Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Index
Present
1241 Homer Street
3595 West 18th Avenue
1139 West Cordova Street
1055 Canada Place
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Bruce Haden, Chair
Mark Ostry
Larry Adams
Robert Barnes
Jeffrey Corbett
Alan Endall (not present for Item 1)
Marta Farevaag (excused Item 2)
Steven Keyes
Ronald Lea
Margot Long (excused item 4)
Jennifer Marshall
Brian Martin (present for Items 1 and 2 only
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
1. 1241 Homer Street
DE: 408811
Use: Residential (6 storeys)
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Lawrence Doyle
Owner: Townline Homes Inc.
Review: First
Delegation: Richard Henry, Robet Emslie, Peter Kruek
Staff: Dale Morgan
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (10-0)
• Introduction: Dale Morgan, Development Planner, introduced this
application. The site is a small 50 ft. x 120 ft. property on Homer Street
between Drake and Davie Streets. The proposal is for a 6-storey residential
building containing 12 dwelling units. A roof deck is provided for the
two uppermost units. Parking is provided for 12 vehicles, accessed from
the rear lane via a parking elevator. Engineering Services has concerns
about the proposed parking elevator and has not yet approved it. The
zoning allows a maximum height of 70 ft. which is governed by the size
of the frontage. The application seeks a height relaxation of 16 ft.
for the elevator penthouse stair. The building is stepped on either side
to address the immediate side conditions. A 12 ft. setback from the front
property line is provided in accordance with the Downtown South Guidelines.
At the rear, a 30 ft. setback is proposed for a private garden for the
rear ground level units.
The advice of the Panel is sought in the following areas:
• Architectural expression and materials
•
Privacy issues with respect to the adjoining building;
•
The exclusive use of the amenity space on the roof for two units;
•
Use of the parking elevator.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Richard Henry, Architect,
briefly described the history of small sites such as this in the Downtown
South and reviewed his design rationale. He said it is a building which
is about Yaletown. He stressed the importance of the parking elevator
given the difficulty of providing a parking ramp on this site. Peter
Kreuk briefly reviewed the landscape plan and the design team responded
to questions from the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• The application is supported only with the inclusion of the
parking elevator. The Panel is confident the technical issues can be
resolved;
• Increase plant material size;
• Consideration of sustainable design issues.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this application and considered it to
be a very good background building and a good response to this small
infill site. The Panel thought the building will be very livable, and
a comment was made that it is a very easy building to like.
The architectural expression was considered to be very appropriate for
the area, having a nice mix of traditional and contemporary elements.
One Panel member questioned whether a Yaletown response was entirely
appropriate in this location, although agreed the expression is very
well handled. The stepping was thought to add another level of interest
to the building. The minor height relaxation to allow for the elevator
room was supported.
The Panel found the overhead doors to be an intriguing and interesting
addition. One minor concern was voiced about the long term mechanical
performance of these doors.
The Panel had no concerns about privacy and overlook given this is a
very urban situation.
The Panel strongly supported limiting the roof deck to only the penthouse
units. Ideally, it should be a common amenity but is acceptable given
the generous balconies and the inherent constraints of this site. One
Panel member thought it should be redesigned to accommodate a common
deck as well as two private decks given such a space helps to create
a community, which is a cornerstone of sustainable design.
The proposed parking elevator was unanimously supported by the Panel.
It was noted that traffic issues would also exist with a one-way ramp
access. Panel members urged that this innovative approach to urban parking
be maintained in the project and suggested the project may not be supportable
without it. Parking elevators are commonly used in Europe and elsewhere
and are entirely appropriate and long overdue in Vancouver. While there
will be technical details to be resolved, the Panel was confident a workable
arrangement can be achieved. It was noted that safety and security concerns
are addressed by the use of clear glazing in the elevator booth.
There was a suggestion to increase the amount of brick on the upper
floors, front and back.
With respect to the landscape plan, it was agreed
to be a very acceptable urban solution. The only suggestion was to
increase the size of the plant
materials.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Henry thanked
the Panel for the feedback.
2. 3595 West 18th Avenue
DE: 408721
Use: Mixed (4 storeys)
Zoning: C-2
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Howard Bingham Hill
Owner: Dunbar St. Development Partnership
Review: First
Delegation: John Bingham, Robert Duke, Thomas Gould
Staff: Bob Adair
EVALUATION: NON-SUPPORT (4-6)
• Introduction: Bob Adair, Development Planner, introduced this
C-2 application at the northeast corner of Dunbar Street and West 18th
Avenue. The proposal contains ground level commercial use with three
floors of residential above. The site slopes south-north and west-east.
Parking and loading is off the rear lane. Concrete construction is proposed
with brick and painted concrete exterior.
The Panel’s advice is sought on the following:
• Treatment and resolution of the main residential entry and the
overall resolution of the of south elevation;
•
Transition and impact on the residential neighbours to the rear, noting
the recently revised C-2 guidelines seek to address privacy and overlook
issues and provide landscaping and improved interface with adjacent residential
neighbours;
•
Materials and detailing and the proportion of brick and concrete.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: John Bingham, Architect,
reviewed the design rationale in response to the new C-2 guidelines and
the severe slope of the site. Thomas Gould briefly described the landscape
plan and confirmed the intent is to provide a green roof. The design
team responded to questions from the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Design development to the entry and south elevation to refine
the canopies and glazing; to consider entry inconsistency and provide
greater entry presence and coordination of the Dunbar façade;
•
Design development to the lane, including additional planting and consideration
for increasing the garage setback on the northwest corner, and maintaining
a minimum 2 ft. setback;
•
Design development to consider enhanced view screening of the garage
terraces, either planting and screens or setbacks;
•
Design development to the roof deck to resolve access and railings. Also,
the relationship between allotments and formal planting and consideration
for reducing the amount of paving and reducing the difference in treatment
of the two roof elevations, potentially by adding planting to the lower
roof.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel thought considerable design development was needed to the
south elevation, including resolution of the entry. There are a number
of awkward inconsistencies in the way it is presently resolved and detailed.
The service entry next to the residential entry is not supported and
should be reconsidered. It was thought it could be resolved with some
minor reconfiguration of the CRU. The Panel also found the canopy too
small and too high to be effective as weather protection, and the detailing
looks unresolved.
One Panel member found the absence of a deck at the southwest corner
to be a lost opportunity given its potential for sun exposure and daylight.
The Panel had concerns about the lane elevation. With respect to the
setback, while a relaxation of 6 inches is fairly minor, most Panel members
saw no reason why the 2 ft. setback should not to be provided. The Panel
strongly urged that additional landscaping be introduced in the lane,
including some trees and more substantial hedging than is shown. There
was also a suggestion to create some more significant recesses, perhaps
in the entry areas to the townhouse stairs. In general, the Panel thought
that everything possible should be done to create a feeling of domesticity
in the lane. The parking entry and loading might be set back and lightened
up. A suggestion was made to consider glazing all or part of the individual
garage doors. The garage doors for a residential appearance was thought
to be an interesting approach but they need to be softened. While they
look like residential garages they do not have a residential scale and
the massing around them also seems contrary to what is intended.
The Panel strongly recommended including more substantial landscaping
on the garage roof terraces, including trees, or some other screening
elements to soften the edge and increase the residential feel.
The Panel found the proportion of brick and concrete unresolved, and
the brick columns create too strong a vertical expression for the lower
part of the building. A suggestion was made to reconsider the colour
and/or material of the upstands. Other suggestions were to consider more
brick on the top floor on Dunbar and to reconsider the glazing pattern
which seems too busy and not the right expression for this neighbourhood.
There was also concern that the Dunbar and 18th Avenue elevations look
like two different buildings.
The Panel recommended considerable design development to the rooftop.
Full accessibility is important, and at the very least it should be a
green roof as a sustainability gesture. The rooftop is not yet resolved
in terms of how the spaces will be used and how the railings will be
dealt with, which will also affect the appearance from the street. The
Panel supported the provision of garden plots but thought it needed to
be thought through much further, taking into account that not all residents
will want to take advantage of them. There is currently too much paving
on the roof. As well, although breaking up the space is supported, the
two areas need to be better integrated and equally landscaped.
Continuous street trees on Dunbar Street was strongly recommended.
There was a suggestion to consider weather protection for the corner
CRU, and to provide a more horizontal expression.
The floor plans should be clarified with respect to what is identified
as den in front of the bedroom, which is not consistent with the landscape
plan which identifies this area as enclosed balcony.
The Panel noted the revised C-2 guidelines are resulting in an improved
relationship to the neighbouring single family area.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Bingham said
the Panel has provided them with good information to work with.
3.
1139 West Cordova Street
DE: 408870
Use: Residential (31 storeys)
Zoning: CD-1
Application Status: Complete
Architect: James Cheng
Owner: Hillsboro Investment Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: James Cheng, Blair Guppy
Staff: Ralph Segal
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (9-0)
• Introduction: Ralph Segal, Development Planner, introduced this
application for Lot 19, Precinct 3, Harbour Green Park. There are fairly
precise by-law and guideline parameters for this precinct. The proposed
tower meets the height limit of 94 m but seeks a relaxation of the 625
m2 floorplate guideline. In the shoulder zone of the tower a 6.5 percent
increase up to 665 m2 is sought. A side yard setback relaxation is also
requested, which staff support because it provides better street definition,
particularly to the waterfront walkway.
The advice of the Panel is sought in the following areas:
•
Overall architectural expression and landscape design;
•
Floorplate and setback deviations;
•
Public edges, with particular emphasis on Cordova Street and the park.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: James Cheng, Architect,
briefly described the design rationale and proposed materials, and Blair
Guppy reviewed the landscape plan. The design team responded to questions
from the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Design development to the townhouses on Cordova and the north
side to simplify the expression, with consideration of additional horizontal
treatment;
•
Design development to the fourth and fifth floors shoulder on the north
side to better integrate with the tower;
•
Design development to the 15th floor joint to enhance tower continuity
including consideration of lowering this joint;
•
Design development to bring the line of the tower to grade, at least
on the north side of the park.
•
Design development to west edge of the property to improve adjacency
to public space and to clarify the terracing and stepping strategy on
the west edge. Also, to provide views from the common space, if possible.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this application and generally found
it to be a very handsome addition to the neighbourhood. There were some
suggestion that it could be a little too subdued for what is developing
into one of the premier addresses in the whole country, which perhaps
warrants something a little more distinctive.
The Panel had no concerns about the increased floorplate given there
is no impact on views.
With respect to the overall architecture, the tower design strategy
was thought to be largely successful, with some suggestions for improvement
in design development. In particular, the Panel felt strongly that the
tower should come to the ground in a much bolder fashion on the north
side of the building noting this is where the building will be seen from
the water. As well, further consideration should be given to levels four
and five to provide a better integration with the rest of the tower,
possibly with a change in fenestration. The Panel also questioned the
position of the “break” at level 15 which seems about midpoint
in the tower and not relating to the top or the bottom sections. The
screen at the top of the tower was thought to be interesting; the metal
panels of the elevator core less so. The Panel supported the materials
and thought the limestone and metal panel will offer a nice contrast
and departure from the exterior treatment of many of the neighbouring
towers.
The Panel had no concerns about the side yard setbacks.
The Panel generally found the architectural expression of the townhouses
to be less clean than the tower, almost as if they are a different project.
One suggestion was to introduce a continuous floating plane two floors
above the amenity level which might help knit the townhouses and the
tower together better. There were recommendations to simplify the townhouses
to better complement the rich materials being proposed. Some Panel members
commented that they strongly favoured what had been originally proposed
for the neighbouring townhouses on Cordova, largely because it provided
some relief from what is becoming the standard response to townhouses
in Vancouver. Such a direction for this project would be welcomed because
the city can afford to have some distinction to its townhouse bases and
offer something complementary. A concern was expressed that the downtown
is becoming too domestic.
With respect to the interface with the adjacent property on the west
it was noted there is still the potential for the wall to be quite large
and blank, calling for a little more consideration in this area. There
was a recommendation to give greater consideration to rationalizing the
design with respect to the shared pedestrian/vehicular space so that
some of the ingredients from one could flow into the other to create
a stronger edge, noting it will also be viewed from above. It was recommended
there be some careful sculpting and that a way be found to provide a
view to the water from the amenity area. Some Panel members did not believe
the westerly public realm interface lived up to the quality of the rest
of the project in terms of private/public interface conflicts. Expansion
of the green roofs was also recommended, including possibly legislating
a percentage of landscape on the private decks.
•
Applicant’s Response: Mr. Cheng thank the Panel for its astute
comments and said he believe the project will benefit from refinements.
4. WORKSHOP: 1055 Canada Place (VCCEP)
DE: 408490
Use: Convention Centre Expansion
Zoning: CD-1
Application Status: Preliminary
Architect: Downs Archambault
Owner: VCCEP
Review: Third
Delegation: Russ Anthony, Ken Grassi, Jim Brown, Mark Whitehead
Staff: Ralph Segal, Anita Molaro
Bruce Haden advised a question was raised about whether he may be in
a conflict of interest on this application because his partner, Norman
Hotson, did a small amount of work on this project a few months ago.
Mr. Hotson has had no involvement whatsoever with the current roof design.
Mr. Haden advised he has discussed this matter with the applicant and
City staff who agree with his judgment that he is not in a conflict of
interest.
Introduction: Ralph Segal, Development Planner, introduced the project
and briefly reviewed its history to date. The Panel did not support the
preliminary application when it was reviewed in July 2004. It was subsequently
approved in principle by the Development Permit Board on September 13,
2004, subject to a lengthy list of conditions. This workshop review is
intended to be a progress report on the moves the design team is making
in preparation for submission of the complete application, which is expected
in February 2005. Mr. Segal stressed the project is on a very “fast
track” and site preparation has already begun.
Considerable work has been done by the design team since the Panel last
saw this project and a number of interesting innovations have been introduced.
Mr. Segal briefly reviewed these features, which include the introduction
of the folded land form concept into Thurlow plaza, changes to the transition
zone, improvements to the walkway and simplification of the Burrard Street
edge. Staff are disappointed, however, with the lack of progress on the
water-based master plan items, particularly at the west end of the site.
Staff also have some concerns about the grand staircase area where a
number of blank walls seem to be evolving. Feedback from the Panel is
also sought with respect to the proposed Park Board restaurant at the
edge of the park and the termination of the park at the plaza and the
access tunnel area.
Russ Anthony (VCCEP) explained this is a critical time for the project
and they have been working closely with the City and the Park Board.
He noted the float planes have been temporarily relocated and he confirmed
that VCCEP is committed to proceed with the Master Plan, the services
for which are now being put in place. Marketing of the water-based development
is expected to begin in the first half of next year.
Mark Whitehead, Architect, briefly reviewed how the design team has
developed the project to its current stage and Mark Reddington, Architect,
highlighted the guiding principles. Jim Brown, Architect, focused on
the prior-to conditions of the preliminary approval and the Landscape
Architect, Don Wuori, explained the ecological approach to the landscape
plan. The design team responded to questions from the Panel.
The Panel was asked to focus its comments on the following:
•
Grand staircase alignment, treatment of the seawall-to-street link, Park
Board restaurant and its relationship to the adjacent performance area;
•
The tunnel link from the seawall to the waterfront drop-off and Waterfront
Road;
•
Public views and plaza edges;
•
The roof.
•
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Resolution of the transition zone and the merging of the three
components: the park, the plaza and the waterfront walkway access;
• Consideration for the roof edge and whether it needs to be of
consistent thickness all the way around the building, and/or whether
the edge can be thinner;
•
Enhancement of the connection of the north plaza edge to the water;
• Consideration for the glass elevator: either integrate it more
with the building or make it a stronger element;
• Consider simplifying and strengthening the southeast edge, including
the entry area around the south wall;
• Retail viability and the need to provide animation;
• The Roof: The Panel considers the design team to be completely
on the right track and urged that as many steps as possible be taken
to strengthen the current approach, specifically enhancing the scale
of where people connect with the roof.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel considered the project has come a long way since it was last
reviewed, the discernible improvement being the introduction of the “weave”,
which is a key aspect of making the project more successful. The design
team was encouraged to continue on the current course. The views and
access to the roof from within the building were fully supported.
Roof
- The introduction of the weave is an excellent way of creating the opportunity
for people to get closer to the green roof and to see and experience
it. It would be really good if you could find a way for people to be
about to go out on some of those depressed areas of the roof and actually
step out onto a plaza right next to the green roof;
- The north rooftop patio seems too small a gesture relative to the size
of the roof;
- There are a lot of wedges in the project where one edge comes to another;
rather than just have them dying into one another there is need to understand
how one surface runs into another;
- There are areas of the roof that are interesting and some that are
awkward. The east face and the west side of the gathering space is very
successful;
- The unsuccessful faces are the south face of the roof close to Burrard
Street (facing Canada Place Way) which is foreign to the rest of the
building;
- The southeast corner needs some consideration to make it read in a
more interesting way;
- The south end of the western portion of the high roof looks like a
gymnasium roof and needs further consideration; it might be more interesting
if it was more angular than shown;
- The fold for the escalators on Canada Place Way is too much of a void
as an expression;
- I find the green roof, even though it has been improved with the weave
etc., has a relentlessness to it that is overwhelming. There is room
to develop the material treatment of the roof so that it doesn’t
have to be completely 100 percent green. In some larger areas of the
roof it could just be a roof and I think it could be developed further.
The simplified edge along the east edge is good;
- The folded land form idea makes a lot more sense than before – it
is much stronger and clearer. It really does seem to be a continuous
form when viewed from the Coal Harbour end, even with the huge plaza
in between;
- The strong edges are good and the weaves are fantastic to be able in
certain places inside the building to be able to come across daylight
and see the roof;
- The sections of the roof are very exciting. You can now experience
the roof from within the building which is a great improvement;
- The public access up to the rooftop level is a great gesture;
- The area that still needs some design development in the southeast
Burrard edge (the chalet roof). No problem with the “gymnasium” roof;
- The north-facing viewing deck area off the restaurant needs some design
development including the stair and elevator up to that space – it
is not well integrated into the design;
- Welcome the roof and the fact that it changes its position and sometimes
can be seen from inside the building; also that there is a smaller version
of the same kind of green roof on the plaza which may even be publicly
accessible and demonstrate the ecology of what’s on the roof;
- Pleased to learn you are testing the vegetation for the roof in an
exposed waterfront location because that is a concern;
- One area that confuses me is the articulated valley along the roofline
at Canada Place Way where it drops down. I understand it is offered as
a view for the inside space meeting room level, but from Canada Place
Way looking up it reads as a balcony, so perhaps you should make it one.
Roof edge:
- I feel like the roof edge has a heavy and dumb quality to it. Maybe
its thickness should vary;
- The roof edge is far too thick. This is an area where it may be more
interesting to move into a tectonic level where you actually see what
the elements are that make it up;
- Support for the wood underneath the roof edge;
- My major concern is the detailed articulation of the roof edge. It
is far too thick and clunky looking. It needs to be far more refined.
On the original model some of the triangulated roof edges had more potential
for elegance;
- I’m not sure the roof edges are too strong but they may not be
strong enough from an engineering point of view. The edges may have to
change;
- The roof edge lacks a certain elegance;
- The roof edge is the most important thing that has to be resolved at
a finer level of detail. I feel strongly that the roof edge and overhangs
on the south side should be different than the north side, particularly
on the south side which is where you have the least overhang and where
you need it the most. It needs to be reduced a lot and has to become
more tectonic and refined.
Northeast Elevation:
The Panel strongly supported the amendments made to the northeast elevation,
particularly the added drama at the corner. Introducing the public
space at the corner was especially appreciated.
Comments included:
- The elevator has to be removed or relocated - It takes away from the
simplicity of the gesture you’ve got going
- The glass elevator seems a bit incongruous with the rest of the building;
not sure whether it’s the location or the form meshing with the
building;
- I think it either wants to be more prominent or more integrated, and
I would prefer to see it go slightly above the roof;
- The elevator core on the northeast corner will help a lot to animate
that corner;
- Concerned about the canted columns on the north face of the building.
There is a risk the canted aspect of the supporting columns will fight
with the angled profile of the roof in the northeast corner, particularly
when you see it from the harbour;
- The move to pop up the northeast corner and create a public space there
is fabulous;
- The elevator shaft element at the end is very good - it draws people
down and gives them an obvious way to get up to that space without having
to go into the building;
- The height of the northeast corner is great. If you can make that cantilever
work in a thinner roof edge I think it will be quite successful;
- The fact that the roof has been elevated to accommodate a public restaurant
and place for local people to enjoy this building is a big plus. Having
the ability to go there without entering the restaurant would be good
as well;
- There is need for more structural architectural emphasis on the northeast
corner.
Thurlow Plaza/Transition Area:
- The continuum of the gathering space (plaza) and the tension created
between the two forms is very positive. I would like to see that section
stepped even more and widening the two north stairs or the gap between
at least one of the edges, to maintain the impression of ultimately being
able to get to the water;
- The stair feels mean in terms of the scale of the gesture of the space;
- The stair to the west should be grander;
- Encourage you to exploit the notion of getting people to the edge wherever
possible and feeling the drama;
- Concern about the awkward geometry at the juncture of the grand stair,
the restaurant, the walkway and the connection to the waterfront drop
off; there is a lot happening that needs a sense of resolution, which
has to occur at the conceptual level;
- I think the plaza is much more of a civic space now and I like the
fact that it is defined by the building roof edges;
- Excited by the new plaza. It has been missing in the city for a long
time. We have so many green spaces next to the waterfront but a real
absence of a large, slightly more formal place that can be used for general
public gatherings;
- the plan needs a bit of work where the new elements have been added,
i.e., the Park Board restaurant, the tunnel and pop up forms as you make
the transition to Harbour Green Park. These gestures need to be a bit
bigger and woven into the landscape more;
- The transition from manicured park landscape to the wild rooftop form
is too clear-cut and needs to overlap; The transition from natural landscape
and man-made landscape should occur with soft rather than hard landscape;
- The main gathering space opens up too late in terms of its view to
the west. I think it would be more successful if the embankment to the
west of it came down sooner rather than as shown. I like what it is doing
but I think it has the opportunity to open up more down at the northern
end of it and I think that should be considered;
- There should be consideration for where ten thousand people will spill
out – one of the problems with the gathering space is that its
connections to other spaces are too minor;
- The stairs that connect it are tiny and I think there should be further
consideration of how they spill down to each of the areas that surrounds
there;
- The move to treat the Thurlow terrace as an accessible green roof over
top of the restaurant which in turn animates the edges of the plaza,
is a very good move;
- It is very successful in terms of the long view as you approach the
project from Harbour Green and the waterfront walkway where you can see
the green merge with the roof. Unfortunately that’s the only place
where pedestrians will experience the green roof at eye level;
- As much as I appreciate the introduction of the green roof over the
restaurant and animating the east edge of the Thurlow plaza, there is
also something lost in losing the fold of the roof coming down and meeting
grade;
- The retail at the waterfront north side of the public plaza facing
onto the waterfront and diverging public access to either side works
well. Raising the northeast corner is also positive;
- The form added to the west side of the plaza is a great continuation
of the main roof and I think it just makes that plaza what it is. It
is a real civic place and a plaza - not just a vast open space;
- Concerned about the retail space tucked underneath there and the pop-up
of the end which blocks getting down to the water – hard to see
how that retail will work;
- Support the idea of the park and plaza being separate;
- The grand staircase/seawall/ Park Board restaurant/ tunnel area is
the weakest point. All the elements are there but it maybe needs another
step back to the basics as to how the plaza relates to the park and whether
the restaurant is at the right place etc.;
- No concern about public view/plaza edges encroachment. The containment
there will make it quite an exciting space in terms of the restaurant,
the restaurant edge and wedge, and the main building itself. It will
be a great space and the gestures made on the plaza level I really quite
like;
- My primary concern is in the vicinity of where Harbour Green Park meets
the plaza and meets the mini folded roof;
- Question the Park Board restaurant having a green roof. It should be
part of the park and not taking an idea that belongs to the convention
centre and doing yet another mini version of it;
- I like the fact that the restaurant has moved inboard to the circulation
system but the circulation system needs to maintain a generous scale
given the number of people being moved down and to the park;
- The kink in the two curves of the waterfront walkway is a problem and
it is an opportunity to create something that gives meaning to the change
in geometry;’
- It is really important that the access to the floating docks be well
resolved. As well as telling a story about the ecosystem of the roof
there is another story to tell about the fish habitat and you are not
really making much of it;
- Retail is not the solution for animating everything and I don’t
think that much retail will be successful;
- The retail at the end of the plaza should be reconsidered;
- The terminus to Harbour Green is fairly clumsy;
- The roof of the Park Board restaurant should be a different form in
contrast to the convention centre roof;
- Concerns about the tunnel link to the waterfront edges. It needs to
be very bright, secure and safe for people to use at any time. If there
is some way to bring natural light into it in a continual way it could
emphasize that there is an underworld to that plaza. It needs some continuous
daylight so people feel safe;
- Pubic views at the plaza: the rising escarpment that terminates in
retail could fold down a little sooner;
- There is a need for more surfaces like the large staircase which connects
the plaza towards the water, or larger staircases;
- There is not enough emphasis to connecting the end of the plaza down
to the water;
- I prefer the Park Board restaurant where it is now, mainly because
it gives preference for pedestrians on the walkway.
- I would encourage you making the underground tunnel more normal.
- The tunnel circulation is a very major component and it still doesn’t
feel like it’s part of the design conversation quite yet.
South Façade:
- Great improvement on the southeast façade especially the south
façade which seems to have some very strong forms created by the
roof and a somewhat longhouse expression on the south edge which is appropriate
- The vertical circulation on the south side of the building where the
building connects to the city needs a lot of development and simplification.
It looks too busy or not coordinated enough.
Walkway Edges:
- The walkway on the north edge is getting better but I still think there
needs to be some animation in the middle of that stretch as you go
past the building … seems like a long stretch where nothing is
happening;
- The lower water edge needs more development. Concerns about retail
viability there;
Street End Views:
- I think we’re talking about a minor obstruction and I don’t
have any concerns with what I see.
The Skin:
- Good direction on the skin – look forward to seeing it at the
complete stage.
- I like what I see in the glazing. There is a great “kit of parts” approach
to what is being proposed;
- Not sure about the details of the skin – it is not very exciting.
The skin and the glass walls of this building are very important at a
pedestrian level;
- I know there is a strong desire to use as much wood as possible in
the project and wonder if wood was considered for the walls;
- With regard to the skin, I agree it would be good to push that skin
a little bit further in terms of its technology – not necessarily
expensive but to search for solutions that might speak more about the
building as a whole and specifically with regard to green sustainable
solutions;
- There are opportunities at the south end of the building for double
skins or natural ventilation or greenhouse structures, etc. The skin
could change around the building.
Burrard Street:
- The Burrard Street end needs further work. The square apron that represents
the entrance is fairly predictable and there are other approaches that
would have greater interest. As well, where the apron spills down to
street level needs some further consideration to make it successful.
Building Penetration:
- Hopefully there will be lots of entrances to the building; the idea
of being able to penetrate from the inside to outside is key to a successful
public building.
|
