| |
Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, November 28, 2001
Index
Present
Lot 7B - The Viaduct Site - False Creek North
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Tom Bunting, Chair
Lance Berelowitz
Gerry Eckford
Alan Endall
Bruce Hemstock
Richard Henry
Jack Lutsky
Sorin Tatomir
Regrets:
Jeffrey Corbett
Walter Francl
Joseph Hruda
Maurice Pez
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
1. Lot 7B - The Viaduct Site - False Creek North
Use: Residential
Zoning: FCN - CD-1
Application Status: Rezoning
Architect: James Cheng
Owner: Concord Pacific
Review: First
Delegation: James Cheng, Bill Steinberg
Staff: Jonathan Barrett, Michael Gordon
WORKSHOP - NO VOTE TAKEN
Introduction: The Development Planner, Jonathan Barrett, presented
this preliminary rezoning proposal. He first reviewed the context of this
very large site, bounded by Expo Boulevard and Beatty, Georgia and Dunsmuir
Streets, noting also that part of the overall concept is to ultimately
provide a strong pedestrian connection on the axis of Georgia Street.
Among the challenges for the site are that it becomes part of the Downtown
entry and egress, and continues the city grid. Since over 1,000 residential
units are proposed, both market and non-market, the project also seeks
to create a residential neighbourhood. Another major aspect of the proposal
is the road system. The attempt is to "tame" the Dunsmuir and
Georgia Street viaducts with the introduction of traffic signals and pedestrian
crossings to reduce the speed of traffic. A fairly complex pedestrian
system is also anticipated, noting the existing conditions of the large
crowds associated with the adjacent BC Place and GM Place stadiums as
well as the connecting bridges to the ALRT station. These bridges will
be relocated with this development. Another important consideration is
the open space systems - public, semi public and private space.
As well as general commentary, the Panel's advice is sought in the following
specific areas:
the proposed Costco at the Expo Boulevard level given the public objective
of making city streets interesting, and animated and with a good interface,
notwithstanding the current less than ideal conditions that exist on Expo
Boulevard;
the tight relationships between towers;
how to acknowledge the Armoury at Beatty and Dunsmuir which is not part
of this site;
the two options shown for the road system.
Following a question and answer period, James Cheng, Architect, described
the proposal is greater detail. He noted this proposal evolved as a continuation
of the Northeast False Creek Study, some of which the Panel has already
reviewed. The Study has identified that International Village, Chinatown
and, to some degree, Gastown, are currently isolated communities, not
connected to the rest of the city fabric, and one of the goals of this
project is to start to link all the precincts together. Mr. Cheng noted
the proposal is for approximately 1.2 million sq.ft. of development which
was established in the original zoning. At that time, the ODP envisaged
two very large office towers on this site, which has since been reconsidered.
A general discussion followed Mr. Cheng's presentation. Panel's Comments:
Following are some of the points that were made:
General Comments:
this is a really difficult site and staff and the applicant are to
be commended for what has been achieved to date;
if this is as good as it gets because of some rules that weren't intended
to do this, then maybe the rules should be reconsidered, i.e., view cones;
the site is like a peninsula jutting out over an escarpment. It is in
an unconventional setting and needs an unconventional approach which may
need to have some rules broken;
what will make it work are the things the strong expression of street
walls, the strength of materials, and strong edges;
a great development and going in a very positive direction;
this is a really challenging site which has to try to correct the mistakes
of the previous generations of planners;
this development may have the potential to find a way to make the transition,
both physically and visually, from the Beatty Street escarpment down to
Expo Boulevard;
not willing to say this site can't take this density, but what is shown
right now does not show that the site can take the density given all the
constraints it has with height and with the way it's treating the escarpment;
support breaking the height limitation with a special tower. This is as
good a site as any to do it because it is so challenging;
the Costco footprint is determining much of the urban design of this site
with its enormous footprint, which may be denying a lot of the potential
uniqueness of the site.
Use:
Costco use is a good and appropriate use for this site given the grade
differential;
question the residential townhouse units facing Georgia and suggest something
more commercial or work/office use, particularly at grade, would be more
workable in this high traffic location;
agree Costco is an appropriate use. While it does generate increased traffic
to the site, something as big as this is needed at Expo Boulevard. Something
projecting up to the upper level as a boutique of Costco operations which
would lead people to go in might benefit;
this development should be emphasized as a transition from the more family
oriented residential to the more work related central business district.
This is an ideal live/work location - if any site deserves to be considered
for flexible zoning or special building code considerations as a live/work
site, this is a great location;
not convinced that Costco is the best use, but this is the appropriate
way to deal with it;
this is a good place for a more "entertaining" Costco - it doesn't
have to be traditional.
Expo Boulevard/Costco Interface:
would like to see developed further a more identifiable, publicly
oriented presence along Expo Boulevard for Costco. While most people will
arrive by car, there is also potential for a large urban gesture which
would help identify the store for motorists as well as allow for the potential
of some people arriving on foot. This space could be treated as a fairly
major pedestrian-oriented public space, moving away from the more formula
approach for this type of store;
do not think you can engage Expo Boulevard through potentially very marginal
uses at either edge with the narrow stairs beside the big ramps, but with
something much more generous. This would go towards addressing some of
the questions around engaging Costco at the upper level, somehow tying
it back in spatially, functionally and programmatically. Perhaps there
should be a way of moving down to the lower level through the site, cutting
out a bit of the Costco floor plan at the eastern end;
there are so many opportunities to keep pedestrian traffic and keep the
neighbourhood intact by using the existing connections and reinforcing
those connections, that to go down and try and make something out of Expo
Boulevard, which is and will remain a loading area, doesn't seem to make
a lot of sense;
Costco is a great store for this location; it fits beautifully. There
is opportunity to think outside the big box to fit within the city fabric;
the Costco presence on Expo Boulevard will be good; it will enhance and
bring greater security to the place;
whatever can be done to vitalize Expo Boulevard will go a long way to
energizing the whole area including the Keefer Circle and International
Village;
question somewhat the exclusive nature of Costco and its reliance on automobile
traffic; wonder if there could be some ancillary, more publicly accessible,
less exclusive commercial use that could benefit the stadiums, for example,
that could help to vitalize in a pedestrian manner;
the type of function Costco offers won't draw from the vitality of the
central business district but could be a complementary function;
maybe a more mixed frontage along Expo Boulevard in the future could be
a very positive way of making a more positive pedestrian gesture.
Tower Placement/Residential Livability/Height:
agree with establishing an urban residential precinct on this site.
It is quite workable;
increasing density in the streetwall may give some freedom to explore
further shaping of the towers. The tower placement, albeit at a very preliminary
stage, appears somewhat random. More could be done to help define the
residential precinct and make the towers "talk" to one another
and have a little bit more variety in the way they are formed;
there are too many towers on the site. They are too similar, too squat,
too close to each other, and too randomly placed relative to the street
grid;
have a problem with how the towers are placed, e.g., the northwest tower
set back into the site away from either Beatty or Georgia Streets;
the view corridor is somewhat arbitrary and should be challenged. This
is the kind of project where a legitimate case can be made to Council
to penetrate the view corridor;
the height limitation is really squashing down the site and making it
very hard for the applicants to come up with a diagram that is compelling
as an urban design. Suggest the applicant explore with staff to see if
there is a way of consolidating two of the towers into one, with increased
density of streetwall on Georgia, Dunsmuir and Beatty, perhaps centralizing
and expanding the green common and finding a more meaningful way of getting
down to the lower level;
there may be too much density on the site given the current planning constraints;
perhaps the towers should be reconfigured, combining two towers into one
with a third more of a slab than a point tower. There are to many towers,
too much density or they are too close together;
the towers will need to have a signature element - they will be highly
visible and will need to be visually exciting;
the notion of an urban residential precinct is really positive;
re-think the location for the non market building because non market buildings
tend to not look as good as market buildings;
from a residential livability point of view this is no different than
conditions elsewhere in Downtown South; I see quite a bit of slack in
the site; the Armoury is a beautiful building which should be kept as
it is and, if possible, used for a neighbourhood facility;
Armoury itself has potential as a central feature/public element, like
the Roundhouse; there must be a way to allow this historic centrepiece
to become a part of this emerging community; it's too important to ignore.
Road System:
if the intent is to "tame" the viaducts - accepting they
will stay for the foreseeable future - then maybe the entrances to and
from the site north and south should actually cross them and provide a
cue for connecting back to BC Place Stadium to the south and to the skytrain
station to the north. Perhaps there should be something at the Dunsmuir
viaduct level, right off the station, with a reconfiguration of how to
get from the intermediate platform level in the station onto Dunsmuir
Street and across into the site. If that begins to be conceived of as
part of the front door, not only to the ground plane at Beatty but also
down to the Costco level, the site could start taking advantage of the
escarpment and the "found" infrastructure on the north and south
sides;
there is over redundancy built into the parking layout and driveways,
notwithstanding the amount of traffic that both Costco and the residential
uses will generate;
the ramp down through the parking garage will never be perceived as a
public street but is driven by achieving optimum throughout for Costco.
Do not agree that we a public street system through this site to bring
public traffic from the upper level down to the Expo Boulevard site. Suggest
eliminating the parking entrance off Beatty and using the new roads off
Dunsmuir and Georgia;
the whole vehicular circulation system is overly complex;
the parking and roadway system seems a little too complex; do not think
this site should be encumbered with the requirement to solve the problem
of getting traffic from the upper to the lower level internally - it is
compromising the ability to do a good job with the towers;
don't know why we should tame Georgia Street as an exit from downtown;
I question the parking access off Beatty - having a major vehicular entrance
ramp is very problematic there;
appreciate City's objectives of extending the grid. On the other hand
this is the one place where the city does change and maybe some of that
uniqueness needs to come out in the urban design. One way would be to
deal with the pedestrian travel between the upper level and the lower
level. It would be very interesting to see a major urban design statement
made in coming down the escarpment, and that being part of the parti of
how this whole site works. It seems like the Costco footprint is disabling
this from happening and it would be nice if there was more flexibility
there;
from a traffic point of view this is a very straightforward site, with
an upper site and a lower site. Keeping it very simple is probably the
best approach.
Streetwall:
the scale of the streetwall along Georgia, Dunsmuir and Beatty should
be amplified;
the streetwall situations should be increased. The context of Beatty Street
should be driving the streetwall along Beatty Street, and it's certainly
a taller profile than is being shown. A taller profile could be accommodated
on all three fronting streets;
Open Space:
prefer Option A (as shown on the model) for the central open space.
It is more successful in defining and establishing a setting for the Armoury
and as well giving a common open space to all the market residential areas;
regret there is little information given about the form of the connection
from the Georgia viaduct down to Expo Boulevard and onto False Creek.
While it is not part of this proposal, it is a key element;
respecting the view corridor has resulted in an open space network that
forces the massing to be quite fragmented;
the central common area, which is quite compelling in theory, is not substantial
enough, being barely wider than the roadways around it. It will be experienced
and perceived more as a traffic island;
suggest looking at a green space system that comes right through the site,
that plants its way from north to south from Beatty all the way across
the site, right through the centre and down to Expo Boulevard in a more
dramatic and meaningful way;
prefer Option B with a more consolidated open space because the central
green space needs to be very grand; Option A, in which the central common
is no wider than the roadway, is not as defensible as Option B. It also
provide greater opportunity to relate to the Armoury;
the treatment of the internal street is a key element because I like the
idea of it feeling like a big neighbourhood courtyard as opposed to a
part of the city;
prefer Option A, and like the idea that the greens of the courtyards for
each of the buildings face onto the central common. This is not unlike
Techpark where the road surface is different than the city road surface,
the green in the middle is different than the city green, and the whole
thing reads together as a big open common space;
there are some major hurdles to overcome with respect to the landscape,
e.g. tree planting on viaducts which is very difficult and very expensive;
the green space configuration is somewhat fractured. Can't help think
there is a more effective way of consolidating that green space in a way
that also contributes to mitigating the escarpment barrier between the
upper and lower levels;
prefer Option B because I see that extended green space is potentially
more functional. Families are not likely to live here so perhaps the green
space should be consolidated in a park like gesture as opposed to a turnaround
and a couple of little areas of green.
|
