Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, January 22, 2003
Index
Present
Outstanding Design Award
790 Hamilton Street (CBC)
3663 Crowley Drive (3640 Vanness)
610 Granville Street
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Walter Francl, Chair
Helen Besharat
Jeffrey Corbett
Gerry Eckford (excused 610 Granville Street)
Richard Henry
Joseph Hruda (not present for vote on 610 Granville Street)
Reena Lazar (present for 790 Hamilton Street only)
Stuart Lyon
Kim Perry
Maurice Pez (excused 3663 Crowley Drive)
Sorin Tatomir
Ken Terriss
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
BUSINESS
Outstanding Design Award
Discussion on this subject resumed from the meeting of January 8, 2003.
Ralph Segal, Development Planner, reiterated the concern raised by the
Planning Department with respect to the Panel's proposed Outstanding Design
Award:
- there is potential for confusion if a project receives the award but
the Planning Department or the City is unable to support it;
- the Planning Department's preference is for an award system which has
established evaluation criteria, with the award(s) taking place at a special
meeting at year end;
- the strength of the Panel's usual commentary may be weakened if an
award is given at the same meeting it is first reviewed.
The following points were made in the Panel discussion that followed:
if the Planning Department's concerns can be overcome in such a way
that it would not be possible for it to be used by an applicant in the
process, would there still be opposition to the idea of having the Panel
make any kind of formal recognition?
the Panel was trying to avoid formality by having a spontaneous award
when a project is first reviewed so that it then has the seal of commendation
as it proceeds through the approvals process;
there are a lot of interesting, very livable buildings in Vancouver;
it is a beautiful city, but there seems to be a lack of particularly beautiful
buildings. The intention of the award was to elevate the "delight"
aspect of architecture. The Panel spends a lot of time criticizing architecture
but far less on giving substantial recognition to exceptional projects.
However, the Panel's role is not to work at cross purposes with the Planning
Department but to advise it, and it would not be appropriate to pursue
the award in the way it was originally proposed if it causes problems
to the Planning Department and its process;
the Panel could maintain the award with some sort of compromise involvement,
e.g., the Planning Department having a vote on the matter, or there may
be some other process that the Panel could be involved in;
the Panel recognizes the difficult task the Planning Department has
with its process and in the long run it would be a mistake to pursue this
award program without the Department's blessing;
it is not uncommon for a perfectly adequate - but far from exemplary
- design to receive the Panel's unanimous support because there is no
reason not to support an adequate design. For this reason, an award for
exceptional design would be desirable;
it should be clear that it is strictly a design award and not to gain
some advantage in the approvals process;
the idea of the award should not be abandoned but the details need to
be worked out to be able to implement it;
the intent of the original proposal was to streamline recognized projects
through the system, which is what the Planning Department is concerned
about - having an award after a project is built is a nice idea but completely
different from what this award was intended for;
it would be unfortunate to have to wait until a project is built before
it gets recognition; it is important to at least identify a project as
being, from a design point of view, meritorious - not necessarily to help
it get through the process;
given there are very few projects that might receive recognition it
is unlikely that many of those applicants would attempt to take unfair
advantage of the award; my concern is that we may squash a nice idea for
a very limited number of instances where it might become problematic for
the Planning Department;
in whatever way the award transforms itself, the intent I would like
to maintain is that it is an award for something exceptional, which is
not something that can be evaluated on the basis of a series of objective
criteria: it is an emotional response to something which is beautiful;
what is important is the vote aspect of the award, recorded as a separate
motion, rather than some kind of seal attached to project itself. It gives
the Panel the opportunity to provide recognition to be recorded in the
minutes;
suggest we try the award and work with it to see what the implications
are; hopefully it will become more meaningful for the Planning Department
over time;
the Planning Department need not necessarily give special consideration
to a project because it has received an award from the Panel; encumbering
the award with process will kill it - it must be an emotional response
and whether it is recognized by a seal or in the minutes is unimportant;
it is important that we are expedient in the way it is done and that
it be handled at the end of the meeting and not a year or two years later;
if the seal aspect of the award is dispensed with in favour of a citation
in the minutes only, this might alleviate the Planning Department's concerns;
the affect on the role of the Urban Design Panel, as set out by Council,
needs to be taken into consideration; concern that we have another role
as judges of a beauty competition.
In discussion, the Panel reached no conclusions and agreed to defer the
matter for further deliberation at the next meeting.
1. 790 Hamilton Street (CBC)
DA: 407189
Use: Mixed (addition)
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Prelim
Architect: Henriquez & Partners
Owner: Alex Fakidis-PW & GSC
Review: First
Delegation: Richard Henriquez, Ivo Taller, Jeff Phillips
Staff: Ralph Segal
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (11-0)
Introduction: Ralph Segal, Development Planner, presented this
preliminary application to develop the CBC parking lot for a new Government
of Canada building. After reviewing the site and its immediate context,
Mr. Segal briefly described the project, noting it will be seeking LEED
gold certification for its energy efficiency and sustainability qualities.
The primary issue on which the advice of the Panel is sought relates
to height. The application seeks a relaxation of the 150 ft. height limit
to approximately 295 ft., resulting in a 26 ft. intrusion into the view
corridors from 11th/Cambie and 12th/Cambie. Comments are also sought on
the pedestrian realm around the building perimeter.
Staff response to other aspects of the scheme has been very positive,
particularly with respect to the public realm additions and improvements.
In general, the entire knitting of the block with the existing CBC complex
as well as knitting the block with the surrounding context has been very
positively addressed. With the exception of height, the proposal complies
with the Downtown zoning regulations.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Richard Henriquez, Architect, reviewed
the proposal in greater detail and described the project rationale. Jeff
Phillips described the "green wall" system and the plant materials,
and the design team responded to questions from the Panel.
Panel's Comments: The Panel enthusiastically endorsed this proposal
and offered unanimous support.
The Panel unanimously supported the height and strongly recommended
that the Development Permit Board relax the height to allow the requested
295 ft. The Panel was also unanimous in the opinion that the intrusion
into the view corridors is of minimal consequence. It was acknowledged
the issue is likely to be contentious; however, given the exceptional
standard of the design, the trendsetting aspects of the LEED gold certification
and that the forested roof will be a wonderful addition to the skyline,
the Panel urged that the intrusion be permitted for this building.
The applicant was strongly commended for the proposal to seek LEED gold
certification. Given there are very few LEED gold buildings in North America,
the Panel hopes this project will encourage other Vancouver developers
to strive for the same standard. A suggestion was made that there be some
kind of education program for the general public to learn about the technologies
being used.
There was some commentary about the "green wall" system. Some
Panel members questioned its omission from the westerly façade
and questioned the appropriateness of the metal brise-soleil element on
the north elevation. It was generally thought closer attention should
be given to responding more closely to the climatic context of each façade.
One Panel member had some reservations about the experimental nature of
the green wall system in terms of its ongoing maintenance and the unattractive
aspect that the back of vines might present to the building occupants.
The green roof system was strongly supported, and a Panel member questioned
whether public access to the rooftop had been considered. It was recommended
that careful attention be given to the final shape, proportion and detailing
of the elevator penthouses which at the moment are unresolved and detract
from the dynamic 45 degree roof angle.
The Panel's response to the public realm was very positive, especially
the link to the Queen Elizabeth Theatre plaza. One Panel member expressed
the hope that this project might provide some impetus for the redevelopment
of the Queen Elizabeth plaza, the redesign of which could take its cues
from this plaza. A comment was made that the Robson Street mid-block link
is not as strong as it could be.
Some Panel members thought more of the green system needed to be expressed
at grade level with more planting. As well, some of the elements on the
southwest corner plaza seem somewhat undersized, and the tall tree in
the lower plaza detracts somewhat from the simplicity of the roof slope.
Concerns were expressed about the success of the concourse between this
building and the CBC complex. The applicant was urged to deal with this
in a more positive way to give it greater animation. A comment was made
that it will likely only be used by occupants of this site rather than
being a public walkway, and one Panel member had serious reservations
about the safety aspects of this elevated walkway at certain times of
the day.
A request was made for the Panel to see all the building materials and
detailing at the complete stage, and a suggestion that the Federal Government
and the City should work together to bring some public art into this project.
The applicant team was commended for an exemplary proposal and a beautiful
design.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Henriquez thanked the Panel for its
advice and said the comments are well taken.
2. 3663 Crowley Drive (3640 Vanness)
DA: 407190
Use: Residential (24 storeys, 243 units)
Zoning: CD-1
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Foad Rafii
Owner: Concert Properties Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Foad Rafii, Maurice Pez, Randal Sharp
Staff: Bob Adair
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-2)
Introduction: Bob Adair, Development Planner, presented this
application. The proposal comprises a 24-storey residential tower with
a 4-storey wing to the east. In 2001, at the request of the developer,
Council approved a Text Amendment to the CD-1 Zoning to redistribute the
allowable FSR to put more floor area into the high rise structures and
decrease the midrise elements. The revised zoning has two "signature"
towers, taller than any of the other towers in Collingwood and oriented
at 45 degrees to the regular Collingwood grid to face the major park to
the south. The Text Amendment also achieved more open space on the site.
The second signature tower is not included in this proposal and will be
a separate submission.
The proposal appears to comply with the zoning regulations. The guidelines
call for the two signature towers to emphasize their slenderness and reduce
the apparent size of their floor plates. The main issue identified by
staff relates to the expression of the tower. The main elevation facing
the park is the widest elevation and it lacks architectural elements that
carry through from the ground plane to the top, which may be working against
the guideline objective of slenderness and articulation. There is also
concern that the overall approach to the detailing results in a somewhat
heavier expression than suggested by the guidelines.
In summary, the Panel's input is sought on:
- tower expression;
- the intersection of the highrise and lowrise components;
- expression of the townhouse entries; and
- the nature and use of the driveway and its insertion in front of the
building.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Maurice Pez, Concert Properties,
provided an overview of the project and responded to the Panel's questions.
Panel's Comments: The Panel strongly supported this application.
With respect to the tower, the Panel did not consider it to be a signature
building in any way. Nor is it a slender building, which is difficult
to achieve given the size of the floor plate. However, recognizing the
constraints imposed by the zoning and guidelines, the Panel suggested
there was little else that could be done. A number of concerns were expressed
about the Text Amendment requirement for the 45 degree angle which seems
to be contributing to the problems. One Panel member found it inappropriate
for this tower to be a signature building and suggested the future building
across the street has greater opportunity to become a landmark in this
neighbourhood. The Panel suggested there are ways to reduce the apparent
bulk of the building, including adding more glass at the corners, as well
as improving its expression with the addition of brise-soleil elements.
There was a recommendation to eliminate the little glazed balcony shoulders
at the lower part of the tower. With respect to the top of the tower,
a suggestion was made that, given the attention that has been given to
its detailing an accessible roof garden would be a nice addition. Another
opinion on this feature was that it could be simplified and the savings
used elsewhere in the building. One Panel member suggested rethinking
the entry sequence to give the building more signature, e.g., increasing
the height of the lobby to a two storey space. Another member thought
the building entry needed major improvement, noting the obstruction of
some of the main floor unit's view and the flat canopy underneath is too
complex and is adding to the heaviness of the building.
The Panel had serious concerns about the intersection between the tower
and the lowrise component, particularly at the back. One suggestion was
to add a step down next to the tower. Concerns were expressed about the
rear of the low rise which will never see sunlight due to the location
of the tower.
Some Panel members thought the ground level units go a long way to look
like townhouses. Others suggested a need for improvement to make them
feel more like front doors. With respect to the low rise units facing
the mini park, there was a recommendation to have windows other than bathroom
windows overlooking this area.
Most Panel members had no serious concerns with the driveway/potential
loading area. One suggestion was to reduce the amount of paving in favour
of a small garden. Another comment was that if it had less of a shape
of a driveway and a little more of a shape of a plaza then it might feel
more pedestrian and little less car oriented.
The landscape plan was supported and there was endorsement for the children's
play area being accessible from outside as well as inside the project.
The relationship between patios at grade has been handled reasonably well
and the transition between public and private space is good.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Pez said they didn't interpret the
guidelines as requiring these two towers to be signature buildings. The
fact that they have been turned on their axes and are bigger makes them
buildings of note and the guidelines seek articulation to enhance their
slenderness, which they believe they have started to do. Mr. Pez said
they would like to develop this further and will pursue the Panel's suggestions.
He also agreed more work needs to be done in the areas discussed by the
Panel and will continue to work on these issues.
3. 610 Granville Street
DA: 407219
Use: Mixed (35 storeys)
Zoning: CD-1
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Architectura
Owner: MacDonald Dunsmuir St. Dev. Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Alan Endall, Malcolm Elliot, Gerry Eckford
Staff: Jonathan Barrett
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (8-0)
Introduction: Jonathan Barrett, Development Planner, presented
this application. The Panel reviewed the project at the rezoning stage
when it was unanimously supported. Mr. Barrett briefly described the project
and its immediate context, and noted there were a variety of conditions
applied at the rezoning stage which have been met. Retention of various
heritage resources and elevator access to the ALRT station are among the
major public objectives that this project has achieved.
Planning staff have identified no major issues with respect to this
complete development application.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Alan Endall, Architect, briefly
described the design rationale and responded to the Panel's questions.
Panel's Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this application
and was very complimentary about the way the design has progressed and
improved since the rezoning stage. The Panel looks forward to seeing this
beautiful project come to fruition.
There was very strong support for the residential use in this location
which will help to rejuvenate this part of Granville Street.
There was a minor criticism about the Seymour Street façade where
it was suggested there could be greater distinction between the two building
volumes, perhaps introducing another step or considering a change of glazing
colour.
The landscape plan was fully supported.
The applicant was commended for the very high quality presentation materials.
Applicant's Response: The design team thanked the Panel for its
input throughout the various stages of the design.
|
