Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, January 5, 2005
Index
Present
1178 West Pender Street
290 East 51st Avenue/6810 Main Street
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Bruce Haden, Chair
Mark Ostry (Item 1 and Item 2 intro only)
Larry Adams
Robert Barnes
Jeffrey Corbett
Alan Endall
Marta Farevaag (excused Item 2)
Ronald Lea
Margot Long (Item 1 only)
Jennifer Marshall
Brian Martin
Regrets:
Steven Keyes
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
1. 1178 West Pender Street
DE: 408949
Use: Mixed (28 storeys, 146 units)
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Hancock Bruckner Eng & Wright
Owner: Pinnacle International Lands
Review: First
Delegation: Stanley Kwok, Martin Bruckner, Peter Kreuk
Staff: Ralph Segal
EVALUATION: NON-SUPPORT (0-10)
• Introduction: Ralph Segal, Development Planner, presented this
application in the Downtown District. The zoning permits a maximum FSR
of 7.0, of which the maximum permitted residential FSR is 3.0. The application
proposes 7.7 FSR which includes a ten percent heritage density transfer.
Just under 4.0 FSR (52,600 sq.ft.) of commercial density is being transferred
from this site to the neighbouring 1211 Melville Street site (the Ritz),
the rezoning application for which was unanimously supported by the Panel
on December 8, 2004. City policy encourages retail commercial space in
this part of the Downtown and this transfer of commercial density is
supported by staff because it allows for larger retail tenancies on the
1211 Melville site.
This application also proposes a daycare as a community amenity contribution,
in exchange for which additional residential density of 4.0 FSR is being
sought to the total maximum 7.0 FSR (plus 0.7 heritage density transfer).
A small amount of commercial space is also included at grade on the West
Pender Street frontage. The City has identified the need for a daycare
in this part of the downtown and supports its inclusion in this development.
The main issues relate to whether this site can accommodate 7.7 FSR
and the separation from The Melville which does not meet the 80 ft. separation
normally sought for downtown towers. It was recognized there would be
a tower of this site when The Melville was developed.
The advice of the Panel is sought on the following:
• Whether the site can accommodate 7.7 FSR;
•
Tower separation, particularly with respect to privacy issues;
•
General tower form response to the site, including both the triangular
opportunity and the streetscape view on Pender;
•
Reinforcement of the Bute Street high street concept;
•
The daycare.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Martin Bruckner, Architect,
described the design rationale and the applicant team responded to questions
from the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Re-shape the tower to maintain, or come very close to, the 80
ft. separation for all inhabited space;
• Consider moving the east tower façade further east and/or
increasing the building height;
• Consider more emphasis on the flatiron form in part by stronger
architectural emphasis on the Bute/Pender corner;
• Design development to the soft and hard landscape at grade especially
on Bute Street;
• Maximize sun access to the daycare exterior;
• Include outdoor amenity space for the residents (could be accomplished
by a time-share strategy with the daycare or development of the roof.)
• Related Commentary:
The Panel strongly supported the daycare and found the spaces very well
thought out. The daycare parking and drop-off arrangements off the lane
were also strongly supported. It was suggested the arrival to the daycare
needed some attention, with the addition of some weather protection recommended
for the third floor exterior access. Most Panel members thought the daycare
outdoor spaces would have good sun access, although one Panel member
recommended detailed shadow analysis to confirm, noting that mid-morning
and mid-afternoon are generally critical times for outdoor play.
The Panel was unable to support this application due to major concerns
about the proposed density and the proximity of the tower to The Melville.
The Panel did not believe the 80 ft. minimum tower separation should
be compromised and possibly set a precedent for other developments. It
was stressed that the 80 ft. separation has been a long-standing policy
in the downtown and is one of the reasons Vancouver has a very livable
mix of towers in the downtown. Most Panel members thought 7.0 FSR could
still be achieved on this site, as well as the extra ten percent heritage
density, but did not think it had yet been demonstrated. Reshaping the
current form will be required and a clear demonstration provided that
all the constraints of the site can be adequately addressed. Adjustments
reflecting more of the flatiron form to the west were recommended. It
was suggested that relocating some of the massing to the east would offer
a better balance of compromise between privacy and maintenance of the
view corridor. There was a suggestion that shifting the tower eastward
would enable the daycare to be relocated more to the west for better
light and sun access. One Panel member also suggested some of the density
could be accommodated in a shoulder to the tower, which would also allow
for the daycare to be higher, with better light access. In addition to
the privacy issues raised by the tower’s proximity to The Melville,
one Panel member also thought it looked too crowded and took away from
the prominence of The Melville as a special building in this area of
the downtown.
The Panel was disappointed there was no semi private outdoor space provided
for the residents and suggested this could be addressed by a time-share
arrangement with the daycare to share some of its outdoor space. The
roof could also be developed for semi private outdoor amenity space.
The Panel found the public realm treatment to be generally well handled
and was pleased to note the attention now being given to the Pender streetscape.
There was a call by one Panel member for the public realm generally to
take precedence, including continuous street trees without gaps at private
entrances. The applicant was commended for the thorough landscape plan.
A very strong landscape presence was recommended for Bute Street. More
landscaping in the lane was recommended as well as providing greater
activity and surveillance in the lane. There may also be an opportunity
to strengthen the pedestrian connection across the lane. Another suggestion
on the ground plane was that it seems a missed opportunity to create
two parallel walkways on Bute rather than opening up to a single plaza.
There were no concerns about how the project addresses the Bute “high
street” concept, although one Panel member noted the various plans
all show different approaches to the corner. A strong response to the
corner and the triangular shape of the site was recommended. Some Panel
members suggested taking cues from the flatiron building to the west
in terms of its formal relationship to Pender and Bute Streets.
Other comments/suggestions about the architectural expression included:
- the curve along Pender Street is so slight it is almost unnoticeable
and could be dispensed with;
- the architectural resolution of the lane elevation seems weak;
- there could be a stronger formal relationship between the south side
of the building and the laneway;
- the tower expression is not unified; perhaps the tower massing needs
to come to the ground or the tower/podium relationship expressed more
boldly;
- reducing the width of the tower front to back will make the building
more dynamic and make the whole tower expression more exciting;
- the diagonal trusses on the canopy seem a bit overpowering;
- the tower needs greater clarity in terms of the patterning of the elements
on both the south and north elevations;
- wrapping of the front façade around the side elevations is a
bit disappointing - the sides are interesting because of their proportions;
- there is a need for greater order and relationship to the tower; some
of the elements on the façade seem somewhat arbitrary;
- the entry to the residential tower on Pender Street is a bit bland;
- the podium should have a stronger, more unified look so that it is
very distinct from the tower.
2. 290 East
51st Avenue/6810 Main Street
DE: 409020
Use: Community Centre
Zoning: RS-1
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Bing Thom
Owner: City of Vancouver
Review: First
Delegation: Bing Thom, Chris Phillips, Arno Matis
Staff: Bob Adair
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-0)
• Introduction: Bob Adair, Development Planner, introduced this
application for a new Sunset Community Centre. The site compromises about
four city blocks between Main and Prince Edward and 51st and 53rd Avenues
and is under the jurisdiction of the Park Board. It currently contains
a greenhouse facility and works yard for the Park Board and the Sunset
Ice Rink. The existing community centre will be demolished when the new
facility is built. There is also a neighbouring school which makes use
of the community centre. The surrounding area is mostly single family
residential and to the north on Main Street is the end of the Punjabi
market C-2 zone.
The facilities include a gymnasium, multi purpose spaces, fitness centre
and a youth activity centre. The main entry is at the westerly end of
the east-west axis. There is a surface parking lot accessed from West
53rd Avenue. To the north is a plaza which provides some view into the
greenhouse area. The southern end of the spine terminates in a passive
green open space for recreational use.
Materials include concrete structural walls for the spine and some
of the exterior walls and an extensive glazed and spandrel panel wall
system. The roof is a membrane system.
The advice of the Panel is sought on the following:
• Macro circulation patterns; access from the surrounding residential
neighbourhood and the existing school and ice rink;
• Concept and handling of the plaza at the northwest corner;
• Siting of the main entry on 52nd Avenue;
• Roof system and its visibility from the surrounding neighbourhood.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Bing Thom, Architect, briefly
reviewed the overall planning concepts and the applicant team responded
to questions from the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Design development to the northwest corner (while maintaining
trees, if possible) to recognize pedestrian desire lines and the adjacent
urban condition of Main Street;
• Design development to improve parking drop-off to shorten the
unprotected walk;
• Reduce opaque planting along street edges to improve sight lines
to the park;
• Clarify the entry strategy with respect to emergency use, daily
use or ceremonial use;
• Consider increasing the distance between the westernmost greenhouse
and the building;
• Consider a green roof as part of the sustainable design strategy.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this application and commended the architects
and the City for embracing such a forward-looking project. The new community
centre will be a welcome addition to the neighbourhood.
The Panel’s concerns related to access and site circulation. The
good macro analysis done in this regard was acknowledged but the Panel
thought it had not yet been sufficiently carried through to the next
stage. In particular, the east-west axis which has been set up needs
to be resolved in terms of the future east-west connections. It is currently
offset and is one of the weakest parts in the site planning. The pick-up
and drop-off from the parking lot was also thought to need more design
development to shorten the distance to the entry and/or provide some
weather protection. Some Panel members found the entries a bit confusing
and unclear which was intended to be the primary entry. There was a recommendation
to give greater consideration to the neighbouring commercial area of
Main Street, opening up the Main Street entry more to the street in a
more urban fashion.
The Panel found the plaza at the northwest corner in need of better
resolution with respect to its connection to the main entry to the building,
noting that this will likely not end up functioning as the main entrance.
There were also concerns about the permeability of the north plaza and
the need to ensure it is well lit at night. The concept of bringing the
nursery out to the street and expressing the use and history of the site
was strongly endorsed. There was a suggestion to consider making some
greenhouse space available for local community gardeners.
The Panel applauded the commitment to sustainable design but was disappointed
that it does not include a green roof. The applicant was urged to make
all or part of it “green”, particularly in the context of
the nursery.
One Panel member questioned whether there might be greater articulation
of the components (the five “leaves”) in addressing orientation
and program to give the building more presence. With respect to the two
axes running through the building, there was a recommendation to increase
its width to 8 – 10 ft.
Some Panel members found the relationship of the gymnasium to the first
greenhouse to be a bit tight and awkward, suggesting the removal or relocation
of this smaller greenhouse would also contribute to improving the east-west
access.
The Panel strongly supported the green space for community use but emphasized
that must be permeable to be safe. In this regard, the dilemma of maintaining
the existing hedge was acknowledged. This will need careful study to
ensure that unbroken expanses of the hedge can be preserved while ensuring
security of the green space.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Thom thanked the Panel for its
insightful comments and said they are committed to resolve the issues.
|
