Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Index
Present
125 Milross Avenue
900 Pacific Boulevard (BUILDING A)
900 Pacific Boulevard (BUILDINGS B and D)
900 Pacific Boulevard (BUILDING C)
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Mark Ostry, Chair
Larry Adams
Robert Barnes
Marta Farevaag
Ronald Lea
Jennifer Marshall
Brian Martin
Regrets:
Bruce Haden
Jeffrey Corbett
Alan Endall
Steven Keyes
Margot Long
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
1. 125 Milross Avenue
DE: 408609
Use: Residential (22 storeys, 167 units)
Zoning: CD-1
Applicant Status: Complete
Architect: Perkins & Co. Architecture & Urban Design
Owner: Bosa Development Corp.
Review: First
Delegation: John Perkins Jr., David Stoyko
Staff: Jonathan Barrett
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (5-1)
• Introduction: Jonathan Barrett, Development Planner, presented
this application for a 22-storey residential tower with a 3 – 5-storey
townhouse and apartment base, for a total of 167 units. The CD-1 zoning
was approved in March 2004. The four major conditions applied to the
rezoning related to the townhouses along Milross Avenue, privacy and
livability, overall building character and overall landscape plan.
The Panel’s advice is sought on whether the rezoning conditions
have been adequately addressed, and on a minor concern identified by
staff relating to whether the townhouses should be stepped up to avoid
having a wall facing the street.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: John Perkins, Jr., Architect,
briefly described the design rationale and David Stoyko, Landscape Architect,
reviewed the landscape plan. The applicant team responded to the Panel’s
questions.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Concern that the development is “turning is back” on
Main Street and suggestions to improve the relationship of the lane to
the street, including animating the lane and integrating more trees;
•
Recommendation for design development to the materiality, in particular
the relationship of the brick and concrete and, to a lesser extent, paint
colour choices;
•
Improve the relationship between the base and the tower;
•
Lower level roof access recommended as well as greening of roofs;
•
Suggestions for improved public amenity at the corner of Quebec and Prior
and attention to the raised court at the southwest corner to make it
more inviting.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel strongly supported this application and generally found the
architecture and massing to be well resolved. It was thought to have
improved a lot since the rezoning stage.
While it was acknowledged that the developer may not wish to have units
overlooking the lane at this time, the Panel found the lane façade
the least successful of the scheme. It lacks animation and “eyes
on the street” and there was concern that this approach may compromise
the redevelopment potential of the heritage buildings on Main Street.
One Panel member suggested revisiting the possibility of developing the
property at the rear to somehow enhance the connection to Main Street.
The Panel thought more detailed design development was needed with respect
to how the tower and the base come together, possibly bringing something
of the tower down to the ground or extending some of the brick to the
tower.
The Panel had some concerns about the materiality of the project and
thought more attention should be given to the distribution of the brick,
possibly carrying it around to the townhouses. The maroon piece at the
end was thought to be a bit of an anomaly.
The landscape plan was generally supported. The interior courtyard was
considered to be well resolved with privacy issues addressed to make
it a successful amenity. Design development was recommended to the amenity
space at the corner of Quebec and Prior and a concern expressed that
the banners shown may not be the best treatment for this space. Something
to make it more inviting was recommended, possibly a trellis or some
sort of public art feature. It was noted that trees seem to be missing
in some places, particularly in the lane. Further greening on Prior Street
was recommended and a recommendation to consider some soft landscaping
(2 – 3 ft.) at the base of the walls rather than just a lawn.
The townhouses were generally thought to be quite successful but a concern
that the townhouse landscape treatment may be too unified with little
opportunity to individualize patios and provide greater pedestrian interest.
The Panel strongly recommended that the lower rooftop should be landscaped
and accessible to the residents. At the very least it should be a green
roof as a visual amenity for residents in the tower and especially to
improve the overlook from the viaduct. It was noted that, on this project,
the roofs are very much a fifth elevation of the scheme.
It was recommended that the second level of the Prior Street townhouses
have windows added to the bathrooms to improve the large expanse of blank
walls and add a level of interest to this elevation.
A comment was made that the tower entry takes no advantage of the courtyard
and there may be an opportunity to provide an inviting view from the
amenity room into the courtyard.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Perkins said they will be pleased
to work with staff to respond to the points raised by the Panel.
2. 900 Pacific Boulevard (BUILDING A)
DE: 408503
Use: Residential (15 storeys)
Zoning: CD-1
Applicant Status: Complete
Architect: Walter Francl
Owner: Concord Pacific Group Inc.
Review: First
Delegation: Walter Francl, David Negrin, Bruce Hemstock
Staff: Jonathan Barrett
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-0)
• Introduction: Jonathan Barrett, Development Planner, briefly
described the rezoning process for Sub area 6A of the Concord Pacific
development site. The site was rezoned in May 2004, at which time the
building forms, heights, floorplates, access and general landscape systems
were fairly precisely established. The Panel unanimously supported the
rezoning application. The site is affected by view cones and this has
determined the building heights. Mr. Barrett noted there is a defined
park at one edge of the development site and Pacific Boulevard to the
north, which has resulted in the proposal for non-standard towers.
The conditions applied at the rezoning stage included a redesign of
Coopers’ Park and a redesign of the area under the Cambie bridge.
There is also a new street system proposed that will eventually connect
to a new extension of Smithe Street. A sustainability condition was applied
to all the buildings and staff are working with the applicants to achieve
sustainability measures.
Landscape Architect, Bruce Hemstock, explained that his firm was engaged
to develop an overall landscape plan for the neighbourhood as well as
for each of the three buildings currently under review. He briefly described
the organizing principles that were applied in the development of the
plan.
Building 6A
Mr. Barrett noted the proposal is for a 15-storey residential building
containing 86 units and ten townhouse units at the base. Issues for
the Panel to consider include how the townhouses relate to the tower
and the surrounding public realm, on-site landscape systems and overall
building character.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Walter Francl, Architect,
briefly described the proposal, noting the height is dictated by a view
cone. He explained the building has relatively squat proportions and
relatively shallow tower depth and they have elected to use the elevator
core as an element to distinguish the two distinct building masses. The
curve of the building takes its form from the adjacent bridge off-ramp.
Materials are metal panel, painted concrete and clear and spandrel glazing.
There are wood trim details at the soffits and entrances.
Bruce Hemstock explained that they have tried to develop a rhythm along
the street and achieve “eyes on the street” at both the street
and park edges. He briefly described the landscape plan and the applicant
team responded to questions from the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
This application was unanimously supported. The only concern related
to the Concord Pacific sign which the Panel found totally unacceptable.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel was very enthusiastic about this proposal and found it a very
refreshing departure from other Concord Pacific developments. The units
will be very livable and the townhouses have been very well integrated
with the scheme. The way the building comes down to the ground was thought
to be very successfully handled, and the tower’s response to the
Cambie Bridge is very positive. Having the units expressed externally
was welcomed by the Panel.
There was some discussion about whether the materials and colour should
match the adjacent Coopers’ Park Neighbourhood buildings. It was
thought this project could stand on its own as a fairly sculptural tower
without the need for homogeneity with its neighbours. There was also
some discussion about the orange element and suggestions that its fin-like
shape seems weak compared to the rest of the mass of the building.
With respect to the landscape treatment, one Panel member found the
entry area to be somewhat under-treated. Another member questioned whether
the space at the southwest corner would work as a semi-private amenity
space given the circulation patterns, although as a public space it is
fine.
The Panel unanimously considered that to advertise the developer at
the top of a residential building is not acceptable. It was suggested
that if there is a desire to identify the neighbourhood it can be addressed
at ground level with paving or street banners. Given this colour palette
is such a departure from the more typical green in the area it was thought
that this will go a long way to distinguishing Coopers’ Park as
a distinct neighbourhood.
In general, the Panel was very positive about this proposal and commended
the applicant on an excellent scheme as well as very good presentation
materials.
• Applicant’s Response: David Negrin, Concord
Pacific, said they believed it was important to design a different neighbourhood
and
this has been achieved with the architecture. He acknowledged they have
struggled with the colour and said it could be changed given the three
buildings are quite different. Mr. Hemstock advised there is no public
thoroughfare intended through the courtyard and it is for the use of
the residents only. He agreed there could be further design development
to clarify territory.
3. 900 Pacific Boulevard (BUILDINGS B and D)
DE: 408563
Use: Residential (2 x 24 storeys)
Zoning: CD-1
Applicant Status: Complete
Architect: Hotson Bakker Boniface Haden
Owner: Concord Pacific Group Inc.
Review: First
Delegation: Alan Boniface, David Negrin, Bruce Hemstock
Staff: Jonathan Barrett
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-0)
• Introduction: Jonathan Barrett, Development Planner, briefly
described the rezoning process for Sub Area 6A of the Concord Pacific
development site. The site was rezoned in May 2004, at which time the
building forms, heights, floorplates, access and general landscape systems
were fairly precisely established. The Panel unanimously supported the
rezoning application. The site is affected by view cones and this has
determined the building heights. Mr. Barrett noted there is a defined
park at one edge of the development site and Pacific Boulevard to the
north, which has resulted in the proposal for non-standard towers.
The conditions applied at the rezoning stage included a redesign of
Coopers’ Park and a redesign of the area under the Cambie bridge.
There is also a new street system proposed that will eventually connect
to a new extension of Smithe Street. A sustainability condition was applied
to all the buildings and staff are working with the applicants to achieve
sustainability measures.
Landscape Architect, Bruce Hemstock, explained that his firm was engaged
to develop an overall landscape plan for the neighbourhood as well as
for each of the three buildings currently under review. He briefly described
the organizing principles that were applied in the development of the
plan.
Buildings B and D
This proposal is for two 24-storey residential buildings containing a
total of 223 units and townhouse units at the base. Issues for the
Panel to consider include how the townhouses relate to the towers and
the surrounding public realm, the overall building character, in particular
the waterfront façade, and the overall landscape systems and
relationships between the public realm and the park.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Alan Boniface, Architect,
described the proposal, noting part of their mandate was to design sister
buildings for this very odd shaped site, with its sharp angles defined
by view corridors and setback requirements. He noted that the majority
of the amenity space for the whole neighbourhood is contained in Building
C; Buildings B and D have only two shared public amenity rooms. Mr. Boniface
briefly reviewed the design rationale and Bruce Hemstock described the
landscape plan and noted there is a 3.6 m wide public right-of-way through
the courtyard. The applicant team responded to questions from the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
The Panel responded very positively to this application, with one unanimous
suggestion to improve the openness of the space between the two buildings
at ground level.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel found this to be an exciting, very well developed project
that contributes to the creation of a very different Concord neighbourhood.
The Panel found the townhouses to be particularly interesting and unusual.
The applicant was commended for an excellent scheme. The Panel also welcomed
the inclusion of the earlier conceptual drawings which helps in the understanding
of how the architects arrived at this solution.
The one area of concern related to the diagonal route from the corner
through to Coopers’ Park which looks quite tight and with very
little offered to pedestrians in the way of borrowed landscape. A suggestion
was to acknowledge that it is a restricted space and make it public,
removing the tot lot. The Panel thought this play area would be little
used given the larger public playground nearby. This would allow the
area to be simpler, more generous in scale, and more public. Another
comment was that there did not seem to be any proper announcement of
the entrance to the park.
The Panel generally liked the colour scheme but there was some discussion
about whether the same colour palette should be applied to each component
of the neighbourhood. There was a recommendation that the orange element
should be truly contextual and speak to something about Vancouver or
B.C.
One Panel member thought the symbol of the roof had been watered down
and suggested this symbolism could also be applied to roofs lower down
in the building where it would be more identifiable at pedestrian level.
The Panel found the water features along the street to be a good substitute
for interest provided by townhouses.
The Panel liked the feature of bringing the water from the roof to the
ground but suggested it needs to be stronger to create a more distinct
and interesting urban edge. It was also suggested that it needs further
consideration from a technical point of view. Finding a better way to
terminate the water was also recommended, possibly capturing and making
use of the water.
One Panel member thought both tower entries could be more welcoming.
Some Panel members thought there could be a little more articulation
on the elevation facing the water, perhaps more colour and definition
of the floors, although another opinion was that its calmness is positive.
4. 900 Pacific Boulevard (BUILDING C)
DE: 408515
Use: Residential (30, 10 and 6 storeys) (219 units)
Zoning: CD-1
Applicant Status: Complete
Architect: Hancock Bruckner Eng & Wright
Owner: Concord Pacific Group Inc.
Review: First
Delegation: Jim Hancock, David Negrin, Bruce Hemstock
Staff: Jonathan Barrett
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (4-2)
• Introduction: Jonathan Barrett, Development Planner, briefly
described the rezoning process for Sub area 6A of the Concord Pacific
development site. The site was rezoned in May 2004, at which time the
building forms, heights, floorplates, access and general landscape systems
were fairly precisely established. The Panel unanimously supported the
rezoning application. The site is affected by view cones and this has
determined the building heights. Mr. Barrett noted there is a defined
park at one edge of the development site and Pacific Boulevard to the
north, which has resulted in the proposal for non-standard towers.
The conditions applied at the rezoning stage included a redesign of
Coopers’ Park and a redesign of the area under the Cambie bridge.
There is also a new street system proposed that will eventually connect
to a new extension of Smithe Street. A sustainability condition was applied
to all the buildings and staff are working with the applicants to achieve
sustainability measures.
Landscape Architect, Bruce Hemstock, explained that his firm was engaged
to develop an overall landscape plan for the neighbourhood as well as
for each of the three buildings currently under review. He briefly described
the organizing principles that were applied in the development of the
plan.
Building C
This proposal is for a 30-storey and 10-storey building with a 6-storey
centre component, containing a total of 219 units, and six townhouses.
Building C also accommodates a major amenity component for the neighbourhood.
Areas in which the advice of the Panel is sought relate to the character
and animation of the amenity space on Pacific Boulevard, whether the
10-storey component needs more prominence and strength, and the relationship
between the three major building forms. There is also a public pedestrian
route to the adjacent Plaza of Nations and the Panel’s advice
is sought as to whether the bridge connection is expressed appropriately.
Comments on the overall character are also requested.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Jim Hancock, Architect,
briefly described the design rationale and Bruce Hemstock reviewed the
landscape plan, and the applicant team responded to the Panel’s
questions.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Increase the height of the underpass to improve the public connection;
• Strengthen the expression of the amenity building;
• Strengthen the expression of the 10-storey component within the overall
composition;
• Reconsider the colour scheme (especially the orange);
• The sign is unacceptable.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel strongly supported this application and found it to be a refreshing
departure from other Concord developments. The Panel supported the overall
character and materials.
The Panel generally had no concerns about the relationship between the
various building components although some Panel members thought the connection
between the 6- and 10-storey pieces could be improved.
The Panel found the 10-storey component to be the weakest in the composition
and not taking full advantage of its waterside location, with a number
of suggestions for strengthening the “prow” of the building.
There was also a recommendation to consider introducing a roof element
that would tie together all the neighbourhood projects.
As with the other two proposals for this neighbourhood, the Panel was
strongly opposed to the sign at the top of the building.
The Panel generally thought the amenity building could be stronger and
treated as the fourth piece of the composition. Comments were made that
it seems tacked-on and foreign to the rest of the scheme. One Panel member
thought it might be more appropriate to be located on the water side,
suggesting this could also be a means of strengthening prow of the 10-storey
building.
With respect to the pedestrian underpass, the Panel strongly recommended
that it should be much higher to better serve as a future public connection.
More visual clues about its existence were also recommended, including
lighting.
Other minor comments included:
•
There is an opportunity to take advantage of the roof to create a usable
amenity for the residents;
•
The east side of the tower needs more colour;
•
A more open and inviting entry into the elevator lobby might be more
appropriate for a building of this size;
•
The colours could be made stronger by extending them down another storey;
•
The penthouse element is too small relative to the size of the tower;
•
With the exception of the yellow, the colours seem a bit gratuitous.
|
