Frances Bula header image 2

Civilized crowd says: “We welcome density, but not 26-storey tower.”

March 22nd, 2011 · 57 Comments

A proposed tower at Kingsway and Broadway is the latest of many struggles going on in the city over new density in established neighbourhoods (West End, Marpole, Arbutus, Shannon Mews).

Fights about density are often portrayed in simplistic terms: NIMBY residents who won’t accept the city is growing or evil planners colluding with developers to wreck the city.

So it was pleasant to see a workshop where people had a chance to have non-confrontational conversations that weren’t just about wanting everything to stay unchanged. The workshop pulled out about 180 people, who sat at tables discussing what they liked, didn’t like and wanted changed about the proposal.

It looked to me as though there were a lot of common themes on the flipcharts where group recorders were writing.

Under what everyone appreciated about the development: “Correct location for increasing density,” “need more density,” “mix of housing choices,” “city has to grow,” “cleaned up and safer feel on East 10th” “appreciate continued revitalization” were some of the comments. 

But what they bothered them: “The visual/look/design does NOT reflect the character of the neighbourhood,” “Does not have the look/feel of Mount Pleasant,” “Doesn’t reflect the character of the community in scale/aesthetics” was one theme. Another: “LESS HEIGHT,” ‘high-rise tower is too high” “this is not a consumer destination.”

In other words, we welcome density but we want it to mesh with the neighbourhood we know, not turn it into some generic downtown development.

As I’ve said a couple of times on the CKNW civic issues program, I feel as though I’m hearing these themes over and over. As developers, having built out the industrial or formerly commercial parts of downtown, move to established neighbourhoods, they don’t always seem to be getting that what worked downtown is not going to work elsewhere.

Glass and more glass, towers and podiums, buildings that are designed more with an eye (pun intended) to views than anything else — fine for one area of the city; not fine for all of them.

I actually think people are getting sick of the glass-tower look downtown as well, but where there’s huge resistance is the neighbourhoods beyond. Not just in Vancouver, but in suburbs as well.

In a world that feels like it’s accelerating all the time, I believe that people are going to demand more and more that their neighbourhoods aren’t built like malls — generic places with no local identity. The developers who succeed will be those who figure out how to build new while enhancing the sense of place.

The Rize’s William Lin, working with well-respected architects Acton Ostry, obviously hoped they were doing that, by providing artist spaces on the 10th Avenue side, rental housing, and a very visually innovative facade. But it’s clearly not enough for the local residents (many of whom came from newer apartments quite close to the planned project).

This project has a long way to go. It’ll be interesting to see if the different parties here can come up with a solution to creating the new in an old neighbourhood that might be a model for others.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Neil

    Nice reporting of a clearly intelligently nuanced discussion. Modelling Vancouver on Paris not less Manhattan. Sounds good to me.

  • Jo-Anne Pringle

    This workshop sounds very much like the two we had in Marpole. All along residents have said that they support change and development at Marine & Cambie – many in the neighbourhood expected development after the SkyTrain went in. You are exactly right Frances, the themes are being echoed everywhere – our residents have stated loud and clear that developments need to respect and transition to the existing neighbourhood and not look like something imported from downtown; our neighbourhood is largely residential, which the SkyTrain development will face. The 26 storey tower in Mount Pleasant needs to respect the existing historical character of that neighbourhood. I think people in our city understand that growth is necessary, but the growth has to not only be reasonable in terms of how it fits into existing neighbourhoods, but the pace of development and the pace of change also needs to be reasonable – in each neighbourhood and city wide.

  • Michael Geller

    What I don’t understand is why the community and planning department did not agree in advance on what heights might be acceptable for the three neighbourhood locations that ‘could support more height’. I don’t think it is fair to the developer, the architects, the community, or the politicians to leave things so open ended.

    Hopefully future neighbourhood planning studies will address this. The current system of leaving it up to the developer to come forward with a proposal, in the apparent absence of standards and guidelines is upsetting and wasteful.

    ps…unfortunately, I believe the ‘let’s make a deal’ approach to determining land lift and related CAC’s and DCC’s is also exacerbating the process. This needs to stop too!

  • Michael Geller

    pps….this approach is not fair to city staff either…I forgot to list them!

  • Michael Geller

    OK….one more thing. If you think there’s going to be a challenge sorting this proposal out, take a look at what Ned Jacobs has to say in response to my post about the current situation at Little Mountain. (just click on my name above for the link.)

    Based on the little bit I know about the situation, there’s probably a 2 to 3 times spread between what the community wants to see in terms of height and density, and what the developer wants/needs to offset the very high price he rashly offered to pay for the land.

    Another potential mess…. and waste of resources and loss of money for the public sector, as far as I’m concerned. We never learn, do we!

  • Bill McCreery

    Thank you Michael and Jo-Anne for your important comments which add to Frances’, agreed, “clearly intelligently nuanced discussion”.

    I must say I was pleased to see, for the 1st time in recent memory, a relatively complete presentation of drawings, illustrations, a neighbourhood model and written information. Staff and the architects are to be commended. I was also pleased to see the originally proposed 2 storey base increased to 6 in keeping with the Mt Pleasant vision. There was also some attempt (not enough) to illustrate some real alternatives, one of which is a +/-16 storey tower — which could work.

    However, as 1 perceptive person I spoke to said:

    “Hey, reduce the FSR from 6 to 4 and the tower to 16 storeys and we can all go home”.

    He and I agreed.

    But, it’s not quite as simple as that, particularly in the present climate at City Hall. For instance Frances’:

    ““The visual/look/design does NOT reflect the character of the neighbourhood,” “Does not have the look/feel of Mount Pleasant,” “Doesn’t reflect the character of the community in scale/aesthetics” was one theme. Another: “LESS HEIGHT,” ‘high-rise tower is too high” “this is not a consumer destination.””

    quotes of participants reflects that. Although I would argue that does not quite mean: “we welcome density…” as cart blanche that 6+ FSR is OK, but rather: “…we want it to mesh with the neighbourhood we know, not turn it into some generic downtown development”. 6+ FSR and an overly bulky looking, due it’s triangular plate and orientation, sunlight and view blocking stand alone tower which does not knit in with the ‘base’ to reduce it’s height impact is not going to achieve the “neighbourhood we know” for Mt. Pleasant.

    “This project has a long way to go” indeed, before it might create:

    “…the new in an old neighbourhood that might be a model for others”.

    Much more needs to be done, not just to reduce density and height, but to make it really “uptown” not “downtown” in character and feel at the detail level as well. A glimmer of hope.

  • Tessa

    I really wanted to make it to this and unfortunately wasn’t able to, but I’m glad to hear that my concerns were represented and that density on its own wasn’t seen as the enemy, but more the way in which it’s being presented and the massive scale of the project.

    As for land prices, yes, some better certainty would probably help cool speculation. I have to wonder how much this policy on uplift in Vancouver has invented the massive land speculation we’re seeing, where developers see condos popping out of every chunk of dirt.

    It’s not the city’s job to make a bad purchase profitable. Maybe what they ought to do instead is shift expectations.

    Also, thanks Michael for mentioning the blog. I enjoyed reading Ned’s comment.

  • Michael Geller

    Ok, I’ll say it. Based on my four decades of experience planning and designing housing inVancouver, Toronto, and in England, a 6 FSR is too high a density for a site such as this. And while some of you will say, surely there are different ways to disguise density, (and there are), and we need to build higher densities to create ‘greener’ communities, it is not necessary, or reasonable to try and fit this FSR into this neighbourhood.

    For those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about, 6 FSR is twice the current maximum density for the Broadway Corridor. The 18 storey building at Broadway and Fir is 3 FSR. While I’m in favour of more density, I don’t, for the life of me, understand why we need to make such rapid leaps in density….

    and please don’t tell me this density is necessary to support rental housing! I’d rather not see the rental housing, if this is the price we pay.

    If everyone insists, then allow 3 FSR and a 1 FSR bonus, and some additional height to accommodate the rental housing….but let’s be realistic.

    If a good neighbourhood fit is important, 6 FSR is too high. And not necessary.

  • False Creep

    I live near this proposal and would have no problem with 26 stories. I consider Mnt Pleasant part of the metro core, not some far-flung, hideaway enclave. Especially at Kingsway/Broadway/Main. If they are building 46 story towers in the suburbs, I don’t see how this sort of height is inappropriate so near downtown.

  • Joe Just Joe

    Surprised by theproposed FSR of over 6 for the site as well, if they were to rework the plan for an FSR of ~4 they could easily accommodate that with only a 16story tower on one corner and a 12 story tower on the other, each with it’s own podium. It would also free up the centre of the site for a public courtyard, which would become quite the busy place if oneday a station in placed on that site as is currently envisioned.
    The public space and lower heights would probably be more acceptable to the residents.

  • Julien

    Does anyone have the FSR range for the Olympic Village, and the expected densities (We’ll assume that all the units were occupied) to put this development into perspective.

    What would that neighbourhood look like with series of 6 to 8 story blocks, rather than towers.

  • Bobbie Bees

    Build an ‘inverted’ tower. Instead of soaring like a phallic symbol 26 stories into the sky. Bore it 26 stories into the ground. Have large 80″ plasma screens to simulate windows.
    I think this is an idea with a lot of potential.

  • David Godin

    I have a few thoughts about this proposal.

    1. I feel there is a great deal of difference between the character of Main Street and the character of Kingsway. Main Street is the historic street with treasures like the Lee Building, the Goh Ballet building, Heritage Hall, the Winona, Belvedere Court, just to name a few off the top of my head, and I fully support keeping the built form of this street to classic low- and medium-rise heights. Kingsway, on the other hand, lacks these heritage buildings or any sort of defining character at all. I believe it has benefited greatly from the recent developments that line it between Seventh and Twelfth. I feel that a more modern architectural character for Kingsway will not detract from the more classic Edwardian character of the principle buildings that anchor Main Street. In fact I quite like the notion of the proposed modern tower and the historic Lee Building presiding over their respective intersections of Broadway, both representing eras in the development of the neighbourhood and the city.

    2. I like the juxtaposition of new and old and recent experience in the neighbourhood has shown that new development can integrate itself well into the neighbourhood without compromising its character. In particular I think that the tower at Twelfth and Kingsway is the standout of the recent developments on Kingsway between Broadway and Twelfth precisely because it does not attempt to imitate the colour and character of the prevailing style of Edwardian brick buildings as other developments on Kingsway have done. It still integrates brick so that tactile connection remains but it is a modern brick and it is in aid of a modern building expression.

    3. Regardless of the exact form the proposed rapid transit line to UBC takes, the crossroads of Main, Broadway, and Kingsway will be an important station for the network. In fact in the likely event that the Millennium SkyTrain line is extended west in a tunnel under Broadway or 10th, the current parking lot at the corner of Main and Broadway will likely become a public plaza with the transit station entrance. I am wholly in favour of putting residential and commercial density close to the stations so that we can maximize the number of beneficiaries within walking distance of the rapid transit system and in the City of Vancouver I feel we under-build with too few trip generators in the immediate vicinity of our rapid transit stations.

    4. I simultaneously understand and find it hard to understand resistance to height. The proposed 26 storeys is okay with me, a little tall but it is most definitely not outside my comfort zone as someone in their twenties who has grown up here. High-rise buildings are not the enemy and they do not lead to the death of neighbourhoods as has been implied in the “save Mount Pleasant” campaign and the posters showing a corpse in a noose hanging from a high rise crane that were used to drum up fear about taller buildings in Chinatown. Instead I believe that taller buildings are simply part of the balanced mixed-use, mixed-income neighbourhoods that exist across the city. They help enliven neighbourhoods by providing more homes that in turn allow more people to live within walking distance of merchants and experiences that make neighbourhoods great. High-rises are also offer greater affordability in our dense central neighbourhoods than low- and mid-rise buildings due to the high cost of land, excavation, and construction, which can be spread out among more homeowners and tenants. I appreciate that many people feel towers are just for downtown but that hasn’t been the case in this city for many decades now, more than a century if you were to consider that what we now call mid-rises once towered over their low-rise neighbours and must have generated controversy of their own. Moreover, the proposed building is a flatiron/triangular shape so it will not present anywhere near the same appearance of mass that a conventional square tower of the same height would. The proposed building is also to the east of Main Street, nullifying the shadowing effect that the building would have on Main Street.

    With all of that said, height does seem to be the issue for those in the neighbourhood who are making their voices heard, and I think that the developer would probably find a great deal more support if it were a little shorter. This will likely mean the developer curtails or abandons the rental housing units that were giving them a height bonus and there will probably also be an increase in the price of the remaining condo units. The City would also receive fewer dollars towards parks, daycare, affordable housing, etc., from the scaled down project’s community amenity contribution.

    I second Bill McCreery’s comment’s about the project’s complete design package being welcome. I also think that it is a bit of a Catch-22 situation for developers and their architects in situations like this. When they propose a vague sketch-up rendering the knee-jerk response is that there isn’t enough information from which to offer an informed opinion. When complete drawings are offered there is an equally knee-jerk reaction that the project is a done deal and that the architects and developer shouldn’t have invested so many resources when the proposal is still just that; a proposal. The developer and City really also really deserve some credit here for changing venues to the Salt Building when it became apparent that the attendance at the workshop was going to exceed the capacity of its initial venue.

  • Gassy Jack’s Ghost

    I could only attend this for about an hour, so was not at one of the tables. I thought it was a very well-produced and presented workshop, and a lot of thought clearly went into it.

    I thought the most telling exchange came around 3pm when a man stood up and said something like, “I’ve been here since 11:30 this morning and never once has the issue of the tower’s height been discussed, although that’s THE reason we’re all here today. And every time someone brings it up the facilitator steers us in another direction. What’s going on?” Many cheers and applause, then the facilitator thanked him, and moved on to something else. It was a well-orchestrated workshop, for sure.

    There was only 1 question out of 20 pages on the questionnaire dealing directly with the tower height.

    There was an inordinant amount of time spent discussing potential amenities (the carrot) while I was there, asking everyone to rank them, what they most wanted etc. (even a new Mount Pleasant pool came up!). It was as if the neighbourhood would suddenly have a smorgasborg of new amenities if they said yes to the tower (as if). Conversely, it sounded like there would never be another amenity built in the hood if the tower got killed (kinda like the HST proponents: if you don’t approve it, cuts and hard times will follow). As Geller says, “please don’t tell me this density is necessary to support rental housing! I’d rather not see the rental housing, if this is the price we pay.”

    To which I would add that it’s likely that both commercial and residential rents in the area will increase substantially if the tower is built, wiping out any gains the tower itself might make, and ending up in a generally LESS affordable neighbourhood for ALL renters. Same for artists, as the gains made inside this building may nevertheless result in a net loss as existing artists in the area are forced to move.

    I didn’t hear the word “heritage” once, nor was it in the questionnaire (as in,
    “we’re tearing down a historic building and replacing it with a tower, what do you, the community, think?). Heritage has a very prominent place in the Community Plan, but not on the developer’s agenda.

    Anyway, I’m happy to hear they finally got to heart of issue by hour 5, and hope that the community was clearly heard, not only by the developers and City staff, but also by the one or two politicians who were there.

  • Gassy Jack’s Ghost

    Mr. Godin, re. your point #3: this area can already easily support a rapid transit station, there is no danger of “underbuilding”.

  • Gentle Bossa Nova

    I too was unable to attend, Tessa, though in my case the planners might have vanished me to a corner with a dunce cap as soon as they saw me coming…

    The question arises: Is there a middle ground between the low-density suburb, and hyper-density tower zone? Between the detached bungalow and the apartment?

    Talking about FSR simply won’t do because it is “net” density, a measure of how much building I am allowed to cram in my site. It is simply a gauge of development potential for the developer. FSR has nothing to say for the neighbourhood as a whole.

    Gross density, or how much “intensification” the neighbourhood can take, is not being talked about. Neither are transportation plans being put on the table. Shame…

    So it is hard to take these meetings as anything more than the planners trying to shove towers down our throats in places where towers clearly don’t belong.

    Since the days of Jane Jacobs, Oscar Newman, et al, the critique of modern urbanism has turned on “the tower” destroying urban fabric; “the tower” decimating historic neighbourhoods; and “the tower” proving an abysmal failure as social housing.

    That lesson seems to have been forgotten: When working with existing neighbourhood fabric, contextual responses must be the order of the day.

  • HKHoward

    Based on what has gone before, I believe the consultation process is just a piece of theatre – didn’t some counsellor recently say that? Planning will discount the objections, however will presented, to one paragraph in its recommendation to council and the favourite views will be highlighted. Of course, with the election on the horizon, Vision may throw the peasants a bone. Of more concern to me is a revision of the building codes to take into account the possible damage from the Big One. Council should give this at least as much priority as bike lanes.

  • Roger Kemble

    . . . they don’t always seem to be getting that what worked downtown is not going to work elsewhere.” Well, I’m not so sure about that!

    The Marine Building was opened downtown in 1930. Surely it is one of the most delightful examples of Art deco anywhere. Ditto the Sun tower!

    At twenty-four floors, with the copper roof, it is probably higher than the Rize tower at Main and Kingsway. I’ll bet a similar graceful tower would work in MP if the architects were given the opportunity to show their stuff.

    So, is height the issue in Mount Pleasant?

    First off I would abandon that November 2010 report: towers dispersed at either end of Broadway, caveat restrictions always allowing greater heights must be abandoned. I would also monitor the planners post-meeting meetings to make sure they do not get carried away by those cozy developer, sotto voce, blandishments.

    Aston Ostray’s tower has qualities. It could be the visual apex of the Village-on-the-Hill with opportunities to continue the incremental, colourful streetscape on Main with a, public access, interior atrium, à la Anchor Point.

    I agree wholeheartedly the current crop of downtown colourless glass and concrete monstrosities are no model to follow. Likewise, is Marine Gateway, with its pretensions of a High Street beyond remedial design?

    For reasons that are lost on me we have been conditioned to unquestioningly admirer such lop-sided, ungainly gray intrusions as the courthouse behind VAG: there are many more in a similar vein!

    God forbid the more recent gray hulks surrounding the recently declared Entertainment Zone be criteria to follow aywhere.

    We are denied the lost the art of graceful design. The CP’s graceful White Empress’, TCA’s Super Constellations, New Look long skirts and pink Cadillac tail fins were of a different times but not so long ago.

    Stark, bland, colourless modernism is external evidence of our lost souls. Time to get ’em back!

  • Tiktaalik

    I was there for just a bit, so I was able to have a look at all the posters and documents and a bit of the presentation before leaving.

    I am against the height as well but that’s been discussed a bit so I’ll mention a few things worth noting about the ground floor of the proposed building.

    One thing I liked is that there was an acknowledgment of the possibility for a transit stop and square at main and broadway, and so the building included its own expanded sidewalk space on that Watson st side and smaller retail frontage was there. Another aspect that I liked was that the courtyard had a garden, which I’m assuming would be a community garden for the residents. It’s a fantastic idea, though I suspect it would be possible for an investment focused strata council to mess the whole concept up.

    One problem with the street level retail though was that as with many buildings it was dominated by an anchor tentant space. This is used quite a bit in downtown and I don’t feel it actually works very well. The Mt. Pleasant community plan says “no” to big box stores but the building documentation at the presentation noted that the definition of big box was at 50k sq ft, whereas this space was somewhere around 30k sq ft. It noted this was a bit bigger than the By-Low foods space. Even if that is not technically a big box store, I feel that many people would say it is, and I think that retail space is too large. A grocery store is a very good idea for the space but it should be scaled smaller, considering that it would be for neighbourhood residents that walk, bike, or in the future, arrive on train. It should be sized along the lines of Donalds Market on E Hastings.

    Another thing that irked me was that the documentation highlighted the tiny glass overhangs as a positive, as it would protect people from the rain. Those types of awnings are found across the city and are a giant failure in my opinion. They’re much too tiny to protect anyone from rain and the glass gets unbelievably dirty very quickly. This is more of a personal obsession, but awnings across town need to be bigger!

  • evilfred

    I was there and was impressed with the audience. The Salt building is a great building! At least some of the Olympics boondoggle is open to the public. I got kind of annoyed with the dragging on and on talking about public amenities. I like how someone here put it as the “carrot”. We ended up at a compromise where the facilitator let us rank “less height (and possibly less amenities)” as an “amenity” on our list.

    I’m sure most people put it as #1. To me it very much felt like a shell game, and a lot of the questions in the feedback form seemed to make assumptions about the development inevitably moving forward.

    The presentation by the developer was laughable. The representative showed us the tower and then said “imagine if the MPCC or Stella had 6.44 FSR, it would look like this!” and showed us gigantic ugly block buildings. He also showed us how horrible the shadows would be if the new building was a mid-rise at 6.44 instead of a tower and podium. He didn’t show us any renderings of what the proposal would look like at a lower FSR, it was like the 6.44 was written in stone for him. From what he said later, he basically admitted that 6.44 was a trial balloon of sorts, they were trying to see what they could get away with. Which echoes Michael Gellar’s comment here – the city should give much firmer guidelines on what the maximum height is, not be vague as in the community plan which says something like “higher density could happen here if it’s a nice proposal”. It’s a waste of time for the community, city, developers, and architects until this is solidified.

  • Bill Lee

    @David Godin comment 13.
    Westminster road (late Kingsway) is the more historic street.
    Main was one of the many tram lines, with the interurban parallelling the Westminster Road.

    Ok, so Kingsway has too many vernacular buildings of lesser commercial importance, but it still is a better streaming road than Main. The city is even trying with traffic light timings on Main Street , sidewalk bulges (and the every present roadworks, pipe repair) to lessen the importance of Main street (formerly Westminster Avenue until 1910 when the name like Commercial, Broadway etc. was seen to be be improved for retail commerce by merchants running Vancouver).

    And another thing. Why not create a new style of building, like the Lee building over the sidwalk as a better rain shelter than the silly small glass awnings the city now mandates that do nothing and are false eyelashes on a building.

    And also, what is so sacred about streets? There was a recent discussion about surveying and Lauchlan Hamilton’s way of lining up streets.
    Most streets are too wide these days and for a few pence could be added to the land that fronts them. Thus the FSR number would be lower for the too tall tower.
    Since we are all on bicycles these days, why not close and cover some streets entirely.
    Now wait for the Broadway and Fraser tower fight of 10 storeys.

    No glass buildings! What should we have? Titivated Michael Graves ex-post-post Modernist trifles a la Portland’s Portland building in Portland, Oregon?
    http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Portland_Building.html

  • Bill Lee

    @Roger Kemble (Urbanismo) at 18

    “The Sun Tower is a 17 storey 82 m (269 ft) Beaux-Arts building at 100 West Pender ”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Tower
    and
    http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=1865

  • gmgw

    Gentle Bossa Novasa @ 16 sed:
    “I too was unable to attend, Tessa, though in my case the planners might have vanished me to a corner…”

    I’ve long felt that developers in this town have far too much power, but if they’re able to do something like this, then things must be even worse than I thought.

    Or did you mean to say “banished”?
    gmgw

  • Ron

    A streetwall roughly the height of the Lee Building around the whole block would probably be “in character” for the area – there could be a courtyard in the middle for residnets. The Lee Building would have been a precursor of the types of Edwardian (?)buildings originally planned for the area – the same way that people lament the loss of the Birks Building and the former streetscape along Granville. The massing would also be similar to the Olympic Village (shadows and all).

  • Doug

    If the developer paid a price that is too high for what he will be allowed, isn’t that his risk. The public and the City are in no way obligated to compensate people for speculative land development.

    Speculation has driven land pricing in Vancouver to great heights. This has been pricing many people out of the market and driving rents up so that only well capitalised groups can afford to have presence in the City.

    Maybe real estate should be seen as a more risky proposition than it has been in the past.

  • Nelson100

    As as happened before in neighbourhood after neighbourhood, groups will meet, talk, and present a wide variety of ideas and suggestions to our city council. Some will be thoughtful and balanced, some may be less so or more emotionally charged. Regardless, I expect that our city councillors will continue rolling their eyes at citizens wait hours to present before them, then fast track glass tower after tower in a manner than demonstrates they were all done deals a long time ago. This is Vancouver, not a city where urban planning actually takes place. I wish it were otherwise.

  • Justavoter

    ” … evil planners colluding with developers to wreck the city …”

    Sounds about right to me.

  • Realist

    The unfortunate part about Vancouver, probably the only unfortunate part of this great city, is that it’s built on a point limiting it’s growth.

    As the population increases, there are only two ways to grow, outwards or upwards. Unlike Toronto where the city can grow equally in all directions, Vancouver is limited to growing eastwards through the suburbs.

    Developers are going to be asking for taller building to cover the price of developing some of North America’s most expensive land. Politicians will be looking for more property tax dollars to cover costs.

    Even if this building is limited in height, the limited size of Vancouver proper will force more upward development to accommodate the growth of the city.

  • Jay

    In all likelihood the tower will be scaled back to 18 or so stories, at the cost of the rental units. The “community” can then claim victory over the city and developer, even though the developer could care less about losing rental units. In the meantime, our community becomes that much more exclusive.

  • Mary

    justavoter, I take it that was tongue-in-cheek. Vancouver didn’t get to the top on at least 3 livability scales because planners colluded with developers to wreck the city. It’s been the result of 40+ years of careful hard work. The proliferation of glass towers is a result of risk-averse developers who build what they know people buy. If we stop buying glass boxes in the air, they’ll stop building them.

  • Justavoter

    My comment was not tongue in cheek.

    Vancouver scores high levels on the livability scales due to a unique geographic location close to mountains and ocean, combined with a mild climate and location in a stable and prosperous country. Our city planners and development community pat themselves on the back far too much for what mother nature provided. I invite the city planning department to hold a poll on how the residents of the city think they are doing. The results would likely make their hair stand on end.

    The reality is that architectural quality and the aesthetic level of buildings here is simply appalling. People buy glass boxes in the air because that’s what they can afford. They don’t have a choice, period.

  • Max

    Regardless of where new condos are built, I would like to see the government put a cap on offshore ownership, which may (or may not) help move towards affordability.

  • David Hadaway

    It’s a little off topic, but as sidewalk canopies have been mentioned I wonder if anyone knows how effective these are likely to be, or could be with upgraded construction standards, in providing protection from falling debris in the case of an earthquake?

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    “We ended up at a compromise where the facilitator let us rank “less height (and possibly less amenities)” as an “amenity” on our list.”

    evilfred 20

    If you were at a charrette I was leading, we would have taken your suggestion, assigned an architect that was versed in drawing ideas in a public venue, and we would have put the drawing up on the wall for all to discuss.

    More evidence that we need a new planning process to arrive at the next wave of urbanization in our city.

    Bill Lee 21

    Interesting discussion on Westminser Road (Kingsway) and Westminster Avenue (Main). I’d be all for banishing the King (before we get a new one) and changing the name.

    Your idea of adding land area to the lots in order to lower the FSR reminds me of a thread a few weeks ago when you had to leave for an appointment with your barber…[wink, wink]

    However, the discussion of closing Kingsway on the block fronting the Community Centre is valid in my view. What do you think?

    The Lee Building arcade as a feature of place is a wonderful opportunity—save for one caveat.

    The arcade form up against a High Traffic Volume Street is a problem for noise, and pollution.

    Roger and I almost lost what hearing we have left the day we were standing in the Lee Building Arcade, and the B-Line bus pulled up and opened its doors at the stop. The reverberations were significant.

    The arcade will also act like a “giant catcher’s mitt” for particulate and gaseous pollution.

    Which brings me back to the original point…

    What’s the point of drawing neighbourhood plans if we are not trying to arrive at what will be a “good” urbanism for that place (i.e. Marpole, Mt. Pleasant, Chinatown, etc.)?

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    ” sidewalk canopies… how effective these are… or could be … in providing protection from falling debris in the case of an earthquake?”

    DH 32

    I think it would depend on two factors: how big and earthquake, and what type of falling debris?

    We are seeing in Japan that the atomic reactors were not built to withstand an 8.9 even. Yikes!! How strong should we propose those glass awnings to be?

    If the falling debris were to be a triple-glazed picture window, accelerating for say 20, 40 or 60 stories, the force at impact will be dramatically different in each case.

  • Tiktaalik

    Christchurch had lots of huge canopies all over (seemed to be a feature of many NZ cities I visited) but I don’t know how well they fared in the earthquake or whether they saved any lives or anything of that sort.

    If this link works then it’ll point to an example of the sort of large canopies that were everywhere.
    http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Christchurch,+New+Zealand&aq=0&sll=-45.872404,170.504572&sspn=0.002099,0.004823&gl=ca&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Christchurch,+Canterbury,+New+Zealand&ll=-43.532053,172.635813&spn=0.004371,0.009645&z=17&layer=c&cbll=-43.532052,172.637001&panoid=GCX8n1a5pVCO7sTJz_5MIA&cbp=12,135.12,,0,-2.66

  • David Hadaway

    LNV 34

    falling triple glazed window

    At least ten years ago I was in City hall and read by chance a report that suggested that about a quarter of high rise windows may have been incorrectly or inadequately fitted. Driving through Gastown the other day reinforced my view that in the event of a severe quake our tsunami will be falling debris. Maybe sidewalk canopies would be a way of mitigating this.

  • Bill Lee

    Regarding canopies, arcades, porticos, etc. The city could legislate that porticos must be established, a la Bologna as a city convenience along with the hundreds of public toilets they have set around the city (Not).
    Bologna has more arcades in the whole world (around 35 kms of them). In the ancient part of the city you can find everywhere, without interruption, arcades in different architectural style and in different sizes. They were built to protect the people from the hot summer sun, and the spring rains and to keep the road-trafic apart from the pedestrian area.
    There are porticos in old Canton and many cities in parts.

    Could the greenest city (sic) create a new architecture for the benefit of the public? Ever?

    A light tour of Bologna arcades
    http://www.bhg.com/videos/m/32069732/welcome-to-bologna-italy.htm

    And they are on the ‘tentative’ list of Unesco’s World Heritage sites.
    …”in Bologna porticoes were defined as compulsory for all the streets where they were considered useful on private soil (as Law settled in 1288), also by preserving their public uses; this law is still in force. ”
    http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5010/

    Though I am sure that Orr’s Stores would have something to say about it. And our Panoptican guardians of the Parks Board cack-handed planners and our Constabulary would also be aghast.

  • Michael Geller

    With respect to my comment #5 re: the price rashly paid by a developer, and Doug’s comment #25

    “If the developer paid a price that is too high for what he will be allowed, isn’t that his risk. The public and the City are in no way obligated to compensate people for speculative land development.”

    I would like to clarify that my comment regarding the difference between what the community wants, and what the developer wants, related to the Little Mountain property, not this site. I have absolutely no idea what Rize paid for this property, nor do I think it really matters.

    What does matter is the form and density that the community and development team can ultimately agree upon.

    In this instance, there is an enlightened community, a talented architect, a responsible developer and a planning departmen that is keen to see a good solution. So hopefully they can all reach an agreement that will work for all involved.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    I’ve visited Bologna and found the arcades charming. A bit dark in November, but I could imagine the trade-off for the summer months.

    But, Bill, the traffic numbers in Bologna were very light on the arcaded streets, say, around the university.

    With heavy traffic volume the arcades present a problem. Obviously, if we agree the arcades would add a distinct character to the heart of Mt. Pleasant, then what we have to determine is how to reduce traffic counts on the arcaded streets.

    One way would be to make the Main Street bus a BRT, adding trip capacity, convenience, and taking some 20,000 vehicles per day off Main Street.

    The other one is to close Kingsway for the block north of Broadway, on the east side of the triangle.

    Either of those options appeal to you or anyone else out there?

  • Bill McCreery

    The discussion about arcades, the Lee Building and Bologna, in particular, are interesting. In addition to the 6 storey street mass, some sort of arcade character could reinforce the Mt. Pleasant neighbourhood’s urban identity.

    In the Rize proposal the architects have made a timid attempt at a cantilevered overhang of building mass a couple of storeys up and added a flimsy glazed canopy in between. Hardly a Bologna arcade.

    Looking at the detailed sections on Sunday I couldn’t help think that if a real overhang (+/-2.5m) and dropped a bit to reduce the to high height, were on the Broadway and Main facades, then perhaps, rather than the horizontal canopy, some sort of suspended vertical menagerie suspended from the building over might provide a contemporary sense of enclosure and protection that the Lee/Bologna models do so well.

    The purply-black colours on the facades would not exactly warm the cockles of ones heart on a dreary January day, so I hope the architects are not proposing such a colour for the as-built project. Dull doesn’t work in Vancouver any better than Corb’s 3 primaries do. Muted, soft colours from nature, however, are a perfect fit.

  • Joe Just Joe

    As a place that does not get extreme heat with maybe the exception of 2-4days a year I don’t see the appeal of arcades. I look to the example just done the road at citygate along Main St and the retails in behind is dark and uninviting. While not perfect by any means I’d take a glass canopy instead in our climate.

  • Bill McCreery

    @ JJJ 42. Don’t disagree. What I spoke of above would be a more open (@ the ‘people’ level), but would give a sense of security and protection above, while creating a historical link with the Lee/Bologna arcades. The suspended menagerie could be a sculptural 3-D weaving of canopy components.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    JJJ the comparison to City Gate on Main just north of the Skytrain station is right on the money. Two issues there…

    One. How come all that density has not produced the bustle on the street that persists up the hill at Mt. Pleasant? If creating good urbanism was simply a matter of adding towers, City Gate, and Thorton Park next to it, should be an oasis of urbanity. But they are not. The streets are deserted and the arcade does not work.

    Two. Part of the reason why the arcade doesn’t work is that the traffic volume on Main Street is a killer. You cannot do sidewalk life fronting 50-thousand vehicles per day.

    When building type and street type are not working, is it too much to ask that the arcade work all by itself?

    No, the arcade is not the only aspect of the Lee Building’s urbanism. It has a cornice, its facade is composed of terracotta tile (?) and brick. And, its massing—”a cube of windows”—is sure handed.

    All those elements should form part of the urban code for a Mount Pleasant “core” district.

    Now, how about closing Kingsway to make the arcades work?

  • Ron

    Arcades don’t comply with current pedestrian safety guidelines, do they – i.e CPTED?
    They create too many places for muggers to hide.

  • Bill Lee

    Why the emphasis on the Lee building, (yes I mentioned it too) other than it is on a prominent corner and some people love terracotta.

    What about a similar mass building, the Ford Building at 375 Main at Hastings.
    http://preview.tinyurl.com/4dcfh2t

    Here is a complement to the Lee building of the same era at the other end of Main.

    Could the city allow this kind of mixed residential, office, and small craftsman stock (same as in Lee or the Vancouver Block that was specifically built for craftsmen, jewellers etc.) all along Main, when there are so many fights now about residential and rental buildings being chopped or so expensive no one can live there in a community.
    Money isolates people. Ask the rich about their neighbours.

    Oh, and my panopticon comment was about the fearful idea of crime-in-the-shadows that our neolithic Parks? Board? and Polici share about portici, arcadi, canopi.
    But proper spacing of the supports make for better arcadi.

  • Bill McCreery

    @ lewis 44.

    Good comments. There are other problems at Citygate aside from the 6 lanes. The park opposite with no other commercial linkages other than the McDonalds to the south, the older neighbourhood in general, no ‘major’ retail anchors… Continuity in retail is critical.

    @ Ron 45.

    My suggestions do not include visual obstructive pilasters, ie: a contemporary solution which in 3-D provides many of the qualitative aspects of the historical model, but reflecting the project specifics as well as a modern design expression. This is a wonderful opportunity to do something truly creative. I hope the architects might follow up on this opportunity.

    @ Bill Lee 46.

    One of the important focuses in urban design planning is to find the things in a particular neighbourhood which differentiate it from other ‘places’, and then work with them to reinforce a distinctive community character. To do otherwise in a 21st century context means we will all be eating Pablum 3 times a day.

    I’m sorry, that’s not good enough in Vancouver. And, neither is 26 storeys in this location when 16 storeys will do. And, in that vein, it is not necessary to have 6 fsr in the immediate vicinity of the ‘future’ transit station to make it work. 4 fsr will do, thank you Gregor Robertson.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    “I’m sorry, that’s not good enough in Vancouver. And, neither is 26 storeys in this location when 16 storeys will do. And, in that vein, it is not necessary to have 6 fsr in the immediate vicinity of the ‘future’ transit station to make it work. 4 fsr will do..”

    Bill 47

    I wouldn’t present the issue this way. Too many “details”; no overarching framework. Let’s look at it another way…

    There was a Mt. Pleasant plan floated in January (I think) that you and I could have done on the back of a pizza box before the pizza got cold or we got done eating it.

    Then, there is a panoply of statements that are really all over the map, yet fail to capture anything of substance (I’ll use the ones on post#47—not to point fingers sticky with pizza—but rather to show that we have over 30 years of building this city to draw from):

    6 lanes at City Gate… commercial linkages… the older neighbourhood in general… no ‘major’ retail anchors… continuity of retail… visually obstructive pilasters… qualitative aspects of the historical model… modern design expression… something truly creative… urban design planning… things in the particular neighbourhood… distinctive community character… 26 storeys… 16 storeys… 6 fsr… ‘future’ transit station… 4 fsr…

    That’s a lot of baggage to haul to a public meeting.

    We need a clear and simple explanation of how we build cities/neihbourhoods and why. People expect as much. They don’t want to be given pens and asked to draw like architects. They believe the professional class is capable of doing it for them. They just want to be heard.

    The planning process needs to bring professional knowledge to the local public, and extract from the locals the knowledge they truly and uniquely posses: the knowledge of that place. Then, some honest and inclusive work with open and transparent give and take.

    I’ve done it in communities outside our own. I believe it can work here, too. When it’s over and we have consensus, it’s magic.

  • Robert Andrew

    I went to those Community Plan Meetings religiously for over three years from the very first day (no pizza provided) and except for the surly “done deal” architect and planner team for the Homeless Tower, I don’t remember any people showing up who had the level of expertise or the grasp of urban planning for neighbourhoods I have read on these blog entries. Were you there? Did I sleep throught those sessions? In fact what I remember is that, except for Annabel Vaughn who was the entire tireless technical department for the plan, major contributors being deathly afraid to hear any particulars (especially numbers). Too complicated, too technical if zoning mentioned , if FSR mentioned, if number of stories mentioned. In fact, if one person in six months of contributions said 12 stories was okay, and 20 people said six or eight stories was what they wanted, it’s funny how the 12 would get stuck into the plan for East Broadway. Fear of Vision, fear of developers going somewhere else? If developers are so allowed to start way high so they can come down in negotiations, why can’t the community start way low? I know some among you must be from Mount Pleasant. So I hope you will, especiallyLNV #48 “the planning process needs to bring professional knowledge to the local public, and extract from the locals the knowledge they truly and uniquely possess…”, will get your valuable commentaries on record to the planning of this Rize project if you have not already. I think you must have since you got to the Sunday workshop at the Salt while I was strangling on Knob and Tube wiring Saving Heritage in my 100 year old five foot attic. The Mt Pleasant Community Plan I’ve got is on paper not carved into stone, so maybe it needs some hard core demands f0r our historic part of town– detailed and specific to give it your “elements (that) form part of the urban code for a Mt Pleasant ‘core district'”.

  • Peter

    But have you seen the ridiculous billboards of supposed Mount Pleasant residents now standing on the site? Unintentionally hilarious: http://bit.ly/fj0rWo