meantime, while Concord waits, we will open up contracts for affordable housing and Development companies need to move to that, which in turn could allow us to re-create False Creek with no towers.

Derrick O'Keefe, Jean Swanson, Anne Roberts (COPE): Ultimately Concord has already benefited enormously from the “fire sale” of public land around False Creek in the 1980s. They have also benefited from Vancouver’s policy of “back-room” negotiations to determine their required donations of CACs and DCLs for the provision of public amenities. They should not be given additional public assets in the form of height exemptions. COPE thinks it is time to re-think how the city finances public amenities, such as social housing, libraries, parks, and community facilities. We think the city has become “addicted” to CACs and DCLs, which has led them to approve ever-higher buildings with ever-higher FSRs. COPE would initiate a public process to examine this funding as well as to examine the city’s Property Endowment Fund and newly created Housing Fund and ensure that those resources, accumulated over the past 50 years, are used for the public good. We think one funding source should be graduated property taxes (similar to graduated income taxes) for both residences and businesses. Our plan for a Mansion Tax would add a 1% tax to the assessed value above $5 million and 2% above $10 million. We would also tax small businesses at a different rate than what large businesses such as Amazon and developers such as Peter Wall pay.

Hsin-Chen Fu (Independent): I won't allow it. Vancouver has plenty of land for high-rise buildings.

Maynard Aubichon (Independent): no i would not allow it to block

Colleen Hardwick (NPA): No, absolutely not. Again, this entire initiative is inconsistent with Liveable City legacy. There is a larger point to be made here. The city needs to sharpen its pencil on the subject of developer pro formas. There ought to be a lot more room to negotiate with Concord who have had that land since the late 1980s. I would want to renegotiate the deal overall.

Lisa Kristiansen (ProVancouver): I would absolutely not allow that height as it will impact the view of others - can't take that back and will set precedents.

7. Beyond the pending NEFC towers decisions, how would you address other developers who will want to build towers in the view cones, using the PavCo Tower example as a precedent? Would you allow developers to build towers that protrude through view cones that are not the Queen Elizabeth view cones? Why or why not? If so, in what circumstance?


Constance Fogal (IDEA): no. VAncouver is already badly damamged b the free rein of developer power

John Yano (Indepedent): No, I do not support creating view condos for the elite that degrade the enjoyment, livability & sustainability for everyone else.

Ken Sim (NPA): If public consultation demonstrated that there was interest in the project, we would look at it closely, but I would cannot comment on theoretical projects.

Gölök Z Buday (Indepedent): Talk to the architects perhaps, share the concern, if an individual alone doesn't own it, and it's a collective business, I could add caveats to their agreement. But I don't want to totally mess around with the artist's work either, this being an architects. They need to be respected, if not the developer. Architects are largely ignored in processes. It's possible they would prefer to respect these things in their favorite drafts.


Rohana Rezel (ProVancouver): I will not allow any developer to pierce the view cones.

Raza Mirza (ProVancouver): PavCo tower is not a done deal (to the best of my understand), and in any case past poor policy should not be used as yardstick for future decision making. Simple based on movement of people in the region more people enjoy view cones that are not the Queen Elizabeth view crones, so they should be equally important and protected. Our housing crisis has been caused due to poor control on type of supply, once that issue is address we don't need to overbuild and use protect views to add extra units.

Franco Peta (Coalition Vancouver): No! We are the only Party not in the pockets of the developers! We will consult and take direction from community groups, we will not dictatorially impose drastic change on a community or neighbourhood until all concerns are fully aired and considered and if necessary, voted upon.

Ken Charko (Coalition Vancouver): I would listen with an open mind, but I am not inclinded to make exceptions to the view.

Michael Wiebe (Green): We need strong view cone policy that reduces speculation while creating a fair playing field for all developers.

Pete Fry (Green): I would not consider PavCo example as a precedent, rather an anomaly and the outcome of (hopefully) the last pro-developer city council we see. Though I would prefer not to see any future view cone encroachments, I suppose exceptional circumstances might be considerable: but the degree of public benefit would have to be commensurate to the degree of encroachment. To be clear, though, my first reaction is no, and any deviation from this would be only under exceptional circumstance and with transparent engaged process and thoroughly in the public interest.

Adriane Carr (Green): Setting a bad precedent is one reason I voted against the PavCo application. As I said in Council in explaining the reasons for my decision, "it is like death by a thousand cuts". I did vote for a project that protruded slightly into one of the viewcones (Cambie Street), given staff information that the North Shore mountains were already obscured in that view cone by buildings to the north of the one in question. This exemplifies the problem of previous decisions setting precedent.

Ted Copeland (Independent): If you want to cram millions more into this city then you must give up on view corridors and many many other things. The old Vancouver is dead, the ideals, the greatness, the beauty, all long gone, this is the new Vancouver and it is going to be nothing like the old one. Years ago people were concerned about views, now they have their noses buried in phones and never look up

Penny Noble (Independent): NO. We cannot go ahead with this dangerous precedent. The views must be protected. There are not circumstances that are worth destroying the free public views that people of all ages, and socio-economic backgrounds can enjoy and benefit from.

Elke Porter (Independent): Again, it would be for the greater good of the community - will it involve social housing, family housing, PBR, student housing or disabled living? Will it be built to the passive house standards, to LEED Gold in a sustainable manner? Will it be housing the local residents can afford? Those are all the things I would consider in order to make my decision.

Taq Bhandal (Independent): My decision would depend on who the developer was and what they are proposing. If the project centres eco-friendly design that prepares for my focus areas then yes I would approve the project.

Marlo Franson (Independent): I will like to see the development plan we currently have set for Vancouver, and we can decide where to move forward and where to slow down for further consultation. I find the residence have an unique perspective of the area and views around them. Who better to reach out to for the answers. Towers need to be designated to current areas and that skyline view has always been the best part of Vancouver. We need to consider what people see in this city and so it will be challenge to figure out where to build towers and how high because of the skyline view historic significance.

Derrick O'Keefe, Jean Swanson, Anne Roberts (COPE): Since we don’t agree with the decision to giveaway public asset like our view corridors for expensive market housing, we think this is a bad precedent and would open the door to other giveaways of our public view corridors.As we said above, the developers and the public benefit when the city operates fairly and consistently for everyone. For too long, developers have had undue influence and power over City Hall’s decisions. COPE will work with like-minded parties and councillors to reverse this.

Hsin-Chen Fu (Independent): I would not allow it,because view cones are important to Vancouver therefore future development must be permitted on a case by case basis.

Maynard Aubichon (Independent): you cant build towers in the view cones thats my vote

Colleen Hardwick (NPA): Under no circumstances would I allow view cone penetration. Why or why not? Our views are a publicly owned amenity. Market rental housing is not a public benefit. Revenue-generating floorplates should not encroach into view cones. Period.

Lisa Kristiansen (ProVancouver): I am not for any towers that protrude through the view cones for the same reasons I have noted above. Our natural capital and the enjoyment of it belongs to everyone - we've messed up/paved over to much of the land and we are abusing water - so at least leave us with unencumbered views for some comfort.

8. Given that there is a chance that no one party will dominate city council, how will you work with other councillors to ensure that your positions stated above will become a reality?


Constance Fogal (IDEA): muster community support

John Yano (Indepedent): Work to foster public awareness of civic issues and work with others who share similar views no matter their political views.

Ken Sim (NPA): That is easy. The NPA is made up a diverse group of members and I am used to working with all kinds of people to achieve a common goal. It is my strong suit. Through my job as a business person and entrepreneur I understand the workings of complex organizations.

Gölök Z Buday (Indepedent): As a libertarian, a Mayor being a mediator, can bounce ideas around better by respecting everyone's right to speak openly and honestly. Make sure all points of view are heard.


Rohana Rezel (ProVancouver): I will educate them on the importance of preserving the view cones.

Raza Mirza (ProVancouver): To answer honestly it's hard to say at this point, as those 10 (including mayor) will come from 91 people. Some of which already dead set in favour not protecting views, no matter what. But in all cases, I'll rely on reasoning and when need making sure residents know exact dates, have material provided in timely and understandable manner and (motion so that) hearing are held in hours people with jobs can attend. I may be one on council but I can use my position to inform Vancouver other 630,000.

Franco Peta (Coalition Vancouver): Coalition Vancouver knows that we need a majority to make a difference! We need to get the word out! We are Grassroots only funded by the citizens. NPA is backed by big money. Hector Bremner by Big Money, Cope by the UNIONS, Kennedy by the NDP, Green by Big Money.

Ken Charko (Coalition Vancouver): I have been involved in local politics for over a decade. I'm not sure who will get elected but am sure a few people I respect will and I will work with them to make the city a better place for everyone.

Michael Wiebe (Green): I have a proven track record of working with other parties and staff to ensure good public policy.

Pete Fry (Green): I have a track record of working with others across party lines. As Greens it is inherent to our values that we operate in a collaborative, participatory way. Without knowing the makeup of a future council - it is impossible to predict how this work might take place, only that I will stay true to my own values: transparency, integrity, social justice, sustainability, and putting public interest first.

Adriane Carr (Green): As the sole Green Councillor I have had to work with other councillors for the past seven years to get my motions seconded and passed. Almost all of my motions have been seconded. About two-thirds have been passed.

Ted Copeland (Independent): The desire I have to return this city to greatness will roll over any objections or arguments that other councilors may put forward, I will listen to them but they will agree with me

Penny Noble (Independent): By getting thoughtful and careful input from residents, planners, and input from other cities with similar issues to ours. Listening to the people-getting evidence that shows what can be done. Meeting one on one with each councillor to understand their objections if they have them . Getting agreement on the desired goals and outcomes and a solution that can get us all there while maintaining the views.

Elke Porter (Independent): The past couple of years, I have had the opportunity to work with all kinds of boards, community groups and volunteer organizations. I plan to listen and then using everything I learn to talk to others about the right things to do. So many candidates are passionate and care about these same issues. I hope to be given a chance to be good for Vancouver - "Clean, green, with an accessible scene.!"

Taq Bhandal (Independent): I have work in health research and non-profits for the last 7 years. In 99% of the positions I have had to work as a team. I will bring my professional experience, as well as my compassion, love-centered approach to life to my job as city councillor.

Marlo Franson (Independent): I will take a look at each Party's plan and state the best parts and see if we can all move forward to create a one plan based off all our ideas, not just one Party or the other. I hope this helps us move forward to what I want and/or what I stated above that I will attempt to stick to. That skyline is a very vivid image in my mind and I look forward to seeing it every time I drive down Cambie St. The thought that this will change the skyline view for the bad as the new Granville Tower is now doing, is a concern to me as well. So this is a great topic to bring up and talk about, whether to allow these three towers as is or to halt this hole process and review.

Derrick O'Keefe, Jean Swanson, Anne Roberts (COPE): COPE is committed to working across party lines to advance policies that safeguard public assets and to push for building the housing we urgently need, prioritizing non-market affordable housing throughout the city rather than luxury towers and other unaffordable development.

Hsin-Chen Fu (Independent): Debate and discuss.

Maynard Aubichon (Independent): ill be allowing all new council to speak their minds at all our meetings of council

Colleen Hardwick (NPA): Personally, I have significant depth of understanding, historically, academically and professionally in the planning of the City of Vancouver. I would hope that this knowledge would help inform the less experienced Council colleagues. I have a breadth of advisors who can be brought to the table to advise of creative solutions working collegially across party lines to find solutions to our shared goals. Hopefully, we have the shared values of being a city for the people, and that leadership can work proactively together with the market to contribute to the greater good.

Lisa Kristiansen (ProVancouver): Effectively stand up for what I have stated and hear what the opposing side has to say. If no mutually agreed upon solution is forthcoming I would advocate for the council to allow the public to decide these issues via a referendum.

Correspondance from candidates who did not complete survey


Wai Young (Coalition Vancouver): I am running to be Mayor in the 2018 election specifically to save Vancouver for the people of Vancouver. Let’s stop those others from “selling out” Vancouver to big business, special interest groups, unions, developers the day after the election, for their interests, not ours. We’ve already had over a decade of this from the existing parties. We are the only party that is 100% for the People. As Mayor and with a Coalition Vancouver council, we will not sell another inch of city land. Period. Vancouver should be for Vancouverites. Let’s protect our skyline. Best regards, Wai Young


Brandon Yan and Christine Boyle (One City): Dear Save our Skyline YVR Team, Thank you for your ongoing advocacy on this issue. At this time, OneCity Vancouver has not researched and developed detailed policy on the public view corridors and are therefore, at this time, not able to respond to your questionnaire. It's important to us that the policy we're running on comes from extensive research, consultation, and discussion. For this election, our policy platform is available for viewing here: We would be very glad to receive and review your suggested policy. Please don't hesitate to reach out again. Yours sincerely, Brandon Yan and Christine Boyle, Council candidates