| |
Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Index
Present
1133 West Georgia Street
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Larry Adams, Chair
Nigel Baldwin
Robert Barnes
Shahla Bozorgzadeh
Ronald Lea
Peter Wreglesworth
Guest Panelists:
Peter Ellis
James Hancock
Matthias Sauerbruch
Bing Thom
Regrets:
James Cheng
Alan Endall
Marta Farevaag
Margot Long
Edward Smith
C.C. Yao
Recording Secretary:
Carrie Peacock, Raincoast Ventures
1. 1133 West Georgia Street
Use: Mixed (52 storeys)
Zoning: DD – CD-1
Application Status: Rezoning
Architect: MCM
Owner: Holborn Group
Review: First
Delegation: Mark Whitehead, Don Wuori
Staff: Jonathan Barrett, Phil Mondor
EVALUATION: NON-SUPPORT (0-7) (2 votes for deferral)
• Introduction:
Chair Adams called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m., introduced the
four guest panelists in attendance (as voting members for the meeting),
and advised that four UDP Panel members were absent due to perceived
conflicts of interest. He also introduced representatives of the application
in attendance, and acknowledged City staff for coordinating the meeting.
• Introduction of Proponents:
Jonathan Barrett, Development Planner, offered background information
regarding the project and noted that the Panel had received on the
previous day, a thorough briefing regarding the Panel’s procedures
and mandate. Mr. Barrett reminded the Panel that rezoning was required
when a proposal did not meet the parameters of the zone, and noted
that:
- residential was not currently permitted within the zone;
- a density of 17.5 FSR was proposed, in a zone limited to 9 FSR; and
- a height of 550 ft. was proposed, in a zone with a height limitation
of 450 ft.
Mr. Barrett further reviewed the parameters of the building policy for
higher buildings, noting that buildings 450-600 ft. in height should:
- be situated on one of Vancouver’s three primary streets: Georgia,
Granville or Burrard;
- exhibit architectural excellence;
- achieve other community aspects (i.e. a cultural or low cost housing);
- provide on-site open space, representing an addition to downtown green
and plaza spaces;
- include, where possible, uses of community significance; and
- not contribute to adverse microclimate effects.
Mr. Barrett added that a sustainability policy was being developed.
Information boards displayed around the meeting room regarding the skyline
and view cones were referenced, and an objective to create a skyline ‘dome’ in
the downtown centre, tapering off around the outside of city, was discussed.
•
Applicant’s Opening Comments:
Mark Whitehead, MCM Partnership, offered historical information regarding
Vancouver’s higher buildings over the prior 95 years, including
the Dominion Building, Sun Tower, and Hotel Vancouver, which were all
constructed of steel, stone or brick and which dominated the skyline
at the time of their construction. Further information was offered
regarding the city’s later and higher mixed-use buildings including
the TD Centre, Park Place and Wall Centre, noting that their heights
had been negotiated through a zoning process.
Mr. Whitehead referenced the displayed information boards and offered
the following comments regarding the project:
- a public observation deck, onsite microclimate and open space were
included in the design;
- residential, local transportation and business uses surrounded the
site;
- the design included permeability to pedestrians between Bute and Thurlow
Streets;
- the north side lane, of superior quality, measured 33 ft. wide and
faced townhouses;
- the lot was 200 ft. x 122 ft., and had a slope allowing for underground
parking and loading;
- residential units were planned above commercial units;
- the building would be set back to allow the graciousness of the lane;
- there would be no overshadowing of public open spaces;
- the building responded to all view corridors with minimal impacts on
adjacent developments;
- a publicly accessed sky garden would offer significant views of local
mountains;
- the form of the building was subtly flared, and was intended to complete
the skyline;
- a mechanical floor surrounded by an observation deck;
- retail level would divide the residential and hotel levels;
- the floor plan included 235,000 square ft. of space;
- owners of the building also controlled the properties to the east;
- the project would utilize the existing parking ramp of the Terasen
Centre;
- a hotel lobby would be on the second floor; the sky garden lobby on
the third floor;
- observation elevators would share an elevator shaft with the residential
elevators;
- 200 potential long term hotel rooms were included in the design;
- contextual elevations displayed on information boards indicated basic
use of materials;
- the design included non-mirrored, vision clear glass in the blue-gray
range, and a concrete base in an undetermined colour;
- MCM was the recipient of various awards (i.e. Powersmart), and participated
on a number of councils (i.e. Green Building Council);
- MCM was currently one of the three LEED assessors in Canada;
- Electronic Arts and a Children’s Hospital lab were current MCM
projects;
- the goal of the project was for LEEDs certification at the silver level;
- architecture would address storm water management and potential energy
generation;
- there would be 4-5 ft. of soil on the observation deck which would
contribute to the structure’s efficiency;
- elevators would generate electricity on their way down, reducing their
consumption;
- hydro-electricity (created by a “tail race” using a vertical
aqueduct carrying storm water down the building), wind energy and fuel
cell options were being investigated; and
- the existing building/abandoned construction site was previously seismically
upgraded, and would be dismantled; concrete and rebar collected during
the dismantling could be recycled.
During a review of the first of three models, which indicated the correct
topography of city and building heights that currently challenged the ‘dome’,
Mr. Whitehead identified the locations of tall buildings in Vancouver,
including the Waterfront, Shangri-La, and the proposed development. It
was noted that the project’s base was designed as a podium cradling
a crystal form like a “bouquet of flowers”.
In response to questions raised, Mr. Whitehead noted that subtle flaring
in the design accentuated the sky garden, and coupled with the dominant
Shangri-La; and the building would be 50 ft. shorter than the top of
Shangri-La, and 90 ft. shorter in the back.
During a review of the second of three models, which indicated a closer
view of the project, Mr. Whitehead acknowledged:
- the base of the building was a 60 ft. high podium; demarcated by a
mansard tower at the west end of the Terasen Centre;
- the ground floor of the design would include retail;
- the adjacent lane treatment would be determined after consultation
with the city’s Engineering Department (not likely asphalt);
- the face contextually responded to neighbouring heights;
- towards the building’s roof, the angled lines were facets of
the ‘crystal’, and included rods of stainless steel which
at the top of the building defined the perimeter of the garden; and
- three of the building’s faces would be subtly flared.
During a review of the third of three models, and landscape information
boards, Don Wouri, Landscape Architect acknowledged that:
- the project included two publicly accessible gardens (the sky garden
and the street level water garden); and two visually accessible gardens
(at the 50 ft. and 200 ft. levels);
- each of garden composition would include vegetation, water and natural
stone;
- the sky garden’s lattice work of steel rods, was intended for
structural purposes; each crossing lattice created a constellation, which
intended to inspire the project’s edges, pools and landscape patterns;
- building gardens in the sky in Vancouver was not a new venture;
- rainwater would be collected on the roof, and would feed into ground
level water pools;
- raised planters with trees and seating would be adjacent to the Terasen
building;
- the publicly-oriented ground garden would be pedestrian friendly;
- trees suggested by an Arborist for planting in the sky garden would
be:
- 15-20 ft. high (reaching 30-45 ft. over 10 years);
- grown in 4-6 ft. of soil;
- of a recommended species (i.e. spruce, cedar, sequoia); and
- protected from the winds by glazing.
Questions:
Mr. Whitehead responded to questions of the UDP, noting the following:
- the sky garden included approximately 30,000 cubic ft. of soil and
defined walkable areas;
- retail or hotel operations at the roof level had not been resolved;
- elevator cabs to the sky garden could be accessed by the hotel lobby;
- expert considerations had been obtained regarding the gap in the top
of the building;
- potential vibration of the building’s edges were being addressed
to avoid noise;
- the weight of the garden’s soil would stabilize the building;
- pocket gardens were inviting to the public;
- a link to the Terasen building at the ground plane, could be discussed
with the city;
- the ground level offered mostly retail and publicly accessible space;
- the plaza was the same width as the lane, and related to the scale
of the building to the east; small spaces could be successful without
being expansive;
- a connection between the podium’s roof and the Terasen building
had been suggested; an arcade connection between the buildings was anticipated;
- parking for the building met city regulations; public parking was provided
in the adjacent building;
- five star hotels typically would not have transit buses idling out
front;
- the access ramp to parking would be adjacent to the fitness area; the
level above was intended for a meeting room area;
- parking for the project lined up with parking for the Terasen building,
and increased available parking on the site;
- residents of the building could use the parks;
- the building stepped back at 65 ft.; this would be acceptable for a
hotel;
- the project’s concrete types and colours had not yet been determined;
- opportunities for internal balconies could be considered;
- every suite of the hotel would have opening windows;
- stainless steel rods attached to every floor, would assist window washing;
- the top third of the Wall Centre was similar in expression to this
project;
- the design and elements of the project metaphorically represented claws
holding a diamond on a ring;
- studies were needed relative to the appropriate glass system;
- public access to the rooftop included an elevator up three floors to
the sky garden/retail lobby; and a second elevator ride to the top of
the building;
- there would be two parking elevators ‘piggy-backed’ from
ground level, and three elevators ‘piggy-backed’ to the top
of the building;
- parking elevators faced the inside the building and sky garden elevators
faced outside;
- residents would have their own elevator lobbies;
- security measures for the building had yet to be determined, and would
likely be based on the popularity of the public gardens;
- art programs/cultural contributions for the building had not yet been
addressed;
- the LEED system focused on energy, movement of water, and the recycling
of materials;
- the exterior wall would be double walls or triple glazed systems;
- shading could be incorporated into the glass or from the outside; and
- this would be a sustainable building, by virtue of reaching silver
LEEDs certification.
Recess
The meeting recessed at 10:27 a.m. and reconvened at 10:31 a.m.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
Jonathan Barrett, Department Planner, acknowledged that sustainability
was important to Council, referenced a requirement for overall architectural
excellence in higher building design, and reviewed the need for consideration
of the following project attributes:
- mixed uses;
- a proposed density of 17.5 FSR;
- the overall built form in relation to adjacent neighbours;
- overall building character;
- four landscaped areas;
- extra height;
- mid-block pedestrian link and sky garden as physical public amenities;
and
- sustainability.
Chair Adams led the meeting in a discussion regarding the advantages
and disadvantages of the submission, during which the following comments
were offered:
Presentation
- the applicant is commended for thorough presentation, but not enough
detail regarding materials and detailing;
- more detail should be available before rezoning is granted;
- presentation is so extensive that the building looks like it’s
ready to be built, yet answers to questions indicates it’s still
very preliminary and does not display a single metaphoric relation; further
discussion with the Panel would be required.
Land uses
- uses are supported but disappointing that Vancouver can’t sustain
commercial; support hotel as commercial;
- downtown residential will add vitality.
Density
- site seems small to realise proposed density; density seems high, not
that building is too tall but the way it is handled at grade;
- the density requested should be equally balanced by public amenities
and architectural excellence;
- concern about density - is much higher than other buildings in the
downtown;
- a doubling of density places a value on the public amenities and architectural
excellence which should be provided;
- the adjacent Shangri-La earned its height and density, paid its dues
with a very significant and exceptional generous public domain; it’s
also a corner site with monumentality on all four sides;
- this project is ‘dauntingly’ mid-block, surrounded by buildings,
with fewer opportunities and greater constraints;
- a small mid-block site on its own won’t work; it should be seen
in combination with the adjacent property which is in same ownership;
- development is not offering enough public benefit; should reduce the
density and present a more elegant solution;
Mid Block Connection
- the mid-block pedestrian connection seems opportunistic and accidental – not
aligned, not really a public realm;
- mid-block connection should not detract from streetscape expectations
and standards;
- a mid-block space on Vancouver’s long blocks is important, and
quality, experience, connectivity of that space is more important than
quantity;
Tower
- tower height is an opportunity for specialness but what we see is the
usual contextual literalness rather than architectonics – too much
emphasis on neighbourliness - would prefer tower form or ‘crystal’ to
come to the ground;
- tower will add to the skyline with differentiation from Shangri-la,
but the relationship of the stone base to the ‘glass shard’ appeared
unresolved; should be more prominence at the street level;
- tower has lots of good elements but needs simplification: bring upper
façade down to grade, and façade needs better identify
as a green building; lower grid seems ordinary, should be less contextual;
- concern about 55-foot separation to building across the lane;
- concern about footprint and ground plane;
- the location for this tower and the Shangri-la is absurd; would have
preferred to see alternatives; the tower base is too predictable; the
tower base is ordinary; the stepping of the building should stop earlier,
after the first step; all the steps hold the building back from being
a tall building;
- the upside-down wedge design and outward flaring doesn’t work
and is inelegant; it should taper inward, curve, or be straight up, and
not go against the laws of perspective; should let the Shangri-La be
the tallest;
- a gorgeous curtain wall should be found and taken from the bottom to
the top;
- a tall building is a rare opportunity, and this is probably one of
the last developable sites available downtown; the objective should be
to build the best building for the site;
- the building suffers from not knowing what it wants to be; it should
compete with Shangri-la; the scheme should be reworked and perhaps go
taller;
- there is an unhappy mix of forms and materials;
Open Space
- public open space and garden will be really public only if people use
them; sky roof might be seen as hotel/residential amenities rather than
public space;
- site is too tight, should have more open space, perhaps through linkage
to adjoining Terasen Centre, like Shangri-la plaza; tower needs a better
sense of entry and publicness, a more public lobby;
- public access to roof needs to be programmed, with staff above and
below;
- wonder if roof garden forest detracts from or contradicts the crystal
form; seems to work when enclosed as proposed, but maybe needs further
stepping down; one eco-type will be more sustainable – it’s
a garden not a forest;
- there will be issues of maintenance, design, sustainability (e.g. fertilizer)
and access;
- public access, hours of operation and staging will be an issue if roof
is to be a very successful public place;
- should be just one elevator from grade to the sky garden;
- concern about publicness of the roof – would prefer a stronger
public element at grade;
- the garden at the top is great, but question whether it’ll provide
an amenity to the public; it’s a beautiful space but won’t
be public enough unless elevator transfers are minimized and a destination
provided;
- the street level relationship requires further consideration.
Sustainability
- green program is a good start;
- the project should have a thorough sustainability program and should
aspire to LEED gold certification in exchange for the extra height and
density;
- disagree with the applicant that such and such could be this, or that,
or something else - all of these will have impact on form and appearance,
and it suggests that sustainability is just an add-on; don’t see
a serious approach to sustainability;
- would be a great public statement for Vancouver to take an integrated
and comprehensive approach; for example, how much glass should you have
relative to solar gain, heat loss, etc.; it would be nice to quantify
these but it seems a hollow concept here with no overall logic or concept;
- a serious approach to energy reduction and sustainability would be
beneficial; the building has good potential;
Parking
- parking needs further consideration.
• Design Panel Summary:
Chair Adams summarized the Panel’s discussion with the concerns
being as follow:
- a higher order of public amenity needs to be developed to ensure long
lasting public good; this will involve further development of the mid-block
entrance, possible opening of the plazas at ground level, and the incorporation
of the Terasen building’s roof as another public amenity;
- more efficient public roof access should be addressed, with consideration
of bringing the roof access to grade by eliminating an elevator transfer;
- provide clarification regarding the sustainability strategy; sustainability
should be considered as conceptually integral to the design and not an
add-on;
- the development of details regarding the skin of the building is critical;
- the metaphoric or iconic quality of the building needs to be addressed
and simplified as there are too many ideas going on;
- architectural excellence has not been achieved;
- there is general support of the use;
- there is general support of the height;
- the development’s density and form required further consideration;
- there is general support of the density subject to design refinement.
• Applicant’s Response
Mr. Whitehead thanked the Panel for the thoughtful inspirations, and
acknowledged varying comments presented; the importance of details;
that sustainability was not deemed to be a form generator; benefits
of seeking the Panel’s direction before proceeding further with
designs; a reliance on LEED levels as a measure of sustainability;
and next steps to include the development of details with expectations
of a developed concept.
2. Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting concluded at approximately
11:45 a.m.
|
