Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Thursday, September 4, 2003
Index
Present
550 Bute Street (1133 Melville Street)
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Stuart Lyon, Chair
Helen Besharat
Jeffrey Corbett
Bruce Haden
Reena Lazar
Eva Lee
Jennifer Marshall
Brian Martin
Mark Ostry
Kim Perry
Sorin Tatomir
Ken Terris
GUEST PANELISTS:
Peter Cardew
Christoph Ingenhoven
Richard Henriquez
Rocco Yim
Recording Secretary:
Rae Ratslef, Raincoast Ventures
1. 550 Bute Street (1133 Melville Street)
DA: 407110
Use: Mixed
Zoning: DD
Architect: Hewitt & Kwansnicky
Owner: Wentworth Properties (Melville Inc.)
Review: Second
Staff: Ralph Segal, Anita Molaro, Michael Gordon
EVALUATION: NON-SUPPORT (0-15)
Introduction
Ralph Segal, Senior Development Planner, Urban Design and Development
Planning Centre, referencing display models, introduced the application
in the context of the surrounding neighbourhood. The Panel was informed
that the preliminary design had been previously reviewed by the Panel
and the Development Permit Board and had received approval in principle
from both. Information was provided on the comments and considerations
raised by each, and the composition of the complete application was
compared to the preliminary design.
The Panel was asked to comment on how well the application responded
to previously raised concerns and design conditions and whether it provided
maximum community benefit; and to consider whether the tower had achieved
architectural excellence.
Mr. Segal responded to questions regarding the existing and intended
future character of the surrounding neighbourhood, and confirmed that
the site’s present zoning did not allow for live-work.
Applicant’s Opening Comments
Dave Hewitt and Willem Doesburg of Hewitt & Kwansnicky Architects
Inc., and David Rose, PD Group Landscape Architects, joined the meeting
for consideration of this item.
Mr. Hewitt indicated that there had been substantial changes to the
application since the preliminary. He discussed the building as viewed
from a distance, from the skyline and on the approach, and commented
on how it functioned within the urban fabric. As well, Mr. Hewitt advised
that the tower had been designed in a punched form to move away from
typical glass forms in the area; commented on its response to minimize
view impacts; and discussed how its triangular design responded to the
Pender and Melville street grids.
Mr. Hewitt noted that the placement of the hotel accommodated an 80
foot separation between the two buildings on the site, and blocked the
starkness of the neighbouring building, and noted the responses to changes
in grade, including the skewing of the facade and the creation of a corner
plaza with retail. As well, Mr. Hewitt discussed the design of the parking
lane entrance to the site, and indicated the rear entrance to the hotel.
Mr. Rose discussed the project’s landscape design addressing the
Bute Street elevation and the public realm possibilities. He noted that
effort had been made to open the whole of the frontage to the public,
discussed responses to the street grid design, and indicated use of a
water feature to animate the north end. Various pedestrian opportunities
offered throughout the site were also noted.
In response to a question, Mr. Hewitt advised that features of the tower
and hotel did not specifically relate to sustainability. Mr. Segal added
that the City’s zoning did not pursue sustainability under development
applications at this time.
Mr. Hewitt also responded to questions concerning the building materials,
and discussed the facade of the hotel in relation to the lane noting
that its design was partly in response to fire restrictions and to the
limited view possibilities. Also, it was noted that consideration had
been given to saving the concrete building on the site but that options
for this had not proven to be economically viable.
The Panel reviewed the model and posted materials.
Panel’s Comments
The Panel considered the direction given by the Development Permit Board
for the design of a tower that had achieved the highest order of architectural
excellence. Panel members agreed that, while the tower was very compliant,
it was not special, unique, sophisticated or advanced, and that its
quality needed to be significantly increased in order to justify its
height. Given this, support was expressed for allowing increased height,
beyond the approved 400 feet, for a more superior tower design.
In further consideration of whether the tower had achieved architectural
excellence, many members commented that the tower lacked a conceptual
basis or intention, i.e. environmental responsiveness, civic connections,
etc., and needed to pursue a higher level of architectural enquiry. Panel
members further agreed that the building design was not anchored to the
site and/or community and needed to go further in its design to the extent
that it would be impossible to imagine the tower being located anywhere
else.
Several panelists commented that it seemed that very little had been
done to make the tower seem slimmer, and offered that a change in materials
could assist in achieving this objective. It was also encouraged that
local materials be used to create a stronger connection with Vancouver,
and was offered that the present use of materials was very heavy and
not joyous.
Concerning the issue of sustainability, it was suggested that, as a
minimum requirement, the building should speak to and demonstrate measures
of sustainability. It was offered that incorporation of sustainable elements
would elevate the quality of the project, and was emphasized that buildings
of this stature had a responsibility to demonstrate sustainability. Further
comment was that a commitment to sustainability would impose factors
on the building’s design that would change its image to become
more dynamic and more sensitive to exposure views, sunlight and daylight.
In considering the design of the tower top, specifically the three lantern
design, a member commented that any increase in architectural expression
was hampered by the uniformity of the design. Also, others offered that
the design needed to be more integrated with the tower itself so that
it did not seem applied.
With regard to the landscape design, Panel members suggested that it
needed reworking to fit more into the urban context, and commented that
the moat design separated the street from the building, did not engage
Bute Street, and was an inappropriate response. It was generally agreed
that the design did not contribute to the quality of the street environment,
and that effort should instead be made to make a stronger social contribution
to the urban setting, i.e. providing covered surfaces for sitting and
being less naturalistic so as not to compete with the surrounding natural
beauty.
Comment was offered that the courtyard offered a strange relationship
to the hotel with guests being able to look at but not use it, and it
was suggested that the tower’s ground level suites’ marketability
and livability could be enhanced by allowing direct access to the courtyard.
Encouragement was offered to seek alternative programming that would
animate common areas, i.e. shared food facilities.
Several members commented that they were not in support of entrances
off of lanes in general and emphasized that lanes were intended to serve
as service corridors. However, it was offered that, if the lane was intended
to function as a front entrance it should be dealt with accordingly.
Regarding the existing accountant’s building on the site, many
Panel members commented that it appeared as an afterthought and required
much more attention and stronger presentation as part of the application.
It was suggested that it was inappropriate to consider the existing building
in the context provided and with so little detail. Suggested improvements
to the hotel included opening the views to the north and improving its
integration with the accountant’s building.
Several members offered that the siting of the buildings was somewhat
curious, and suggested that the massing solution could be improved with
a different relationship between the residential and commercial. It was
noted that the massing scheme seemed driven by view corridors from uphill
developments and encouragement was offered that the architect consider
other, more natural, massing solutions.
Concerning the possibility of a neighbouring site becoming a park, it
was offered that this would be unfortunate as it would border a lane
and was a space that allowed for smaller developments in the context
of the city. However, encouragement was offered that the existing concrete
building on the site should be studied as an opportunity for presentation
of the 40's architecture.
Applicant’s Response
Mr. Hewitt expressed appreciation for the Panel’s comments noting
that some were contradictory; that some were in direct contravention
of city bylaws, conditions or directives and therefore should not have
formed a part of the discussion; and that the remainder had been fruitful
and informative.
Adjournment
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m.
|
