Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, December 12, 2001
Index
Present
675 West 10th Avenue
901 Beatty Street
1280 Richards Street (499 Drake)
2099 West 33rd Avenue
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Walter Francl, Chair
Jeffrey Corbett (Items 2 & 3 only)
Lance Berelowitz (Items 1 & 2 only)
Gerry Eckford
Alan Endall
Bruce Hemstock (excused Item 4)
Richard Henry (excused Item 2)
Joseph Hruda (Items 2 - 4 only)
Jack Lutsky
Maurice Pez
Sorin Tatomir
Regrets:
Tom Bunting
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
1. 675 West 10th Avenue
DA: 406273
Use: Mixed
Zoning: C-3A
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Henriquez & Partners
Owner: BC Cancer Agency
Review: First
Delegation: Richard Henriquez, Jane Durante, Ivo Taller
Staff: Mary Beth Rondeau
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (8-0)
Introduction: Mary Beth Rondeau, Development Planner, presented
this development application for a new BC Cancer Research Centre at 675
West 10th Avenue, occupying the whole block between Ash and Heather Streets.
The site was rezoned CD-1 in July 2001, permitting a density of 6.0 FSR.
The subject proposal is the first of two phases of the project. Phase
one occupies the western portion of the site facing Heather Street and
West 10th Avenue. Ms. Rondeau briefly reviewed the rezoning conditions,
namely: to reduce the apparent visual impact of the phase one building
massing through architectural treatment and articulation; provision of
retail/restaurant and commercial services and other active public oriented
uses at grade on Heather Street. Staff are satisfied the application satisfies
these conditions. With respect to landscaping, there is a requirement
for a 3 m setback on West 10th Avenue to enhance the public realm and
pedestrian amenity along this sunny, highly pedestrianized side of the
street. In this respect, the Panel's advice is sought as to whether the
proposal could be less architectural and softer to better meet this condition.
The Panel's advice is also sought with respect to the landscape buffer
against the interim surface parking.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Richard Henriquez, Architect, reviewed
the design rationale and outlined the strategies used for the whole block.
Panel's Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this application
and commended the architect on a superb design that will be a landmark
not only for this neighbourhood but for the city as a whole. It is very
appropriate for a development as significant as the new cancer research
centre. The Panel strongly supported the project's plinth concept.
With respect to the landscape buffer in front of the temporary parking,
the Panel thought it was an interesting edge but several Panel members
raised concerns about potential security problems associated with the
voids and pockets underneath the trellises that could provide hiding places.
This edge needs to be highly visible and well lit to discourage vagrants
from inhabiting these spaces.
The Panel agreed with staff that there needs to be some design development
to the ground plane along West 10th Avenue to make it softer and more
pedestrian-friendly, especially at the corner of 10th and Heather Street
where the landscaping appears weak against the very strong architecture
of the building.
Some Panel members thought the 3 m setback worked well as proposed and
saw no need to extend the park across the street, preferring a hard landscape
solution. There could, however, be some change in the material to break
up the mass and form. There was also a suggestion to extend the expression
of the building to the ground plane, e.g., round planters rather than
square to reflect the rhythm of the round windows. Several Panel members
also recommended eliminating the second row of trees in this location
which could provide more flexibility in the treatment of this edge. One
Panel member suggested there could be another tree closer to the corner
on 10th at Heather.
Overall, the Panel strongly endorsed the proposal and looked forward
to seeing it built. It is a very attractive composition and the articulation
works very well to break down the scale of the building.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Henriquez said he appreciated the comments
about the landscape and advised they will be revisiting the second row
and trees and treatment next to the interim parking lot.
2. Address: 901 Beatty Street
DA: 406240
Use: Residential (29 storeys)
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Brook Development Planning/Rafii
Owner: Bosa Ventures Inc.
Review: First
Delegation: Chuck Brook, Foad Rafii, Richard Henry, Jane Durante
Staff: Jonathan Barrett
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-0)
Introduction: Jonathan Barrett, Development Planner, presented
this application in Downtown South. The site is long and narrow and there
is no lane on this block. The proposal is for two residential towers,
28 storeys and 20 storeys, 2- and 3-storey residential around the base
and a small component of commercial at the corner of Nelson and Beatty
Streets. There is a previous approved application for this site which
was not pursued. The mews concept of that proposal has been eliminated
in the current application. The areas in which the advice of the Panel
is sought relate to:
streetwall. The proposal is for a 2-storey base which is below the 30
ft. recommended in the Guidelines although there is a pergola above which
makes it read as three storeys;
appropriateness of the proposed corner plaza;
floorplate size. The proposal is a little over that recommended in the
Guidelines;
inclusion of a children's play area.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Richard Henry, Architect, briefly
explained why they chose to alter the building massing from the previous
application and described the current design rationale. The applicant
team described the various aspects of the proposal.
Panel's Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this application.
Streetwall: The Panel had no concerns with the 2-storey streetwall,
raised to the 30 ft. level with a pergola. One Panel member commented
that it has been very skilfully done, unlike some other examples in Downtown
South. Another comment was that it will be quite elegant and help to reinforce
Beatty Street as a pedestrian connection from the foot of Robson down
through to Beatty Mews into Concord Pacific Place.
Another Panel member suggested a streetwall height of three storeys
was not enough, given the Yaletown characteristic of 4-, 5 and 6-storey
bases. There was also a concern expressed about the monotonous and diagrammatic
nature of the form of development that is emerging in response to the
Downtown South Guidelines.
There was an observation that the market component of the lower rise
streetwall seems lacking in its architectural treatment while the rental
component seems much stronger in its low rise expression so that the townhouses
associated with the market tower read more as if they are associated with
the rental tower. Further design development was recommended to remove
some of this ambiguity.
Corner plaza: With one exception, the Panel supported the proposed
corner plaza and found it an interesting approach. There was one suggestion
to make it a little more public in its expression and another to include
a large specimen tree in the plaza to help define the corner. One Panel
member found the corner plaza inappropriate and thought the corner should
be reinforced.
Floorplate: One Panel member was somewhat concerned about the
size of the floorplate of the rental building although the majority of
the Panel had no problem with it and found the tower placement to be appropriate.
There was a suggestion that the colours on the model may be making the
rental tower appear squatter than it actually is.
Mews: Some Panel members expressed regret that the earlier mews
has been eroded to the point where it is more like a private walkway.
Unfortunately, in its present scale it creates more problems than in solves,
particularly in terms of security. The consensus was that it should become
totally private for the use and benefit of the residents. A comment was
made that it takes significant energy away from Beatty Street which should
be strengthened as the primary pedestrian route. Eliminating the mews
will also provide an opportunity to include a children's play space, which
the Panel also fully supported.
Landscape: Comments about the landscape were that the courtyards
are really nicely handled with clean, simple expressions. The water feature
was supported and it was thought the rooftop terrace areas will be very
successful.
General Comments: One Panel member found the massing more successful
than the previous application in its relationship to surrounding buildings.
There were no concerns about the height or the siting of the two towers
relative to the view and shadowing impacts. There was endorsement of the
rental tower being a background building, architecturally and, as such,
it has been very nicely handled. There was also support for locating the
autocourt in the parkade which was thought to be a very appropriate urban
approach. There was one negative reaction noted to the dark colour palette
of the rental building.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Rafii thanked the Panel for its comments.
With respect to the corner plaza, Mr. Rafii said he appreciated the comment
about reflecting the strong corner across the street; however, there is
a 12 ft. setback from the property line and whatever is done it will not
line up with the other side of the street. For this reason, they emphasized
the corner recess. Mr. Rafii acknowledged some Panel members' concerns
about the centre townhouses. Mr. Henry added his appreciation for the
comments.
3. Address: 1280 Richards Street (499 Drake)
DA: 406223
Use: Residential
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Preliminary
Architect: Brook Development Planning/Wiens-Suzuki
Owner: Grace Residences Ltd.
Review: Second
Delegation: Karen Wiens-Suzuki, Eva Lee, James Schouw, Chuck Brook
Staff: Scot Hein
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (5-4)
Introduction: Scot Hein, Development Planner, presented this
application. The proposal was first reviewed by the Panel on November
14, 2001 when it was not supported. Mr. Hein briefly reviewed the areas
in which advice was sought and the Panel's response at that time. The
Panel was generally satisfied with the proposed 70 ft. high podium and
the variety it will bring to the area in this respect. The Panel endorsed
the proposed siting of the tower. With respect to tower height and slimness,
the Panel suggested some of the massing could be redistributed from the
podium into the tower but was generally appreciative of the benefits of
slim towers. There were no major concerns expressed with respect to open
space. Two major issues were identified in the last review: (1) the transition
in massing to the adjacent Canadian Linen development (the Metropolis)
from podium to podium and (2) architectural expression. Mr. Hein noted
that this site now qualifies for the 5.0 FSR with 300 ft. frontage. This
may be earned through staff's evaluation of the guidelines, zoning compliance,
the input of the Panel and neighbourhood response to notification. The
guidelines are silent on architectural expression and style, rather they
allow for a range and variety of approaches to be taken. In applying the
guidelines, staff therefore do not become the arbiters of taste or expression
and it is left to the Panel to offer that advice to the Development Permit
Board. Mr. Hein noted the application will be reviewed again by the Panel
at the complete stage, should the Development Permit Board approval in
principle. He also noted the Panel had mixed response to the architectural
expression. Staff will be seeking, as conditions of preliminary approval,
further design development to ensure the execution and quality of materials
are well handled.
The comments of the Panel are again sought on the podium transition
to the Canadian Linen building specifically as well as any general advice
to the applicant should the project to proceed to the complete stage.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Karen Wiens-Suzuki, Architect,
briefly reviewed the revisions made with respect to the podium transition,
noting there has been some redistribution of mass from the podium to the
tower, increasing tower height by one storey. The proportions of the tower
have also been adjusted with the transition in massing occurring two thirds
up the tower. With respect to the streetwall, Ms. Wiens-Susuki noted much
of the streetwall is below 70 ft., being 4 storeys adjacent to the Metropolis,
5 storeys closer to the tower, and 5-6 storeys at the corner of Drake
and Richards. With respect to open space, the amenity area on the 5th
level is now associated with a large outdoor open space. James Schouw
showed some examples to illustrate what they intend to achieve in this
building's quality.
Panel's Comments:
Transition to the Canadian Linen Building (Metropolis): Most
Panel members thought there was some minor improvement in the transition
with the Canadian Linen Building and it was acknowledged to be a difficult
transition to deal with. There was one comment that failure to step the
building along its principal street frontage was working against achieving
a better transition. Another comment was that there needs to be some acknowledgment
of the building lines of the Canadian Linen Building; also that it need
not be a "book-end" to the component already under construction
on the south side but could be different.
Architectural Expression: As with the previous review, much of
the Panel's commentary focussed on the architectural expression. Comments
included:
- it does not respond to Yaletown at all;
- more thought should be given to how it meets the public realm;
- it could be a very urban, very hard, Yaletown expression that is very
simple and straight forward but still allow the building to have a very
un-Yaletown look to it;
- there is some opportunity to deal with the architectural expression
in a more neighbourly way;
- there has been some minor adjustment to the tower proportions which
are a little bit better;
- the architectural expression fails to show any discipline or integrity;
- there is not enough development in creating a prevailing and clear architectural
language which has some historical roots or foundation;
- there are too many details clustered together - such rich detail needs
more room to make it work;
- there needs to be a depth of understanding and a discipline to really
pull this off;
- support the different style and hope the details can be carried through
within the budget.
Landscaping: The Panel had serious reservations about the courtyard.
While it is colourfully portrayed, a good portion of it is under cover
and unlikely to thrive. The rear landscaping would be better without the
small entry driveway. With respect to the private terraces, there seems
to be some ambiguity as to what is private and what is public. The street
front could also be simple and more urban, with less fussy detailing.
***
A number of Panel members commented that they looked forward to seeing
how this project can be pulled off and will look closely at its execution
at the complete stage.
Applicant's Response: Chuck Brook stressed this is a preliminary
application. He acknowledged the Panel's indication that the project is
moving in the right direction with respect to the transition to the Metropolis.
Regarding the architectural expression, Mr. Brook said he felt the main
message - apart from the strongly negative comments - that provided it
is handled consistently and carefully then there is a real opportunity
to do something special. He added, they do appreciate that the challenge
will be to bring back a well developed submission at the complete stage
that meets those expectations for quality.
4. Address: 2099 West 33rd Avenue
DA: 406281
Use: Residential
Zoning: CD-1
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Gurney Halkier
Owner: Polygon Dev. 104 Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Rene Rose, Cam Halkier, Chris Stary
Staff: Eric Fiss
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-0)
Introduction: The Development Planner, Eric Fiss, presented this
application which is the fourth phase of the Quilchena Park development
(formerly Arbutus Gardens), at the southwest corner of the site. The proposal
follows fairly closely to the form of development approved at the rezoning
stage, with some subtle variations. The proposal contains 102 units at
1.25 FSR. The proposal meets the 4-storey height limit and has some 2
- 3-storey elements at some of the edges as envisaged in the rezoning.
A major goal is to increase housing and approximately double the amount
of housing will result when the whole site is completed.
The areas in which the advice of the Panel is sought are:
whether the proposal meets the intent of the rezoning;
appropriateness of the massing particularly at the edges and its relationship
to adjacent buildings;
roof form and details;
relationship of the proposal to open space;
vehicular access;
appropriateness of the overall architectural character and materials;
whether this proposal meets the standards achieved in the previous approvals
to date on this site.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Cam Halkier, Architect, reviewed
the project and Chris Stary described the landscape plan.
Panel's Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this application.
Some Panel members commented on the stand-alone townhouses, the massing
of which it was felt could have been distributed into the main building.
It was suggested these townhouses seem out of character and scale with
the rest of the building.
The Panel questioned the rationale for the entry location, given the
landscape design reinforces and invites entry through the courtyard rather
than the corner as proposed. Another comment about the entry was that
it seems a little understated and small, especially internally where it
seems more of a corridor to the elevator than a lobby.
With respect to building character, the Panel liked some of the detailing
but missed the theme of the previous phases with the chimneys creating
vertical elements to break down the scale of the mass of the roof. It
was felt that some of the richness and texture of the earlier phases was
somewhat lacking in this project. There was a suggestion that, rather
than a blanket one storey brick plinth around the base, that the brick
be extended with some vertical elements. Also, one Panel member thought
the corner of 33rd and Arbutus should be bolder and stronger as it is
very much a focal point of the entire development.
There were no concerns expressed about the roof forms.
One Panel member expressed concern about light access to some of the
suites, particularly on the easterly side of the building.
The Panel strongly supported the landscape plan. There was a recommendation
to soften the wall next to the parking ramp - perhaps a planter at the
bottom for planting material to grow up the wall.
It was recommended by one Panel member to look at the relationship with
the building to the north, noting that the north end of the long element
of the building seems to be quite a bit higher than the adjacent building
immediately north and could be crowding its neighbour.
Applicant's Response: Rene Rose, Polygon, stressed it is not
the intention to diminish the level of quality and detail in this project.
They want it to be a first class development and will continue to work
on that. She thanked the Panel for its comments.
|
