Frances Bula header image 2

Condo creep comes right to the doorstep of Vancouver city hall with building by White Spot family empire

February 27th, 2013 · 76 Comments

The urban design panel review of this building, second time, happens today. Wondering what the result will be. I can’t be there so I hope someone will post.

In the meantime, my story on same.

In a city where the glass condo tower has become omnipresent, nothing is safe.

Not even, perhaps, City Hall.

There is a fear that the historic art-deco building, which sits on a north-facing slope of Cambie where it dominates views from the downtown, is about to get a very large neighbour.

A company that is part of the Toigo family empire, of White Spot restaurant fame, is proposing a 120-foot building right across the street from the hall which was built in 1936.

“There are so few instances in Vancouver where a building takes on symbolic importance. City Hall, as seen from the Cambie Bridge, Cambie Street and numerous other locations, is one rare instance,” said Ralph Segal.

Until recently, he was the city’s senior development planner. “To have that symbolism compromised unnecessarily would be an odious mistake.”

Mr. Segal is no knee-jerk opponent of tall glass buildings. He shepherded some of the city’s tallest towers like the Shangri-La and the Wall Centre through city approvals over the past two years.

But, he said, city planners and councillors also fought for years to preserve visual room around buildings they thought needed to serve as landmarks for the city.

City Hall was one of them.

After one developer managed to persuade the city to let him build the 16-storey Plaza 500 hotel kitty-corner from the hall in the 1970s, planners created a specific set of guidelines to prevent any more incursions.

Developers who built further down Cambie in recent years, including the Crossroads/Whole Foods development and the Rise building that houses Canadian Tire and Home Depot, both had to come up with relatively low-rise designs in order to keep City Hall prominent for those looking from the north.

If the tower is built as designed, it will hang visibly and awkwardly over the shoulder of City Hall, said Mr. Segal, who has written a letter to the city asking officials to remember the guidelines put in place 30 years ago to keep City Hall as a prominent visual feature.

The city’s assistant planning director, Kent Munro, said Monday the building is an “issue of concern.”

Members of the urban-design panel have also been uncomfortable with the building, unanimously rejecting it the first time it was reviewed in September. They commented that they had “reservations with the architecture” and that the “density was a bit aggressive.” They also didn’t like the way it relates to the row of heritage houses next to it on 12th Street – houses that are just one small part of a neighbourhood filled with grand old houses.

The project designers are proposing to move one of the heritage houses over to 13th Avenue, which extends the frontage of the new building even further.

The panel recommended in September that the architect come back with a design “to better respond to the context of City Hall.”

The revised design coming back Wednesday is actually 15 feet higher, though with its bulk arranged differently. The project, which is being partly steered through city hall by former deputy city manager Brent MacGregor, has attracted little notice from the general public.

Heritage advocate Don Luxton said the problem at City Hall is about to become a problem the length of Cambie Street. Property values are skyrocketing along the Canada Line.

The City Hall-related development, three blocks from the Broadway stop, “could set a precedent.”

“The price stuff is selling for in the Cambie corridor – nothing there now is going to survive,” said Mr. Luxton. That could affect several historic churches and the venerable Park Theatre.

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • waltyss

    It’s not often that I agree with Nancy Reagan but on this one, I do: “CoV, just say no.”

  • Bill Lee

    So?

    They aren’t going to raze City Hall, or in words of a viewer of Montreal Heritage rehab, be lazy as an architect and put glass panels around an old stone crock to “show it off” when they make the City Hall a glassed-in mono(lith) in expanding the central tower out to the edges of the City Hall lot to bring back to Control all the errant offices downtown and along Broadway?

    And what about the city-owned frontage along that section of 400 block west Broadway, east of Cambie, north of City Hall? TowerS ToO?

    I hope we don’t have to have an earthquake to bring regional government and an end to Village Vancouver squabbling over minor pieces of stone far from Regional City Hall in Whalley.

  • Dan Cooper

    ‘Heritage advocate Don Luxton said the problem at City Hall is about to become a problem the length of Cambie Street. Property values are skyrocketing along the Canada Line. … “The price stuff is selling for in the Cambie corridor – nothing there now is going to survive,” said Mr. Luxton.’

    Looks to me like this lot is zoned C-2C, which seems if I am reading all this correctly to have a maximum height of 10.7 metres, or 13.8 metres and four stories with an exception, unless the zoning is changed. So, there is a simple solution: do not approve a zoning change. (Indeed, as waltyss writes, “just say no.”)

  • Dan Cooper

    To put it another way: It doesn’t matter how much developers (or buyers) are willing to pay people for their lots, or for units in a building, if that building doesn’t fit the zoning and the city won’t approve a change. If developers are paying more than they can get back with buildings that fit the existing zoning…well, that was bad planning on their part, but not the public’s problem.

  • Chris Porter

    Pictures here: http://changingcitybook.com/2013/02/20/2806-cambie-street/

  • spartikus

    The architecture is boring. As for height, it should probably be remembered there is an [abandoned] tower kitty-corner at 12th and Cambie.

    Note, that is just an observation, not an endorsement of the design’s height.

  • Bill Lee

    You might try the “birds’ eye view” from Microsoft’s Bing
    http://binged.it/Z010BP [ Birdseye view of Vancouver City Hall and 1 km area ]
    which shows the many towers more clearly that are all around the City Hall.
    Google Maps may indicate shadows on some views.
    Lots of towers west.

    And if they were really concerned, they–The City–would have bought up all of Cambie (so-called Heritage Boulevard) years ago.
    TEAM-Lite Vision party doesn’t do such things out loud, but they should have added to the hundreds of city properties before now.
    A city appears to the public via its public streets and shops. If there is an economic grinding of some types of shops, they could be somewhat protected for the variety/novelty/rarity by city-owned policies. But that is another topic for Madame Bula to talk with Eddie Papazian of Orr Development about (whom I see has moved from Broadway recently too.)

    As it is, much of the retail Cambie Street from Broadway to 25th (and beyond) is owned by Thomas Fung [ Thomas Fung Wing-fat 馮永發 ]of Fairchild Group of media (1410 radio, TalentVision etc) and real estate (Aberdeen mall, Parker Place.
    He even has City of Vancouver Engineering Services in his tower at 507 West Broadway after they were forced to relocate from City Hall for refurbishments. [and how is that going? ]

    He is certainly going to call in markers for his Great Walls of Buildings along Cambie.

  • Bill Lee

    @spartikus // Feb 27, 2013 at 11:48 am #6

    Most recent story about that Plaza 500 “abandoned tower” is one of many at
    http://www.vancourier.com/news/Plaza+Hotel+turn+into+rental+suites/7856126/story.html

    And it’s only 16 storeys (only 50 metres high), built in 1977 as a hotel/suites 153 rooms by the Wosk’s (famous blue tile).
    City Hall (1936) is only 55 metres tall (roof) across the (wide) street. See:
    skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=58316674&offset=175
    for similar heights noted in the city.

  • Threadkiller

    If this proposed tower really does impinge on City Hall in some overbearing way, then I call that karmic irony. The densification chickens are finally coming home to roost.

  • Guest

    The sad thing is that the added height and “verticality” are at the request of the Urban Design Panel.

    Compare the December 2012 proposal to the original July and April 2012 proposals (renderings under “perspectives” for each set of documents) at the link below, and you’ll see that the original proposal was much tamer and more “background”, in deference to City Hall.

    The new proposal displays a false historicism that is inappropriate to the largely post-war stretch of Cambie.

    http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/2806-2850cambie/index.htm

  • Guest

    And the latest proposal to go astray is the Stock Exchange Tower project on Howe – scroll down at this link to the newest incarnation (partly in response to Jameson House resident complaints). The back corner of the tower was sliced off and the missing floorspace was added as overhangs to the Howe facade. The green strip is gone, as is the peaked roof.

    http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=194094&page=12

  • Bill Lee

    @Guest // Feb 27, 2013 at 3:14 pm #10

    “The new proposal displays a false historicism that is inappropriate to the largely post-war stretch of Cambie.”

    ??
    2 or 3a or 3b at oed.com

    2. Belief in the importance or value of historicity or of the past; spec. (in art and architecture) regard for or preoccupation with the styles or values of the past; a style or movement characterized by this. [ more ]

    Does one of the 40 links on the application page talk about the ‘setting’?

  • Guest

    What I mean is that the bulky red brick style of the current proposal is more in keeping with the older areas of the city – like Gastown or Chinatown – not the Cambie corridor.

    It’s a bit like King Edward Village plopped in the middle of Kingsway.

    The streetscape links and context links show pics of the area – not a tall red brick building in sight I don’t think.

  • Guest

    i.e. the design, proportions and massing appear to emulate the type of building seen here – at Main & Hastings:

    http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=8556

  • Dan Cooper

    Speaking of design, and city parks, and things-built-next-to-new-construction-possibly-with-CAC-funds: Anyone else caught their first sight of the new orange…”thing” for lack of a better word that has been installed at 18th and Main? Just rode past there on my bike and Oh My!

    On the bright side, it will probably stop people from complaining about the poodle-on-a-pole (which, be it said, I rather like).

  • Dan Cooper

    Actually, “eyesore” came to mind.

  • guest

    Is it the “straw arbour/tunnel” seen here:

    http://former.vancouver.ca/parks/info/planning/3333main/pdf/pref_design.pdf

  • Bill Lee

    Ah, bulky red brick style.
    But that appeals to some, and seems Anglophilia for some foolish people including HK buyers.

    Still, they have created their own polluted atmosphere of red brickery at 16th and Cambie, where the complex over the former bus barns on Cambie was a red brick 3 stories to 3145 Cambie, a building built and sold to Hong Kong ‘astronauts’ predominantly with 8 floor towers inside the quadrangle.
    And later the unlamented “Olive” on top of the Palm Dairies lot south of 16th and Cambie became one of the first casulties of the Whole Foods / Capers merger leaving the space for yet another Shopper’s Drug Mart glass front, which means if you don’t look up, you don’t see the 4 floors of trickery-brickery above at 3285 Cambie.

    It’s only facing bricks, recreating the Facadism so beloved of lazy architects, or requiired for streetfronts in Gastown or the ex-University Club at 1018 West Hastings at Burrard, so long in the “rebuilding” of the area behind the trussed up one foot thick facade that the Google street cars had a chance to make a street view of it.

    What we really don’t want is ‘true brick’ leaking rainwater and the overfamiliar blue tarps all over it.

    Are Shato/Toigo/WhiteSpot holdings building for a certain narrow market in mind or a general wider market.
    Price differences for a brick-facing on concrete versus glass walls, anyone?

    Bulletin du Centre de recherche du château de Versailles – See more at: http://crcv.revues.org/125#sthash.5qm0mefA.dpuf
    has an article by Jonathan Foyle on Tudor external colouration of English brick buildings 1500=1650, saying …”Deux approches successives ont pu être définies. Au xvie siècle, on choisit de simuler une façade de brique par l’emploi de peintures rouge, blanche et noire. Cet usage met en avant la brique dans toute sa dimension décorative. Au xviie siècle, on s’intéresse plutôt à l’usage d’un enduit ocre rouge uniforme appelé « ruddle ». Cette pratique efface la présence de la brique et accentue l’impression d’homogénéité et de « monolithisme » des bâtiments”

    It is old, it is British, so it must be gooder. Yes?
    As you said, much of old downtown, built in an earlier more Mother Britain day has a red/grey/white brickish texture, sometimes covered in stucco, to them.
    Wikipedia on bricks: “Bricks were often used for reasons of speed and economy, even in areas where stone was available. The buildings of the Industrial Revolution in Britain were largely constructed of brick and timber due to the demand created. During the building boom of the 19th century in the eastern seaboard cities of Boston and New York City, for example, locally made bricks were often used in construction in preference to the brownstones of New Jersey and Connecticut for these reasons”

    So would coloured concrete be better?
    Should one of Gordon Campbell’s 6 storey woodframes go up and be stuccoed in various ways?

    Should Toigo buy the City Hall city block and build a building bridging across 12th Avenue and Vision could get a new Berchtesgaden away from the “effing NPA hacks” his gang so despises.

  • Bill Lee

    @guest // Feb 27, 2013 at 5:57 pm #17

    Yes. But they haven’t poured the setting concrete yet for the straw/arbour/tunnel.

    Good luck to the trees if they are going to be the architectural marvels pictured.

    And did you see the cultural references in the captions for the “Trellis”
    <>

    Rats and squirrels will love the Oaks and Ash trees being planted that will reach 30 metres one day. And children will push each other into the Rosa spp. (Climbing Rose) that is expected to scratch its way up the Trellis.

    Go to 45th and Fraser, 46th Avenue at the CIBC bank above and beside etc. and see what South Hill district sponsored in better art (also on the side soon-to-be-demolished John Oliver High School.)
    Marpole also has some new suprising street art including the plexiglass bus shelter that is a pleasure to investigate. I came across it accidentally and was quite amused when you go around to the back and see all of it.
    One of Madame Doyenne Bula’s etudiants wrote about it.
    langaravoice.ca/2012/10/15/public-art-installed-at-old-marpole-bus-shelter/

    Not a poodle in site.

  • Bill Lee

    Captions for the Trellis [ oops wrong coding ]
    1) Inspiration: Pioneer Square Pergola, Seattle
    2) Volume of space created inside Pioneer Square Pergola
    3) Volume wrapped in straws, referencing Palm Dairy milk bar

  • Voony

    The problem is not the brick per sei , brick can make interesting modern building, as in this Gehry relaization in Dusseldorf but the architectural parti pris :

    irrelevant historicism not relating well with it surroundings.

    * overly use of brick here is a poor material choice, because it doesn’t contrast/enhance enough the concrete nature of the surrounding

    *overall, the building form/massing is not correct: it should balance the rigorism and lack of transparency of the overly geometric city Hall
    (The articulation with the heritage houses row should also be much better (since they are here to stay)

    The proposal doesnt fit the bill… imho this Prague’s building (still from Gehry) could do on many aspect:
    -See how the glass tower is restraining the colorful mess of the building in order to better subserve what stand in front of it (a square in fact)

    …and I believe this very prime location (Cambie#12th), can justify the cost of such exhuberant architecture, which can compliment very well the city hall style.

  • Guest

    I wouldn’t expect proper plant growth up the trellis – artists don’t seem to be able to comprehend the requirements for climbing plants (i.e. Yaletown Park and the Passion Flowers attempting to climb the steel louvres). Cimbers up a bare porous concrete wall (like at Canadian Tire on 6th Ave. near Cambie) are far simpler and more successful.

  • Guest

    PS – The bus shelter looks very nice.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    It is really an arithmetic problem. The kind you got in—I dunno—Junior High…

    How many nails can they drive in the coffin before you throw the bums out?

    Three, four, five? And then there is a bonus question for the Social Studies/Economics set…

    How many of these towers can be built during the very last stages of a boom-bust cycle in a place defined by boom-bust score keeping?

    Needless to say, it ain’t ‘good’ urbanism.

    THIS JUST ANNOUNCED ON THE PA…

    Drama department play this spring at the gym auditorium entitled, “Giv-a-Damn-Bout-Ya-Hood”. Sounds Rap. Anyone going?

  • Cheezwiz

    I’ve been watching this one closely, as I’m a longtime resident in the neighborhood (and increasingly nervous renter).

    When I looked at the renderings on the City of Vancouver website, the building didn’t look too obnoxious (the proposal had it at 8 stories with preservation of the heritage house next to the empty lot), but the drawings posted on this thread are not as appealing – they look considerably taller – more like 10-12 stories.

    I thing something around 4-6 stories would be more suitable. It will be interesting to see what the City decides regarding the approval.

    So Shato Holdings is a Toigo company? I was wondering if the White Spot folk owned that chunk of land outright, and the postings on this thread have answered my question!

    The proposal I looked at had a big section of the ground floor ear-marked for restaurant space, so I’m assuming that if this thing is eventually built, a new White-Spot will go in there. The Cambie location has to be one of their busiest – there’s almost always a line-up in there.

    I will miss the current White Spot – it’s been there a very long time. I am forever a slave to the Triple O Sauce!

  • Glissando Remmy

    Thought of The Night

    “Only reason why Vision Vancouver went after Gregor Robertson for the Mayor’s job … they heard that he hated the commute to Victoria, and his new shack was in walking/ biking distance from the only place who’d hire him anyways, given the right “donations”!”

    Lately, it seems that whatever they do, the Vision apparatchik, from small to big end up getting bit in their round shaped holes.

    Still, they are so enamored with themselves that they do not notice the people are leaving their shows at intermission. Not one looking back over their shoulders!

    Anyhoo.

    Another day, another buck for the City Hall usual suspects.

    Bill Lee #18,
    Your Anglophilia reference made my day, and I second your whole excellent comment.
    Lewis #24
    Count me in on this one!

    Lots of this …

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCBSSwgtg4

    … not going on, inside City Hall these days.

    We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

  • Roger Kemble

    Our lily-white reputation falters . . .

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/democracy-canadian-style/5324610

    . . . as more and more abuse of power (or is it just who cares?) comes to local condo development.

  • babalu1

    @ Art Lee and Glissy

    Pretentious, qui moi?

  • Dan Cooper

    @guest: Yes, that’s the one! The pictures do not give the full, garish yet tawdry effect though; is “scary playground” a design style? Perhaps if plants can actually climb it then that will mute it a bit? I do like the (wooden?) one in Seattle that it is very loosely based on. Sad they didn’t do a closer imitation…

    The poodle in the sky is shown, be it said, on page 5 of the pdf.

  • Bill Lee

    @Guest // Feb 27, 2013 at 9:39 pm #23
    Go visit the bus shelter (and Marpole, the “true South Granville” village) and see it up close and from behind, from below looking up toward the sky, from the front, from across the street, and then sit in it for 10 minutes (waiting for the frequent buses) and see how it resonates.
    I first got to it on a bright, sunny day. It is different in the rain, in darkness etc.
    Well done playing with light.

    Then take a trip on the bus along Hastings to Burnaby’s Capitol Hill (home of famous artist Jack Shadboldt) and see the City of Burnaby’s well etched new bus shelters that were put in last month.
    They can’t get rental ads yet, but they are not externally branded CBS/Decaux, and are etched thematically, especially if you look south from a three!-sided shelter on Hastings on Capitol Hill and see the repeating pattern of the faraway Kingsway ridge and its many Metrotown towers.
    Only the “Soviet of Burnaby” would refrain from selling out as Vancouver City Council does for minor benefits.
    Note also the various recycling street garbage cans with various holes for sorting types of trash. These are coming to Vancouver in small numbers.

  • Bill Lee

    @Voony // Feb 27, 2013 at 9:13 pm #21
    One brick building in the 3 sets of Gehry’s (and Beucker, Maschlanka und Partner) Neuer Zollhof buildings in the Mediahafen in Dusseldorf that you reference.
    They are highlighted in Dusseldorf’s tourism office pages.
    And of course the Ziegelindustrie Bundesverband
    ziegel.de/index.php?src=presse&ID=90362&Position=0

    But the Zollhauf bricks are small. A different pattern than what would be here.
    In the United States, standard modern bricks are usually about 8 × 4 × 2.25 inches (203 × 102 × 57 mm). modular bricks are 7 5/8 long x 3 5/8 thick x3 5/8 deep
    In the United Kingdom, the usual (“work”) size of a modern brick is 215 × 102.5 × 65 mm (about 8.5 × 4 × 2.5 inches)
    In Germany the house brick (Backstein, Ziegelstein) is (9 × 4¼ × 2¾ in ) 240 × 115 × 71 mm
    By inspection the Gehry building’s are smaller.

    This Gehry was a redoing of the old, vacant harbour sites in the place of the old customs building (“Zollhauf”) in 1999.
    But see this 360 panorama to see where street life really is across the street. (see the moss in the street bricks, and a ubernatural blue sky)
    http://www.fotoausflug.de/en-germany-duesseldorf-media-harbor-gehry-buildings.html
    and imagine the rain and snow sweeping across that plaza this morning. Glaaah.

    Anyway, the argument is supposed to be tall and massive condos next to a rotten, aging City Hall, not the Vancouver fascination with facades.

  • Guest

    @ BIll Lee #30 – I can see the bus shelter acting as a lightbox at different times of day – depending on where the sun is (if there is sun). The bright “natural” sky colours would provide an uplifting punch of colour against surrounding buildings – enveloping the patrons waiting for the bus. Looks like a very nice project indeed.

    @ Cheezwiz #25 – They significantly altered the massing and design of the building.

    The odd thing about the revised massing is that the added height fronting is Cambie largely comprises covered balconies (surrounded by brick walls and columns). i.e. the bulk is completely unnecessary. There is no need to have a “jarring” streetwall up Cambie that conflicts visually with the gracefully stepping of the City Hall art deco design.

  • Marpole BIA

    Thanks for the kind comments, Bill Lee et al, regarding our ‘Cloud Coordinate’ former BLine bus shelter at Granville and 71st. It has indeed been very well received by transit users and passers by, and we are grateful to our Emily Carr University partners and Translink for their support and partnership.

    Not to be the bearer of bad news, but the shelter is in the process of being dismantled, as part of long-arranged plans for the decommissioning of the former BLine shelters, all along Granville. We knew the artwork was to be temporary, and are very glad it has been noticed and enjoyed by many in Vancouver.

    Stay tuned for many, many more chART public art marpole projects to come…

  • Bill McCreery

    @ Bill Lee 7.

    Please do not associate Vision Vancouver with TEAM in any way. You insult the people involved in TEAM and their accomplishments. As I’ve said elsewhere, Vision Van makes bad decisions resulting in bad solutions. They are step by step destroying everything good that TEAM initiated.

  • brilliant

    Poetic justice that Mayor Moonbeam and the other developers’ stooges that make up Vision will have to look at this architectural turd as they go to work.

    And Shato Holdings should just exchange the “a” for an “i”.

  • Waltyss

    You know this was an enjoyable thread with fun allusions and gentle debate and then first the troll and then his lesser acolyte brilliant not brought it down with a crashing thud. Amour de la boue? The troll and brilliant not, c’est nous!

  • Voony

    Thanks Bill @31 for this review of brick size.

    regarding the argument is supposed to be tall and massive condos next to a rotten, aging City Hall, not the Vancouver fascination with facades –

    Yeah, and that is a sad aspect of Vancouver urban affair.

    To stay in Dusseldorf, next to the Gehry building is this Aslop building valorizing the heritage brick building on its right, highlight the issue that Vancouver has with architecture reduced to a question of height and FSR.

    BTW, I mentioned Gehry, because its decontructivist approach offer a good answer to the formal geometry of the art deco city hall – which I think deserve to be preserved and valorized as a witness of an architectural trend (like the Post Office)… that disregarding the personnal opnion we could have on it.

  • Ralph Segal

    For those who can stay on topic, you may be interested to know that on Wednesday night, the Urban Design Panel, in reviewing this revised design, for the second time unanimously voted NON-SUPPORT. Perhaps the Panel was uncomfortable with the design for this development, for a hamburger emporium (however wonderful the Triple O Sauce) and speculative market condos, compete visually with a designated Heritage building housing the seat of civic governance (however well or poorly one may feel they are being governed) at this prominent location.

    Bill McCreery, as a former Panel member, I expect you will be pleased that this part of the process appears to have functioned appropriately.

  • Bill Lee

    “Wednesday night, the Urban Design Panel, in reviewing this revised design, for the second time unanimously voted NON-SUPPORT. Perhaps the Panel was uncomfortable with the design for this development”

    Hmm.

    Appeals? Buying a Councillor?
    Selling the lots to another speculator?
    How far can they go?

  • Bill McCreery

    Hello Ralph. I have appreciated your informed and measured comments here recently. They constructively add to the discourse.

    Yes the Design Panel does seem to be assisting in this instance. I hope it continues to ensure that whatever happens on this key property is appropriate.

    Having said that, the role of the Design Panel in the post spot rezoning, anything goes environment, needs to be examined (assuming of course that development model persists). The Panel’s role is to comment on the quality and nature of the ‘design’ and siting of the built form but not get too much into the hot buttons of density and height. That works within the previous outright and conditional use formats, but can work it when there are no rules?

  • Ralph Segal

    Bill Lee @ 39:
    Here’s what this developer should do. Have the good manners to take his medicine; Accept that his gambit in trying to more than triple the zoned height on the site and arrogantly setting aside the well grounded and recently reaffirmed urban design and heritage principles that establish City Hall as the clearly dominant landmark building at this location has failed; Instruct his consultants to go back to the drawing boards and come back with a building design that is no more than 4 storeys (max. 45 ft) on the northerly 12th Ave. half of the site and then transition up to 6 storeys on the southerly 13th Ave half of the site. Sounds too simple? First you have to get the basic massing correct in its context!

    Bill Lee @ 7: citing Bird’s eye view with several towers to west of City Hall.
    The nearest tower, Plaza 500, is more than 350 ft away from City Hall. This tower as seen from ground level looking south up the slope to City Hall, while not invisible, is well outside the visual cone that defines the backdrop of open sky against which City Hall is seen. If the building massing described above is followed, this view to City Hall will be preserved as called for in the Council-approved urban design Guidelines which are as relevant today (unlike numerous other guidelines) as they were when first adopted.

    Even the oft-quoted Michael Geller, in his tweet response, agrees stating “Any development across from City Hall should be subservient…”

    Need I say more.

  • Guest

    Stepping the tower as it heads south is too obvious – so it’s unlikely to happen.

    Even the former Plaza 500 respects City hall with a short one storey podium on the Cambie & 12th corner (even if it is ugly) and then steps up to the south (midrise block) and west (tower).

  • Ralph Segal

    Bill McCreery @ 40:

    Well, Bill, you have hit the nail on the head. However, I wouldn’t define the Panel’s role quite so narrowly. It is the URBAN Design Panel and its not as though there haven’t been rezonings in past regimes that seek to change the rules. And so the Panel, as well as professional City staff, in the context of Urban Design relationships or neighbourhood”fit”, would consider if a proposed density/height had been properly integrated (or innovated as a catalyst to a new direction!) But I must agree that today’s environment appears to have virtually every proposal, as a rezoning, reinventing the parameters of development, without the same degree of rigour. In the past, there were clear criteria defining PUBLIC objectives against which the rationale for pursuing a change in zoning would be assessed. Measured and understandable professional judgements could be made. These criteria have more recently either been redefined much more loosely or forgotten altogether.
    If you are looking for an answer to this problem, that will take more space than is available in this post.

  • brilliant

    @waltsyss 36-I’m not surprised the humour forcing politicians to actually stare at one of the frankencondos they unleashed escapes you. One can only hope a multistory condo is proposed for Oak and King Ed that shades a certain someone’s front yard wheatfield.

  • Mira

    Ralph, Bill thanks for the convo. & info.
    Your informed opinions is always welcome.
    Right on comments from Lewis, Bill, Glissy & brilliant.
    Please ignore the noise making machine… Waltyss!
    He’s in a class of his own… all by himself I mean, ha, ha, ha, ha… ha, ha… ha…

  • Terry M

    Hey, Mira @45
    Could not have articulated it better myself!

  • babalu1

    @brilliant. Mira, Terry M……and of course…..Glissy..
    A question.
    How many ‘c’s in cappuccino?
    LOL

  • Frank Ducote

    Ralph – thanks for staying on topic and providing detailed and correct information about this application and its policy context.

    On the whole, I fail to see any convincing public interest argument for either the requested density increase from the zoned 3.0FSR (to 4.11) or the requested height increase from 4 storeys to 10.

    On the other and, as an existing commercially zoned site on a wide north south arterial, one where single-family zoned areas further south in the Cambie Corridor Plan have been increased to 6 storeys, one can see how false expectations could be raised for additional height in this location.

  • Ralph Segal

    Frank @ 48:
    Thanks for joining the conversation. I agree that expectations are easily raised and, indeed, the modest goals of the present C-2C zoning, with its 35 ft. height limit, are not commensurate with the true potential of this key site. However, why must the pursuit of possible enhanced potential ALWAYS, it seems, translate into substantially greater height?
    And why am I making such a fuss over a project that in the bigger scheme of things, is relatively insignificant. Surely there are any number of more pressing matters to be addressed. I’ll try to explain.
    This project caught my attention because the additional height has nothing to do with PUBLIC BENEFIT (in fact, it is counter to the interests of the public in a number of ways) and everything to do with this developer’s attempt to create a monument, however clumsy, to his development company (Look at me! I’m as big as City Hall!). The audacity of the strategy to achieve this leaves me breathless.
    It starts with the proposed relocation (and restoration) of the heritage house at 454 W. 12th Ave. over to 13th Ave. Relocating, rather than restoring the house INSITU, not only yields an inferior heritage result in itself, also diminishing the existing delightful 12th Ave. streetscape, but is far more costly (a cost for which the developer will be compensated with additional density). Further, this relocation of the house to 13th Ave. creates, unfortuitously, an unusually narrow, inefficient east/west site dimension for the new building which, GUESS WHAT! provides a justification, albeit flimsy, for pushing the building higher to accommodate the increased density! This additional building height and bulk, positioned in the design predominantly on 12th Ave., sits awkwardly and insensitively over the west shoulder of City Hall as seen from Cambie, north of 12th Ave., effectively setting aside without prior PUBLIC CONSULTATION, the well established urban design and heritage policies that designate City Hall as the clearly dominant building on this topographic ridge. This, in effect, renders pointless the considerable efforts and sacrifice of approx. 30 developers over the past 20-odd years who, on their C-3A sites to the north down Cambie and along a portion of Broadway, played by the rules in acquiescing to restricted heights for their buildings in accordance with the C-3A design guidelines. Ever wonder why “Crossroads” (London Drugs/Whole Foods) is only 6 Storeys on the much lower Broadway elevation?
    This is one of several disturbing elements of this proposal that illustrates a troubling trend whereby the City, in its headlong pursuit of increased density, although typically justifiable as part of a broader, sustainable city-building strategy, appears to have lost the ability to differentiate when and where an area or a specific site cannot or should not accept a significant boost in density and/or height. This particular site is one case where an artful and sensitively crafted massing CAN ACHIEVE more density but within a much more modest height that respects not only City Hall but the adjacent Mt. Pleasant block to the east. Such a reworking of the proposal can result in a WIN/WIN for both the developer and the City, including the affected neighbours. Why would this not happen?

  • Ned

    Thanks, Ralph for your contributions. Enlightening.
    Well measured response and qualified also. Not like what I read coming from that former self pumping narcissus director of planning. City Hall will surely miss your services. 🙁