7 responses so far ↓

• 1 Michael Geller // Jan 14, 2011 at 8:06 am

  Those who want to see the gallery relocate to the Larwill Park site will be encouraged by the staff report. Those who do not want to see the gallery relocate to this site will also be encouraged by the staff report!

  Personally, I think the city is doing the right thing in giving the VAG an opportunity to demonstrate the design and financial feasibility of an expanded gallery on this property, along with other cultural and ‘commercial’ uses. I say ‘commercial’ in quotes, however, since the staff report advocates office uses on the site. Other than the Federal government, I worry whether there will be another office developer willing to pony up the $40 million that the city is seeking from the property, especially within the two year time frame.

  However, if residential uses were permitted, as I think they should be, a fabulous condominium tower, similar in concept to New York’s Museum Condominium Tower could generate the required dollars, and more. For those of us who think Vancouver’ real estate is expensive, here are current prices in this development:

  Approx. Prices for Apartments at Museum Tower, 15 West 53rd Street
  4 Bedrooms from $5,995,000 to $8,995,000 (updated 12/28/2010)
  3 Bedrooms from $5,500,000 to $5,975,000 (updated 01/13/2011)
  2 Bedrooms from $4,500,000 to $6,995,000 (updated 01/05/2011)
  1 Bedroom from $1,600,000 to $2,650,000 (updated 01/13/2011)

  In a discussion on CBC this morning, architect Michael Green argued against relocating the art gallery to this site. Amongst other things, he thought the site was too small to provide the required public plazas that should accompany an art museum and other cultural facilities. He also worried about clustering cultural facilities in this part of town.

  In response, I suggested thatif the site is too small, consideration might be given to closing a portion of Cambie, allowing the new gallery have a strong pedestrian link to the Queen Elizabeth Theatre. I also thought this expansion might allow a Concert Hall to be included as part of the new cultural complex.

  As for the concern re: concentrating cultural facilities in this part of town, while I am not sure this is necessarily a bad thing, I expect that if the VAG relocates, other cultural uses could well move into the current VAG building. Personally, I would like to see an expanded Vancouver Museum in some or all of this space. But that’s another story.

• 2 Tiktaalik // Jan 14, 2011 at 12:02 pm

  @Michael Geller

  Ultra deluxe condo towers as the solution? Didn’t we learn our lesson with the OV?

  Or is it that it was the low lying design of the OV that was the problem and deluxe condos still sell in Vancouver though only in the tower situation?

  I definitely agree with you that the current VAG would need to be allocated to cultural use. The MOV would be a very good choice.

  On the topic of whether the Larwill Park site is too small, it may well be, but what other available downtown sites are there? It seems that it’s an issue we’re just going to have to live with. All the other ideas I’ve heard of are more fanciful, such as tearing down the Sears building .

  The idea on the zanier side that I do like is the concept of the art gallery expanding into the law courts and Robson square being redesigned so as to take over the small bit of Robson Street there. The law courts would then move to Larwill Park. I’m not sure how realistic this would be at all but if we’re going to be spending money on building significant new buildings then maybe it can be part of the discussion. This would likely be more expensive since not only would one have to build more law courts but we’d also likely have to extensively renovate the law courts to repurpose them to an art gallery.

• 3 Joe Just Joe // Jan 14, 2011 at 2:52 pm

  I have to disagree with you on this one Michael. I think the space should remain commercial as it would be a better fit. I will agree that there will not be the appetite for the additional commercial space within the next 2yrs with the amount of existing projects already in the wings, and even less if the city is hoping to get $40M.
  The site is directly across the street from the Stadium station making it an ideally location for a triple A building. The ability to have it’s parking lot shared after hours with the gallery and also provide parking for the immediate entertainment venues will also be very desireable. The CBD has resisted moving east and needs a slight push to help it.
  Closing off Cambie for that block isn’t a bad idea, or even reducing it to a two lane street with no parking would also buy a chunk of real estate if needed. I also think that the QE Plaza space is vastly underutilized and the area where the media club/restaurant is could accomadate a modest office tower. Something in the 16 Storey range would certainly help the city in it’s search for the $40M.

• 4 Michael Geller // Jan 14, 2011 at 4:00 pm

  Tiktaalik and JJJ

  Future real estate decisions should not be judged by the failure of the Olympic Village sales program…it was a very exceptional situation. In the right hands, with the right form and development program, I believe a condominium project developed in conjunction with a new museum could be very successful.

  As for office vs residential…I accept that office development is the City’s preferred use…but if the city wants to get $40 million from the land, it’s not likely going to happen from an office development, unless, as I said, it’s a federal building. That of course is what happened at the Library site, so it could happen again. But….

• 5 Alan downtown // Jan 14, 2011 at 4:57 pm

  I agree that the proposed parking lot land should be developed, but not by the VAG. It is a multiple missed opportunties.

  The land is too expensive as is for market condos or office towers. However, if the Federal government is brought in to the deal, say by choosing to relocate and build a new state of the art post office (badly needed, current bldg is recognized as being a poorly used facility) on some of the lot as an anchor, then both condo and office towers could be built above it at more reasonable costs.

  The VAG then gets an amazing large building that they can gut and remodel into something that really fits their needs, with a great huge rooftop sculpture garden on site to boot!

  What a nice compliement to the rooftop of the VPL across the street too. Which it is planning to open to the public in 2014. Good timing.

  This land for building swap creates many more winners and less whiners all around.

  Hey, why shut down Cambie? The cultural action and interaction would be much stronger on the other side of the QE with its plaza, the CBC plaza, and the Library Plaza all facing each other. If you redevelop the current Post Office into the new VAG space you have a nice 4th plaza right there. Georgia Street could remain open, but with more distinctive crosswalks and occasional closures for events. Hamilton street could be closed more easiler for events to maximise plaza space as it is already for CBC and Library events.

  Oh and there is a bike lane on Homer street that would lead right to the new VAG! So I can see Greagor liking this option already.

• 6 Michael Geller // Jan 15, 2011 at 7:35 am

  Alan, the site for the post office might have been appropriate when the building was completed in 1958, but it is no longer appropriate….therefore it does not make sense to build a new post office in the city.

  While some consideration was given to a new building in Surrey, I am told that the preferred location is now part of the future Airport industrial development…after all, much of the mail is sent out of the city by air.

  Another complication with the Post Office site is that it cannot be available for re-use until a new post office has been built. However, I am told there are no funds allocated for such a project. Instead, consideration might be given to a P3 whereby a new facility is built by the private sector as part of a complex land exchange and real estate transaction…

  This could take a decade to complete.

  That being said, the PO site does represent another wonderful opportunity to enhance this part of the city in the future.

• 7 Gentle Bossanova // Jan 16, 2011 at 1:02 pm

  These are a few of my favourite things (from “Policy Repor/Culture/Recommendations”):

  “C. If the Gallery can meet the following objectives…

  v. demonstration of broad support from the cultural community and the public for a new Gallery at 688 Cambie;

  vi. review of the Gallery’s governance structure which clarifies City representation in light of the significant City asset under care.”

  Can we trust any demonstration of “broad support from the cultural community and the public” on anything relating to city business? The problem intensifies with the next requirement:

  “D. THAT Council direct staff, in consultation with the Director of Planning, to obtain input from the cultural community and the broader public on their views on the various expansion and relocation options for the Gallery and on the potential future cultural or other uses for the existing leased site at 750 Hornby Street should the Gallery move in the future.”

  Can we trust city staff to consult on anything but towers, towers and more towers???

  “E. THAT Council direct staff, in consultation with the Director of Planning, in keeping with the best urban design considerations for the area, to further examine development options and considerations for the built form… which would allow continuity between Queen Elizabeth Theatre Plaza and 688 Cambie.”

  Somebody fetch me a broom and a dust pan, “…in keeping with the best urban design considerations for the area…”

  What does “best” mean? Urban design? Considerations for the area? Did anybody drive-thru the Post Office drop box to mail Christmas cards this year? Was anybody else at the “Bavarian Christmas Village” built on the vast and empty and wasted plaza in front of the Q.E.? When you were there, did you venture to look across to the CBC and see what has become of the plaza that once occupied that site? If you did, is there enough ‘urban failure’ for you already to give up on one-block-per-institution-madness?

  Or, do we need to add another city block into the horribly botched up urban design ‘plan’ already?

  “F. THAT Council authorize the City Manager to retain and execute the necessary agreements to secure staff and consulting expertise to complete the next phase of work at a cost not to exceed $200,000; source of funds to be the Cultural Precinct Reserve Fund.”

  More Old Paradigm Planning done on the cheap.

Leave a Comment