Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Index
Present
1501 Robson Street
1055 Canada Place (Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion
Project)
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Larry Adams, Chair
Nigel Baldwin
Robert Barnes
Shahla Bozorgzadeh
James Cheng
Marta Farevaag
Ronald Lea
Margot Long (excused Item 2)
C.C. Yao
Regrets:
Alan Endall
Edward Smith
Peter Wreglesworth
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
1. 1501 Robson Street
DE: 409145
Use: Mixed (6 storeys)
Zoning: C-6
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Hywel Jones
Owner: Pikson Enterprises Co. Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Hywel Jones
Staff: Bob Adair
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (5-4)
• Introduction: Bob Adair, Development Planner, presented this
application for a 6-storey mixed-use development containing ground floor
retail commercial use with residential above and a two-storey townhouse
on the north side of the site at the lane. The 66 ft. x 131 ft. site
is at the northwest corner of Nicola and Robson Streets in the C-6 zone.
There is a 7 ft. building line along Robson Street. The main residential
entry is off Nicola Street and parking access for both the residential
and commercial uses is at the rear, together with a surface loading bay
adjacent to the townhouse. The building is a concrete structure and materials
include brick and metal panel. The townhouse is brick and stucco.
The proposed use is approvable in the C-6 zone. The zoning allows an
outright height of 60 ft. with some height angle restrictions. The application
seeks a minor height relaxation at the western edge of the site as well
as some relaxation of the height angles. Outright density in this zone
is 2.5 FSR and the Development Permit Board may allow a further ten percent
from the heritage density bank. The application seeks the maximum 2.75
FSR.
Staff generally support the proposed use and overall massing and seek
the Panel’s opinion in the following areas:
- whether the site can accept the additional ten percent density, the
overall handling of the additional massing and any impact it may have
on adjacent sites;
- the proposed height relaxations, including the height angle relaxations
on the north and south property lines and the minor relaxation of the
outright 60 ft. at the westerly property line;
- Robson streetscape, in particular the retail expression;
- appropriateness of the corner retail unit, noting its high visibility
on Robson Street;
- treatment of the southwest corner and relationship with the raised
terrace of the adjacent 6-storey building;
- Nicola Street elevation;
- treatment of the rear lane.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Hywel Jones, Architect,
briefly described the design and responded to questions from the Panel.
•
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
- 2.75 FSR fully supported;
- Height relaxation over 60 ft. and slight intrusion into the height
envelope also supported;
- Concerns about the Robson streetscape. Design development suggestions
included strengthening the apparent retail frontage by relocating the
exit stair; introducing continuous weather protection to both increase
the separation between the retail and the residential and add pedestrian
interest; consider improvements to the paving to enrich the pedestrian
experience; and add a street tree if possible;
- Nicola Street façade generally supported, with some concerns
about extending the landscape and paving out to the street line;
- General consensus that there could be simplification of the palette
of materials, possibly eliminating one of the materials;
- Major concerns about the entry sequence in terms of safety and security
and generosity of the entrance;
- Design development recommended to the townhouse with suggestions to
increase the size of the courtyard and add density to the townhouse;
also consider fenestration to the stair;
- A sustainability strategy should be considered.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported the requested 2.75 FSR and did not believe
the ten percent density transfer would have a negative impact on the
building or the neighbourhood.
The Panel unanimously supported the requested relaxation of the 60 ft.
height limit. The height angle relaxations were also strongly supported
and it was noted there are no significant shadow impacts since the building
is on the north side of the street.
The Panel had no concerns about the retail wrapping around the corner
onto Nicola Street which provides added pedestrian interest.
The Panel supported the application but had a number of concerns. A
comment was that that the FSR has been successfully maximized but it
has been to the detriment of the scheme in some areas.
There were major concerns about the entrance to the residential tower
which the Panel thought needed greater definition and sense of entry
as well as a much higher level of security. In general, the Panel found
the entry sequence undeveloped and needing considerable design development.
The doors conflicting with the main entry were a concern, as was the
conflict with the entry to the small coach house on the lane. The entry
courtyard should much less circuitous to improve wayfinding and security.
There was a suggestion to consider relocating one of the stairs in favour
of a shared stair for the commercial retail units and eliminating the
need for doors onto the courtyard. The applicant was urged to strengthen
the concept for this aspect of the scheme to make it a delightful spatial
experience. The lobby itself should be much more generous and inviting.
There were serious concerns expressed about the safety aspects of inviting
people to enter between two blank walls and it was noted that, even if
gated, it will feel unsafe, especially at night.
The Panel also had concerns about the Robson streetscape and the lack
of differentiation between the commercial retail space and the residential
component. In general, the Panel found that, with the exception of the
coach house, the project had little residential expression. A number
of suggestions were made for improvement, including high quality canopies
which would serve to differentiate the two uses and offer continuous
weather protection for pedestrians. There were comments made that the
building design relies too heavily on the retail tenants to make it an
interesting pedestrian experience. Signage, while outside the purview
of the development application, will be critical and should be carefully
considered. The Panel recommended relocating the exit stair to the corner
to provide a more continuous retail frontage on Robson Street and create
a corner transition. A strong response at the corner to the building
to the west was not recommended because that will likely change in the
future. There were also recommendations to further explore the sidewalk
paving pattern on Robson Street which currently looks somewhat truncated.
The addition of at least one more street tree on Robson was also strongly
recommended.
Most Panel members supported the inclusion of the coach house in the
scheme. They liked the element of surprise it provides and that it screens
the loading bay and garage entry from Nicola Street. However, further
design development is needed to make it a more delightful aspect of the
scheme. There was a suggestion to consider adding fenestration to the
blank wall of the stair to give more interest on the street. There was
also a suggestion to consider making the house larger, with at least
two bedrooms, noting that a subtle redistribution of density would allow
the retail units to be set back by about 3 ft. to create a better courtyard.
It was strongly recommended that the coach house should have its own
entrance rather than off the corner of the entry to the main building.
It should also have a residential garden expression appropriate to the
scale it presents to the street.
In general, the Panel thought the materials needed to be simplified,
possibly eliminating one of them. The Panel thought either the brick
or the metal panel could be made to work, but not both together on this
small building. One Panel member also questioned whether the Alucabond
and the brick should be identical in their expression, as shown.
Design development to the lane was recommended. It was noted the lanes
in this part of the West End are very well used and deserve careful attention.
The Panel strongly recommended extending the trellis to cover the entire
garage entrance driveway and loading bay, noting this area is overlooked
by residents. A comment was made that the area needs to be designed as
a series of spaces and properly landscaped.
Finally, it was recommended that consideration be given to providing
a green roof, both for sustainability and overlook.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Jones thanked the Panel for
the comments. He acknowledged the Panel’s comments about the stair
and noted they did consider relocating it but thought it strengthened
the retail corner in its current location. With respect to achieving
a stronger retail expression, he said he did not favour a retail podium
with residential set back above. He noted the retail tenants themselves
will bring some life to the street.
2. 1055 Canada Place
DE: 408490
Use: Convention Centre Expansion
Zoning: CD-1
Application Status: Complete after Preliminary
Architect: Downs Archambault/MCM
Owner: VCCEP
Review: Fourth
Delegation: Russ Anthony, Ken Grassi, Jim Brown, Frank Musson,
Bruce Hemstock
Staff: Ralph Segal
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (4-3)
• Introduction: Ralph Segal, Sr. Development Planner, presented
this application. The Panel has reviewed the project several times previously,
including two workshops in 2003 and 2004. At that time, the Panel indicated
that the folded land form approach, if properly executed, was a worthy
design concept. In June 2004, the Panel reviewed the preliminary development
application and did not support it, the major issue relating to the roof
which was thought not to be sufficiently dynamic. There were also concerns
about the treatment of the Burrard Street end. In September 2004, the
preliminary submission was approved in principle by Development Permit
Board, subject to a lengthy list of conditions. In November 2004 the
Panel reviewed, in a workshop, the applicant team’s response to
the Panel’s earlier input and the Board’s conditions. The
Panel indicated there had been good progress on the roof design and responded
positively to the “weave” concept presented, the landscaping
and introduction of a plaza restaurant which also contains a smaller
version of the “living roof”. The introduction of retail
at the north Thurlow plaza edge was also welcomed, along with improvements
to the northeast corner. It was also thought that the “skin” of
the building was headed in the right direction. The concerns identified
at that time related primarily to the various roof edges. There were
also comments about the southeast edge and the entry at the Burrard Street
end and the connection of the Thurlow plaza to the waterfront walkway
at its north edge.
In an unusual departure from normal procedure, VCCEP requested an interim
review by the Development Permit Board, prior to submission of the complete
application. This took place on February 28, 2005 when the Board reviewed
the scheme based on the submission seen by the Panel in November 2004,
with some further refinements. The Board indicated it believed the current
design was going in the right direction to satisfy the preliminary conditions.
The complete application will be considered by the Board on June 6, 2005.
The current complete submission incorporates refinements to the November
2004 design. The “transition zone” from Harbour Green Park
to Thurlow Plaza, including the future Park Board restaurant, has been
substantially reworked and staff are very pleased with the work done
in this area. The application no longer includes a northeast corner elevator
and the third floor restaurant has also been removed from the program.
Mr. Segal noted the following areas in which the advice of the Panel
is now sought:
- roof edge treatment (the various edges including lower structures);
- waterfront walkway edges around the perimeter, including the northwest
corner commercial;
- the “transition zone”, noting the Park Board restaurant
is not yet designed;
- Burrard Street end/entry;
- detailed public realm treatment;
- landscape design, including hard surface, soft landscape, features
and sense of arrival;
- the “sense of place” for:
- Burrard Plaza;
- Thurlow Plaza;
- Seawall walkway/bikeway;
- Canada Place; and
- Various links.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Russ Anthony, VCCEP, noted
that in addition to the design refinements they have advanced the process
for selecting a proponent for the water-based development. The RFP will
close at the end of May. Jim Brown, Architect, said they are excited
to be at this stage after two years of design work. He briefly reviewed
the basic concepts of the project and fundamental guiding principles.
Bruce Hemstock described the living roof and the open space plan and
the proponent team responded to questions from the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
Roof Edge Treatment:
- The roof edge needs further design development. It needs greater clarity
and the architectonics should be pushed a bit further to achieve a
more dynamic expression;
- Reconsider the vertical panelling;
- The roof edge will be a very critical component of the building, as
has been stressed in previous Panel reviews.
Walkway Edges:
- These are much more successful but they need more clarity in the
details – possibly
a further differentiation in material between the walkway edges and the
roof edge.
Transition Zone:
- This area deserves more design development;
- Much of the success of the transition zone relies on the Park Board
restaurant, which is outside the purview of this project but should be
carefully considered by the City;
- Concerns raised about the detailing of the portal/drop-off area with
suggestions to explore issues of paving and glazing.
Burrard Street End:
- The Burrard Street end and entry deserves more attention. There should
be some recognition that this is an important junction, including within
vertical elements and paving.
Canada Place Way:
- Concerns expressed about the Canada Place Way elevation in terms of
issues of transparency and light and the relationship between interior
convention centre activities and the public realm as well as the lower
entrance and the public at the street level, coupled with the vertical
circulation.
Public Realm:
- Richness in the public realm is required and it must be of the highest
quality;
- Features such as public art and interpretation of the green roof must
not be overlooked;
- It is very important that the building is treated as being part of
the public realm;
- The success of the building will be in the details and the budget.
Exterior Skin:
- Further design development of the skin of the building is required;
- The structural glazing system could be pushed further, noting it will
be a major element that the public will be able to see and feel: it must
be truly unique and part of the sense of place of the building.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel complimented the applicant team on the high quality of the
presentation and the work achieved to date. The Panel has seen the project
evolve through the process but acknowledge that it has also maintained
its conceptual clarity. In general, the Panel found the changes made
to the scheme have improved it, with some exceptions.
The Panel’s comments and suggestions included:
The Roof and Roof Edge Treatment:
- the applicant’s rationale is a good way to give consistency to
the building but it gets lost in terms of the overall depth of the roof
edge and the lack of dynamic treatment;
- it would be more interesting if the roof edge diverged from the rationale
for the building and took on a character of its own, with greater interest
and stronger architectonics in the expression of the elements;
- expressing the three elements is good, but is not enough;
- the choice of materials is interesting and the addition of the dimples
adds another level of interest;
- it would be nice to have a distinction between the roof edge, the building
edge and the building base edge; perhaps more clarity so that lay people
can more easily understand the building;
- where the roof is canted to reinforce the thrust over the water, question
whether consideration might be given to having a reverse cant at the
south edge to create some interest;
- the third floor balcony on the north side fails to reinforce the folded
plane image;
- the theory of the three parts is good but in reality it is quite unpoetic
and expedient;
- a non vertical roof edge can be resolved architecturally;
- the concept of the three parts is quite interesting but the least important
part is the structure and the most important is the green roof;
- focus on one concept that would work: for instance, project the roof
edge out, exposing what is important and downplaying the rest; this cannot
be done vertically but could be resolved and look much better with a
projecting thin plate top;
- the solid zinc roof edge panels expressing precisely the truss depth
is weak and lacks character;
- would like to see a lot more public roof access;
- horizontal rather than vertical striations would make the edge feel
thinner, as would setting back the green roof from the edge;
- the roof edges in the lower plaza are much improved;
- some challenging design development is required where planes intersect
each other;
- the vertical edge seems heavy and could be made a lot more dramatic
with a non vertical edge, especially at the prow on the northeast corner;
- encourage you to carefully consider how the convention centre will
be seen at night, especially with the overhang thrusting out over the
water: it could be an opportunity to really make it an icon on the water;
- very disappointed that the opportunity for the public to go into the
building and the restaurant has been removed from the package – it
was a nice gesture for the public to be able to go in the building.
Walkway:
- the waterfront walkway edges have improved;
- there are good inside/outside connections;
- the bikeway/walkway on the north side is much improved; the success
of the space will depend on the retail components on this edge;
- paving can go a long way with respect to wayfinding;
Transition Zone/Thurlow Plaza:
- the transition zone and Park Board restaurant is much improved; all
the restaurants will work well;
- the stair joining the two levels together is interesting and the connection
on the north face is equally successful in the way that the plaza reaches
that point in the project;
- the strong curve of Harbour Green Park where it meets the grand stair
is not well resolved; the power of the Harbour Green Park curve must
not be diminished and with some refinement it can be achieved; the power
of the curve seems to be ignored;
- no details are shown about how the ground plane ties in with the Harbour
Green Park treatment with respect to railings and lamp fixtures, etc.;
- lighting is very important in this area;
- the Park Board should be given some guidelines for its restaurant because
if it is not done properly it could be a serious detriment to this project;
- the portal to the underground parking at the drop-off might take clues
from what is proposed on Burrard Street and Canada Place Way, i.e., there
may be an opportunity next to the restaurant to introduce the same glass
treatment for natural light;
- Coal Harbour Park ends unsuccessfully at its west end and there is
a danger it will end unsuccessful at the east end as well: this junction
deserves something more;
- the design of the Park Board restaurant will determine the success
of the entry to the underground walkway. The City must gain control over
the urban design aspects of this restaurant;
- careful attention to sightlines should be given in redesigning the
edge of Harbour Green Park because with so many trees in there people
might not be able to experience the green roof from the park;
- some really nice moves have been made on the Thurlow Plaza design but
there are a few elements that are not generous or grand enough. As well,
the skylights seems random and could be stronger and better integrated;
the stairs to the restaurant roof should be a bit grander and not spiral;
- this was seen as a gathering place for the city for special events
and programs and it is important that this role is supported;
- disappointed the public will not be able to access convention centre
washrooms. They must be provided somewhere in the plaza.
Burrard Street
- where the Thurlow entry plaza has great interest in terms of the view
down Thurlow, the Burrard street end is lacking; it should have a terminus,
whether in the form of public art or a plaza, but more than just a meeting
point of the various directions of travel;
- the piece connecting the Pan Pacific to the underground access needs
to be given more thought; it could be stronger and contrasting with the
Pan Pacific to become more iconic;
- the paving pattern at the end of Burrard could be better resolved with
respect to the different geometries coming together.
Canada Place Way
- the building will be perceived as having a front door on Canada Place
Way but the presence of the building on Canada Place Way is diminished
by the lack of public place, notwithstanding the escalators with views
down;
- suggest moving the escalators inward to allow people to look down.
Consider the interior space from the convention floor level all the way
up; treatment of this wall will be very important;
- Canada Place Way suffers because there is no activity on it; suggest
pulling back the green roof at this point (30 – 40 ft.) and making
it a glass roof. It currently feels like the large green roof is being
dragged into the city where the scale is inappropriate; there is also
a problem getting light into the lower entrances, so suggest you accept
that it’s about vertical circulation and getting light down below;
if the roof can be pulled back, this is the place to do it;
- the Canada Place Way canopies are fairly understated and should be
reconsidered.
Sustainability
- Assume the principles presented previous remain very much a part of
the building.
Public Realm
- Burrard plaza feels a bit bland compared to Thurlow;
- Richness of surface treatments is required for wayfinding and durability.
Texture can also slow down bicycles and roller blades;
- it is incumbent on the City to make sure that where people are invited
it be of the highest quality – I have a major concern that there
is a move to reduce the quality of the materials for the public realm
to simpler, less expensive and less rich, because much of the success
of the public realm will be in the quality of its detailing;
- there should be consideration of public art and some nice details and
interesting features for the public, including interpretation of the
green roof.
Exterior Skin
- the vertical surfaces deserve much more time and study, and probably
budget, than they have been given. It is the least convincing aspect
of the building and it will be the most visible. From most places a lot
more of the walls than the roof will be seen;
- disappointed with the detailed design – the skin feels like an
inert material
- the building is described in terms of bold, sculptural, iconic forms
and these qualities are also required in the walls.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Brown stressed it is not intended
to diminish the quality of the finishes of the public realm to create
a special place and a cultural facility. Frank Musson, Architect, pointed
out there is a public art program for the project and the process is
now underway with a public art consultant.
|
