|
Community Services | |||
| Urban Design Panel |
| CITY OFVANCOUVER | |||
|
|
Urban Design Panel
|
| DE: | 413061 |
| Use: | Retain existing Heritage "B" Building (Yale Hotel) and construct new 22-storey mixed use building. |
| Zoning: | CD-1 (not yet enacted) |
| Application Status: | Complete |
| Review: | Second (first was rezoning) |
| Architect: | HOK Architects |
| Owner: | Rize Alliance |
| Delegation: | Veronica Gillies, HOK Architects |
| Staff: | Anita Molaro |
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (5-0)
Introduction: Anita Molaro, Development Planner, introduced the proposal for a 22-storey mixed use building on Granville Street. There is a policy plan that is about to be endorsed by Council called the Granville Loops Policy Plan which talks about the massing and development in the area when the loops are removed. The concept of that massing is to have higher forms on the outer edges (Seymour and Howe Streets) and valley form of massing along the Granville Street frontage. The applicant has provided an interim plan and a future plan for when the ramps are removed. The site is impacted by view cones which have resulted in an interesting form of development.
Advice from the Panel on this application is sought on the following:
Ms. Molaro took questions from the Panel.
Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Luke Harrison, Rize Alliance, stated that they hope to offer a catalyst development for the area; a project that will inspire continued investment along Granville Street. The site has some challenges including the uncertain and incomplete design of the Granville Loops and their eventual removal and the heritage revitalization of the Yale and the difficulty in developing a new building around the historic structure. He said they were excited to be building homes within walking distance of the downtown core, Granville Entertainment District, False Creek, Yaletown and rapid transit. Livability means small, affordable units, efficiently designed for first time home buyers. The interiors will focus on multi-purpose, adaptable living space with more outdoor space. There will be common outdoor amenity spaces for urban agriculture and community gardens. It is a truly mixed-use project with heritage, mixed housing and commercial components. The project has a historical relevance in the Yale Hotel which will be extensively revitalized. The story of the Cecil Hotel and the beginnings of Green Peace and Georgia Strait will be commemorated and honoured. The project will provide housing for all income levels and because of the tower they are able to provide new SRA’s in the revitalized Yale Hotel. Mr. Harrison said that they see this as an immerging residential area in a pre-existing cultural district. The project will assure the retention and strengthening of Vancouver’s premier venue for live music and jazz.
Veronica Gillies, Architect, further described the design for the proposal. She noted the interesting development condition due to the height limitation of the view corridor that slices the site in half on the north section and only allows for a height of 150 feet. The site was pushed to the south with a 25 foot separation between the Yale Hotel and the new development. This created three tiers which includes the podium level, tower and the Yale Hotel. Ms. Gillies described the evolution of the design. She noted that liveabilty was an important part of the design with about 30% of the buyers getting large balconies. Ms. Gillies reviewed the comments from the last Urban Design Panel review and noted the changes. She also described the proposed materials and colours for the project. Regarding sustainability, Ms. Gillies noted that LEED™ Gold is being targeted. This will include geothermal with a heat pump for heating in the retail and a water storage heat pump on the residential side. They are also looking at green power for strata. She noted that there is urban agriculture on the roof and they are looking at a composting strategy and organic landscaping.
Gerry Eckford, Landscape Architect, stated that they hope the ground plane at Granville Street will be an extension of the current work on Granville Street. He described both the interim and the final conditions. He noted that plans on the roof levels for planter walls, a children’s play area and additional urban agriculture elements. They are looking at a cistern for rain water harvesting and irrigation. Also, they are looking at elements for solar collectors to cover a small amount of lighting on the roof. Mr. Eckford said he was excited about the project and thought there was a lot of interesting elements in the landscaping design.
The design team took questions from the Panel.
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
Related Commentary: The Panel supported the proposal and thought it was an appealing form.
The Panel thought the overall massing was well done and that the ribbon theme successfully breaks down the bulk of the building. They liked the play of shadow that isn’t seen in the downtown building. They thought it could be a little stronger on Granville Street however as the articulation seemed a bit indecisive. The Panel appreciated the large balconies. Although the Panel thought the material palette was exciting, they thought there was a lack of clarity. However, several Panel members noted that the cost and longevity as well as the vibrancy and detailing should be considered when choosing the materials. They thought it would have an interesting texture that adds some vibrancy.
The Panel had some concerns regarding how the building meets the ground on Granville Street. One Panel member suggested having a different colour that wasn’t similar to the Yale Hotel. Another Panel member noted that it didn’t seem to have the same playfulness as the rest of the building. Also because the retail will be about music, the Panel thought it could be more vibrant, more celebrated. One Panel member noted that rain protection canopies would be important on the Granville street frontage for people lining up to get into the music venue.
The Panel liked the greater variety of unit types and thought the building would attract unique buyers. One Panel member thought the units could be expressed more on the exterior. The Panel appreciated the amenities and particularly liked the roof gardens.
Regarding sustainability, it was suggested that the concrete elements will generate a high potential for thermal bridging and there are some technical solutions that need to be addressed. There was also some concern with the amount of glazing and possible challenges with respect to energy performance. Several Panel members noted that the facades didn’t seem to respond to their orientation and that some of the shading is mitigated on the lower stories. The Panel commended the applicant for targeting LEED™ Gold with one Panel member suggesting certification.
Applicant’s Response: Ms. Gillies thanked the Panel for their comments and thought they were very helpful.
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (4-1)
Introduction: Anita Molaro, Development Planner, introduced the proposal which was reviewed by the Panel July 15, 2009 and was not supported. Ms. Molaro noted that the application had a new architect and massing details. The applicant reconsidered some of the design and has incorporated those changes based on the comments from the Panel. Ms. Molaro presented the recent changes to the Panel which included additional brick and some metal panels on the facade.
Advice from the Panel on this application is sought on the following:
Ms. Molaro took questions from the Panel.
Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Martin Bruckner, Architect, noted that the massing hadn’t changed since the last review by the Panel. They changed the townhouse composition on Scotia Street and East 7th Avenue by adding a three storey expression of the bays. They also added brick veneers and concrete frames to the facade. The 4th floor still has a glassy expression and a strong overhang. The building height has also been brought down level with the three storey building across the street. Mr. Bruckner noted that the brick facade has punched openings and an architectural expression more appropriate to the Mount Pleasant, Brewery Creek neighborhood. There are further changes in the materiality with the concrete expressed up the building from the front entrance and creating an overhang on the building. There are also some darker concrete pieces and lighter coloured overhangs. Mr. Bruckner added that they will be LEED™ Silver equivalency and have submitted a LEED™ Checklist to staff. The units that were in the in the corner which had some liveability issues have now been made into one unit. Mr. Bruckner also noted that they tried to mitigate the impact of the parking garage entrance and have added a deck over the entrance. Now the window in the amenity area doesn’t look onto the ramp but will instead look onto the deck.
Jennifer Stamp, Landscape Architect, noted that very little had changed on the ground floor other than extension of the deck over the parking ramp. The patios have been expanded on the roof top and more trees have been added. Ms. Stamp added that they are looking at increasing the size of the cistern to allow for 4-5 weeks of drought and possible potable water uses.
The applicant team took questions from the panel.
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
Related Commentary: The Panel supported the proposal and thought the current architectural treatment was an improvement from the last review.
The Panel still thought the original model showed a more artistic, simple and dynamic design but agreed that it was time to move on with the new architectural expression. They felt the applicant had done a good job in pulling all the parts together and had dealt with the Panel’s concerns regarding some of the complex and fussy elements of the facade. They noted that the corner was much stronger and the brick was a better expression. Taking the brick further up the building made for a less heavy top. However, they were not convinced that the project expressed the Mount Pleasant, Brewery Creek context and may need to be edited to fit into the neighbourhood.
The Panel thought the materials were supportable, particularly at the four-storey base. They also thought the scheme was stronger. The Panel appreciated that the applicant had made some effort toward sustainability by proposing to achieve LEED™ Silver equivalency. They also liked all the useable roof space and thought the treatment was good although a couple of Panel members were disappointed that the green roof on the corner was removed from the design. Regarding the public interface, the Panel wasn’t sure that it was a really strong three-storey base as well as the concrete wrap around, but thought it was however, interesting. Several Panel members liked the deep red element on the facade.
One Panel member noted that the corner at the lane on East 7th Avenue needed some work as there was a question regarding the boulders that wrap around the project. Even thought it was a reference to Brewery Creek they don’t seem to have a purpose. The Panel agreed that it would be better if the cistern was useable year round and to consider using it for flushing toilets.
Regarding sustainability, the Panel thought there was a noticeable improvement and liked that the facade was broken down to the punched window elements. Overall the glazing is less than 50% and is evenly distributed across the building. There was some concern regarding the treatment on the west and south facade because of the possible impact on the thermal comfort. Most of the Panel thought it would be commendable if the applicant would commit to LEED™ Gold Certification. They also noted that there weren’t any indications as to what type of energy or mechanical systems were being considered which will need to be addressed. They also thought the trees on the roof would help to lower the solar loading on the building.
One Panel member noted that the building costs might be lowered if the suite’s kitchens and bathrooms were laid out back to back as this would be more efficient.
Applicant’s Response: Mr. Bruckner said he appreciated the comments and would take them to heart to make an even better designed project.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
|
|
|
Questions or Comments? E-mail: planning@vancouver.ca
|
