Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Index
Present
1133 West Georgia Street
256 East 2nd Avenue
168 Powell Street
1777 – 1799 Kingsway
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Walter Francl, Chair
Nigel Baldwin
Albert Bicol
Shahla Bozorgzadeh
Tom Bunting
Margot Long (Item #1, 2 and 4)
Bill Harrison
John Wall
Peter Wreglesworth
C.C. Yao (Item #2, 3 and 4)
ADDITIONAL MEMBERS TO THE PANEL
Paul Merrick (Item #1)
Jim Hancock (Item #1)
Regrets:
James Cheng
Eileen Keenan
Recording Secretary:
L. Harvey
1. 1133 West Georgia Street
DE: 410715
Use: Mixed
Use hotel/residential/retail
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Musson
Cattell Mackey
Review: Third
(1st March 16, 2005, 2nd June 8, 2006)
Delegation: Arthur
Erickson, Mark Thompson, Dane Jansen, Jennifer Stamp
Staff: Ralph
Segal/Alison Higginson
EVALUATION: Support (8-0)
Introduction: Ralph Segal, Development Planner, presented the
complete application after rezoning. Mr. Segal reminded the Panel that
the application was unanimously supported at the rezoning stage by
the Urban Design Panel. Mr. Segal asked the Panel to comment on the
architectural expression. He noted that in the rezoning stage, the
Palm Court interior public space was proposed. It was concluded that
the Palm Court was proving troublesome and was abandoned. Mr. Segal
added that at the lane there will be a bus and taxi drop off and access
to the hotel functions. There will also be a complete upgrade to the
lane.
Mr. Segal noted the following areas in which the advice of the Panel
is sought noted the following areas in which the advice of the Panel
is sought:
1. Has the architectural design evolved appropriately in regard to:
- tower’s exterior design
- podium as it related to the tower, adjacent buildings and Georgia Street
2. Quality of the Public Realm, specifically the plaza treatment and
lane interface.
“Atrium” Enquiry: From an Urban Design/Architectural perspective,
the Panel’s opinion is sought on a Georgia Street glass atrium
vs. the public plaza that is in the current Development Application.
Applicant’s Introductory Comments:
Mark Thompson, Architect described the project in further detail and gave
a history of the site. Arthur Erickson, Architect spoke on the changes made
since the last Urban Design Panel. Jennifer Stamp, Landscape Architect gave
an overview of the landscape plans for the site. The applicant team took questions
from the Panel.
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
- There was general support for the atrium. The atrium roof canopy
should be as light and refined as possible, with a thin fascia edge.
- Design development to refine the glass atrium wall to enhance its
transparency and permeability. It should minimize the restriction of
movement and allow the atrium to operate as a public open space fronting
the street.
- Remove the planting from the 24th floor balconies.
Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this application and commended the applicant
for their hard work.
It was described as an iconic and elegant scheme and the Panel felt
the design had developed well since the last Urban Design Panel review.
The Panel was impressed with the resolution of the scheme and the rigor
that has been applied to the structural system and to the façade.
The Panel supported all the sustainability measures.
The Panel supported the height although one member of the Panel suggested
the applicant might consider raising the building to the same height
as the Shangri-la since it is close enough that they may be read as a
pair. However, the Panel as a whole felt the height was appropriate.
A couple of members did suggest increasing the height of the three curving
glazed facades to the top of the roof to improve the proportions of this
uppermost element of the building in relation to the rest of the tower,
as well as enhancing the sustainability of the building.
Several members of the Panel felt that the landscape design could be
further developed to integrate itself more closely with the motion and
spirit of the building and to develop a stronger character for the plaza
and podium levels. One member also had concern that the amount of hard
surfaces to planting in the plaza space could yield a space that would
feel hard rather than lush. The Panel also felt that the 24th floor balcony
greenery took away from the simplicity and elegance of the building and
suggested leaving the planting out of the design.
There was some concern around the liveability of the suites with the
floor to ceiling glass noting that it might become uncomfortable without
cross ventilation or resorting to air conditioning.
The Panel felt the new proposal (atrium) was a much more elegant solution
with the full, site wide, canopy element referencing the neighbouring
podium level of the adjacent site. It was suggested that the edge condition
of the glass and the frame could be developed to appear lighter and more
refined.
There was some concern that the proposed atrium would restrict the public
use of the open space though it was also noted that Georgia Street is
a very busy thoroughfare that does not lend itself to quiet open space
use. Some members of the Panel felt that internalizing the space would
make it a great public room for an art show or music and would be a good
public fit for the project. It was also suggested that the atrium glazing
should be as permeable as possible, especially during good weather, so
that the ground plane can operate as public open space rather than hotel
lobby. Pivoting or sliding glass elements that could be opened were suggested.
Applicant’s Response:
Mr. Thompson thanked the panel for their very interesting comments and
added that they will take them on with enthusiasm. He asked for more
commentary on the height of the building. Mr. Segal advised the applicant
that Council most likely would not approve more height. The consensus
of the Panel was that the height was appropriate for the floor plate.
2. 256 East
2nd Avenue
DE: 410276
Use: 6-storey
live/work residential
Zoning: IC-3
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Christopher
Bozyk Architects
Owner: Orpheum
Condominium Properties Ltd.
Review: Second
(First Review July 5, 2006)
Delegation: Chris
Bozek, Craig Taylor, Dylan Chernoff
Staff: Dale
Morgan
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-2)
Introduction:
Dale Morgan, Development Planner, presented this complete application
for a live/work and residential development in the IC-3 zone along East
2nd Avenue originally reviewed by the Panel on July 5, 2006. During the
last review by the Panel there were concerns around the scale and massing,
neighbourliness, and liveability, including below grade suite entries.
There were also CPTED issues associated with the deeply recessed common
entry and concerns about the lack of outdoor and indoor amenity spaces
aside from the gallery.
Referring to the model, Mr. Morgan gave a brief overview of the project,
describing the changes to the project since the previous review with
the Panel.
Mr. Morgan noted the following areas in which the advice of the Panel
is sought:
Has the revised submission successfully addressed the issues previously
identified by the panel, including:
1. Better response to sloping grades for unit entry levels
2. Improved interface with neighbours, including spatial separation,
natural light and view impacts
3. Liveability issues of units
4. Visibility of parking ramp
5. Provision of common amenity spaces
Comments are also requested on the proposed below grade amenity space
and light well and the revised rear yard adjacencies with neighbouring
live/ work development across the lane.
Landscaping: Has the landscaping improved or have the revised plans
compromised some of the desirable attributes of the previous scheme,
including the lane interface? Should the outdoor circulation path, sixth
floor be pulled further away from the edge to allow a landscape screening
from neighbours? Have the outdoor amenity spaces been properly handled?
Applicant’s Introductory Comments:
Craig Taylor, Architect briefly reviewed the project in greater detail
and responded to questions from the Panel.
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
Concerns about the liveability of the suites especially around the
interior bedroom layouts;
Exterior architectural expression is better developed and appropriate
for this neighbourhood.
Design development to the parking ramp to make it less visible;
Design development to improve the quality of the landscaping; and
Concern around the location and usability of the below-grade
amenity space.
Related Commentary:
The Panel supported this proposal.
The Panel agreed that the applicant had done a good job in addressing
the sloping grade and that the interface had been improved with the neighbours
although several members of the Panel felt the south façade was
less successful. Some of the Panel felt that the landscaping was somewhat
disappointing especially on the lane.
The Panel questioned the liveability of the units with the number of
internal bedrooms without windows. They suggested redesigning the units,
where possible, to allow for windows in the bedrooms for both natural
ventilation and daylight. Several Panel members suggested increasing
the ceiling heights which would also bring more light to the units.
Some of the Panel felt the parking ramp was too prominent and should
be screened with additional landscaping. One Panel member suggested a
trellis over the parking ramp.
Some members of the Panel felt the landscaping need more work and one
member suggested adding a green roof.
Several members of the Panel felt the below-grade location of the amenity
space would not be well used by the residents, with one member suggesting
putting it on the sixth level with access to the roof top gardens.
Applicant’s Response:
Mr. Taylor thanked the Panel for their comments and agreed that some
of the points the Panel raised would be revisited. He also mentioned
that they would look at the interior bedroom layouts to see if they could
redesign the plan.
3. 168 Powell Street
DE: 410717
Use: 8-storey
mixed use building containing retail and 90 residential units
Zoning: HA-2
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Busby,
Perkins, and Will
Review: First
Delegation: Jim
Huffman, Jeff Skinner, Bruce Hemstock
Staff: Dale
Morgan
EVALUATION: NON-SUPPORT (7-0)
Introduction:
Dale Morgan, Development Planner, presented this complete application
for an eight storey mixed use building containing retail and ninety residential
units. Mr. Morgan took questions from the Panel.
Mr. Morgan noted the following areas in which the advice of the Panel
is sought:
- Building Character: Is the proposed building character complimentary
with the historic Gastown area in terms of overall massing, architectural
and material expression, including window patterns and proposed colours?
- Retail Frontage: Comments are requested on the detail treatment
of the retail frontage; does it reinforce the visual language of Gastown’s
store fronts, including generous ceiling heights, transom lights, strongly
expressed cornices and strongly expressed base treatments?
- Liveability: Do the dwelling units achieve a high degree of liveability
in terms of unit configuration, access to natural light and ventilation,
privacy and open space?
Applicant’s Introductory Comments:
Jim Huffman, Architect, referring to the context drawings and the model,
reviewed the project in greater detail and Bruce Hemstock, Landscape
Architect gave an overview of the landscape plan. The applicant team
responded to questions from the Panel.
Panel’s
Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
Concerns about the liveability of the suites especially around light
and ventilation for the interior bedroom layouts; and
Concern with the height of the retail space especially on the east
corner.
Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this proposal.
The Panel agreed that this was a good looking building and the contemporary
architectural character of the facades was an appropriate response
to the historical architectural context of Gastown.
The Panel for the most part liked the red accent on the building however
several members felt the colour might be too strong and one member
suggested making it more of a terra cotta red or layering the reds
to add a bit of richness. One member was concerned about the use of
painted concrete, stating that it could require a lot of upkeep over
time.
The Panel felt that the retail frontage was the weakest part of the
project. They noted the limitations imposed by the building height
because of the sloping site, especially on the east corner. While the
Panel generally approved the modern character of the building façade,
there was some concern that there be enough contrast between glazing
and solid to respond to the robust texture of the building facades
in Gastown. One member suggested having a continuous canopy along the
front of the building. A couple of members of the Panel suggested having
a stronger visual separation between the retail ground floor and the
upper residential floors.
The Panel had some concerns around the liveability of the units especially
with the number of light locked bedrooms without ventilation. They
felt there was room for design development to relocate bedrooms and
to move the study space to the interior of the suites. A couple of
Panel members suggested moving the bedrooms to the corridor wall
with high windows bringing light into the bedrooms. There was some
concern that the courtyard was tight and deep and that there might
not be adequate light for the courtyard landscaping.
Other comments included the need for continuous weather protection
at the street and the need for greater articulation and depth of the
front façade.
Applicant’s Response:
Mr. Huggman thanked the Panel for their comments and agreed to look
at opening up the bedroom floor plans to add more light. He also stated
that they would like to raise the retail and agreed that raising the
canopy would help.
4. 1777 – 1799 Kingsway
DE: 410609
Use: Mixed
use building
Zoning: C-2
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Allen
Diamond Architect
Review: First
Delegation: Alan
Diamond, Damon Oriente, Craig Mercs
Staff: James
Boldt
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (8-0)
Introduction:
James Boldt, Development Planner, presented this complete application
for a mixed use building on the Kingsway corridor. Mr. Boldt stated
that the main concerns from Staff dealt with the materials being used
on the exterior of the building, the liveability of the suites and
issues with respect to the lane.
Applicant’s Introductory Comments:
Alan Diamond, Architect referring to the context drawings and the
model, reviewed the project in greater detail. Damon Oriente, Landscape
Architect reviewed the landscape plans for the project. The applicant
team took questions from the Panel.
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
The Panel had no substantial concerns with any aspect of this proposal.
Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this application and commended the
architect on a well executed project. They felt that it was a benefit
to the neighbourhood and would like to see similar buildings on Kingsway.
The Panel liked the massing and composition of the building and the
use of the dark brick. A number of Panel members suggested making the
canopies as substantial as possible. One member of the Panel had concerns
about the scale of the columns at the building base and the corner
fenestration of the retail.
The Panel agreed that the loading facility would not be used much
but would still like to see some design development to make it more
neighbourly. A couple of members of the Panel suggested the use of
permeable pavement in this area and the addition of landscaping to
screen the lane wall. One member suggested making it a green or living
wall.
One member of the Panel thought the penthouse could be more expressive
and playful while another member liked the swooping penthouse roof.
One Panel member was concerned about the fine scale of the retail
expression on Kingsway noting that it could be of a larger scale to
respond to the high traffic volumes of Kingsway. Other Panel members
felt that the retail base was well handled.
The Panel felt the liveability of the units was well addressed.
Applicant’s Response:
The applicant team was pleased with the commentary from the Panel.
The meeting concluded at 9:00PM.
|
