Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, September 19, 2001
Index
Present
298 Thurlow Street (1088 Cordova Street)
2a. 1055 Homer (401 Helmcken)
2b. 1085 Homer (401 Helmcken)
3. 546-576 West 7th Avenue (2300 Ash)
Present:
Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Tom Bunting, Chair
Walter Francl, Deputy Chair
Lance Berelowitz
Jeffrey Corbett
Richard Henry
Joseph Hruda
Maurice Pez
Sorin Tatomir
Regrets:
Alan Endall
Gerry Eckford
Bruce Hemstock
Jack Lutsky
Recording Secretary: Rae Ratslef, Raincoast Ventures
1. 298 Thurlow (1088 Cordova)
DA: 406001
Use: Mixed (40 storeys)
Zoning: CD-1
Architect: James Cheng
Owner: Burrard Landing Lot 2 Holding Ltd.
Review: 1st
Staff: Mike Kemble
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-0)
Introduction
Mike Kemble, Planning Department, introduced the application noting that
it had been previously viewed by the Panel in two workshops and as a rezoning
application. Referencing the project model, Mr. Kemble led the panel in
a detailed review of the project in the context of the surrounding area.
Previous Panel concerns were reviewed and related to the possibility
of an additional tower occurring on the site in the event that the Convention
Centre proposal did not proceed, and regarding the lower massing of both
towers and their relationship to each other. Mr. Kemble reviewed principle
changes to the project since the rezoning that related to the stepping,
podium shape, expression of the canopy on top of the third storey, and
refinements to the tower.
Mr. Kemble requested the Panel's comments regarding:
• view impacts of the project;
• public opening spaces, pedestrian experience, animation at the
street level and weather protection;
• building colours and materials and articulation of the tower top;
• lower podium massing and change in stepping;
• vehicular arrival space on the east side of the building;
• whether public atrium earns the exclusion of 5,500 sq ft from the
FSR; and
• integration of the public and private realms on the site.
In response to questions, Mr. Kemble provided information on the concept
of live-work units and regarding the City's guidelines in relation to
public atriums.
Applicant's Opening Comments
James Cheng, Dawn Guspie and Chris Philips joined the Panel for consideration
of this Item.
Mr. Cheng commented regarding changes made to the project since rezoning
and discussed the design of the site to move people from the downtown
core, through the public spaces to the water. Information was relayed
regarding efforts to soften the shoulders of the building through the
provision of trellising around the outdoor daycare play areas and mechanical
transitions. Efforts to create a an interesting tower top that would have
a distinctive look from all angles and that would provide visual interest
to the skyline were also discussed. Also, information was provided regarding
the addition of an entrance to accommodate people travelling from the
site to the downtown core, concerning the building materials and colour
palate, public area and street treatments, atrium programming, and the
Thurlow plaza design. Mr. Philips commented regarding the link that the
Thurlow plaza would provide to the waterfront and concerning other features
of the site, such as its wide sidewalks and partially covered walkways,
designed to accommodate the flow of pedestrian traffic. Comments were
also offered concerning the conscious effort to abstractly represent the
Vancouver landscape, the design of the drop off area to include a water
element, and the proposed configuration of the plaza in the event that
the Convention Centre does not proceed.
In response to questions from the Panel, the applicants provided additional
information regarding:
• pedestrian amenities of the site;
• design and intended programming of the public atrium;
• private open spaces;
• daily contact of the applicants with the Convention Centre planning
team;
• impact of the design on the Thurlow view corridor;
• street system in the event that the Convention Centre does not
proceed;
• means of ensuring that the public right of way is respected by
the lower level tenant.
The Panel reviewed the model and posted materials.
Panel's Comments
Panel members commented on the difficulty of assessing this site given
the lack of information regarding the surrounding context. Notwithstanding
this, unanimous support for the project's overall design was expressed.
Regarding the street pedestrian interface, Panel members commented that
changes made went a long way to addressing previously noted concerns and
that the thoroughfare makes the best efforts to respond to the current
area around the building. However, concern was raised regarding the location
of the crosswalks and shortcomings were noted concerning the lack of rain
protection, canopies, and lighting to animate the street scape. It was
suggested that weather protection at the north edge of the project is
very important.
Several Panel members also commented that there was an abruptness to
the tower meeting the street on the north side. While this is appropriate
to the tower, it was suggested that a softening of the edge and an implication
of penetrability on the north facade would be desirable. Many members
also questioned the appropriateness of the serrated north wall along the
street. The continuity of the street edge and the public space across
Canada Place Way seems weakened by this design.
With respect to the public atrium element of the project, several Panel
members indicated the need for a more compelling argument and clearer
visual example of the intended programming for the space to prove its
use as a public amenity. Others discussed the interesting potential of
the area and suggested that the exclusion of the space from FSR would
be supportable subject to a legal commitment in terms of programming the
space for public use.
Panel members did not express concerns regarding the impact of the project
on views.
Comments from Panel members regarding the podium and tower massing,
articulation and detail included that the removal of the lower stepping
makes the composition stronger, that the massing of the building works
well and the stepping is much more appropriate to the overall shape of
the building. One member suggested that the tower top would be prominent
on the harbour front, like a beacon element, while another suggested it
was too fussy. One additional concern raised was the suggestion that the
project's relation to the hotel was ill resolved given the hotel's incorrect
orientation.
General approval was expressed for the building materials and colour
palate and for the trellising elements and overall comments were offered
concerning the quiet, reserved elegance of the project. Some differentiation
of major massing components and their materials to heighten the contrast
was suggested.
Concerning the berm area, several members expressed concern that it
could be problematic as an urban form given its complexity. Alternately,
several members suggested that the berm spaces would create very nice
intimate areas away from the street, and that the elevated trees would
protect against sounds. Some members also questioned the appropriateness
of this design given that this space will serve as a major entry port
to the future Convention Centre and waterfront plaza. A more urban scaled
and designed open place may be a better option.
With respect to the drop off court between the site and the future hotel,
one member questioned whether a more detailed urban design for the space
would be more appropriate. However, others suggested that the materials
were harmonious and that it was done very well. Suggestion was made that
a public walkway away from the building might be an advantageous addition.
Applicant's Response
James Cheng thanked the Panel for its comments and expressed appreciation
for suggestions provided. Assurance was offered that the applicants would
work on refinements to the project prior to its presentation to the Board.
2a. 1055 Homer (401 Helmcken)
DA: 405652
Use: Mixed (26 storeys, 135 units)
Zoning: DD
Architect: Brook Development Planning Inc.
Owner: Qualex Landmark Development Inc.
Review: 1st
Staff: Anita Molaro
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-1)
2b. 1085 Homer (401 Helmcken)
DA: 406084
Use: Mixed (6 storeys)
Zoning: DD
Architect: Stuart Howard
Owner: Yaletown Management Ltd.
Review: 1st
Staff: Anita Molaro
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-0)
Introduction
Anita Molaro, Planning, referencing the minutes relating to the Panel's
previous preliminary review of the application and a project model, introduced
the applications for 1055 and 1085 Homer. Information was also provided
regarding issues raised at the preliminary application which included
how the two components of the project related to each other and the accessibility
of semi-private open space. Comments were also offered regarding the Development
Permit Board review.
The Panel's comments were sought with respect to:
• integration of the resolution of the two components;
• scale of brick framing within the residential component;
• quality and accessibility of semi-private open space;
• resolution of lane treatment and landscaping and change in elevation;
and
• scale of the six storey elevation along the lane.
Applicant's Opening Comments
Chuck Brook, Jane Durante, Stuart Howard and Foad Rafii joined the Panel
for consideration of this Item.
Mr. Rafii commented regarding the project's goal to integrate its two
elements while falling within the guidelines of Downtown South and respecting
neighbouring Yaletown. Comments were also offered regarding efforts to
improve residential open spaces and concerning other improvements made
to the residential component since the preliminary.
Mr. Howard discussed the commercial building on the site and commented
specifically concerning the glazing on the lower floors, stepped back
upper floor, street facades, cornice line, and the removal of shared aspects
of the site in terms of exits in order to give more usable open space
to the residential component. Information was also provided regarding
the addition of disabled access and weather protection to the roof and
regarding the location of 2,500 sq ft of retail around the perimeter of
the building.
Ms. Durante discussed landscaping elements of the site and applicants
responded to the Panel's questions regarding building materials and colours.
The Panel reviewed the model and posted materials.
Panel's Comments
In general Panel members agreed that the two buildings had been well integrated.
Consensus was that the Homer streetscape works as a composition, that
the two buildings do not have to be identical, and that the reference
to Yaletown is appropriate. Several members suggested that the projects
are formally very simple and refreshing in their design.
Several comments for improvements to the residential tower were offered
and related to the need for clearer definition between the street podium
and the start of the tower. Suggestions to either set the tower back or
create a stronger cornice break were offered. Also, appreciation was expressed
for the improvements to the semi-private open space in terms of accessibility
and its rationale. Also, differing opinions were expressed concerning
the way in which the tower steps up and regarding the appropriateness
of its four components and their respective colours. Many felt this gave
the tower an awkward expression. It was suggested a more conventional
three-part tower may be more readable. This may be accomplished by joining
two of the tower parts into one.
Diverging comments were offered with regard to the use of the lane for
residential, while some members suggested that it is not appropriate to
have the landscaping in the lane and that this should be treated as a
back rather than front door, others expressed support for the clever approach
to providing urban courtyards in a high density environment. One member
expressed concern regarding the direction to make every space usable and
suggested that unless there is meaningful connections between open spaces
that they become solely visual amenities. One member also suggested the
townhomes should be closer to and more forcefully front the lane.
The Panel expressed its unanimous support for the commercial design
and offered various suggestions for a better integration of the commercial
element's elevator box. Also, member's differing opinions were offered
regarding the raised brow and canted window of the commercial with several
members expressing their support and others disliking the design.
Applicant's Response
Messrs. Rafii and Stuart thanked the Panel for their comments and advised
that their recommendations would be taken into consideration.
3. 546-576 West 7th Avenue (2300 Ash)
DA: 406035
Use: Office-Heritage
Zoning: C-3A
Architect: Chernoff Thompson
Owner: Mesa Chemical Corp.
Review: 2nd
Staff: Mary Beth Rondeau
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (5-2)
Introduction
Mary Beth Rondeau, Planning, referencing the project model, introduced
the proposal for 546-576 West 7th Avenue in the context of the surrounding
area. It was noted that this was the Panel's second viewing of the complete
application and information concerning the intended use of the site was
provided. The Panel was reminded of staff's support for the retention
and relocation of the heritage house on this site.
Panel members were requested to comment regarding whether the project
earns the requested floor space and guideline massing relaxations, and
were advised of staff's general support for the project's redesign.
Applicant's Opening Comments
Russell Chernoff, Jane Durante, and Neil Godfrey joined the Panel for
consideration of this Item.
Mr. Chernoff discussed the means by which the Panel's previously raised
concerns had been addressed by reshaping the corner of the building to
eliminate its bulkiness and to create a visual relationship between the
house on this site and the neighbouring site. The reshaping has caused
a minor infringement into the view corridor but it does not impact the
sky or mountain views. More plaza space has been created and allows for
the flow through of pedestrian traffic on the corner, also the intention
to open up the heritage house, perhaps as a coffee shop, for public use
and enjoyment was noted.
Ms. Durante discussed the project's landscape design and commented on
the additional greening.
The Panel reviewed the model and posted materials.
Panel's Comments
The Panel expressed its general support for the massing and had no concerns
regarding the requested relaxation in regards to the building width. Suggested
improvements related to reducing the number of bays of the streetfront
two storey frame expression to the east to help the entry and monotony
of the frame by cutting down yardage. Also, to add detail and higher quality
materials to help the pedestrian interest along 7th Avenue. A more detailed
canopy and more substantial ground floor pilaster was suggested.
It was suggested that the lane elevation needs more set back given its
close proximity to its southern neighbour and work to detail the materials
along the lane was suggested. No concerns were expressed with regard to
the slight erosion of the view corridor.
Panel members commented on the major initial moves on the site that
were plainly wrong, namely the use and the retention of the heritage house.
It was suggested that these initial difficulties provided the remainder
of the challenges that the project was faced with. It was generally agreed
that the project was greatly improved over its earlier submission given
the encumbrances that had to be dealt with.
Applicant's Response
The applicant thanked the Panel for its comments and advised that efforts
would be made to explore the detailing along the street level to be pedestrian
scale and to address other comments offered.
|
