Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, August 3, 2005
Index
Present
1285 West Pender Street
100 Keefer Place (600 Abbott)
1010 East 17 Avenue
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
MEMBERS OF THE URBAN DESIGN PANEL:
Alan Endall, Chair
Nigel Baldwin
Robert Barnes
Shahla Bozorgzadeh (present for items 1 and 2 only)
Marta Farevaag
Margot Long
Edward Smith (present for Item 2 only)
Regrets:
Larry Adams
James Cheng
Ronald Lea
Peter Wreglesworth
C.C. Yao
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard, Raincoast Ventures
1. 1285 West Pender Street
DE: 409493
Use: Mixed (21 storeys)
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Busby, Perkins & Will
Owner: Evergreen Building Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Peter Busby, Gerry Eckford, Veronica Gillies
Staff: Ralph Segal
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (3-2)
• Introduction: : Ralph Segal, Development
Planner, introduced this application. The proposal is to replace the
existing Evergreen Building, the owner’s position being that it
is no longer economically viable to retain. The redevelopment of the
site was considered by Council who requested staff to continue to encourage
retention options but also instructed staff to proceed with processing
the subject application in the normal way.
Mr. Segal briefly reviewed the site context, identifying surrounding
existing and approved towers and Coal Harbour Park. The site is in the
Downtown District, Triangle West Sub Area. The proposal is for a 21-storey
building at 236 ft., and the tower floorplates are generally within 6,500
sq.ft. The height of the existing Evergreen Building is about 130 ft.
The program includes three-storey townhouses along Jervis Street, wrapping
around onto Hastings Street, a single storey of ground floor retail on
West Pender Street, and residential above in a series of terraced boxes.
The application requests 6.0 FSR plus 10 percent heritage density transfer,
for a total density of 6.6 FSR.
Staff consider the proposal responds quite well to the general massing
criteria, with the exception of shadowing, in particular on Coal Harbour
Park. Mr. Segal noted that shadowing cast on the park has been of particular
concern in all the various options that have been considered for the
site. The shadowing created by the current proposal reaches the circle
of the park at the critical 11 a.m. – noon equinox period and is
quite substantial during morning hours. The elevator core of the building
extends to the east property line and is remote from the series of terraced
boxes. While this generates an exciting building form it does present
some questions about the overall volumetrics and whether it is the best
attitude to take for the building given the shadow and view impacts it
also creates.
The Panel previously reviewed and supported an earlier proposal to convert
the existing Evergreen Building. The proposal was to convert the building
to predominantly residential use, adding townhouses at the base and four
storeys on the top. However, the Development Permit Board limited the
upper addition to two storeys, which led to the owner’s decision
to withdraw the application because it became economically unviable.
The advice of the Panel is sought on the following:
- whether the site can absorb the additional ten percent heritage density;
- the overall massing and tower form; its neighbourliness and impact
on views and whether it is appropriate architecture for this site;
- the impact on shadowing, particularly on Coal Harbour Park;
- the impact on views, particularly for the building to the east, caused
by the additional volume of the building form including the separated
elevator core.
• Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Peter Busby, Architect,
briefly described the design rationale and Gerry Eckford reviewed the
landscape plan. The applicant team responded to questions from the Panel.
•
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• The Panel questioned whether the site can take the additional
density requested without exacerbating shadowing on Coal Harbour Park,
particularly given the park will also be used by the future daycare and
elementary school;
• Consideration should be given to reducing the height of the
building by a couple of floors and/or reducing the floor-to-floor height;
• Design development is needed to the townhouse base;
• Consideration should be given to the scale and articulation
of the entry off West Pender Street.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel supported this application but some Panel members expressed
some discomfort about offering support while having serious misgivings
about the proposed height. In discussion prior to the vote being taken,
it was concluded that the Panel’s advice on the height would undoubtedly
be taken into consideration by the Development Permit Board.
In other respects, the Panel found the proposal quite supportable. The
applicant was commended for the excellent presentation materials and
model which make the project clear and easy to read.
Most Panel members found the proposed form quite intriguing and dramatic
and holding the promise of becoming an evocative piece of architecture.
However, there were also questions about whether the chosen form is the
right one, and concerns that the stacked boxes make it seem quite massive.
The free-standing elevator core also contributes to its massiveness,
with a suggestion from one Panel member that it might be more neighbourly
if it was smaller and less prominent. There was also a question about
its impact on the development potential of the adjacent 66 ft., currently
underdeveloped site.
The Panel’s greatest concern was the shadowing of Coal Harbour
Park and for this reason questioned whether the site can absorb the requested
heritage density transfer. Some Panel members also expressed a general
concern about an extra ten percent density being routinely sought on
downtown sites, many of which are unable to accommodate it. The Panel
noted there would be no shadowing issue without the additional 0.6 FSR
and a possible reduction of a few inches in floor-to-floor height on
each floor. Regardless of the fact that the shadowing occurs on a less
useful part of the park at its treed, southerly edge, the Panel strongly
recommended that a solution be sought which does not compromise the park
in any way. Of particular concern was the future daycare and elementary
school which will use this park as well as the general public.
Concerns were expressed about the treatment of the townhouse base and
suggestions that its transparency so close to the street creates livability
issues, despite the likelihood the front patios will be little used in
favour of the upper decks. There were also concerns about the entry side
of the building where the five box forms are less articulated, and recommendations
for more consideration of the articulation of the underside of the terraced
boxes.
The Panel found the landscape plan very strong and well handled. A gap
in street trees was noted and a recommendation made to rationalize the
street tree pattern and strengthen the streetscape.
There were comments made about the irony of the proposal emulating many
of the qualities of the existing Evergreen Building. Some Panel members
expressed disappointment at the prospect of the Evergreen being demolished,
noting it is not a very old building and its prominence has only increased
since the Coal Harbour area has been developed. There was also an observation
that while the proposed sustainability features are very commendable
the demolition of a fairly new building seems counter to the objectives
of sustainability. It was also noted that the previous conversion proposal
had the potential to be a rich and somewhat quirky addition to the city
fabric.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Busby agreed that the townhouse
base needs design development. With respect to the issue of shadowing,
Mr. Busby said it is a matter of degree, pointing out that the building
will cause no shadowing on the park between April and September. Shadowing
only occurs for 11 days in the spring and nine days in the fall, during
which time it is a sliding scale of shading from eight minutes to a maximum
of one hour and 40 minutes between the hours of 10 a.m. and noon.
2. 100 Keefer Place (600 Abbott)
DE: 409456
Use: Mixed (2 towers, 35 storeys)
Zoning: CD-1
Application Status: Preliminary
Architect: Hancock, Bruckner Eng & Wright
Owner: Henderson Land Development
Review: First
Delegation: Jim Carney, Martin Bruckner, Peter Kruek, Hilde Heyvaerts
Staff: Ralph Segal
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-0)
• Introduction: Ralph Segal, Development Planner,
introduced this preliminary application to develop one of the last remaining
sites in International Village. The application is also the subject of
a Text Amendment to the International Village CD-1, which seeks to remove
the non-market housing component from this site in exchange for pay-in-lieu
which will facilitate the International Village non-market housing allotment
being achieved on the site at the corner of Pender and Abbott Streets.
The Text Amendment is expected to be considered by Council on September
15, 2005. The proposed form of development respects the overall parameters
for International Village by creating a strong streetwall, incorporating
retail at grade, and completing the Keefer Circle. The revisions to the
scheme are for some additional height and a slightly larger floorplate
on Tower B.
The areas in which the advice of the Panel are sought include:
- tower forms and relationships to surrounding towers, noting the additional
height and larger floorplate in Tower B;
- how the development relates to the street edges, in particular Abbott
Street and Keefer Circle, and how it ties in with the Keefer Steps;
- streetscape treatment at the pedestrian level, in particular the corner
of Beatty and Expo Boulevard;
- interface with the Skytrain alignment.
• Applicant’s Introductory Comments: The applicant team
briefly reviewed the design rationale and program and responded to questions
from the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Two Panel members suggested Tower B might be too wide but in
general the Panel had no major concerns with the height and size of the
floorplate;
•
The Panel recommended increasing the width of the planted edge buffer
facing the Skytrain alignment;
•
At the complete stage the Panel will look for detailed design development
of the streetscape and the courtyard, including programming details;
•
Further development of a sustainable design strategy is recommended.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this application and considered it to
be very well thought out for a preliminary submission. The Guidelines
are fairly prescriptive with respect to the form of development and the
application responds very well. The proposal was thought to be a good
basic massing strategy that improves upon the original CD-1. Panel members
commented on a number of inconsistencies between the model and drawings
and the small- and large-scale floor plans and found the model less successful
than the drawings which suggest a more curvilinear form for tower A.
The Panel found the towers to be correctly located on the site and responding
well to the street and the urban expression already established.
The Panel had no concerns with the increase in floorplate of Tower B,
but one Panel member thought the floorplate of Tower A could be smaller,
noting it seems to be very close to the Abbott streetwall and tower across
the street. Another comment was that expressing the two radii from the
circle in Tower B presents a larger façade than necessary to the
Skytrain side, which is unfortunate. Two Panel members thought tower
B was too wide.
The Panel found the continuation of the streetscape to be well established
although in some areas the street trees could be more continuous. The
double row of trees on the corner was questioned, noting they have not
been very successful in other places.
The Panel found the street edges to have been handled quite thoughtfully
and looks forward to seeing the development of greater articulation at
the retail level, with a wider sidewalk in some areas. Careful attention
will need to be given to how the mass is detailed and scaled and how
the end of the circle is treated. It was suggested that cues could be
taken from the Paris development. One Panel member recommended more retail
at the base of Tower A noting its location facing GM Place.
The Panel was satisfied with the treatment of the corner of Abbott and
Expo Boulevard.
Concerns were expressed about the connecting pedestrian bridges between
apartments and towers which seem weak and a bit like dead space. It also
seems awkward because there is no architectural relationship between
the two building forms.
The Panel recommended design development to the buffer between the rear
of the townhouses and the Skytrain alignment, recommending that it should
be wider and greener. Locating the amenity space and the townhouses to
create a larger buffer to the Skytrain was seen as very positive in terms
of general noise reduction for the development.
The Panel found the courtyards quite interesting and looks forward to
seeing the details at the next stage of the design.
There was a strong recommendation to give early consideration to sustainability
issues, including energy and life cycle costs of the buildings, choice
of materials and orientation.
Applicant’s Response: Mr. Bruckner thanked the Panel for its comments.
3. 1010 East 17 Avenue
DE: 409382
Use: Elementary School
Zoning: RS-1
Application Status: Complete
Architect: James Tamaki
Owner: Vancouver School Board
Review: First
Delegation: Henry Ahking, Don Nicolson
Staff: Bob Adair
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (4-0)
• Introduction: Bob Adair, Development Planner,
presented this application to replace Charles Dickens Elementary School
on East
17th Avenue just north of Kingsway. The site currently contains the
original school which was built in 1913 with a number of additions
over the years. Seismic upgrading of the school has been identified
as a high priority and it has been determined that replacing it is
the most economical approach.
The proposal is to construct a new school adjacent to the existing structure
and when the new school is completed the original school will be demolished.
Although it is not on the heritage register, the Vancouver School Board
and City Heritage Planning are also considering options to retain the
existing school. The subject application is being considered concurrently
with the retention options. If there is an agreement to retain the existing
building there will likely be some revisions to this proposal but the
Panel is asked to comment on the scheme as currently proposed. The application
will be considered by the Development Permit Board because of the level
of public interest it has generated.
The proposal consists of three major blocks and includes a gymnasium
block, the main entry into a commons space, and a two-storey classroom
block on the north side. Below the classrooms is a semi-underground
parking structure, accessed by a ramp off East 17th Avenue. A green
roof is proposed for the centre commons/lunch room component. Exterior
materials include brick, cementitious panel system, a membrane roof
and wood soffits and support brackets for the large roof overhangs.
The application seeks a minor height relaxation. Maximum permitted height
in RS-1 is 30 ft., relaxable to 35 ft. The application seeks a height
of 38.4 ft. at its highest point.
The advice of the Panel is sought in the following areas:
- the proposed height relaxation;
- the overall massing and setbacks along the streets and the overall
fit in the neighbourhood;
- the location of the parking entry off East 17th Avenue;
- impact of the proposed parking structure on the elevations along Windsor
Street and 17th Avenue and on the 17th Avenue streetscape.
• Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Don Nicolson, Architect,
briefly reviewed the design rationale and noted they intend to seek LEED
silver certification. Henry Ahking, Vancouver School Board, explained
that the provision for a portable structure is for the future accommodation
of a music program. Funds for a separate structure for this purpose are
not available. The applicant team responded to questions from the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Some concerns about the impact of the exposed portions of the
parking structure on
the street frontages;
•
Design development is recommended to:
- 18th Avenue street edge; coordination and refinement of fencing and landscaping;
- consider a more substantial and highly developed green roof on the commons
component and the potential for a visible means of rainwater collection on
the gymnasium roof;
- refinement of grading details to avoid retaining walls as much as possible;
- further consideration of the parking edge treatment including the need for
mechanical ventilation and the potential for berming and landscaping.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this application. There were no concerns
about the height, the overall massing and the setbacks. The Panel found
the project well thought in terms of site planning. It integrates well
with the adjacent park and in general with the neighbourhood with its
generous setbacks.
The Vancouver School Board was commended for its commitment to sustainability
on this project and the Panel strongly supported the goal of achieving
LEED silver certification.
The Panel supported the roof form and thought it fit well in the residential
neighbourhood. One Panel member recommended consideration of a stronger
roof expression at the entry. There was also a recommendation to consider
revising the roof form of the gymnasium to allow more daylight and sunlight
into the courtyard.
The Panel found the parking entry off 17th Avenue to be well resolved
but there were concerns about the exposure of the parking structure at
the edges and its impact on the street frontages. One Panel member suggested
the use of berms if mechanical ventilation is not required. An awkward
relationship between the ramp and the stair was also noted as warranting
further attention.
A concern was expressed about the “back of the house” expression
on 18th Avenue and it was recommended to soften it as much as possible
with landscaping. The applicant was also urged to carefully consider
desire lines on the site to ensure the planter areas remain undisturbed.
As well, as much as possible should be done to avoid retaining walls.
With respect to materials, there was a suggestion that the small amounts
of brick on some parts of the building could be eliminated and more added
to the parking podium and the entrance above the parking ramp. Given
the commons component is largely expressed as a glazed slot through the
building it was also recommended to continue this glazed expression on
the 17th Avenue elevation.
The proposed green roof gesture was considered to be too weak and insubstantial,
and it was recommended that the planters on the green roof be rearranged
to create more usable spaces. There was a recommendation to consider
rainwater collection off the gymnasium roof, and to include more urban
agricultural edible landscape in the project if this is reflective of
the neighbourhood’s direction.
The Panel supported the investigation of retaining at least a portion
of the existing school building.
Applicant’s Response: Mr. Ahking noted the VSB acquired extra funding
from the Ministry of provide underground parking rather than surface
parking. However, there are concerns about security in the parkade which
led to the design which allows as much daylight as possible. Mr. Nicolson
said he believes they will be able to resolve the treatment at the corner.
|
