Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, October 3, 2001
Index
Present
1716 Robson Street
798 Granville Street
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Tom Bunting, Chair
Jeffrey Corbett
Lance Berelowitz
Gerry Eckford
Alan Endall
Walter Francl
Bruce Hemstock
Maurice Pez
Sorin Tatomir
Regrets:
Richard Henry
Joseph Hruda
Jack Lutsky
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
1. 1716 Robson Street
DA: 406086
Use: Retail (2 storeys)
Zoning: C-5
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Kasian Kennedy
Owner: Canada Safeway Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Gerry Kennedy, Scott Douglas
Staff: Jonathan Barrett
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-1)
Introduction: Jonathan Barrett, Development Planner, presented
this complete application to redevelop the site at the corner of Robson
and Denman Streets. The site currently contains a Safeway store, a liquor
store and surface parking. The proposal is for a new liquor store and
commercial retail units (CRUs) on the ground floor and a new Safeway grocery
store on the second level. There is parking at grade level as well as
one level underground. The number of parking spaces will likely be greater
than currently exists and will meet the requirements of the Parking By-law.
The Guidelines call for reinforcing smaller-scale shopping, diversity
of pedestrian activities and interest along the street, and continuous
weather protection. Some external design guidelines in the District Schedule
also apply. These refer to display windows, direct pedestrian access to
retail, screening of garbage containers and enclosure of mechanical equipment.
No major issues have been identified to date, with minor concerns about
the treatment of the lane. The Panel is asked to comment on the proposal's
overall suitability in terms of the guidelines. Mr. Barrett noted some
concerns have been expressed by neighbours about the treatment of the
lane wall, operational times for loading and garbage pick-up, the extent
of the roof and its treatment, and noise from mechanical equipment.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Gerry Kennedy and Scott Douglas, Architects,
had nothing to add to Mr. Barrett's presentation. They responded to questions
from Panel members.
The Panel reviewed the model and posted materials.
Panel's Comments: The Panel strongly supported this application.
A number of Panel members commented that the redevelopment of this site
is long overdue and a strong architectural response is very appropriate
for this prominent corner of the West End. The development will be a very
worthwhile addition to this end of Robson Street, having the potential
to become a true anchor for the neighbourhood. It will certainly be a
vast improvement over what exists now on this site. The Panel noted its
concerns were minor and relatively easy to address.
The Panel strongly supported the street level CRUs wrapping around the
corner, and locating the Safeway on the second level. The Panel found
this to be a very appropriate response to the city's number one retail
street. It addresses issues of retail continuity and street animation.
Most of the Panel's comments focussed on the Robson/Denman corner, dealing
both with the identity of the major tenant and CPTED issues. With one
exception, the Panel supported the strong architectural element proposed
for the corner. However, most Panel members thought there was some ambiguity
or confusion in the identity of the main access to the Safeway. One Panel
member also suggested the Safeway signage along Robson Street could be
exacerbating this confusion. The Panel was divided as to whether the main
entry should actually be at the corner but in any event it was felt it
should be close to and identifiable with the corner. One suggestion was
to reconsider the location of the stair on Denman, flipping it with the
back area of the corner CRU. This would bring the presence of the stairs
closer to the corner and help to clarify the entry at the corner, also
making it more generous and open. Concerns were also expressed about the
location of the elevator, with a suggestion that it would be better located
in the large, visible corner element. Having the elevator in this space
and accessible from Robson Street would create a much more powerful entrance.
Concerns were also raised about security, particularly at the internal
‘down' movator where there is a blind spot. Also, the access ramp
from the southwest corner of the site which will have another blind spot,
despite the glass box CRU given these retail units are never transparent
once the walls are used to display merchandise. The area at the top of
the stairs was also identified as a possible security concern.
With respect to the roof, it was felt it needed to be dealt with in
a way that would compose it a little more for the benefit of people overlooking
it. The Panel did not disagree with a clean simple approach to the roofscape
but felt it needed a little more animation, possibly a simple graphic
on the roof surface. As well, the roof could be broken up a bit more and
some of the areas of mechanical equipment brought together in one element.
Another recommendation was to make sure the materials used for the flat
and curved portions of the roof are different.
The Panel thought the lane needed greater attention in terms of detailing
to provide some texture and animation. The lane wall as shown was thought
to be far too blank, prompting comments such as "long and brutal",
and "scary". Suggestions included varying the paint colour for
the recessed portions. Also, to consider some cut-outs to allow natural
light into the parking lot, small and high enough not to cause a security
problem.
One Panel member thought a somewhat warmer colour pallette would be
a more appropriate response to the neighbourhood context.
It was noted by one Panel member that the glazing along Robson Street
does not quite cover the parking entry. As well, the effectiveness of
the exterior space at the corner of Robson and Denman was questioned.
It was suggested a planter around the edge might be a better alternative,
softening the corner and introducing an interesting landscape element
to that edge.
There were some questions about the signage and the need for it to be
an integral part of the design. It was felt the signage should be thoroughly
thought out and made part of the development application in a project
such as this.
One Panel member had concerns about the dark, solid wall along Robson
Street, suggesting it be made more transparent in some way. There were
also comments about the lack of urban landscape in the project, with suggestions
that both Robson and Denman could take more greening other than street
trees.
Overall, the Panel found the proposal to be excellent in design and
concept. Several Panel members commended the applicant on the scheme and
welcomed the uncharacteristic way it deals with the functional form of
a "box" grocery store in a highly urbanized, fine grained context.
Safeway is also to be congratulated for embracing this non-traditional
approach which could become a prototype for other large-scale retail development
in the city.
Applicant's Response: The applicants had nothing to add. Mr.
Kennedy thanked the Panel for its well thought out commentary.
2. 798 Granville Street
DA: 406153
Use: Retail (4 storeys)
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Studio One
Owner: Bonnis Properties (Robson) Inc.
Review: First
Delegation: Tomas Wolf
Staff: Scot Hein
EVALUATION: NON-SUPPORT (2-6)
Introduction: The Development Planner, Scot Hein, introduced
this complete application to develop the site at the northeast corner
of Granville and Robson Streets, noting the maximum permitted density
and height in the DD zone is 9.0 FSR and 450 ft., respectively. The Zoning
and the Guidelines emphasize ground oriented retail uses and weather protection.
The Granville Street Handbook also offers guidance on facades and signage.
Following a brief description of the site and its immediate context, Mr.
Hein described the proposal which is for commercial uses throughout in
a 3-storey building, with single tenants on the second and third floors.
The program has been organized for demising of eight commercial retail
units (CRUs) fronting Granville Street and a single CRU fronting Robson
Street. The proposal also includes two levels of underground parking,
with 114 excess parking spaces to be covenanted to the 800–block
Granville Street. Proposed FSR is 3.8 and the height is 73.1 ft.
The application proposes a prominent and transparent corner with vertical
circulation positioned to animate. The CRUs on Granville are a 22 ft.
module with a bay module of 44 ft. A punched window expression and some
subtle heritage references are proposed for the Robson Street facade.
Proposed materials are steel with concrete, glass and spandrel including
a structural glazing system for the corner. Continuous weather protection
is proposed, with a prominent corner canopy.
The advice of the Panel is sought in the following areas:
the design response generally, given both the prominence of the site and
the City's aspirations for a high quality development at this corner;
the corner's approach to form/materials/detailing;
the Robson Street elevation including materials and detailing;
the Granville Street elevation including the 44 ft. bays specifically
with respect to detailed execution and "substance", and the
approach to separation of the bays;
the Granville Street elevation's transition to the Vancouver Block;
signage and banner systems; and
lane treatment.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Tomas Wolf, Architect, briefly
reviewed the design rationale and responded to the Panel's questions.
The Panel reviewed the model and posted drawings.
Panel's Comments: The Panel was unable to support this application.
It was generally thought to be a missed opportunity for such an important
intersection of the city. The proposal was considered very appropriate
in terms of its retail uses on Robson Street where it meets the more entertainment/retail
nature of Granville Street. As well, the simple approach to the site was
considered appropriate, including the CRUs along Granville Street which
offer good flexibility. One Panel member commented that the proposed big
box retail use seems to be a rather suburban response for such a highly
urban corner of the Downtown, suggesting to both the applicant and the
City that perhaps it should designed in such a way as to take something
more at some time in the future. Certainly, a more complex building program
would make for much more interesting architecture and a stronger statement
on this corner.
Overall design response: Given the prominence of this corner
the Panel thought the design response was not yet satisfied. Reference
was made to the three different facades - Robson Street, the corner, and
Granville Street - and while it was felt it could be made to work, this
assemblage of pieces fails to satisfactorily address the problems. Overall,
the majority of Panel members found the response to be far too timid.
While it shows some interesting ideas the strength of these ideas somehow
falls short.
From an urban design point of view the building has a key role to play
in improving Granville Street and encouraging pedestrian traffic and for
this reason quality needs to be emphasized. It is the one opportunity
to divert pedestrians off Robson to Granville Street: if this is achieved
it will be doing the city a great service. The images in the Granville
Street Design Handbook illustrate well the intention for this part of
Granville Street. This proposal, however, fails to meet the promise of
the highly energized, active and brightly lit street shown in the illustrations.
It was noted that this proposal will also need to provide enough sparkle
to counter the unfortunate blank facade of the Eatons building.
In general, the Panel urged that the overall design response be more
exuberant and sophisticated and finely detailed.
Robson Street elevation: The majority of Panel members found
the Robson Street facade to be the most successful of the street elevations.
Most also found the historicist response supportable although, again,
too timid. Suggestions were made to create more relief and shadow within
the concrete detailing, in keeping with the finely detailed buildings
along Robson Street.
Granville Street elevation: While the Granville Street facade
assumes a very contemporary glass approach, there were comments that it
falls short in terms of its fenestration pattern. The concern was that
this glass treatment will not be as sophisticated as the applicant envisages
in its execution. It was questioned why the Granville Street facade has
gone away from the concrete frame used on Robson, suggesting these bays
should relate to the materials used on Robson Street while expressing
the glass very differently.
The Panel generally found the Granville Street elevation to be rather
weak. There were questions about what is dominant and what is recessive
in the Granville Street facade, with the suggestion that it needs to either
come out and frame the building at the parapet as it does along Robson
Street, for example, or perhaps they need to be reversed with the glazing
recessive and the piers brought forward to develop a stronger frame and
perhaps a stronger cornice line as well. Another recommendation was for
a more layered approach to give more depth to the facade.
Concerns were expressed about the nature of Future Shop and how its
merchandise is displayed. It was recommended that serious consideration
be given to screening - at the same time as achieving transparency - to
avoid seeing backs of displays of appliances from the street.
The Panel had much to say about the corner element. While it is the
most exuberant piece of the building it shares virtually the same cornice
line as the other two facades which was viewed as a missed opportunity.
As well, it contains an elevator which is also glazed but has no differentiation
from the rest. Most Panel members thought the corner should be significantly
taller or have something that breaks the cornice line and more strongly
articulates the corner expression. The corner element should at least
meet the Eaton's facade in some way to frame the view up Granville Street.
In general, the Panel found the approach to the corner to be too timid
given it is a transitional piece that will be clearly seen from both Robson
and Granville Streets. While an icon or statement is not necessary on
every corner of the city, an intersection as important as this needs something
stronger and much more dramatic. A recommendation was made to better integrate
the elevator tower into the corner element which would help make the turn
onto Granville Street, which is the weakest facade, and create something
more sculptural (similar to the Orpheum). Another recommendation was to
move the elevator further back rather than in the centre, creating a clear
vertical break between the rhythm of the Granville Street bays. As well,
the angle either needs to be straight or much more acute than shown.
In general, the corner needs to be more prominent. The Panel agreed
with the structural glazing approach and making it highly transparent
but its success will be in the fine detail and handling of the architectural
detailing.
Transition to the Vancouver Block: The Panel did not support
the handling of the transition to the Vancouver Block and did not believe
a different glazing pattern set back an additional 1 - 2 ft. constitutes
a strong transition or differentiation. Suggestions included considering
something solid at that point or take the material of the Vancouver Block
itself and render that as a solid at that point as a differentiation.
It need not be as wide as currently presented - it could be narrower and
still have the appropriate affect. The transition piece should be substantially
different, both vertically and horizontally. As well, the fenestration
patterning makes no real acknowledgement of the Vancouver Block, and the
cornice line has an awkward relationship to the cornice line of the Vancouver
Block. One Panel member preferred butting the building up to the Vancouver
Block and blocking some of its lower windows.
Signage and banners: The Panel did not support the signage as
shown and felt that much more thought needs to be given to integrating
the signage into the project. In general, it was felt it does not meet
the expectations of the illustrations in the Granville Street Handbook.
One comment was to consider the whole facade in terms of signage. As well,
to consider things such as fibre optics, neon, and projected images.
Lane treatment: The Panel was generally very complimentary about
the lane elevation which it found to be a very interesting and animated
collage of elements. One comment was that it is a good example of how
to make a difficult, blank facade interesting. The architect was commended
on this aspect of the design.
Landscaping: Some comments were made about the lack of landscaping
in this proposal. One Panel member suggested the City should be discussing
with the applicant such things as replacing the sidewalk and considering
materials and hard landscaping, as well as street trees.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Wolf said he was disappointed the Panel
found the glass facade too timid. With respect to signage, he noted their
initial submission included a very large video screen at the corner but
this was discouraged by City staff because it did not meet the requirements
of the Sign By-law. The signage as proposed, which will be neon, is at
the extreme limit of what would be allowable. Mr. Wolf said they considered
various alternatives for the corner and concluded it was not necessary
to make a statement on this corner, noting it is not visible from a block
away. With respect to street trees, Mr. Wolf questioned why the application
should address what is City property given the development levies that
will apply. Regarding the transition to the Vancouver Block, he said the
intent was not to do anything that would compete with it.
DA:
Use:
Zoning:
Application Status:
Architect:
Owner:
Review:
Delegation:
Staff:
Evaluation: ???
Introduction:
Applicant’s Opening Comments:
Panel’s Comments:
Applicant’s Response:
|
