Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, February 6, 2002
Index
Present
687 Howe Street (801 West Georgia Street)
1050 Smithe Street
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Tom Bunting, Chair
Jeffrey Corbett
Lance Berelowitz
Gerry Eckford
Walter Francl
Bruce Hemstock
Maurice Pez
Sorin Tatomir
Regrets:
Alan Endall
Richard Henry
Joseph Hruda
Jack Lutsky
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
1. 687 Howe Street (801 West Georgia Street)
Use: Mixed
Zoning: CD-1
Application Status: Rezoning from DD
Architect: Bing Thom
Owner: Reunion Properties Inc.
Review: First
Delegation: Bing Thom, Jim Mouzourakis, Arno Matis, Chris Doray
Staff: Ralph Segal/Phil Mondor
EVALUATION: SUPPORT
(7-0)
Introduction: Phil Mondor, Rezoning Planner, introduced this
application which involves the Hotel Georgia site. The Hotel Georgia is
a very significant building, designated by City Council in 1998. The subject
rezoning proposal is not very different from what was previously approved
by the Development Permit Board in December 1997. This was followed by
a Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA) which was also approved by Council.
The subject rezoning application is as a result of changing market conditions
whereby the owner now wishes to have part of the tower contain residential
use. A rezoning is necessary because the Central Area policies with respect
to this sub area of the DD do not permit residential use except for a
commitment to heritage retention. The HRA approved in 1998 provided for
a heritage bonus of 174,300 sq.ft. that could be transferred from the
Hotel Georgia to another site. The subject proposal seeks to move that
density to the proposed adjacent new tower, as well as a hotel bonus.
Further, because these bonuses have already been approved, they do not
qualify for the consideration required by the rezoning. The applicant
therefore had to find some additional heritage benefit to be brought to
the table.
The principal benefit is an acceleration of the heritage sensitive seismic
upgrade of the Hotel Georgia. Although the seismic upgrade was part of
the earlier HRA there was no timeline identified for it. Given the current
hotel market it is therefore likely that the parkade would remaining standing
for a number of years and there would be no seismic upgrade of the building
for some time. Staff conclude that this proposal would be consistent with
the heritage retention requirement, to consider and approve on the parkade
site a building that could be constructed now rather than some years hence.
An additional heritage benefit is that heritage bonus density elsewhere
in the Downtown will be purchased and moved to this site to provide some
additional floor area which is needed to provide above-grade parking.
While above-grade parking is an unusual proposition in the Downtown it
is considered acceptable because it is difficult to provide all of the
required parking on this site. The project also includes parking below
the city lane which is so far acceptable in principle to Engineering Services.
Ultimately, the FSR on this site would amount to about 18.0, about 9 percent
above the 16.41 FSR approved in 1997. The rezoning is also required to
request a height of 465 ft. from the present maximum of 450 ft. With respect
to the amount of parking, some relaxations are being requested but not
to the extent approved in 1997.
Panel members, staff and the applicant team assembled around the model
for a review of the form of development, led by the Senior Development
Planner, Ralph Segal who outlined the issues identified by staff on this
application. This was followed by general discussion and questions and
answers.
Panel's Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this application
and was quite excited about the tower in terms of its potential as a stunning
piece of architecture in the downtown.
The height of the tower was not an issue for the Panel. The 15 ft. relaxation
being sought was considered to be virtually irrelevant in terms of its
impact on the 12th/Cambie view corridor. The Panel unanimously supported
the height and considered it well earned by its elegant slimness, the
attractiveness of the facade and modulation of the massing. The Panel
thought greater emphasis should be given to the importance of the quality
of the architecture as an exciting addition to the skyline than to a minor
encroachment into the view corridor. Several Panel members also strongly
supported the tower being even higher and were disappointed that the floor-to-ceiling
height is being compromised in order to keep the overall height down,
noting that a taller building would present and even more elegant profile,
particularly at the top. The Panel had no concerns about the spire element,
although one Panel member suggested there should be more than one, given
the random nature of the building's termination.
The Panel commented that a re-examination of the City's assumptions
about view corridors is long overdue. Reference was also made to the skyline
study that was undertaken a few years ago which identified several downtown
sites where it was considered the height could go to 600 - 700 ft.
The proposed use, density and heritage bonus were fully supported. The
benefits of this project earn the relaxations required to put residential
on the site. The residential use was thought to make perfect sense and
it won't detract from the downtown commercial. Furthermore, adding residential
use into the CBD, adding more life to the downtown, without compromising
density, is an excellent precedent. One Panel member recommended having
the tower built to hotel standard from the beginning in order to respond
to a future change in market conditions.
The Panel strongly supported the parking under the lane. It is an innovative
solution that should be used more often.
While acknowledging that this is at the rezoning stage and considerable
design development is still to be done, the Panel had some concerns about
the ground plane treatment which shows none of the promise of the tower.
Something that supports the pedestrian realm a little more is needed.
It was noted that hotel frontages add little to the street but there are
ways to deal with this as the project moves forward. The Panel will therefore
look for much greater development and attention to the ground plane at
the next stage.
Most Panel members supported the proposed above ground parking and thought
its negative aspects had been carefully handled. One Panel member had
serious concerns, however, about the precedent that could be established
for above grade parking in the downtown, notwithstanding the very elegant
solution being proposed by this applicant.
While the Panel enthusiastically supported this proposal there were
some reservations expressed about how well such a sophisticated approach
could be attained. A lot of work remains to be done to ensure the facade
works in terms of its animation while also addressing issues such as lighting
and privacy, etc. However, several Panel members commented that such an
innovative approach is exactly where architecture should be going in Vancouver.
They said they were prepared to "take it on faith" that the
building will achieve the promise of the drawings and looked forward to
seeing it at the next stage of development. It was stressed that the results
will be extremely dependent on the quality and finish of the metal and
glass that will be applied to this building. Staff were also commended
for trying to make it happen from a planning point of view.
Applicant's Response: Bing Thom, Architect, said it is a project
they take very seriously because it is such an important site in the city.
The Panel's comments will be very helpful when they go forward to Council
because it gives them more ability to address the issue of height. Clearly,
it will be expensive for the project to succeed and for the developer
to achieve a great building. Unfortunately, while the negative attitudes
towards height in the city may have changed, the regulations have not.
Council must be convinced to simplify the process in order not to stymie
innovative development in the city.
2. Address: 1050 Smithe Street
DA: 406228
Use: Residential
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Complete after Preliminary
Architect: Studio One
Owner: Haro Hotel Development Ltd.
Review: Second
Delegation: Tomas Wolf, Kerry Bonnis, Jonathan Losee
Staff: Mary Beth Rondeau
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-0)
Introduction: Mary Beth Rondeau, Development Planner, presented
this application which the Panel reviewed and supported at the preliminary
application stage in October 2001. Ms. Rondeau briefly described the site
context and noted the site contains a BC Transit rectifier station, mostly
underground, for which there is an easement. She briefly reviewed the
issues raised by the Panel at the preliminary stage. Staff are satisfied
the complete submission has an improved public realm and a better relationship
to the street. There is some concern about the extent of public area at
the narrow end of the site. Proposed density is 6.0 FSR plus ten percent
heritage density transfer which is allowable in this zone and was previously
approved in a previous application in 1999.
The applicant team described the project in greater detail and responded
to questions from the Panel.
Panel's Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this application.
Most Panel members thought the tower had been improved since the preliminary
stage. There has also been some effort to address the Panel's previous
comments about responding to the visual axis of Smithe Street. Some attention
is still needed to detailing the base of the building and its presentation
to the street, to improve its tactile quality.
Some concerns remained about the entry plaza, with some Panel members
still finding it a bit awkward. Others found it improved and simplified
since the last review. There may be opportunity to reintroduce water at
the entry, which will enhance the way the building comes to the ground.
The major issue for the Panel was the handling of the public space at
the ground plane. The amount of public open space at the eastern end of
the site appears to have diminished and the setback along the street edge
is not considered to be adequate compensation. The Panel thought there
should be a more meaningful space next to the trees that are being retained.
It was thought that the benches along the street edge won't be used and
it was suggested they be moved to the corner, back from the street. The
strip along the street edge needs only to "feel" public and
a bit more open. The extra space will also help the building come to the
ground a bit more gracefully.
One Panel member suggested the electrical room is in the wrong place
and recommended flipping it with the amenity space, with access to an
outside deck. This will not only improve the amenities for the residents
but add some interest for passers-by.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Wolf thanked the Panel for its comments
and said they will be doing more work on resolving the ground plane.
|
