Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, March 3, 2004
Index
Present
101 West Hastings Street (Woodward's)
575 Bute Street
Southeast False Creek
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Helen Besharat, Deputy Chair
Stuart Lyon
Jeffrey Corbett (Items 2 and 3)
Bruce Haden (Item 2)
Reena Lazar (Items 2 and 3)
Brian Martin
Kim Perry (Item 1)
Sorin Tatomir
Ken Terriss
Mark Ostry
Jennifer Marshall (Items 1 and 2)
Eva Lee (Items 2 and 3)
NEW MEMBERS OF THE URBAN DESIGN PANEL (non-voting this meeting):
Larry Adams
Robert Barnes
lan Endall
Marta Farevagg
Steven Keyes
Ronald Lea
Margot Long (Items 1 and 2)
Recording Secretary:
Rae Ratslef, Raincoast Ventures
Deputy Chair Besharat expressed appreciation to departing Panel members
for their contributions, welcomed new Panel members, and announced Bruce
Haden and Mark Ostry as the incoming Chair and Deputy Chair. In response
to a poll, 14 members indicated their ability to attend the Panel’s
upcoming change-over dinner.
1. 101 West Hastings Street
Use: Mixed
Zoning: DD
Applicant Status: WORKSHOP
Architect: Hotson Bakker
Owner: City of Vancouver
Review: First
Delegation: Norm Hotson, Joost Bakker
Staff: Scot Hein
WORKSHOP
Panel members Stuart Lyon, Jeffrey Corbett, Bruce Haden, Reena Lazar
and Eva Lee declared conflict of interest and did not participate in
discussion on this item.
Introduction
Michael Flannigan, Project Manager, provided background information on
the project, specifically referencing the creation of the Woodward’s
Project Steering Committee, extensive public consultations and targeted
outreach the previous May and July. He noted that expressions of interest
had been crafted and directed at developers, and representatives for
non market housing, commercial and retail and non-profit to express
interest in the development. Members were informed that the next phase
would be the release of a Request for Proposals (RFP).
Mr. Flannigan reviewed the project’s guiding principles and clarified
the City’s role as a participating investor. As such, he noted
that the City would sell the site to a successful developer who would
be required to convert the market value into an air space parcel that
would be acquired by the City at the construction price. Mr. Flannigan
advised that SFU had an interest in acquiring 180,000 sq ft for a school
of contemporary arts, noting that the RFP required developers to create
two options, one that included SFU and one that did not.
The Panel was advised of the developer and non-market sponsors that
had been short-listed. Important components of non-market housing element
were reviewed and it was noted that additional criteria had been identified
for the developers recognizing that the urban design would be very important
moving forward. Comment also offered that Vancouver Community College
and the Army and Navy had been identified to partake as commercial anchor
tenants.
Mr. Flannigan discussed the project timeline explaining that it was
hoped the RFP process would conclude in May followed by consultations
in June, building 2005-2006, and occupancy in 2006-2007.
Scott Hein, Development Planner, reminded the Panel that this was a
workshop in regard to the urban design for the site and that no vote
would follow. As well, he confirmed that a separate economic viability
analysis would be done internally and somewhat independently to ensure
the viability of options.
Applicant’s Opening Comments
Norm Hotson and Joost Bakker, both of HBBM Architects, were present to
address the Panel on this application.
Mr. Hotson noted that the distributed information package did not include
the body of the text of the guidelines as they were still under development.
He reviewed the project context noting that it was situated partly in
Victory Square, Gastown and the Hastings Corridor. Urban design elements
of the surrounding areas were discussed noting that they would inform
the development and serve as precedent for the redevelopment of other
underutilized sites within the Hastings Corridor.
Referencing the model and display boards, Mr. Hotson discussed each
of the massing options thus far considered for the site as follows:
•
Option 1 - Development Permit Scheme (595,000 SF)
•
Option 2 - Slab (611,000 SF)
•
Option 3 - Tower (564,000 SF)
•
Option 4 - Lower Slab (595,000 SF)
•
Option 5 - Tower/Slab (585,000 SF)
•
Option 6 - The Big ‘W’ (595,000 SF).
As well, Mr. Bakker presented contemporary and historical precedents
identified.
Scott Hein, Development Planner, sought the Panel’s comments on
the following:
•
Are all influencing factors identified?
•
Is the form appropriate as derived from the fabric, particularly with
regard to height?
•
Information on other relevant projects in North America or internationally
known for their innovation in housing and/or for urban design and architectural
quality with respect to melding new to old.
In response to questions, it was noted that the lane to the west of
the site would be active for parking access and egress, and that the
two-waying of Abbott and Cordova and the incorporation of a street car
element was anticipated. Also, it was noted that the project would include
100 units of non-market housing and would likely include market housing
or another anchor.
The importance of the retail grade being animated with an active use
throughout the day and night was noted, as was the assumption that any
open space on the site would be primarily for the use of residents, recognizing
the interest in a high ratio of family housing. It was likely that a
daycare would be provided with associated outdoor space, and was noted
that sustainability was a key interest.
Mr. Hein discussed the surrounding area offering that it would be reviewed
in the context of what was decided on this site. It was assumed that
there would be parking provided and that up to 500 spaces could be used
in the neighbouring parkade. Mr. Hein noted that the guidelines were
intended to be clear enough to allow the proponents to meet the project
objectives while being sufficiently flexible to allow for innovation
and new ways of thinking about housing in the urban context.
The Panel’s comments on the key guidelines were welcomed as were
indications of strong feelings for and against particular schemes. Clarification
was offered that Council would approve the form of development, that
the application would have an opportunity for a variety of rezonings,
and that the guidelines would not have a prescriptive density and would
relate primarily to height and massing.
With regard to heritage elements, Jeanette Hlavach indicated hope that
the original 1903 building with the two storeys added in 1908 would be
restored. She advised that the guidelines were contemplated to address
the building being street-related rather than internalized, recognizing
that there could be some internal uses. It was clarified that entrance
locations were not prescribed, and that priorities for frontage could
be suggested. It was added that streetscape elements could be appropriate
but would not be prescribed given the necessity for a broader plan.
Mr. Hein discussed four pedestrian routes around the site, and clarified
that a requirement would be for continuous weather protection around
the frontages. Information was also provided on the Victory Square Plan
under development that would limit the neighbouring site to 100 ft. The
Panel was informed that the guidelines did not address the adjacent sites
and instead focused on site-specific form considerations. It was hoped
that the proponents would help in moving forward the guidelines for the
neighbouring sites and was recognized that the guidelines could be made
block-specific.
The Panel reviewed the model and posted materials.
Panel’s Comments
Given that this was a workshop, it was asked that the Panel’s comments
be captured in bulleted lists under broad categories. Comments from Panel
members were as follows:
Regarding whether influencing factors had been identified:
•
report is a wealth of information and has beautiful, informative photographs;
•
influencing factors have been picked up;
•
building is an anomaly and doesn’t conform to most of the fabric;
•
memory of the building is as a scale of massiveness that could be embraced;
•
agree with historical precedents but not the contemporary precedents;
•
should have included more information on heritage aspects and contextual
information;
•
would have liked more definition of the context of the neighbourhood
block.
Regarding the Guidelines:
•
helpful to inform future developers;
•
should give proponents an envelope that includes height and FSR;
•
let the designers working on the proposals have freedom rather than basing
the design on existing buildings; it could set standards and new design
guidelines;
•
don’t see its importance; it warps the scheme and doesn’t
seem very sensible;
•
don’t like the corner for the major tall building;
•
agree that the Cordova access is important as an urban design guideline;
•
like the goal of achieving guidelines that are open and as flexible as
possible and flushing out the pros and cons of massing;
•
could formally take a look at broader contextual elements;
•
diagonal approach through International Village is a broader aspect that
should be considered;
•
guidelines should extend to the inner core with consideration as to how
it could be handled and filled in;
•
need potential transitional uses that could become retail at some point
to connect to the community;
•
could act as a catalyst for regenerating the community; need clear guidelines
for performance that needs to be met;
•
canopies should be included but not necessarily the present ones;
•
flexibility is a very positive perspective that will allow for maximum
benefit;
•
could make the guidelines performance rather than prescriptive based;
•
suggest that they don’t include the models but give height limitations
and discuss quality of tower or slab forms would leave more room for
people to be inspired without getting hooked on images;
•
seems too soon; there is no context, no program for the nearby streets;
most of the commercial on Hastings is closed or barred;
•
agree building should be street related to increase pedestrian traffic;
•
streetscape is important; key to the project is the ability to revive
the animation on Hastings; may be too much to hope that the other sides
can generate that level of activity; without a program we’re shooting
in the dark;
•
feel that the work that has been done to inform the proponents is useful
to help the city understand the implications of the various options;
•
support the idea of folding the whole block into the guidelines;
•
support flexible guidelines but they have to include more words about
the spirit of the place, i.e. strength of the building, sense of permanence;
•
putting a university on the ground floor is a mistake; it would have
a life of its own on the inside;
•
the whole block should become part of the study, it will influence the
site to the west and vice versa so they have to be associated.
Regarding form and massing:
•
do not see that one form is better than the other, the solution will
be in the details; gut response is to keep the height down within the
limits of the neighbouring buildings;
•
lean towards lower slab options set back from existing facade;
•
the tower has an interesting relationship between Dominion and Sun tower;
•
problem with shadowing on Cordova if the tower is on that end; acts as
a divide between the two parts of Vancouver;
•
no problem with slab or tower elements;
•
prefer Option 1: Development Permit Scheme because it retains the many
facets of architectural expression around the area of the project;
•
believe that less will be more for this project;
•
no problem with open space in the project but really like atriums;
•
should be sensitivity towards the overall height of the buildings on
the primary streets;
•
courtyard needs more of a livability study;
•
like the 150 FT as having some historical relativity;
•
seems appropriate that the only open space part of the project is the
sidewalk – needs to be dealt with before the project is conceived
rather than after;
•
concerned about the slab solutions,
•
a tall tower with punched windows would be too dark; should keep the
treatment light;
•
massing is overpowering in all of the schemes and needs to come down
a bit; the building is trying to solve too many problems and so may not
solve any;
•
prefer slab options to the tower option – tower would diminish
other historical tower elements;
•
limits of mass are a real challenge; surprised their are not east west
slab options;
•
tower scheme if well done could be successful if blended into a slab
concept;
•
stepped tower may not be successful given the solidness of the corner
within the context.
Regarding the Cordova Street facade:
•
needs to include a streetscape that bridges the retail streets immediately
east and west of the site;
•
do not support continuous canopies because it would prevent street planting;
•
overhead canopy should be thin and light if included;
•
do not want to forget Cordova, it’s quite blank but there is a
lot of pedestrian movement;
•
Cordova is high enough as it is now;
•
the project needs integration and extension off the site.
Regarding architectural expression:
•
emotional transposes itself onto the physical building and that’s
worth something; there is a link that needs to remain part of the project;
•
new part of the building could be a very modern departure.
Regarding the W:
•
the glitzy sign with metal is very indicative of Vancouver;
•
support reintroduction of the neon light that rotates so it can be seen
from any part of the city;
•
support retention of the W emblem and its lattice tower;
•
the vertical “Woodward’s” sign should also be considered
for retention.
Regarding an overhead walkway:
•
would not have a problem with it to facilitate a connection back to Gastown;
•
could light the street but there is an existing tunnel for parking;
•
do not particularly like the idea of an overhead walkway; it killed any
retail beneath it and made it feel very unfriendly;
•
like the idea of the overhead walkway because that was the way it was
at Woodward’s;
•
the old bridge did provide some protection for a bus exchange so some
protection makes sense;
•
it did not work before because it was as wide as the street but it could
work;
•
could be appropriate depending on how it is done and the location.
Regarding sustainability:
•
should be a requirement to a certain level as a model project.
Regarding the 1905-8 heritage element:
•
make sure new design elements are distinct from old each had their own
integrity;
•
elements identified in the neighbourhood are thorough and well considered;
•
important to recognize the heritage value was the business, family and
way of life that the building offered, not the building itself; taking
down the rest of the building and replacing it with a contemporary or
modern response would be better; should go for something more exciting;
•
this is a challenge on the site;
•
modern heritage blend would give the project some interest.
Further comments:
•
there is a building in Bellevue has a six storey courtyard;
•
for programming the building there are a number of 80-year-old former
executives that could add to an understanding of the real heritage of
the site.
Applicant’s Response
The applicant thanked the Panel for its comments.
2. 575 Bute Street (1200 West Pender)
DE: 408162
Use: Mixed (33 storeys, 147 units)
Zoning: DD
Applicant Status: Preliminary
Architect: Hancock Bruckner Eng & Wright
Owner: Mondiale Development Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Martin Bruckner, Jim Hancock, Peter Kreuk
Staff: Anita Molaro
EVALUATION: NON SUPPORT (3-5)
Introduction
Referencing the displayed model, Anita Molaro, Development Planner, introduced
the project in the context of the surrounding neighbourhood. She noted
that it was within the sub-area commonly known as Triangle West and
was affected by the Bute Street policy seeking retail usage on Bute
Street frontages. Permitted density (6 FSR) and height (300 ft) were
reviewed. The Panel was advised that the applicant was seeking support
for 6.6 FSR and 340 ft, and were informed that the proposed uses were
consistent with the intended directions for the area and that tower
dimensions generally fell within the attributes for slim tower.
The Panel was specifically asked to comment on the following:
•
Does it earn the additional height?
•
Can it support the 10% heritage bonus through addressing shadowing and
view impacts?
•
Tower shaping and proportions.
•
Ground oriented issues.
•
Should the depth of street units be increased?
•
Does the fitness room located on the Melville set back below grade work?
•
Scale of the podium along Pender and Bute Street frontages.
•
Location of parking directly adjacent to the parking for the neighbouring
site.
In response to questions, Ms. Molaro advised that the building was 23
ft from the property line, and that Triangle West was a residential oriented
area seeking residential uses along Melville and Bute with Pender being
for retail.
Applicant’s Opening Comments
Martin Bruckner, Jim Hancock and Peter Kreuk were present to address
the Panel on this application.
Mr. Bruckner confirmed that the applicant saw Pender Street as the principle
retail, noting that Bute was identified for the residential address given
that the entrances were seen as compatible with the retail frontage.
He also discussed the transition at the massing of the base and the use
of the roof space as an amenity for the residential and as a visual amenity
for neighbouring towers.
Mr. Bruckner commented on the evolution of the tower to minimize the
floor plate size at higher levels, and reviewed the proposed building
materials. He offered that the tower location allowed for sufficient
set-back from Bute without overpowering the Melville Street development
and minimized view blockages for a majority of buildings behind. It
was noted that the tower orientation was set to the city grid that
changed on Pender. Also, Mr. Bruckner advised that the suites would
be air conditioned so that there would be the possibility of heat recovering
from the commercial systems, dependent on costs, with the intent of
meeting the city’s new higher level sustainability guidelines.
Mr. Kreuk addressed the Panel concerning landscape issues noting that
related requirements had been satisfied along Bute Street. He discussed
the development of an area where people could set up tables and chairs
on terraces, and commented that the roof deck intent was to offer private
spaces to the north side of the townhouses with the rest of the deck
being shared with an amenity space outside of the exercise area. It was
added that the roof deck was quite accessible to the entire tower with
a fair amount of lawn and the ability for storm water retention.
Ms. Molaro discussed the view impacts on neighbouring buildings depending
on the location of the tower. It was noted that regardless of where the
tower was located on the site it would impact the Orca but that the impact
could be lessoned by its design and slimming. It was noted that the permitted
height on the neighbouring site was 300 ft but that it was uncertain
whether this was achievable. Also, it was recognized that moving the
tower on this site would impact the location of the tower on the neighbouring
site.
The Panel reviewed the model and posted materials.
Panel’s Comments
As to whether the project earned the addition 10% height, several Panel
members were uncertain, while others felt that it was acceptable in
that the tower would be squatter and fatter without it. However, it
was suggested that there should be further development to earn the
additional height, that the mass reduction from 88 to 80 ft was not
well perceived, and that the applicant should come up with more substantial
sustainability requirements as part of the earning. It was also suggested
that the building did not respond to the orientations being south and
west, for solar gain and envelope performance.
Panel members agreed that more worked needed to be done to deal with
view impacts of the tower. It was suggested that the tower needed to
be located more westerly to address Orca concerns and to let Bute Street
breathe, and was offered that it seemed unreasonable to locate the tower
so close to one of the tallest buildings in the city when it could be
further away. Problems with the view impacts to the Venus, Residences
B, Orca and Melville were acknowledged.
With regard to the tower shaping, several members indicated their support
for its handsome, simple, square design as a welcome departure from the
city’s glass buildings. However, others suggested that the tower
should be further articulated, possibly with a higher scale on Pender,
and thought that the tower’s relationship with the podium was the
weakest point that required clarification. Further suggestions were that
the biggest missed opportunity was not taking advantage of the triangular
shape of the site in the tower’s expression that would also recognize
axial views to the west; and that consideration be given to having several
units on the fifth, sixth and seventh floors cascade down to the northwest
to relocate some mass and make the tower slimmer.
In relation to ground-oriented issues, members offered that the experience
on the ground plane was important given that this was a high tourist
area, and suggested that it needed further consideration on all sides
in terms of detailing and compatibility with neighbouring buildings.
Further comments were that the retail on Bute was not very attractive
and could be replaced with an amenity space for residents; that the facade
along Pender Street was not in proper scale; and that putting the residential
above the commercial on Pender could be beneficial with shared use of
the rooftop.
Several Panel members indicated their dislike for the orientation of
the townhouses to Pender noting that the access seemed disrespectful
to the Melville Street grid. It was suggested that twisting the building
could obtain a decent facade along Melville Street with 6-8 townhouses
(similar to the neighbouring building) that would be more in character
with Melville Street. Another member suggested that it was a selfish
to have the townhouse units almost solely benefit from the courtyard
space on the tower podium.
With regard to the depth of the retail, it was recognized as being minimal,
but was offered that the prospects of the space required a minimal depth
and not something more substantial. It was hoped that the retail continuity
on Pender was realized as envisioned by the planners.
The Panel commented on the corner of Melville and Bute suggesting that
the transition between the tower and Melville was most unsuccessful and
supporting the notion that this could be partially addressed by a residential
entry on Bute. Opposing views were that the architect should decide the
best location for the residential entry, that it could be successful
in its present form if well detailed, and that the residential entrance
should be kept off of Bute given the importance of continuous retail.
Concerning the location of the fitness room, one member’s comment
was that, set below grade it seemed leftover and un-thought out.
Two members commented on the location of the parking access, one offering
that it was in the right place whether shared or not, and the other noting
that it would facilitate not needing a secondary entry if the neighbouring
westerly site were developed.
General comments from individual Panel members included that all of
the city’s buildings looked the same from Stanley Park and that
this should be taken into consideration; desire for there to have been
incentive to keep and work around the existing building; and that the
site specific demonstration project at the previous meeting would be
applicable for bigger sites to encourage more exciting projects, more
experimentation and innovation. It was added that a smaller scale but
larger size contextual model would have been helpful in reviewing the
project, and was suggested that the city develop a city model that could
be continually updated and provided for Panel members’ reference
on future projects.
Applicant’s Response
The applicant offered that they felt hamstrung by the city’s planning
guidelines and noted that each time a building was designed the energy
went into trying to interpret those guidelines in a different way.
3. Southeast False Creek
Use: Mixed
Zoning: ODP
Applicant Status: Rezoning
Architect: VIA
Owner: City of Vancouver
Review: First
Delegation: Graham McGarva, Margot Long, Jeff Olson
Staff: Karis Hiebert, Jonathan Barrett, Bruce Maitland
EVALUATION: NON-SUPPORT (2-4)
Panel members Stuart Lyon and Bruce Haden declared conflict of interest
and did not participate in discussion on this item.
Introduction
Karis Hiebert, Central Area Planner, discussed the area zoned as industrial
M2 noting that the City owned 50 acres of waterfront with 30 acres
between First and Second avenues being private lands. She noted plans
for the waterfront land to focus on family housing and to serve as
a model for sustainable development. Ms. Hiebert advised that the applicant
had submitted a proposal for the ODP in May 2003 that went through
extensive public consultation identifying five themes: support for
26.4 acre waterfront park with extension of the green fingers to the
south; suggested animated and accessible waterfront considering recreational
and commercial opportunities; consideration of an industrial legacy;
reduction of development parcel sizes; need for a variety of building
types avoiding overemphasis on podiums and towers.
The Panel was informed that the city was in the process of reviewing
the revised ODP and would consider it at a May 18, 2004 public hearing.
Referencing the display model, Jonathan Barrett, Development Planner,
commented that an ODP secured density, overall urban structure, land
uses and locations, and wide ranging amenities. He noted the project’s
objective to create a sustainable neighbourhood, and advised that the
site area was approximately 48 acres with 12 acres of development. Mr.
Barrett indicated that the target was for 35% family housing units, commercial
in a variety of locations, and provision of a streetcar system on the
development’s edge.
It was noted that an Olympic Village would also be located on the site
and that neighbourhoods would be developed into eastern, central and
western schemes. Mr. Barrett advised that there were 10 organizing principles
for the development that were provided in the summary, and reviewed these.
The Panel’s specific comments were sought regarding:
•
legibility of the overall form within the overall city context;
•
urban structure and whether there were enough amenity opportunities;
•
whether the urban form was generally appropriate for its context; and
•
appropriateness of park and landscape representations.
Mr. Barrett reviewed the Panel’s previous comments supporting:
the extension of the green fingers; twisting the street grid along the
north edge of First; increased water activity; relocation of salt building;
development of smaller parcels; increasing development density; distribution
of mass across the site; stronger engagement of the seaside walkway and
water edge; modulation of development form with the park; and the proposed
direction from the public comments. Mr. Barrett indicated that the Panel
would review CD-1s for the three neighbourhoods within the project.
Applicant’s Opening Comments
Graham McGarva, VIA Architecture, Margot Long, PWL Partnership and Jeff
Olson, VIA Architects, were present to address the Panel on this application.
Mr. McGarva referenced the displayed model noting that the ODP submission
was to try to meet sustainability expectations. He advised that the Panel
was dealing with an ill looking pro forma that attempted to illustrate
development parcels but that did not highlight an urban design form.
He offered that the focus in the resubmission was on urban design elements
and on shifting the massing through the site with a greater variety of
forms. Confirmation was provided that the project was ‘made in
Vancouver’ and was intended to encourage social life in a convivial
urban centre.
Further referencing the display model, Mr. McGarva provided detailed
information concerning how the five theme areas had been addressed. He
highlighted the park spaces and noted the designation of certain common
spaces; referenced the sediment issue noting that it prevented a developable
building 30 metres back from the shoreline; and discussed the total study
area having three designated buildings on the heritage registry. Mr.
McGarva further discussed the connection of Commercial Street to the
park entrance to enable closed vistas and to create a more intimate community,
and commented on the City Gate context and neighbourhood pathways. With
regard to sustainability it was noted that the applicant felt it was
addressed relative to view, outlook and the celebration of water.
Ms. Long noted that a number of programmatic elements had been incorporated,
including: informal soccer and softball pitch; amphitheatre; educational/community
gardens; small neighbourhood parks within the water park; habitat zones
to increase biodiversity integrated with sustainable approaches; play
areas with sports courts under the bridge; opportunities for non-motorized
boats and for launching boats; and connecting the city grid to the waterfront.
In response to questions Ms. Long discussed the plans for a combined
pedestrian cycling walkway with mixed forest, boardwalk and foreshore
areas noting the intent to leave the shoreline as natural as possible.
Clarification was offered that there was a Council directive to provide
26.4 acres of park. Also information was provided on the original location
contemplated for the Olympic Village, and the rationale for its relocation
and security arrangements that would be in place during the 2010 Winter
Olympics was provided. It was noted that the development would provide
19-20 sq ft per athlete.
Further questions were addressed relative to commercial opportunities
along the water and the intended relationship with Science World. It
was noted that recreational courts on the opposite side of the water
under the bridge had been tremendously successful.
The Panel reviewed the model and posted materials.
Panel’s Comments
With regard to the project’s legibility in the city context, a
member questioned pushing the industrial activity away from the waterfront
offering that this created exclusivity for the development. It was suggested
that the eastern neighbourhood needed to identify itself, and particularly
that the towers and podiums in east neighbourhood should be rethought
to arrive at a more original solution for achieving the density, or to
have fewer but larger towers. A member commented that they were unsure
that having high rises encouraged socialization, and suggested that it
started to wrap the downtown image on the south side of False Creek,
that this was not a good transition, and that the breath ability needed
to be protected.
Panel members offered that the project had been successful in its smaller
parcelization, suggesting that this would go a long way to helping with
incremental growth and development to prevent mega projects on the site’s
western and southern portions.
The rationale for dividing the site into three areas was queried. Also,
a member indicated that they liked the green fingers but questioned the
real opportunities for use of the open spaces. It was suggested that
integration with commercial space would be beneficial to bring people
into the area between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
In relation to the integration of private and public lands, several
members commented that, because of First Avenue being such a divider,
the area could handle having some abruptness in terms of its integration.
Another view was that the integration was a little odd but that the waterfront
was the one area where it was possible to go against the city grid.
One member commented that they were puzzled by the location of the school
next to the commercial area, occupying the best spot on the site, and
suggested that it should be moved to the west. Another member felt that
the school was well located and that the children should have the first
opportunity for open space and sunlight given that they were playing
outside.
On the urban form, comments included support for the smaller grain for
the development of the area noting that smaller sites could cause complications,
and support for flexibility between the forms to allow architects to
be creative. Also, it was noted that how security issues were addressed
was unclear and was suggested that the streetcar should go into the centre
of the development as an addition to the activity.
Concerning the park and landscape system, a comment was that it was
too much park, and it was observed that the green space at Coal Harbour
was comparable and was not a very effective use of space, acknowledging
that this appeared to be a better solution.
With regard to the appropriateness
of waterfront uses, several members expressed support for a less refined
and seedier design but questioned
how animated the area would be noting that, without commercial, there
was nothing to attract people to the area. Others suggested that the
design looked like a fairground in its animation, and could benefit
from simplification. A further possibility identified was that there
be more
vibrant commercial areas on the waterfront with the whole building
facing the water being made commercial instead of flex use to capitalize
on
its closeness to Science World and to encourage people to sit outside
on the water.
Panel members commented on the below bridge activities. While one member
offered that the planning and programming was excellent as a great transition
between the west and east sides of the Cambie Street bridge, another
suggested that the concentration of all courts below the bridge might
not be appropriate. It was suggested that, with the aging population
and their desire to be engaged as spectators, some of the courts be relocated,
with opportunity for increased public views to court activities.
In relation to the termination of the bikeway from the northeast to
the Village Square, several comments were that it was odd crossing Quebec
so close to Terminal, and that it seemed confusing around the boardwalk
area. As well, the ability to include an additional east-west bike route
was queried.
Panel members commented regarding sustainability noting that insufficient
information had been provided on what the city would do to ensure that
sustainability objectives were met. It was suggested that the approval
process be reviewed to ensure that the city’s processes did not
hinder innovative sustainability concepts. The importance of sustainability
elements was further emphasized with suggestions that it be embedded
in the ODP, observation that the building orientations on the east side
were not faced true north and true west for heat gain on the south and
west sides, and suggestion that there be a minimum silver certification
level for buildings.
In terms of general comments, Panel members did not see a lot of opportunity
for business in the area, expressed hope that art would be a mandatory
requirement in the development, and suggested that there be an architectural
competition for building on city property. Also, it was noted that Science
World was associated with the legacy of Expo 86, and question was raised
regarding whether there would be a gesture towards an Olympics legacy
on the site. Final comments were that the project needed to become bolder
and more inspired, and suggestion that there be a study of successful
Canadian villages with the intent of revisiting the project’s village
centre to see if the elements necessary for success were present.
Applicant’s Response
Ms. Hiebert added that the ODP bylaw would include sections relative
to sustainability, including: urban agricultural and design; street
rights of way offering garden opportunities, storm water management
in the development site and surrounding areas; green roofs; green building
requirements in energy and water efficiency; three stream recycling;
cycling routes; development of urban structure with pedestrian permeability;
street car as a form of public transportation; and coordination of
public transit on Second Avenue.
Mr. Barrett also offered that Council direction was to make this the
most sustainable neighbourhood in North America and indicated the intent
for this to be achieved.
Mr. Graham added that many of the Panel’s comments had been about
aspects of building and cycle paths but this was intended to show the
beginning to inform phase 1 to address the detailed elements of the design.
He noted that the display showed how tall the buildings could be but
that this would be addressed further through the urban design process.
It was projected that there would be 30,000 jobs in the flats, and he
discussed the policy box that the project was working within.
Mr. Barrett reiterated that the intent of the review was to secure density,
overall urban structure, general heights and massing, uses and general
location and social sustainability that would be embedded in an ODP.
He advised that the next stage of the process was the CD-1 zoning that
would look at the level of detail shown on the illustrative plans.
Bruce Maitland indicated that efforts had been made to meet the city’s
standards noting that removing heights and density in towers would be
a cost to the social sustainability resulting in the loss of social housing,
daycare and park development, noting that money for those came from heightened
density.
Adjournment
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:24 p.m.
|
