Urban Design Panel Joint Workshop Meeting with Vancouver Heritage
Commission
Minutes
For: Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Index
Present
101 Hastings Street (Woodward's)
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Bruce Haden, Chair
Larry Adams
Robert Barnes
Steven Keyes
Ronald Lea
Margot Long
Brian Martin
Regrets:
Jeffrey Corbett
Alan Endall
Marta Farevaag
Jennifer Marshall
Mark Ostry
Also Present: Members of the Vancouver Heritage Commission:
Richard Keate, Chair
Megan Balmer
James Burton
Brad Alberts
Councillor Jim Green (chose not to contribute to the meeting given
he was departing at 6:00 p.m.)
Cheryl Cooper
Henry Tom
Cam Cathcart
Others:
Heather Deal, Park Commissioner (departed 7:05 p.m.)
City Staff:
Scott Hein, Development Planner
Gerry McGeough, Heritage Planner
Michael Flanigan, Project Manager
Recording Secretary:
Vivian Guthrie, Raincoast Ventures
1. 101 West Hastings Street
Use: Mixed
Zoning: DD
Competition Workshop
Proponents: Davidson Yuen Simpson Architects
Musson Catell Mackey Partnership
Endall/Elliot Associates
Gomberoff Bell Lyon Architects
Henriquez Partners Architects
Staff: Scott Hein, Development Planner
Gerry McGeough, Heritage Planner
• Opening Remarks
Chair Haden called the meeting to order at 3:06 p.m. and introduced Richard
Keate, Chair, Vancouver Heritage Commission. He noted that the joint
workshop was a precedent-setting event and welcomed all participants.
In directions to Panel and Commissioners Chair Haden explained that
there would be no formal recommendations by way of motions at the meeting,
and that the workshop was intended to provide comments as to the advantages
and disadvantages of the proponents’ projects. City Staff was
acknowledged for facilitating the workshop.
• Introduction of Proponents:
Mr. Flanigan, Project Manager, reviewed main project
compliance requirements of all submissions, including the following:
- 100 units of non-market housing;
- present project models;
- retain and restore the 1903/08 building;
- retain the ‘W’ sign; and
- the ‘city parcel’.
In regard to the schedule, Mr. Flanigan advised that Council would consider
the projects on September 28 and 29, 2004, the latter being a meeting
at which public input would be heard.
• Urban Design Considerations:
Scott Hein, Development Planner, provided an overview of urban design
considerations. He noted that this initiative was vital for this part
of city and, because of the intense interest of the public, was considered
a signature project. He introduced the short listed submissions as
being three distinguished and compelling projects, all characterized
by the highest quality of design considerations and all substantive
in presentation, as follows:
- Westbank/Peterson scheme: reflected sensitivity to the local needs
of residents in the community emulated by the attention to program and
tenancy and evidenced by the arrangement of pieces on the site.
- Concert/Holburn scheme: presented a unique public open space – an
opportunity rarely found in Vancouver - and created a new backdrop for
stage and citywide activities throughout the seasons.
- Millennium scheme: presented a compelling and thought provoking brand
of architecture that undoubtedly had been energizing conversations about
urban design, architecture and heritage considerations throughout the
city.
While the three schemes were substantial, Mr. Hein reminded the assembly
that all were starting points and that through evaluation, assessment,
selection and approvals continued refinement was expected. He acknowledged
the designers for their coherent response when the user groups had not
been determined.
With respect to urban design focus Mr. Hein highlighted key guidelines
for consideration by the Urban Design Panel:
- neighbourhood character;
- uses and activities;
- heritage conservation;
- access and parking;
- sustainability initiatives;
- livability; and,
- form and character.
Further using the context model, he emphasized the precinct and identified
the two anchors (Sun Tower and Dominion Building) that would form a possible
tripartite with the higher building on the site. He requested that participants
consider the incremental growth of such a project in the downtown east
side and also to consider scale and experience at the ground plane.
• Heritage Considerations:
Gerry McGeough, Heritage Planner reviewed heritage criteria for the project
and noted that heritage value extended beyond the site and would be
key to the re-energization of the downtown east side. He noted that
all three presentations preserved the 1903/08 building and were committed
to restoring the form, movement and place of the original building.
He requested that the Heritage Commission respond to four points of
framework that flowed from conservation practice:
- the overarching conservation principle of respect for heritage fabric
and minimize the level of intervention for conservation;
- how new construction interfaced and responded to or with ‘old’ in
that it was compatible with heritage materials, massing, fenestration
and not diluted beyond the authenticity of the heritage fabric;
- the impact of the design on the neighbouring context and the heritage
district as the site was located in a significant precinct crossroads
of China Town, Victory Square and Gastown with comment on the messages
or implications it sent for neighbouring sites and the precedents it
set for conservation of the larger precinct; and
- opportunities or areas to optimize heritage conservation.
Chair Haden noted that all submissions were at the interim level of
development and that the focus of consideration should be which project
has the most opportunity to revitalize the downtown eastside and reintegrate
this part of the city into the larger city.
• Millennium Presentation:
Stu Lyon introduced the team of Robert Lemon, Heather Tremain, Shahram
Malek,
Chuck Brook, and Jane Durante.
Mr. Lyon began by prefacing their original project, which was generated
without a program and design premise to provide a vessel for a new growth,
vast, high-rise that would provide a new identity for the site.
Reviewing the design principles he explained that the current design
kept as much of the old Woodward’s perimeter as possible to provide
the filter for a brand new experience on the inside. The requirements
of Simon Fraser University (SFU) were deemed critical to the design high
and clear span spaces and a design that would facilitate 55-foot trucks
underground (as well as a proposed food store). The SFU steel building
cantilevered out over the 1903/08 building. The project was further described
by the following:
- 105 non-market housing were provided in three bays of the old Woodward’s
building down Abbott Street with outdoor amenity spaces on the roof;
- 300 units of market housing in the tower(s);
- spatial relationship of SFU and hi-rise as distinct objects;
- retail spaces were continuous around the site at ground level and to
the interior of the courtyard;
- included an Aboriginal healing centre on Cordova; and
- included a seniors centre.
An alternate proposal was described with Vancouver Community College
(VCC) facilities, which resulted in a different mix on the first six
floors, and a reduction of FSR from 9.0 to 7.5. Planned as an incremental
development to meet the fine grain feel to the neighbourhood, the architects
did not want to be monolithic, and wanted different pieces to project
intended use. It was noted that the high-rise condominium used material
similar to the existing Woodward’s building as if that building
had been raised and stood on its side; that the roof spaces acted for
water retention; and that outdoor areas were to be used by residences
(1.8 acre of roof space). By moving some of the area up into the high-rise,
it was noted that the courtyard was a generous 100 ft. x 100 ft.
Participants were informed that the ‘W’ would be situated
on a contemporary cradle in the public courtyard and was considered not
appropriate for marking the new tower or SFU and would instead become
the main identifying symbol for the courtyard.
A third option for the site was to incorporate the Army & Navy store.
The history of the building was that it evolved and changed over the
years and the submission was considered to be part of the evolvement
and very much a part of the existing precinct. The historic façade
brickwork and cornice would be restored and a canopy provided for weather
protection over the sidewalk.
Compatible and distinguishable uses for the buildings defined by different
building sizes and materials were discussed, creating a lively and dynamic
centre away from the ‘department store’ idea of one large
building.
The team looked at what this building could contribute to the sustainability
of the city and determined the following:
- green roof section extensive for public space and retention of water;
- retention of building reducing number of materials to be brought to
the site;
- sourcing materials locally, contributing to local economy;
- interim design and program lends itself to thermal energy systems;
- air quality in the building - especially in affordable housing - responds
to a need for a healthy environment;
- reduction of water use in residential component by a significant amount
(up to 60%); and
- current buildings could be LEED certified and the team would continue
to explore other sustainability standards as the design evolved.
Questions:
The Millennium team answered questions of the UDP members and Heritage
Commissioners noting the following:
- three structural bays of Woodward’s would be retained all the
way along Abbott;
- excavation was all on the west end of the site, and there was a food
store in the basement on the east side of the site;
- the three bays were the original from1908;
- the ‘W’ will be lit subject to the support of the residents;
- shadows to the courtyard would not be as deep as the current lighting
provides;
- extended non-market housing was located all the way down Abbott and
around the corner on Cordova;
- the central part of the tower had a large overhang that could be slender
and higher if the tower went higher;
- the central part of the tower was larger to provide generous roof deck
space and to fit within the structure (the columns go all the way through
from ground to tower);
- two storey units on top obscure elevator penthouse;
- if given a preference, the team would prefer the SFU scheme;
- in regard to the viability of retail space, one of the main components
was the 40,000 sq. ft. food store in the basement with major accesses
from the street and courtyard;
- access to community spaces were from the courtyard to maintain a dynamic
activity level;
- retail at grade comprised about 30,000 sq. ft. of space on the canopied
edge and in the public courtyard;
- worked toward developing a successful mix of students, shoppers, residents
and locals;
- Aboriginal healing centre was located on the Cordova Street side;
- the tower would be one of the images skylighting the city and the team
supported it as an iconic tower that stood alone in the area;
- the intensive roofscape on the heritage building was a little ambitious
in indicating large trees at the corner of Abbott and Hastings, over
the concrete portion the roofscape would be accommodated easily;
- courtyard plantings would be in the ground and not in planters;
- while there would be some overshadowing of the courtyard, ample sun
would get into the large courtyard space;
- glazing panels were spaced with solid spandrels in the tower ‘mid-block’;
- SFU building orients its long face with the sun;
- elements affect revitalization by virtue of the architecture, drawing
people to the site;
- SFU or VCC alternatives would have theatres that could be operational
off hours;
- the building would be deemed successful if it did have influence over
the neighbouring developments;
- heritage style lighting fixtures would be used in the public courtyard;
- heritage building remnants would be used throughout;
- further opportunities existed to respond to community needs such as
while discussing the Aboriginal healing centre it had become apparent
that there was also a need for a retail outlet for Aboriginal art (the
proponent expected other such opportunities to arise as the project developed);
- the view to the site would be mainly from Cordova and the interest
would be in the twist to the building; the view to the west side was
not under their control as the submission abuts another site;
- there was a subtle ‘W’ reflected in the glass of the mid-block
in the high-rise;
- five different architectural expressions are represented on the model;
- colours and styles are in response to the incremental way the developments
had occurred in the neighbourhood;
- relationship between the SFU to be completely different out of respect
of the heritage building; the relationship between SFU and residential
spaces is somewhat similar; and the lower spaces were more closed with
lighting control.
- colours were realistic in terms of what was available and provided
a pleasing palette;
- the courtyard constrained opening is especially generous given the
height;
- the city space would be located in the second floor of the eastern
most building in the second and third floor; and in scheme 2, in the
base of the tower; the schemes remain flexible;
- there is no public access to the green roof, it is only for tenants;
- the ‘W’ is 20 feet high and 24 feet wide point to point;
and
- in the VCC scheme there is a bridge connection to the parkade.
Vancouver Heritage Commission Advice:
Chair Keate conducted the discussion and comments included the following:
- the 1908 building has been retained to the satisfaction of the guidelines;
- the ‘W’ on the ground loses presence and was not visible
except for a few feet on Hastings Street;
- respected the Woodward’s buildings in general and favoured that
the façade was retained on Hastings, Abbott, and Cordova Streets;
–
breaking the continuum on Hastings Street with the entrance to the courtyard
could be a problem;
- concerned about animation along Hastings Street and lack of activity
visible along the street;
- with regard to interventions, the SFU alternative was superior to the
VCC scenario in retention along the west facing side;
- the volume of buildings overshadowing original building was too great;
- the foil suggested on the West Hastings side verged on façadism,
and it would be a better idea to return the brick walls back into the
dance studio;
- ‘W’ siting is poor and needs more prominence or at the
least to be taller;
- height of tower was considered excessive and did not fit in with tripartite
relationship to other buildings;
- degrees of retention and attention to detail on all façades
was good;
- tower is too high and would overpower the general precinct especially
from the perspective of Victory Square;
- West Hastings façade was intended to help the neighbourhood
up to the west as a revitalization; unconvinced screen would necessarily
achieve the goal;
- the block up to Cambie has to be genuine and it was not evident in
this plan;
- ‘W’ was an interesting concept to have on the ground and
the idea of having it close by for the public to get a tactile sense
was interesting;
- size of ‘W’ was too big to put into such a small area and
should be on one of the roofs perhaps with public access;
- SFU addition was light and distinguishable;
- screen in front of a more modern building was justifiable;
- the gap on Hastings diminished the monolithic wall of Hastings Street
and it was suggested to bring it closer together or bridge with the building
to provide an overlap;
- brick work and the design of the original building is only “okay”;
- the distinct contrast between the brickwork and the glass was favoured;
- concern regarding safety issues and the public courtyard that could
be dark and shady;
- if the ‘W’ were on the ground it should be in a prominent
public space, not in what could be interpreted as an internal space;
- it would be a preference to choose a street entrance over the courtyard
if going to classes at night;
- the 15-foot gap might encourage activities that were not welcome on
the site;
- unclear as to what was happening behind the screen and need to find
out possible uses;
- the courtyard could have the tendency to be exclusive rather than inclusive;
- the streetscape was compromised by the façade;
- high-rise does not fit in with the neighbourhood;
- distinguishability is strong but concern of ‘new’ looming
over the ‘old’ can overpower the old fabric below it; and,
- one Commissioner had seen an example of a building overhanging another
form (Ontario College of Art) and noted that it provided interest and
dynamism to a rather refined neighbourhood.
Councillor Green noted a potential conflict of interest and withheld
comment on this and all submissions.
Vancouver Heritage Commission Summary:
Chair Keate summarized the advantages as follow:
- lively context and lively view box;
- the level of intervention seemed to be acceptable;
- sustainability of the building was a plus;
- the retail plinth on Hastings Street was encouraging; and,
- the materials on the tower reminiscent of Woodward’s were favourable.
The disadvantages of the submission were:
- the excessive height overwhelmed Victory Square and obliterated heritage
community;
- darkness of courtyard and safety concerns of the access as well as
the courtyard space; and
- from a heritage standpoint the ‘W’ on the ground defeated
its role as a beacon - it should be visible from water and city.
Urban Design Panel Advice:
Chair Haden led the discussion by the UDP on the advantages and disadvantages
of the submission:
- appreciated the careful planning that has gone into the design;
- instinctively there was too much program;
- in regard to height and the trinity issue of the Dominion Building,
Sun Tower and this building, this building was too iconic to be part
of the trinity and, in this case it would be more visible in most parts
of the city than the new 600 ft. tower on Georgia Street;
- handsome and conceptually clear in parts;
- contrast between heritage and modern components concept was appealing;
- eclectic nature of the building fits the neighbourhood;
- sustainability factors were applauded;
- disagree with the ‘W’ on the ground as the nature of the ‘W’ was
to be a locator for people and up in the air – it should be a public
amenity and visible from more places;
- not a timid scheme and applauded the proponents on bravery of design
that could be dynamic and interesting;
- tower carefully placed on three axis and works well;
- favoured the large public space open 24-hours;
- LEED initiatives were especially liked (local materials and green
roofs);
- the submission had a lot of style, broken horizontally and not vertically;
- could have too many different styles;
- the project was too high, 2 1/2 times the Sun Tower may be too much;
- interesting idea to get up to ‘W’ and experience scale
at a human level , maybe it could be up higher and still accessible to
the public;
- SFU studio might be shading the courtyard too much, too dark, open
it up and make the court more part of the street instead of an internalized
private courtyard;
- streetscape could be improved in terms of weather protection and preservation
of trees, it would be tricky to get both trees and weather protection
on such a narrow sidewalk but it could be achieved;
- as situated close to Victory Square and Gastown there could be a continual
response in furniture and pattern of the streetscape;
- in regard to the character, the lower masses were sympathetic with
the surrounding neighbourhood;
- façade is not fully embraced;
- tower height was not complimentary to other buildings or precinct;
- overwhelmed by the abundance of different architectural styles;
- courtyard was isolated and distant from streetscape;
- glazed blocks can offer animation;
- ‘W’ in courtyard is reminiscent of the remains after a
demolition;
- substantial preservation of original façade was appreciated;
- the tower was a brave step and truly an architectural icon for Vancouver
however, it did not fit with the neighbourhood character;
- the city was trying to do too much with too much density on the site – the
expectation of one project being the link to fixing the neighbourhood
problems watered down the relationship with Gastown and the rest of the
neighbourhood precinct;
- if the city continued to demand so much from the heritage site it would
not have a heritage precinct of which it could be proud;
- the tower does not fit with neighbourhood;
- this was one submission that looked at being really connected with
the community and the team expended a stellar effort to connect community
activities such as the Aboriginal healing centre;
- from a heritage and a conservation standpoint, the ‘W’ should
be in a more traditional form;
- trees would never have been seen on the heritage building; large trees
should be pulled back;
- strongest aspect was how SFU relates to the heritage building and tower
and had an anomaly that respected the heritage building;
- roof tops have great potential on the other sites;
- scheme was well thought out in terms of its sustainability aspects;
- access and parking – not much was offered, when you look at aerial
photo what was needed was the greening of the roof of the City parkade;
- important to provide courtyard at main level; additional shadow studies
should be done;
- portal off Hastings Street was a bit confined;
- form and character was interesting, but not truly reflective of heritage
precinct and diminished the Dominion Building and Sun Tower;
- applicant has made a strong architectural statement; breath of fresh
air statement might revitalize it more than the large menu of programming;
- could effect positive change in the neighbourhood character;
- liked portal entrance on Hastings Street; smaller scale was important
and successful;
- food store use was seen as a big plus;
- concern regarding area and accessibility of the courtyard, less massing
at the base of the tower could open the space up a bit;
- more consideration should be given to improving the quality of the
streetscape;
- possible potential to increase site size and let courtyard breath a
little bit more;
- clarity of form was powerful, bold, and expressive and successful in
preserving heritage values of the project as expressing new elements
in different way;
- form of building is successful where it pulls back from the street;
- this [heritage] building was taller than other buildings and having
a façade pull back gives it particular strength;
- did not agree with having an Aboriginal healing centre opening to street
because it deters public access and would get to a point where private
use would dominate public openness;
- from a revitalization view the more commercial to the base the better;
- size of the courtyard was a negative component of the scheme;
- livability of residences is okay;
- oldness of the transitions good, and overhang too much;
- carrying the façade to the base was too ordinary for such a
high tower;
- the tower appeared too tall for neighbourhood;
- did not care for trees on the roof which were not integral with the
heritage intent;
- plaza would be more lively with less trees and more open space;
- speaks as a future Vancouver, specifically of scale, and might be ahead
of its time;
- amount of square footage was probably too much;
- would prefer to see differences between the various building expressions
reflect changes in function;
- contemporary component in SFU worked with the heritage building;
Design Panel Summary
Chair Haden summarized the Panel’s discussion with the negative
aspects being as follow:
- too much on the site, especially the height of the tower;
- there was a sense that the ‘W’ should be more visible and
not isolated in the courtyard;
- the courtyard was cramped, isolated and dark; and
- there was potentially too much contrast in the styles of the building
components.
On the positive side:
- dynamics and boldness of the scheme provided a new direction for the
neighbourhood;
- efforts to achieve sustainability were met with approval and the green
roofs were all right with the exception of the larger trees; and
- submission provided a strong visual statement and was a symbol for
revitalization of the neighbourhood.
Comments in regard to the inclusion of SFU from UDP and VHC:
- disliked the overbearingness of SFU building on heritage building;
- SFU alternate was crammed with floorspace and the VCC scheme seemed
lighter;
- placement of the city space was preferable in the second scheme [VCC];
- SFU scheme showed more respect for existing heritage fabric; and
- SFU project was livelier than the alternative.
Proponent’s Comment:
The proponent appreciated the comments and noted that the process had
been exciting and exhilarating.
Recess
The meeting recessed at 5:00 p.m. and reconvened at 5:20 p.m.
• Holburn / Concert Presentation and Discussion
David Podmore introduced the team of Simon Lim, Ron Yuen, Don
Luxton, Al Endall,
Paul Williams and Mark Whitehead (Ray Spaxman joined the presentation
midway).
Mr. Podmore commented that previous applications through the nineties
had been made, noting that fresh eyes and energy had been brought to
the current submission. He reviewed major contributing factors to the
application including the following:
- there was too much density on the site in a form that would be compatible
with the community;
- the city could allow a transfer of square footage to a site at 1134
West Georgia;
- it was important to open the property up to the community and to animate
the ground plane;
- challenging project but wanted to improve economy for the city and
the transfer of density offset the cost of providing less FSR on the
site;
- the significant value of the existing structure was maintained by the
design, not only the façade but three bays;
- the project contributed to sustainability within the city;
- SFU was considered critical to the project; the contemporary Art Department
was a good fit for the neighbourhood and a major generator of traffic
for the upper floors of the scheme; the SFU component would operate on
extended hours and add a vibrancy to the site;
- the developers believed it was so important to encompass SFU in the
scheme that they had developed a financial plan that would enable full
funding of the School of Arts;
- the VCC School of Music component was included in the scheme and was
also funded;
- there was desire to address the community’s visions and to follow
the RFP guidelines;
- would be receptive to accommodate any non-profit group the City selected
as tenants;
- the initial design was seen as a starting point and the team would
work closely with the City and immediate community to fine tune the design;
- the project was constructable and costs could be control led;
- a primary goal would be to bring a deliverable project in a short time
frame that was compatible with the community.
Mike Flanigan, Project Manager, discussed the proponent’s
ability for usage of other sites in the immediate neighbourhood. He explained
that Holburn had the benefit of ownership of neighbouring sites and that
consequently the RFP provided the proponents the opportunity to describe
potential development
on their adjoining sites
6:00 p.m.
Councillor Green departed the meeting.
The team continued its description of the scheme. It was noted that
the massive block of Woodward’s historical significance was a given,
that the architectural significance was its form, and that the scale
and massing was retained in the scheme. The public perception would be
of the department block facing on to Hastings, Abbott and Cordova Streets.
In terms of the treatment of the site, the scheme had a high degree of
respect for the heritage conditions in that it retained the structure
and not just the façade and that it restored the height and prominence
of the ‘W’.
Two mitigating factors in the submission were the ownership of the land
to the west and the transfer of density to a site more tolerant of the
extra square footage. In respect to the site in terms of urban fit the
project incorporated the following:
- SFU School of Contemporary Arts;
- 100 unit non-market tower on the western lands;
- VCC School of Music and Contemporary Design Centre;
- 135 market lofts in Woodward’s heritage structure;
- community functions in 1903/08 heritage building;
- retail along Hastings Street;
- large urban public square;
- heritage building retained;
- three bays of Woodward’s structure retained with original skin
restored;
- sculpting out the middle of the department store mass to become an
open, accessible and inclusive development;
- square open to all, open at all hours, open to the sky, with access
from three sides with no obstructions such as stairs;
- respects the past of the heritage structure, celebrates the present
in the plaza, and looks to the future with SFU and VCC;
- ‘W’ visible from all over downtown, and five major view
corridors;
- re-establishes Woodward’s as a centre of fine arts for downtown;
- critical mass of students would animate area;
- entries to schools off sunny open plaza;
- plaza could host a number of different public events; and,
- roof gardens, green roofs, ‘W’ tower, and refurbished brick
to be used for plaza material would define the square.
Retail continuity along Hastings Street would create a variety of frontages.
Shadow studies confirm sun penetration to square and retail functions
will be related to the sun patterns throughout the day. Generous street
portals to the square contribute to permeability of the site and encourage
pedestrian use.
Priorities of the team were to retain the maximum amount of heritage
possible, and too keep the massing respectful of the existing historical
context. Only the tower form for non-market housing would exceed the
cornice height of the existing Woodward’s building. At 232 feet
it was well below the Woodward’s sign at 270 feet. The tower reflects
alignments of existing streets and becomes a knuckle point of the downtown
grid and emphasizes the site as an important place. Architectural expression
for SFU and residential tower would have contemporary design with layering
of façades and materials while being distinguishable and yet respectful
of the heritage. The whimsical curtain wall to SFU with pixel images
would be extra animation of the open space.
Questions:
The Holburn / Concert team answered the questions of the UDP members
and Heritage Commissioners and offered the following:
- the SFU School of Contemporary Art was in an ‘L’ shape
and was partly situated in the tower over which there was 12 floors of
non-market housing;
- there is the ability to increase the tower to 270 feet and to add approximately
48 non-market housing units;
- the roof garden (at approximately mid-tower) would be for non-market
residents’ use;
- 135 parking stalls under the plaza to service the market housing with
a limited number of spaces being for SFU drop off and service vehicles;
the balance would be accommodated in the city parkade;
- saving the existing structure went a long way to satisfying the sustainability
principles;
- sustainability measures would be evaluated through the design development
such as water retention, solar power, alternate energy, geo-thermal,
etc.;
- ‘W’ tower is at its original height and there was no reason
to change it;
- placement of café/restaurant was flexible, although café would
bring certain amount of animation to plaza;
- VCC had uses like the silver smithing program and store that would
add to the experience in the plaza;
- would be cutting back slab on Cordova to open up VCC to public view;
- SFU wanted specific performance and gallery spaces adjacent to plaza;
- the team has contacted the VSO that has commented favourably on location;
- non-SFU variation would see more housing units on the site but the
team is confident that SFU would be critical to the success of the site;
- one portion of the project would be under the existing development
permit and the rest would follow as part of a staged development;
- social effects on mixed housing would be advantageous, would lead to
diversity on the site and would be a catalyst for change with lots of
retail opportunity off-site;
- confident there could be a strong market for lifestyle in the heritage
building;
- potentially there could be an observation deck to the ‘W’;
- sustainability options are under review such as wind power or water
tower functions;
- landscape treatment to streets would mainly upgrade quality of the
streets and provide an opportunity to look into gardens or green space
in the square, and creation of a colonnade where the trolley bus stops;
- retail was appropriate to the neighbourhood providing smaller size
grocers and variety;
- in canvassing larger retailers they did not see the potential;
- non-market housing component of other sites was not being transferred
to this project;
- community space would be located in the restored1903/08 heritage building
and turned over to the City for quite a range of uses;
- intention would be to finish the exposed north west corner of the original
building;
- roof spaces would be city space with child care facility, etc., and
there would be a common space for market housing as well as an opportunity
for private outdoor roof decks;
- service vehicles would have access via an ‘L’ shaped lane
under the building; and
- team has had discussions with the police and people of the area in
regard to keeping the public on the ground and not providing public access
to the roofs.
Recess
The meeting recessed at 6:10 p.m. and reconvened at 6:20 p.m.
Heritage Advice:
Chair Keate conducted the discussion and comments included the following:
- very high level of detail and respect given to the intervention to
the existing heritage building;
- tower was compatible with project;
- concern was expressed in regard to the transfer of density off the
site with respect to the heritage district and how neighbouring small
sites would be impacted should they be required to meet density guidelines
without the ability to transfer square footage. Further it was a consideration
of the value of the density in the ‘bank’. (Staff responded
that a comprehensive study was underway to provide a report to Council
in this regard.)
- the extent of heritage retention was most favourable;
- liked the siting of buildings with a respectful distance from the heritage
building and the ‘W’;
- concern was in regard to the mixed-use and proportion of non-market
to market housing, it was considered that it would make this area more
sustainable if the amount of the market housing could be increased;
- heritage value of the community would be bolstered if more non-market
housing on site;
- Woodward’s building was being handled particularly well and portals
on Abbott did not present a problem;
- new buildings on the west side of the plaza were too independent of
the existing Woodward’s building, while distinguishability was
important the two worlds had not met in design or function; a further
level of integration was recommended;
- non-market housing located in such a different building in the neighbourhood
could look like a ghetto; the non-market housing was distinguished from
the market housing in a non -appropriate way;
- interesting dynamics at change of grids where you see roads bend at
Victory Square and Gastown and when you get an opportunity to see buildings
from an oblique angle;
- concerned about the small Cordova plaza area;
- from a heritage standpoint the project was great;
- sustainability idea of wind on tower was most favourable;
- appreciated that the original building housed the city space;
- provided an opportunity for active recreation space and community centre;
- liked non-market housing in tower;
- shape and size of plaza allows for performance space and was well supported;
- outdoor Cordova plaza had no apparent function other than a bus stop
and it seemed that it was the one spot where buildings were too close
to support the growth of trees;
- flat iron building design was favourable and fit proportionately and
architecturally with other buildings in area;
- encouraged proponents to use tower as an access point for the public,
it was considered important to get people up to an observation tower
which would increase the public appreciation of the location and public
square;
- the transfer of density had made a huge difference to the project but
was concern about implications to future neighbouring developments;
- lauded achievement of the large open space without sacrificing the
street;
- the relationship between public and private space was good;
- liked the position of tower and rotation of ‘W’;
- the idea of a performance base was exciting;
- cafes in the square had a great deal of potential;
- the public square would definitely be a dynamic space with music students
involved; and
- delighted to see that the submission retained frontages and kept the
bulk of the Woodward’s structure, and that it provided a lower
degree of heritage loss.
Vancouver Heritage Commission Summary:
Chair Keate summarized the discussion as follows:
- from a heritage standpoint the scheme was very successful in the high
level of respect and detail to heritage fabric, that it was just not
a façade, but three bays deep;
- it was appreciated that the materials of the courtyard were in memory
of the Woodward’s building;
- there was good use of roof and green spaces;
- siting of the new building at Cordova was highly successful;
- would like to balance the heritage components with a more dynamic building;
- some concern about the Hastings Street entrance, in that it could use
refinement to add a more dynamic access
- transfer of density implications was the largest concern; there was
a possibility that similar transfers would not work for other sites in
the area and apprehension about setting a precedent;
- there was support for more market housing;
- some hesitation in regard to non-market housing in that it could become
a ghetto but there was also the reverse idea that people moving to the
new tower would be starting new lives and others moving to the market
housing would become the stewards of the heritage portion of the site;
and
- there was a general positive reaction to the inclusion of SFU to the
scheme.
Urban Design Advice:
Chair Haden led the discussion by the UDP on the advantages and disadvantages
of the submission:
- commended the high level of design;
- the project benefited from big moves such as preserving U-shape and
retail façade;
- transferring off site contributes to development and was of huge benefit
to the project;
- bringing the plaza out to the street at Cordova was successful;
- expression of tower was favourable;
- continuity of retail on Hastings was well considered;
- the entrance to SFU off the plaza gave it a sense of having its own
precinct, distinct from the retail on Hastings;
- should be some effort made to ‘retail-up’ Cordova Street,
and an opportunity existed at the western corner of the tower portion;
- the tower was interesting with grid alignments, floor plates were fairly
large, and there may be some liveability issues for non-market housing
residents;
- base felt like a downtown tower rather than local area;
- ground plane could benefit from freeing up plaza; a café could
work anywhere and without it the plaza would have greater flexibility
in use;
- ground plane elements were too ‘downtown corporate’ and
elements such as a fountain could add more whimsy, life and lightness
to plaza in terms of human interest;
- project density feels comfortable;
- nice to see ‘W’ in same place and at the original height;
- in terms of the alternate scheme, SFU brought a huge life to the project
and the introduction of market housing would be of benefit but not as
much as SFU;
- SFU building could benefit from further study of the Hastings Street
elevation but had no problem with it being higher than the existing building;
- commended applicant on quality of design presentation;
- lower density, larger site concept was appreciated;
- design provided a large urban square that would be a catalyst for urban
revitalization;
- scheme responded well to the neighbourhood character;
- a positive attribute was the built in flexibility to respond to emerging
needs;
- ‘W’ tower was an interesting element, and public access
would be exciting;
- non-market tower concept may be risky given current expression could
tend to look like a non-market tower and because of strong position in
the development it would be a negative over time;
- tower could be more contemporary and add zip to project;
- overall scheme was competent and handsome but lacked a notion of a
compelling architectural expression; would prefer to see the tower higher,
slimmer and more dynamic;
- success of the project was that it was about place and heritage not
architectural elements;
- tower element could be lower;
- scheme provided what the area needed;
- connected well to the ground and heritage precinct;
- roofs haven’t been worked out but reflective of where the design
was at present;
- important that roofs are accessible;
- cautioned in regard to the use of roofs; further development of amenities
was required;
- supported density transfer but would not support more density on SFU
tower;
- information provided called out for a green roof on the City parkade;
- appreciated the view to downtown and towards Gastown that was provided
to the non –market housing component;
- liked the ‘W’ tower and its statement in connection with
square;
- this scheme reflected the guidelines well, especially with the Cordova
Street access;
- liked the use of brick as material in the plaza;
- a number of city plazas have not been successful because of programming;
- street level use and activities were well thought out;
- applauded the successful and thoughtful scheme , especially the geometrical
massing and transfer of density;
- revitalization of the precinct would happen because of the plaza and
not because of the buildings;
- scale and massing of buildings was respectful of the neighbouring buildings;
- plaza would advance neighbourhood;
- tower diagonal space respects Cordova and will add dimension;
- tower building was handsome and modern and did not challenge the heritage
building;
- in regard to the alternate scheme, the replacement of SFU components
allowed more animation to streetscape and site;
- freedom of access to the central plaza invites participation from all
areas;
- liked the placement of the community hall;
- retention and integration of historic façade was effective;
- liked retention of the ‘W’ signage but more important was
the emblematic statement of the tower and that the original location
had been preserved;
- central plaza would add to liveability of the tenants and the public;
- larger site and density transfer makes it a better neighbourhood fit;
- respects the heritage structure;
- ‘W’ in right position;
- streetscapes appear to be retained and enhanced;
- tower differs to site lines on Cordova;
- could be more dynamic and might be a bit too ‘safe’ in
design;
- critical that animation be encouraged in courtyard and visibility be
maintained through ground floor uses into the courtyard;
- U-shaped heritage building restricts critical access to the plaza;
- design gestures in project are great; largest asset was the public
square, providing a very urban, European space and something that was
currently missing in Vancouver;
- ‘W’ worked well in the location on the site and was at
the right height;
- tower was a complimentary completion to the tripartite;
- would support more height to tower for the addition of more social
housing;
- agreed strongly with limited commercial to the plaza, preferred an
institutional use that would get the people into the space and not be
exclusive of the neighbourhood;
- internal courtyards should be generous enough to pull people from everywhere;
- might be too timid in form, some more playfulness could be injected;
- project does a remarkable job in maintaining the façade of the
heritage structure;
- concerned about the viability of a public square in this location and
compared it to existing plazas that had some of the qualities of the
proposed space such as, Victory Square, Queen Elizabeth Plaza and Pigeon
Park;
- there was a lack of public spaces of this kind and character in the
City, fundamentally the City was one where the park space was one of
the streetscape and edge, the scale and quality of the square is more
successful immediately adjacent to a huge public space like Hastings
Street;
- if the square were successful it could be a real asset but if it failed
it could be a huge detriment to the area;
- square could be improved by providing a diagonal line from Cordova
to Hastings, corner-to-corner;
- Woodward’s ‘L’ cut off the east side and consequently
Woodward’s was pulled into the downtown core and isolated the site
to the downtown east side;
- ‘W’ tower needed to be right on the axis and the Cordova
side wants to be terminated visually by the tower;
- more market housing on the site would be better;
- urban form advantageous but there is a price to be paid by density
transfer with a lack of amenities to the site;
- treatment of the residential tower (clear expression of SFU) essential
to make the public square work;
- in theory Victory Square should work with VCC across the street but
in practice it doesn’t;
- it was not necessary to have retail space in the SFU building; with
so many disused and vacant retail stores in the vicinity why not keep
the institutional use that would be well maintained?
- a great place and great architecture were needed at the same time.
Design Panel Summary:
Chair Haden summarized the Panel’s discussion noting the positive
aspects as follow:
- general support of density strategy;
- urban square strongly supported;
- roofscape accessibility would be a large asset;
- non-market housing in tower would be an asset;
- it might be a financial challenge to treat the tower as a landmark
due to lower non market housing budgets;
- treatment of the Cordova access was strong in the scheme;
- strong support of the treatment of the ‘W’; and
- SFU as a tenant was considered essential.
Two disadvantages to the project were identified as follow:
- risk of failure of public plaza; and
- architectural palette could be more dynamic.
Proponent’s Comment:
The proponent considered that most concerns could be addressed with opportunity
for further development.
7:05 p.m.
Commissioner Heather Deal departed the meeting.
Recess
The meeting recessed at 7:05 p.m. and reconvened at 7:18 p.m.
• Westbank / Peterson Presentation and Discussion
Gregory Henriquez, Richard Henriquez and Ian Gillespie were introduced
as the team with regrets from Chris Phillips.
It was noted that the project was first and foremost about the inclusive
architecture of community with the program celebrating diversity and
inclusiveness. A primary goal was to make the people of the downtown
eastside a part of the celebration of Woodward’s rebirth. The intent
was for mixed-use residential components with units meeting the needs
of single parents, first-time homebuyers, SRO replacements and work-live
businesses. Fundamental to the scheme was to include continuous retail
to all three sides of the project returning to the inside. Consultation
had been conducted with neighbourhood cross-town retailers with the knowledge
of street life in the area that would relocate to the site. Further detail
was provided as follows:
- a local co-op based grocery store would be accommodated in both schemes
in the heritage building;
- scheme met a critical mass of 101 non-market units with an option to
go to 270 units;
- it was a goal that everyone participate in daily life in the project;
- designed to have ‘eyes on the street’ (interior and exterior)
to ensure safety;
- indoor public space had been included and was open to everyone like
a public market with retailers familiar with dealing with local east-enders;
- permeability and community linkages had presupposed the design to layer
SFU with clear spans and housing above; need for clear open space had
been provided somewhat to the expense of a pathway through the project;
- project provided community linkages with main entrances off Hastings
and Cordova and Abbott Streets and framed the 1903/08 heritage building;
- scheme maximized heritage restoration and recognized the importance
of the memory of the Woodward’s building in the neighbourhood;
- restoration was twofold: a period restoration of the 1903/08 building
would bring it back to the original state and a composite restoration
and reconstruction to the façade where significant architectural
features from historical periods would be preserved and emulated;
- Woodward’s family had added freely to the building adding form
and content over the years; scheme reflected the exposed concrete frame
of one of the building's extensions (as shown in an archival photo) and
tried to reveal original construction and compliment it in terms of historical
content;
- public spaces, roof gardens, and community spaces with options for
daycare, etc. demanded the need for a tower which was located on-axis
at the end of Cordova;
- tower interpreted the Dominion building under construction in a contemporary
way and was designed as a ‘green’ flat iron building, taking
scale and shape and size and texture of the flat iron building with a
series of vertical columns on the outside covered in ivy;
- height of tower had been studied in relation to the Sun Tower and Dominion
Building and it had been found that the scale was not that much higher
than the Sun Tower; 335 feet was as high as it could go and still respect
the heritage building;
- green space was lacking in the area; the scheme attempted to add this
to roofscapes;
- community space was provided in a penthouse on top of the heritage
building and live/work units were contained in the building along Abbott;
- a large number of units were designed to suit young, open-minded, first-time
home buyers who would get a view they otherwise could not afford;
- project was committed to LEED silver;
- a goal of the scheme was to become a role model for urban renewal;
- proposal included a citizen advisory panel;
- team had decided that if the project was to err it should err on the
side of intensity;
- critical to the success of the scheme was a second anchor to SFU;
- uses were distributed throughout the project with city spaces provided
on the second and third floors as well as offices for community related
interests;
- day and night market option had a school of architecture for community
research and design, an exhibition gallery, and would house the VCC jewelry
program;
- developer had the ability to finance tenant-partners;
- an intensive program was in place with BCIT to ensure that construction
jobs, on-the-job training and skill building were provided; a good percentage
of Aboriginal workers were guaranteed work on the project.
Questions:
The Westbank / Peterson team fielded questions from the UDP members and
Heritage Commissioners and provided the following answers:
- potential green roof opportunities could bring the project closer
to the LEED gold;
- amenities included vegetable gardens, a community outlook and recreation
space, a daycare option with an outdoor play space, a public roof garden,
proposals for neighbouring properties, an alternate relationship for
the tower component to be on the end of the axis, and a small park to
the front of the base of the tower to give some relief;
- everything would be excavated except for the 1903/08 building;
- there would be an average of 70% façade retention;
- while heritage was sacred, it was felt by the design team that the
scheme should evolve with time and express new uses and be creative in
that expression;
- galleria and the atrium were both indoor spaces for use year round;
- a day and night market was proposed to be of mixed-use with components
of antiques, arts and crafts, food, Asian goods, etc.; flexibility would
be the key to its success;
- strategy for retaining the façades had not been decided and
could be accomplished either by saving the façades which would
cause some involvement of the Engineering Department with regard to traffic
management, or simply rebuilding the façades which would be more
cost effective and less of an intrusion to the City;
- tower footprint was approximately 6,150 sq. ft. per floor plate;
- team would not necessarily prefer to reduce the height of the tower
component; if it were lowered it would be in danger of emulating the
neighbour and there was a need to distinguish between the scale of the
Dominion Building and the relationship to other neighbours;
- critical mass and body heat were necessary to the success of the scheme;
- interior space would be shut down during the evening and logistics
would have to be considered with the community as to policing, etc.;
- galleria would be open to residents at night;
- people of the downtown eastside saw the heritage building as their
space and the usage would reflect their needs;
- penthouse type building on top of heritage building would be a small
2,000 sq. ft. space used for community events, run by a co-op during
normal business hours and set back so that it was not visible from the
street; there is also a core coming up to the ‘W’ sign with
the chillers for SFU enclosed containing any noise far away from the
public domain;
- activity in SFU would be visible to the atrium that would provide a
huge public entrance; the atrium space would contain retail, food, etc.
as well as a public art staircase done in conjunction with artists and
the seven totem poles to be commissioned of the seven main First Nations
of the lower mainland;
- citizen’s advisory committee would be comprised of a broad selection
of representatives from the downtown east side (Gastown, Chinatown, etc.)
and people from cross-town in conjunction with the City with the purpose
to ensure the retail and other spaces expressed the values of the neighbourhood;
- neighbourhood was extremely volatile with a whole series of special
interests groups and the advisory committee would provide some guidance;
- basement parking was provided for SFU drop-off and some retail and
below that, parking for the tower. A bridge was designed to cross to
the Cordova parkade and would enable access to 500 parking spaces;
- team had explored three options of greening the city parkade roof;
- detail regarding sustainability was pending more study;
- team had gone to the extent of discussing with window cleaners the
possibility of pruning ivy on the tower;
- roof garden was directly accessed by elevators and a walk-up access
was not accommodated as yet; and
- daycare drop off entries had been detailed at the basement, street
and bridge levels.
Recess
The meeting recessed at 8:05 p.m. and reconvened at 8:15 p.m.
Vancouver Heritage Commission Advice:
Chair Keate conducted the discussion and comments included the following:
- ‘W’ was still prominent, if not in original location,
and appropriate as to height;
- 1908 and Woodward’s structure has been retained on three sides
and in some cases only by façades;
- scheme relates to the history of the building layers, or evolvement
of building on top of building and new inclusions are in keeping with
building on top of buildings;
- scheme was obviously not benefiting from the transfer of density and
was partly convinced that the density would make for a livelier place;
- some building on site shouldn’t be there such as on top of the
heritage building;
- if one was to broaden the perspective of what was to be preserved by
the scheme to accomplish the integration of communities in and around
the site it would be crucial to the success of the project;
- strongly congratulates team for its response;
- while it was considered regrettable to lose so much of the heritage
fabric of the Woodward’s structure, the scheme seemed to work with
only the façade retained;
- because so little fabric was kept on the site it would be preferable
to see less intervention on 1908 building (penthouse);
- it was thought that the co-mingling of usage, institution, market,
and non-market housing, etc., would make for a lively project;
- the extent of the 1903/08 building restoration was appreciated;
- location and height of ‘W’ was favourable;
- first-timer housing was complimentary to Sun Tower and Dominion Building;
- there would be a reduced degree of detail with respect to heritage
fabric;
- proposed additions gave it a ‘cap’ feeling and should be
pulled back from the street;
- commended the proponents for thought regarding financial accountability
and retail tenants;
- more retention of heritage structure would be preferred;
- trees to the roofscape of the tower were questionable;
- a day and night market would become a vibrant place for residents and
neighbours;
- penthouse addition to the 1903/08 building was not favoured and did
not fit the heritage intent, with the exception of the ‘W’ sign;
- commended the scheme for the level of restoration detail;
- ‘W’ relocation was interesting;
- another aspect to be commended was the secure public access;
- ivy was a good idea, but the trees on the top of the tower were not
appropriate for buildings of this height;
- project generated real interest by locating retail stores willing to
relocate in this area;
- team was commended for looking at the site insitu and for addressing
liveability issues forthrightly;
- 1903/08 building would be restored and kept like a little jewel with
the attention exclusive to this building, but at the expense of some
of the other façades and heritage structure;
- liked the tower and expression of the site;
- greening of the site was very welcome;
- elevated courtyard seemed accessible only to building users not to
the public;
- it was deemed important that the neighbourhood was not displaced and
that people who work and live in the neighbourhood were included in decision
making processes;
- market and loft spaces were favourable; and
- inclusion of the SFU building was preferred.
Vancouver Heritage Commission Summary:
Chair Keate summarized the discussion as follows:
- integration of the contemporary and historic fabric was enjoyable;
- although showcasing the 1903/08 building might not fall into line with
heritage values, it was quite successful;
- in general the ‘W’ sign was favoured as located;
- a positive aspect was the involvement of the community;
- new façades were particularly well integrated and successful
in terms of operable fenestration;
- would prefer to leave the heritage building as pure as possible without
the penthouse;
- was questioned whether the scheme had the benefit of transferring some
of the density of the penthouse;
- it was favoured in that it facilitated more residents on the site;
- there was some support of the idea of a day and night market;
- retail scheme would benefit the south side of Hastings Street as well;
- elevated public spaces sometimes do not work, and a vertical access
stairway would prevent exclusivity;
- trees on top of the tower did not meet with a lot of public favour;
- use of heritage ivy was appreciated (Boston creeper not English ivy);
- the landscape seemed integral to this project and not an after thought;
and
- SFU was considered crucial over a day and night market.
Urban Design Advice:
Chair Haden led the discussion on advantages and disadvantages of the
scheme. Comments included the following:
- proposal was powerful in that it had looked to the neighbours and
the site itself, that it interfaced with merchants who would locate at
the site, and that it had considered other pockets like Chinatown;
- scheme could be a workable and viable design based on the interface
with people who lived in the area;
- was impressed by the historic interventions of taking the 1903/08 building
back to the original state, and including ‘change through time’ and
the current evolution of the buildings on the site;
- amenities such as the daycare spaces and community gardens work well;
follow through on shadowing diagrams was necessary;
- public open space and oasis roof garden works for the users and residents
of the building and not for the public for whom it would be more of a
place of ‘discovery’;
- public open space provided was interior and viable;
- SFU would not work with this project, the day and night market had
more public presence at the lower level and was the preferred option;
- ‘W’ was located well;
- green sustainable initiatives might in some cases be moot, but the
building went beyond sustainability and looked with innovation at green
façades that might be technically challenging but achievable;
- tower successfully brought a wide variety of people together in one
spot;
- Woodward’s block was successfully preserved by the scheme;
- tower was unique and would be a signature building but overshadows
the Woodward’s block;
- ‘W’ emblem base was anachronistic of the honor of the sign;
- substantial attention to detail was given in regard to the retention
of the façade; craft of additions were reminiscent of the internal
structure and allowed the parent building to be involved;
- scheme included appropriate retail components to the exterior perimeters
and internal public market;
- day and night scheme was superior and workable;
- there were advantages to the raised courtyard as providing a safe and
comfortable private space to users but at the risk and expense of excluding
the neighbourhood if not readily accessible;
- scheme was a dynamic and intense use of site that maximizes the layer
of uses, community involvement, and heritage richness;
- heritage considerations to the retention of the 1903/08 building did
make it seem like a jewel;
- if some of the additions [e.g., penthouse] were separated from the
heritage building it would create a more harmonic frontage in keeping
with buildings across the street and would be a better fit of the fabric
of the heritage building;
- retention of 70% of façade was acceptable as was the adaptive
reuse of materials;
- semi-public park was considered to be a safe space and a place where
all the residents could come together;
- policing the galleria might be a problem to be considered;
- upper garden was well located for solar access;
- tower design was an interesting idea but did not favour the sense of
the landscaping falling off the side of the building;
- trees on the roof was an interesting concept and spoke of the entropy
of nature reclaiming the building;
- food store was a positive attribute and there were obviously enough
units to support such a use;
- preferred the SFU version and did not think the neighbourhood would
support a day and night market;
- ‘W’ was located well;
- project was very dense, and agreed with the premise that to err on
the side of too much happening would ensure a more successful scheme;
- stressed that police presence would be necessary;
- questioned whether the SFU interaction with the galleria would be a
successful mix;
- strength for this project was the community and the project was applauded
for being inclusive in design;
- in the sense of establishing the trinity the tower might be too tall;
- growth on the roof might accentuate the height;
- separation of the 1903/08 building was successful;
- density on all existing buildings was successful;
- dialogue established by the density between old and new building is
also successful;
- ‘W’ was in a good location and visible;
- concerns were expressed in regard to the elevated courtyard and whether
it would be as inclusive as it could be; it was suggested that an addition
of a stairwell would help;
- inclusion of SFU was considered to be critical to the scheme in terms
of what would happen if the market were not viable; an institution would
have more perpetual use to the community and would strongly give back
to the retail spaces.
- scheme treated the original building as a single entity and lent a
heritage interest to the site;
- strength of the scheme was the depth to which it engaged the downtown
eastside community;
- disadvantage of the two schemes was that they were exclusive of each
other;
- SFU scheme would take over the ground floor and also the atrium space,
should be taken into consideration how that could be a more public venue
rather than university space;
- tower triangular shape allowed greater exterior wall and because of
that the units were more livable and not as deep with more glass; three
story elements make it more dynamic and inventive;
- tower is comfortable with base and surroundings – albeit the
tower is tall;
- ground plane could benefit from sequencing to upper levels;
- there is some discouragement to use the upper public spaces for civic
functions because they are relatively inaccessible;
- existing building was high enough and the height dominated the other
buildings;
- both façades required attention in terms of breaking the height
down;
- it was considered to be a well researched and passionate proposal;
- scheme offered serious revitalization opportunities to the local neighbourhood
and the city as a whole;
- 425 market housing units would ensure the success of proposed program;
- isolated treatment of 1903/08 building was a most important aspect;
- Abbott and Hastings corner was not as dynamic as the tower corner and
would benefit from further design development;
- Abbott and Cordova façades should be less massive and currently
were unfriendly to both streets;
- ‘W’ placement was well conceived and provided interest;
- tower was acceptable in shape and height
- SFU inclusion was preferred with somewhat more public space at the
ground floor;
- if successful the scheme might find expansion opportunities to the
west;
- might be considered the most conservative of all schemes in terms of
interlinking mutual agreements; in its complexity the scheme was flexible
and the failure of one link would not mean the failure of the entire
project;
- preferred the SFU scheme and the day and night market could be a real
failure;
- in terms of the retail space in the area would like to see the spaces
used for something that was a lot more viable;
- scheme was aggressive in terms of its relationship with the historic
building and fairly comfortable with treating the 1903/08 building as
a complete gem and being more interventionist with the rest of the heritage
components; and
- there was some scale issue with respect to the tower and required some
refinement.
Design Panel Summary:
Chair Haden summarized the Panel’s discussion with the positive
aspects as follow:
- scheme provided a vigorous reinvention of the Woodward’s building
that was respectful and reinterpretive;
- innovative visible sustainability was included;
- there was a strong engagement with the eastside community;
- presence of enclosed public space(s) with some open space with good
solar access; and
- presence of market housing was of benefit to the site.
Key disadvantages to the scheme were noted as follow:
- scale of tower;
- vertical links (particularly to the upper outdoor space) with the ability
to move up and down easily; and,
- concerns expressed in regard to the Abbott and Cordova façades.
Proponent’s Response:
The proponent indicated that the penthouse to the heritage building could
be revisited and noted that the vertical sequencing was a good idea.
In consultation with SFU it was thought that the students desired to
be a part of the public space. It would be part of the Community Advisory
Council to advise on policing efforts and guideline creation.
• General Summary
Chair Haden provided a general summary of overall thematic issues as
follows:
- an emergent concern was that SFU was essential to two of the schemes;
- each scheme offered distinct qualities and characters of public spaces
and a philosophical issue would have to be addressed with respect to
what the role of public space would be and related to this would be that
it was a programming problem as well as a design problem;
- there was a critical issue of how the buildings would become a ‘people
place’;
- a core issue of density existed, specifically in respect to the scale
of the towers;
- all of the schemes were respectful to the fundamental values of Woodward’s;
and
- levels of civil passion and the impressive contributions of the teams
were manifested in the outstanding work of the proponents.
• Conclusion
The joint workshop of the Urban Design Panel and the Vancouver Heritage
Commission concluded at 9:00 p.m.
|
