Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, January 9, 2002
Index
Present
1011 Richards Street
8982 Hudson Street
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Tom Bunting, Chair (present for Item 2 only)
Walter Francl, Chair (Item 1)
Jeffrey Corbett
Lance Berelowitz
Gerry Eckford (excused Item 2)
Alan Endall
Bruce Hemstock
Richard Henry
Joseph Hruda
Jack Lutsky
Sorin Tatomir
Regrets:
Maurice Pez
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
1. 1011 Richards Street
DA: 406304
Use: Residential (23 storeys, 184 units)
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Hancock Bruckner Eng & Wright
Owner: Polygon Development 65 Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Jim Hancock, Andre Chilcott, Joe Fry
Staff: Jonathan Barrett
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (9-0)
Introduction: The application was presented by Jonathan Barrett,
Development Planner. He briefly reviewed the immediate context of the
site. He noted a recently approved application for the adjacent 1010 Richards
Street included a ten percent heritage density transfer, for which the
floorplate size was relaxed. Similar density transfer and floorplate relaxation
are sought for this application. This site is restricted by view cones
which has determined the location of the tower at the corner of Nelson
and Richards Streets. Mr. Barrett briefly reviewed the proposal and noted
the following areas in which the advice of the Panel is sought:
whether the increase in the floorplate can be accommodated in this context;
whether the location of the tower meets livability standards;
whether visual interest is provided by the proposed amenity space along
Nelson Street;
livability issues relating to the proposed single storey townhouse units
with two storey units above;
general character of the building;
whether this proposal conforms to the emerging landscape pattern for Nelson
Street;
whether the "bamboo slot" at the corner addresses CPTED issues
and whether it appropriately completes the Nelson Street facade and screens
the view down the lane.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Jim Hancock, Architect, noted the
proposed amenity space on Nelson Street is similar to that provided on
1010 Richards Street. It will display art and will be very open and transparent.
Andrew Chilcott briefly described the intent of the project and Joe Fry
provided some comments about the landscape plan.
Panel's Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this application.
The Panel strongly supported the floorplate size as proposed and thought
the tower was located appropriately on the site. It exceeds the Downtown
South guideline recommendation for tower separation and causes no livability
concerns. One Panel member thought the relationship of the townhouse facade
to the tower facade along Richards Street could be resolved better where
the spandrel panel of the tower's first floor is effectively the cornice
for the top of the townhouse.
Some Panel members commented that the siting of this tower is contributing
to a uniquely defined urban corner, in marked contrast to the usual pattern
of politely staggered towers in Downtown South. It was suggested that
a future fourth tower should be required to impose itself on the corner,
creating a dramatic statement at this important and busy intersection.
The majority of Panel members had concerns about bedrooms on the ground
floor of the single storey units and did not support them. Some suggestions
for dealing with them, if they are retained, included, creating a secure
forecourt to the bedrooms, using dark coloured glass, and increasing the
amount of landscaping. It was noted the raised terrace for these units
is very narrow. With some manipulation this could be expanded, providing
a more significant separation and privacy barrier as well as creating
a more usable private outdoor space for the ground floor units. Another
suggestion was to do some interlocking stacked units to get the bedroom
onto the second level. Another concern expressed about the one level units
was the single storey expression it creates along Richards Street.
With respect to building character, the Panel appreciated the quality
of materials being proposed and generally thought the architectural quality
was very good. There was, however, some disappointment with the treatment
of the top of the tower which Panel members thought could be strengthened
and improved with more sculpting at the mechanical penthouse level. The
Panel supported maximizing the transparency of the building which gives
it a clean, contemporary look. The images shown on the display boards
were appreciated and the applicant was encouraged to continue in this
direction and pursue some of the details illustrated.
Concerns were expressed about the proposed amenity space on Nelson Street
and there were mixed opinions as to whether it will successfully animate
the street, although most Panel members thought the space was very attractive
and found it a strong, simple statement. One Panel member was concerned
that the amenity space is below street grade. There were some expressions
of regret that retail is not considered viable in this location, and a
suggestion that a café or bistro would provide more public interest.
The Panel liked the quality of the landscape plan and generally supported
the "bamboo slot" opening up the corner of Nelson and Richards,
although there were some concerns about its security. One Panel member
commented that it is an interesting way of dealing with the lane edge.
There was also a suggestion to reconsider this space, retaining the landscaping
but introducing an access route through it to the lobby to improve the
northern entry point.
Some concern was expressed about the modest amount of outdoor space
for the second floor townhouse units, with a suggestion that a narrower
but deeper terrace on each side of the units would provide more usable
space. The circulation for the units accessed off the courtyard roof was
also felt to be quite tortuous, with a suggestion to consider reworking
the route from the elevator lobby to the north of the amenity space rather
than south of it. This might also facilitate the creation of a more meaningful
sized patio for the second townhouse out from the tower. Another suggestion
was that the roof area would work well as amenity space with the two storey
and single storey units reversed.
Overall, the Panel found the project to be a commendable addition to
what is emerging as an interesting and prominent place in the downtown
fabric.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Hancock thanked the Panel for its comments.
He said they generally agree with the points made. They would like to
sculpt the top a little more; the townhouses will be discussed further
with staff to arrive at a solution that works for everyone; they will
also work with staff on the corner treatment.
2. 8982 Hudson Street
DA: 406323
Use: Residential (5 storeys)
Zoning: C-2
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Nigel Baldwin
Owner: Aragon Development Group
Review: First
Delegation: Nigel Baldwin, Thomas Woo, Gerry Eckford
Staff: Eric Fiss
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (9-0)
Introduction: Eric Fiss, Development Planner, presented this
C-2 application located at the foot of Hudson Street next to SW Marine
Drive, adjacent to Airport Square and the Arthur Lang Bridge exit ramps.
The proposal is for a multiple dwelling containing 134 residential units,
all of which have 10 ft. high ceilings. There are two levels of parking
accessed from Hudson Street. The main entrance is on Hudson Street. The
site currently contains a stand of mature trees along Hudson Street and
a setback is proposed to retain these trees. The site is a somewhat larger
than typical C-2 sites. The building is U-shaped to capture southern light
and there is a 70 ft. wide courtyard. The main issues on which the advice
of the Panel is sought are:
the appropriateness of an all-residential scheme in this harsh environment;
height, noting that most of the building is at the 55 ft. height limit
conditionally allowed in C-2;
appropriateness of the 4-5 storey architectural expression;
livability and usability of the outdoor open space;
heritage.
There are currently three buildings on the site, one of which is a Heritage
B structure, most recently used as a homeless shelter. While the applicant
has determined it is not economically viable to retain the building, the
Panel's opinion is sought on whether the site could accommodate more height
if the building could be retained through a Heritage Revitalization Agreement.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Nigel Baldwin, Architect, said
this is a very difficult and challenging site and noted he considers the
existing trees to be of greater heritage value than any of the buildings
on the site. He described his design rationale. He noted the C-2 residential
guidelines allow consideration of 55 ft. height for exceptionally wide
or deep sites. He said he has attempted to keep the building fairly simple.
The key to making this site livable is the open space and this could not
be achieved with retention of the heritage B structure. He stressed they
are not interested in pursuing an HRA. Gerry Eckford reviewed the landscape
plan.
Panel's Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this application
and commended the architect on a thoughtful design approach in a very
difficult location.
Most Panel members supported the use but some members found the residential
use questionable in this location. Nevertheless, it was considered to
be a very good solution within the context of the C-2 zoning, and a very
well designed building.
The strategy for addressing the livability - orienting most units east-west
with virtually no openings to the south onto the busiest orientation -
is exemplary. There was one recommendation to pay very close attention
to the south-facing units where some rooms have windows directly facing
the bridge. The suggestion was to consider having an operable window which
is not directly facing the bridge and providing some kind of screening
which partially covers the opening but allows the window to be opened
a certain amount for natural ventilation.
The Panel had no concerns at all about the proposed height and several
Panel members thought it could go much higher. There is certainly no benefit
to lowering it. The H-shape configuration with the central courtyard is
the correct solution and the additional height helps this to some extent
because it results in reduced site coverage. The 10 ft. ceilings will
also contribute to the livability of the units. It was noted that an outright
3.0 FSR, 40 ft. mixed use building would result in a building that is
at least as bulky as this, if not bulkier. The 55 ft. height also ensures
that it will not be a woodframe building even though this is affordable
housing.
The materials and architectural expression were fully supported. It
was not thought to be necessary to differentiate the expression of the
top floor, in fact it would detract from the architectural expression
sought to be achieved. There was a suggestion to cover the top floor access
passage and to enclose the upper balconies to mitigate noise. One Panel
member found the Marine Drive elevation somewhat severe and suggested
something like corrugated panelling might be considered.
Some Panel members found the front entry to the building somewhat understated.
As well, the Marine Drive elevation could have a little more substance
given it is the front of the building and in the context of being somewhat
of a gateway building in this location.
Given the relatively long distance from the end suites to the parking
garage, one Panel member suggested consideration be given to having an
elevator in each building element.
The Panel did not consider heritage to be an issue. The applicant's
argument that retention is not a viable option was fully accepted and
supported.
The Panel found the outdoor open space very well handled. It complements
the primary objective of creating a more amenable and livable semi private
open space in the central courtyard. There are some very thoughtful gestures
in the treatment of the western and eastern edges of the site. The berm,
the water feature and the trees along Marine Drive are all very commendable.
One Panel member had a concern about the raised courtyard being able to
accommodate the tree roots, suggesting consideration be given to having
fairly substantial tree containment elements and a flush courtyard.
While fully supporting this application, one Panel member expressed
regret that the City has not rezoned this site to allow 100 ft. height.
It is on axis with the bridge and could have been a strong visual marker
for the millions of people entering the city in this location.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Baldwin commented the Marine Drive
elevation has been particularly challenging. He said he felt he had no
other choice with the north facade given the C-2 setback regulations.
|
