Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, March 5, 2003
Index
Present
455 West 8th Avenue (2300 Cambie)
1305 Arbutus Street
1280 Richards Street
1900 West Georgia Street
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Walter Francl, Chair
Helen Besharat
Jeffrey Corbett (excused Item 3)
Gerry Eckford
Stuart Lyon
Kim Perry
Maurice Pez
Sorin Tatomir
Regrets:
Richard Henry
Joseph Hruda
Reena Lazar
Ken Terriss
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
1. Address: 455 West 8th Avenue (2300 Cambie)
DA: 407357
Use: Mixed (Live-Work/Commercial)
Zoning: C-3A
Application Status: Preliminary
Architect: Nigel Baldwin
Owner: Grosvenor Canada Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Nigel Baldwin, Jane Durante, Ryan Beechinor
Staff: Mary Beth Rondeau
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-1)
Introduction: Mary Beth Rondeau, Development Planner, presented
this preliminary application. The site comprises the block bounded by
Cambie Street, 8th Avenue, Yukon Street and 7th Avenue in the C-3A zone.
The proposal is for a community shopping centre comprising three floors
of retail uses with 2-storey artist live/work studios above. Ms. Rondeau
briefly described the proposal, noting it achieves the 25 ft. setback
and small-scale retail recommended in the guidelines for Cambie Street.
The entry to the residential units is off 8th Avenue. Artist Live/Work
is the only type of residential use that can be supported in this sub-area
of C-3A because of its adjacency to the industrial area to the east. The
proposal seeks the maximum 3.0 FSR, which must be earned. The guidelines
call for a 30 ft. high podium on Cambie Street, stepping back 25 ft. and
increasing to 90 ft. The maximum height of the proposal is approximately
90 ft.
The areas in which the advice of the Panel is sought relate to:
- whether the proposal earns the height and density requested;
- treatment of the Cambie Street setback;
- view impacts on the XL building to the south.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Nigel Baldwin, Architect, described
the design rationale. He noted that this proposal is similar to the Future
Shop development on West Broadway in that the proportions of retail and
residential are very similar although it is a little more than twice its
area. He explained that the live/work studios are double-height with through
ventilation. Two-thirds of the suites are accessed directly from the courtyard,
and the intent is that the courtyard will become private work space for
the resident artists. There is a second level of two-storey units along
Cambie Street and extending half a block down 7th and 8th Avenues. With
respect to height, Mr. Baldwin said the intention is that, with finetuning,
the height will meet the maximum 90 ft. They do not wish to achieve this
by reducing the floor-to-floor heights of the retail, noting that 18 ft.
ceiling height is already very modest for the type of retail use proposed.
Locating the live/work units at the perimeter provides activity on the
streets as well as creating double-ventilated suites. Mr. Baldwin briefly
reviewed the view diagrams and noted that they will work to refine view
impacts on the XL building.
The Landscape Architect, Jane Durante, briefly described the open space
plan and the design team responded to the Panel's questions.
Panel's Comments: The Panel strongly supported this application
as a preliminary submission and most Panel members thought it earned the
height and density requested. It was also thought to respond very well
to the guidelines.
The Panel strongly supported the proposed treatment along Cambie Street.
One Panel member thought the stepping might be a bit of an obstacle for
pedestrians and suggested it be limited to one or two unit frontages,
but most Panel members liked the terracing as proposed. There was a suggestion
to do two different treatments for the sidewalk, or having benches facing
the building rather than the street. Also, to bring the bus stop into
the project in some way. Another suggestion for the Cambie setback was
to consider introducing overhead doors to gain more transparency and exposure.
Most of the Panel's comments related to the courtyard and the artists
live/work studios at the upper levels. There was general support for the
units around the perimeter and preserving the integrity of a single, large
courtyard. The architect and the landscape architect were encouraged to
work closely together as the project proceeds. Comments were made that
the courtyard should be less of a designed space in order to provide flexibility
for the artists in residence. Concerns were expressed about the rigorous
appearance of the units and suggestions made to break down the scale by
introducing some variety into the units and paying attention to detailing
around the unit entries. There were also suggestions to open up the corners
to allow some light through onto the street below as well as offer a glimpse
of the courtyard for people on the street. Some cover for the decks was
recommended to improve the livability of the units, particularly those
facing Cambie Street. Some Panel members questioned the rationale for
the higher element on the western edge.
The Panel was sympathetic to the XL residents' loss of views. However,
the Panel did not believe this project should be restricted in height
to maintain views that will inevitably be lost, especially noting that
it responds fully to what the guidelines suggest for this site. Some Panel
members strongly recommended providing an opening in the courtyard to
allow for the XL residents to enjoy the garden.
One Panel member recommended distinguishing the residential from the
commercial along 8th Avenue, even bringing the courtyard down to the street
with a planted wall. A suggestion was made to explore another entry to
the residential component on 7th Avenue.
The Panel noted the importance of signage on this project. Concerns
were expressed about the signage intruding on the residents and a recommendation
that it be limited to the commercial levels. Some members found the corner
signage inappropriate and too commercial.
A recommendation was made that greater consideration be given to the
bikeway along 7th Avenue with the provision of a bike rack and a place
for cyclists to stop.
With respect to the restaurant, a recommendation was made to pull it
around the corner onto 8th Avenue and off Cambie Street.
In general, the Panel thought the project was very nicely handled and
showing a lot of promise for a preliminary submission. The Panel recognized
that it is a very important project that will set a precedent in an area
which has long been neglected.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Baldwin thanked the Panel for the comments
and advice. The residential units will be more differentiated with design
development, creating more variety on both the inside and the outside
of the courtyard. He agreed the units are not yet fine tuned.
2. Address: 1305 Arbutus Street
DA: 407191
Use: Mixed (Restaurant)
Zoning: RS-1
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Anthony A. Robins
Owner: Vancouver Park Board
Review: Second
Delegation: Tony Robins, John Hemsworth, Jane Durante
Staff: Scot Hein
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-1)
Introduction: Scot Hein, Development Planner, presented this
application. The Panel did not support the proposal when it was first
reviewed on February 5, 2003. The uses were unanimously supported and
the concerns related to the form of development. The Panel's previous
concerns were briefly reviewed, followed by a description of how they
have been addressed in this revised submission. The concerns related to
the quality of the east elevation, the building as viewed from the driveway,
the breezeway opening through the building, the expression of the lifeguard
turret, the length of the building, its mass and its siting, articulation
of the washroom/lifeguard wall and entrance to the restaurant. Mr. Hein
noted that with respect to programming, there needs to be close adjacency
for families using the facilities, particularly from the beach side where
it is necessary to have surveillance of both the concession area and the
changeroom area, and noting that the concession and the restaurant above
share some of the kitchen facilities.
The advice of the Panel is sought as to whether the applicant has effectively
responded to the previous concerns.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Anthony Robins, Architect, briefly
reviewed the public consultation that took place prior to the development
permit application. This included a four day public tent on the beach
to survey people last summer. 400 people completed the survey, with 89
percent approval. Several meetings have been held with the Kits Point
Residents' Association who provided a list of 11 requirements, ten of
which have been satisfied. The hours of operation are not yet resolved.
Individual residents have also been consulted concerning their potential
view blockage. Mr. Robins noted that from the outset the building has
been redesigned several times to accommodate various concerns, including
noise for which the restaurant deck has been moved to the southwest. Several
drastic changes were made to accommodate, as much as possible, all the
neighbours. As well, more recently, they have moved the building even
further away from Creelman in response to another neighbour who has only
recently expressed concern about view blockage.
Mr. Robins said they have paid intensive care to the earlier comments
of the Panel and in response to input from the public. He briefly reviewed
the changes, noting the building design has now reached a high level of
completion and refinement. The amendments include:
the size of the building has been reduced by 680 sq.ft. and 24 ft. 5
½ in. in length;
the view corridor through the building has been increased by bridging
it with the fire exit. This creates a view corridor from the lane on Arbutus
through to Creelman;
the grounds yard has been drastically reduced in size to accommodate only
two vehicles. This has allowed expansion of the green area to the east
of the building and creation of a 360 degree walkway around of the building;
the utilitarian fire escape on the east facade has been included in the
envelope and the height has been reduced by lowering the ceiling height
of the kitchen. A window and a 2 ft. soffit have been added to break down
the scale of this facade. The galvanized steel sheeting has been eliminated
and a wood screen added which slides to enclose the entry to the kitchen
at night;
the width has been reduced by separating the aesthetic of the entry which
is now a glass and fir box. This also addresses the concern about creating
some interest when approaching from the driveway;
the stairs to the restaurant are now more substantial and clearly visible;
the building is intended to be a light building with the least imposition
on the seawalk. However, some substance has been added with the complete
redesign of the turret, including reducing its height to that of the existing
turret. The turret anchors the space and reduces the dominance of the
restaurant;
the building has been moved 17 ft. further away from the existing willow
tree.
John Hemsworth described the redesigned lifeguard turret and noted the
revised scheme now duplicates the footprint of the existing facilities.
Jane Durante reviewed the landscape plan and the architect responded to
the Panel's questions.
Panel's Comments:
(Panel member, Gerry Eckford, Landscape Architect, prefaced his comments
with a statement that he has lived in the Kits Point neighbourhood since
1974. He said he considered very carefully whether his residency placed
him in a conflict of interest and concluded that his ability to provide
a professional opinion was not compromised.)
The Panel strongly supported this submission and generally found it
considerably improved since the first review. The Panel appreciated the
amount of effort that had gone into responding to its earlier concerns
and noted that major changes have been made to the proportion of the building
and the materials. The Park Board and the design team were commended for
setting the bar very high with regard to the quality of the architecture
and for pursuing something worthwhile in this important location.
It was noted that pulling the building further back from the north is
good not only for the sake of the willow tree but even more importantly
for the axis down Creelman Street.
The majority of Panel members strongly supported the pallette of modern
materials proposed. Suggestions were made to introduce more wood to the
north elevation. A comment was made that there might be too many materials,
and some questions raised about the amount of concrete wall. It was suggested
consideration be given to adding reveals or enlarging the sliding door
to help break up the wall on the east elevation. It was also suggested
there might be an opportunity, particularly on the north facade, for plant
material to grow up the wall. A comment was made that special attention
will need to be given to detailing where two different materials meet,
and the architect was urged not to be too committed to the exact extent
of the materials as the design evolves. The architect was also encouraged
to be sensitive to detailing at the open exit stairs, and to properly
express the fireplace in the design.
The applicant was cautioned to consider locations for vending machines,
maps and signs and to incorporate them into the vocabulary of the building.
It was noted that signage will be very important and to ensure the lighting
is not intrusive.
A suggestion was made to add seating areas between the building and
the beach, possibly replicating some of the logs close to the building.
One Panel member had some concerns about the use of removable tables and
chairs and the barren appearance when they are absent. It was strongly
suggested to consider designing more permanent seating, perhaps a combination
of individual seating and a sitting wall.
A concern was voiced about the asphalt walkway and a recommendation
for the plaza to extend out to the lawn, extending the stamped concrete
without a division.
The Panel acknowledged that an important improvement has been made by
opening up the slot through the building.
A number of comments were made about the lifeguard turret. Most Panel
members found the proportion of the previous iteration more elegant and
appropriate. It was suggested the turret is now too "bunkerish",
although one Panel member commented that it is an interesting massing
when viewed from the north. A number of suggestions were made to make
the turret lighter and more expressive of its function.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Robins stressed the concession food
will include healthy choices as well as the more typical menu. It will
be operated by the same restaurateur as the main restaurant. With respect
to the expression of the fireplace, he noted it will be in the centre
of the dining area so will be less visible from the concourse. Regarding
the amount of wood, Mr. Robins noted the soffits are all wood. He agreed
they can look at adding more on the north elevation. Mr. Hemsworth explained
the turret will not actually be used for lifeguarding which is done from
an area to the right of it. Mr. Robins added they have considered the
concrete walls and how to dapple shadows of leaves onto them.
3. Address: 1280 Richards Street
DA: 406694
Use: Residential (27 storeys, 68 units)
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Paul Merrick
Owner: Grace Residence Ltd.
Review: Second
Delegation: Paul Merrick, James Schouw, Eva Lee
Staff: Scot Hein
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (5-1)
Introduction: Scot Hein, Development Planner, presented this
complete application. In May 2002, the preliminary submission was unanimously
supported by the Panel and it was subsequently approved in principle by
the Development Permit Board. The Panel's initial review of the project
focussed on the tower position, the general approach to the distribution
of massing, the height of the podium and the interface with the Canadian
Linen building directly to the north. Given these issues have now been
established, the Panel's commentary at this complete stage should focus
on the detailing and execution.
Mr. Hein briefly reviewed the current submission and noted the following
specific areas in which the advice of the Panel is sought:
interface with the Canadian Linen building;
architectural quality, materials and execution;
quality and location of the open space.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Paul Merrick, Architect, reviewed
the areas of the concern raised at the preliminary stage and how they
have been addressed in this submission, stressing the importance of the
successful realisation of the architectural expression. He also described
the materials and Eva Lee, Landscape Architect, noted the streetscape
follows the Downtown South Guidelines. Mr. Merrick responded to the Panel's
questions.
Panel's Comments: The Panel strongly supported this application.
Comments were made that the scheme gets better with each iteration and
that the very small floorplate is a refreshing departure for this part
of the downtown. The applicant was commended for continuing with his vision
for the project and refining it over time.
The transition element next to the Canadian Linen building was considered
to be sensitively handled.
There were some questions about the necessity for the brick on the northern
portion towards the Metropolis or, if it is maintained, whether it should
be continued to the back of the building as well.
With respect to the architectural expression, one Panel member questioned
the need for the three gables on the roof given they are quite small and
not well proportioned relative to the window openings below. Several Panel
members also questioned the proportion of the arch elements on the tower.
One Panel member thought the windows and balconies on either side of the
main building bay might be too fussy. With respect to the proportional
elements on the tower, a comment was also made that there may not be enough
solid to glazing. Another member thought there might be too many ornaments
on the building.
The fabric canopies on the townhouse element were thought to be unsuccessful
and unimproved since the previous submission.
It was noted there are still some difficult suites at the back of the
building on the lane. There was a suggestion to consider putting an amenity
at the lane level, overlooking the courtyard.
The Panel liked the open space treatment and the way the axis of the
entrance has been picked up and incorporated into a formal element when
looking through the building. The rooftops were also seen to be much improved
and providing some interesting spaces.
In general, the Panel found the application much improved since the
previous submission and looks forward to seeing the project proceed.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Merrick noted the brick is intended
to be lighter than it appears on the rendering. Although the tower has
ended up being more or less in the middle of the site, the subtle idiosyncrasies
of the project will be enjoyable, over time. He agreed the treatment should
be repeated on the lane and will occur. He also agreed that the canopies
could benefit from further study in design development.
4. Address: 1900 West Georgia Street
WORKSHOP
Use: Residential
Zoning: RM-6
Architect: Paul Merrick
Owner: Prima Prop. Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Paul Merrick, Greg Borowski
Staff: Jonathan Barrett
Jonathan Barrett, Development Planner, introduced this workshop discussion
regarding the site at 1900 West Georgia Street. The proponents intend
to challenge the existing guidelines for the four blocks, 1600, 1700,
1800 and 1900 West Georgia Street. The 1600, 1700 and 1800 blocks of West
Georgia have been already developed. The 1900 block is probably the most
important because it is at the end of the city, next to Stanley Park.
It contains an existing building on the corner, the Ho building. The applicant
wishes to explore whether the guidelines can be changed to achieve a development
that is an appropriate gateway to the downtown and that fits in with the
scale and cadence of Georgia Street, being Vancouver's principal ceremonial
street.
Paul Merrick, Architect, stressed the proposal is in the very early stages
of development. He noted the guidelines describe a proposal that was previously
made and approved for the site, about ten years ago, and the aspirations
articulated in the guidelines seem to be contradictory. Greg Borowski,
Architect, gave a power-point presentation describing the explorations
that were made into the guidelines and the impact of their application.
In the general discussion that ensued, the Panel's comments included
the following:
as a hinge element the corner is the stronger location for the tower;
putting the tower next to the Ho building creates a landmark tower;
putting it right next to the Ho building might be too close;
this is an icon corner but the Ho building is not an icon building;
this is an opportunity to take the focus off the Ho building;
none of the towers around this site are landmark quality so it would be
exciting to see a landmark building terminating this important end of
the city;
not sure the mural is wanted and loved by most citizens and it should
not become a big feature in the design;
the east corner component should not be residential use;
support the tower in the west location but it crowds the Ho building;
some members of the public may consider the Ho building as being a significant
little building;
agree the west end is the best location for the tower in terms of minimizing
view impacts;
putting the tower next to the Ho building creates a powerful landmark
and it puts a lot of emphasis on the architecture of the building;
not fully convinced this is the right place for the tower although it
is the best location for views from the tower;
the overriding concern is the relationship to the Ho building;
question putting a high signature building next to the Ho building when
it won't actually be on the corner and the Ho will look like a mistake;
if you accept that the tower should be close to the Ho building they need
to be better integrated;
the interstitial element seems to highlight the Ho building because it's
the same height; it needs more gap;
may be it should be more of a bridge element;
it is important to have the eastern corner well anchored;
the landscape should respect its location next to the natural landscape
and the urban edge;
it is important that the townhouse element remains;
consider a wider gap between the townhouses.
|
