Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, January 21, 2004
Index
Present
1201 West Hastings Street
1650 West 7th Avenue
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Stuart Lyon, Chair
Helen Besharat
Jeffrey Corbett (present for #1 only)
Bruce Haden
Reena Lazar (present for #1 only)
Brian Martin
Sorin Tatomir
Ken Terriss
Mark Ostry (present for #1 only)
Jennifer Marshall
Eva Lee
Regrets:
Kim Perry
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
1. 1201 West Hastings Street
DE: 408040
Use: Artist Live/Work (30 storeys)
Zoning: CD-1
Applicant Status: Complete
Architect: Downs Archambault
Owner: Delta Land Development Ltd.
Review: Second
Delegation: Mark Ehman, Al Johnson, Chris Sterry
Staff: Ralph Segal
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (8-1)
• Introduction: Ralph Segal, Development Planner, presented this
application. The Panel reviewed the project at the rezoning stage, in
April 2003. The Panel unanimously supported the application and Council
subsequently approved the rezoning. Since that time, Bute Street from
Cordova to Georgia Streets has been designated as a neighbourhood shopping
street for Triangle West, requiring the Bute Street frontage to have
a strong retail pedestrian character. Following a brief review of the
project, the Development Planner noted the following areas in which the
advice of the Panel is sought:
- building height, proposed at 300 ft. The CD-1 by-law permits a height
of 275 ft., relaxable up to 300 ft. subject to: its contribution to the
overall area; that the additional height results in minimal additional
shadowing; the additional height results in the overall enhancement of
the skyline; and the overall design of the building;
- interface with the adjacent C-side project to the west, especially
the four townhouses facing directly into this development;
- the project’s contribution to the Bute Street neighbourhood
shopping street;
- relationship of the tower to the podium.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Mark Ehman, Architect, described
the project in greater detail, including response to the Panel’s
earlier comments. The landscape plan was briefly reviewed and the design
team responded to the Panel’s questions.
• Panel’s Comments: The Panel strongly supported this application
and generally found it to be a very attractive, nicely detailed building.
The Panel considered the additional 25 ft. up to 300 ft. to be well
earned, in particular for the proposed amenity at the top of the building.
The Panel thought the building would make a good contribution to the
skyline.
The Panel acknowledged the improved relationship with the C-side development
to the west, but some Panel members thought there was room for further
improvement, possibly through landscaping. Several Panel members commented
that the relationship to the C-side townhouses is very unfortunate and
is likely remain a poor one.
The Panel thought the project made a good contribution to the new Bute
Street shopping precinct. The inclusion of the urban grocery store was
strongly supported. The need for further design development to the Bute
Street canopies was noted, and one Panel member questioned the appropriateness
of the proposed grass boulevard on a retail frontage. Another recommendation
was to avoid the stepping at the southern end of the restaurant, if possible,
to provide better integration with the sidewalk. There was also a recommendation
to consider incorporating heating in the overhead glazing to encourage
year round use of the outdoor public space. A comment was made that,
from an urban design point of view, it would have been preferable to
have the café right at the corner because it is an excellent location
for a very good outdoor urban space.
The Panel found the tower/podium relationship to be improved since
the rezoning stage. However, it is still not perfect and could benefit
from further design development in some areas. Among the suggestions
were to allow the general public visual access to the proposed water
element, which currently can only be enjoyed from the entry lobby. It
was noted the public art feature has not been fully integrated into the
project, as previously suggested by the Panel, but the developer’s
satisfaction with this aspect of the proposal was acknowledged. One Panel
member recommended a stronger connection of the tower to grade at the
corner. As well, design development to the residential entry was recommended,
currently somewhat overpowered by the very large canopy. Another concern
was the view of the podium from above, which could be improved through
revised landscaping or a different treatment to the lower part of the
tower.
The Panel generally found the tower architecture to be very exciting
and dynamic. However, some Panel members suggested that the proposed
uniform materials might not be showing it to best advantage. It was thought
there might be opportunity to “showcase” the different planes
of the building by using different materials or changes in detailing
or colour. Another comment was that the rezoning submission had a sense
of verticality that is somewhat diminished in the current iteration,
in particular around the notch on the north side, which now seems too “busy”.
The Panel considered the enclosed amenity space at the top of the building
to be very successful. Recommendations were made for further design development
to architecturally integrate it better with the building. A comment was
made that it seems too much like an outdoor space that has been enclosed.
The elevator penthouse could also benefit from better integration.
The Panel had serious concerns about the architectural treatment of
the garage entrances where blank walls need to be carefully handled.
Consideration should also be given to the pedestrian experience of the
overhead garage door, with careful attention given to the appearance
of the ceiling, and lighting.
Two Panel members questioned the orientation of the townhouses at the
base of the building, suggesting they could have been equally successful
on the city grid.
The Panel liked the proposed terra cotta coloured aggregate concrete
being proposed.
In general, the Panel thought this development should make a much greater
commitment to sustainability, particularly in the area of solar heat
gain and a better response to the orientation of each elevation. It was
noted that sustainability features, particularly reduced energy costs,
are also a good marketing tool. One Panel member did not support the
application because of its lack of commitment to sustainability.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Ehman expressed his appreciation
for the Panel’s comments.
2. 1650 West 7th Avenue
DE: 407884
Use: Residential (11 storeys)
Zoning: C-3A
Applicant Status: Complete
Architect: Lawrence Doyle
Owner: Amacon Development (Fir) Ltd.
Review: Second
Delegation: Larry Doyle, Sung Ae Sim
Staff: Mary Beth Rondeau
EVALUATION: SUPP0RT (5-2)
• Introduction: Mary Beth Rondeau, Development Planner, presented
this application. The Panel did not support an earlier submission in
October 2003. The application requests the maximum permitted density
of 3.0 FSR, plus an additional ten percent heritage density, and 100
ft. height. The proposal is for an all-residential tower with townhouses
at the base. Ms. Rondeau briefly reviewed the guidelines and the applicant’s
response. It was noted the shape of the tower has been moulded in response
to view impacts on the neighbouring residential tower to the southeast.
The guidelines suggest a side yard width of 40 ft. and the application
proposes 20 ft., which is to achieve an 80 ft. tower separation. Staff
support this. As well, the guidelines suggest a larger rear yard than
required by the by-law. The application proposes the 15 ft. required
in the by-law, and staff also supports this. Ms. Rondeau briefly reviewed
the Panel’s earlier concerns and how the current submission has
responded.
The Panel’s comments are sought in the following areas:
- whether the project has earned the increase in density from 1.0 to
3.0 FSR and 100 ft. height, noting the additional ten percent heritage
density is considered a public benefit in itself;
- the use of painted concrete.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Larry Doyle, Architect,
briefly reviewed the revisions made in response to the Panel’s
earlier concerns, in particular covering over the ramp on the west side
of the building and improvements to the elevator penthouse. With respect
to materials, he noted the previous Ariscraft has been deleted in favour
of face brick. Sung Ae Sim briefly described the landscape plan and the
applicant team responded to the Panel’s questions.
• Panel’s Comments: The Panel supported this application
and generally found that the earlier concerns had been addressed quite
well. The maximum density was considered to have been earned.
The Panel found the covered ramp to be a major improvement since the
previous scheme.
The Panel liked the semi private open space on the southeast corner
which is now much more usable, but a comment was made that it is regrettable
that it is not related in some way to the interior amenity space.
One Panel member questioned the 12 ft. setback on this development,
given the commercial nature of the street.
A landscape buffer between the townhouses and communal garden was recommended.
Regarding materials, the Panel stated a strong preference for sealed
architectural concrete, although possible technical considerations with
respect to the building envelope were acknowledged. The introduction
of brick into the project was considered a big improvement over the Ariscraft
proposed previously. However, given the quality of materials is part
of earning the maximum density, a recommendation was made to extend the
brick treatment around to the south, at least to the ground floor, to
provide definition to the other side of the tower as well and offer a
better outlook for the neighbours. A comment was made that better quality
materials might in some way offset the inherent bulky nature of C-3A
towers.
It was recommended that consideration be given to combining the sealed
concrete with some painted concrete, and to consider more reveals in
the concrete elements. Design development to increase articulation at
the top of the central element to the east of the main entry was recommended,
as well as further consideration of the cornice treatment.
The Panel found the townhouse on the northwest corner to be a bit of
an anomaly, requiring better integration into the scheme. Some Panel
members recommended allowing for possible conversion of this unit to
commercial or retail use at some time in the future. There was also a
recommendation to consider live/work use for the townhouses.
Concerns were expressed about livability issues relating to the inside
corner where the townhouses meet the tower units.
There was a recommendation to add a small kitchen window to Townhouse
#2 on the south side to provide some visual access to the courtyard,
which could be achieved by reducing the size of the storage room.
The Panel was disappointed with this project’s lack of commitment
to sustainability, and two Panel members did not support the project
for this reason. The applicant was urged to at least consider the LEED
checklist, without necessarily submitting an application for certification.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Doyle noted the use of uncoated
concrete is a building envelope issue. Its long-term durability is also
questionable in our climate. Nevertheless, it will be investigated as
the project proceeds. He thanked the Panel for the comments and said
they will do their best to respond.
|
