The Beach + Howe tower, developed by Ian Gillespie and designed by Danish architect Bjarke Ingels, went to urban design panel for a second review earlier this week. Some information in my story here.
Couldn’t capture everything that happened at the meeting, though.
An interesting point that several panel members made, worth noting: They admired the efforts to create a public market/festival/ceremonial street area under the bridge. And the design team assured them that the city’s engineering department was collaborating enthusiastically.
As architect Mark Ostry noted, if the team’s design plans are going to work, the city needs to agree to joint management of the space. And, while the engineering department might on-board now, that could change.
The city “can’t pull the plug at the last minute when the legal agreements come out,” he cautioned.
People also liked the way pedestrians, cyclists and drivers on the bridge will be able to look out over an interesting set of roof gardens, because of the way the roofs on the lower buildings have been shaped to slope upwards from the bridge rails.
I’ll be interested to hear what the public makes of all this. (Open house next week, Feb. 21)
I’ve seen the design panel praise the occasional building that the public has been less than enthusiastic about. This tower is very tall, which is going to bring out the anti-tall building people. It also has quite an unusual design for glass-pointe-tower Vancouver. One civilian who looked at it commented to me, “I’ve never been a fan of buildings that look as though they might fall over.”
A few panel members also raised the issue of the need for rain protection, saying that the slanted glass building walls that come down below the bridge are going to create a depressing sheet of water that will also bounce all over pedestrians below.
One point that an engineer brought up. This building is likely going to require the deepest “concrete-raft foundation” the city has ever seen, likely going down six stories and into the False Creek water table.
FRANCES BULA
Published Friday, Feb. 15, 2013 09:00AM EST
Last updated Friday, Feb. 15, 2013 11:21AM EST
Vancouver’s most distinctive tower project in a century got an enthusiastic endorsement from the city’s design panel this week.
That paves the way for an open house next week and public hearings later this year on plans for a striking set of buildings that panel member Peter Wreglesworth described on Wednesday as a “whole composition that is urban art.”
The 497-foot tower, designed by the firm of Danish rock-star architect Bjarke Ingels, would rise from a narrow base next to the Granville Bridge and curve up and out for its 52 storeys.
In contrast to the glassy look that has become a Vancouver staple, the tower’s exterior would be covered with a lattice-work of bronze-trimmed balconies. Surrounding the tower at the bottom would be pie-shaped glass buildings – “prisms,” as some panel members called them – that fit into the crevices created by the bridge’s entry and exit ramps.
Those buildings would contain shopping, social housing and market rental apartments.
Mr. Wreglesworth, who is an architect, called the project an exciting mix that combines energy, grit, crispness, and light. Another architect, Mark Ostry, said it would “raise the benchmark for residential mixed-use development in the city.”
The project is unusual for Vancouver because of developer Ian Gillespie’s decision to hire a foreign architect as a way to add texture to a city that has been mostly designed by local architects.
Mr. Ingels, whose company recently opened an office in Beijing, has skyrocketed to fame in a short time with his playful and unusual designs.
It wasn’t just the buildings by his company, Bjarke Ingels Group, that attracted positive comments at the Vancouver panel. The plan to develop a Granville Island-like retail and public space around and under the bridge got as much attention.
The design team is looking at turning the road that runs directly below the bridge into a ceremonial street that could be used at times for festivals, markets and concerts, lined by wide terraced sidewalks.
Mr. Gillespie spent much of his time talking about the outdoor art gallery he wants to create.
In an illustration done for the panel, he showed a space where the underside of the bridge and the walls of the buildings on either side were covered with dramatic art photographs in light boxes.
Mr. Gillespie, who buys work from the city’s internationally acclaimed photo-conceptual artists, said he’d like to see the space used to showcase artwork that defines the city. “An outdoor art gallery would celebrate what Vancouver has developed an expertise in.”
The project still has several stages to go through before it is approved by the city, although it has jumped a major hurdle by getting urban design panel approval.
The project sits on one of the few sites in the city designated to allow “higher buildings.” As such, the team had to prove that the project would make “a significant contribution to the beauty and visual power of the city’s skyline.”
The panel, with one exception, agreed that it did.
The latest version of the design will be shown at an open house next week at which Mr. Ingels will be present. Then it has to go through public hearings.
It may benefit from the fact that the neighbourhood isn’t defined or established.
An advocacy group called CityHallWatch, which monitors developments, has already indicated concerns about the project.
The tower’s height, especially close to residential False Creek and the bridge entrance, is a problem, spokesman Randy Helten said. “The 497-foot height of such a building really only belongs in the central business district.”
But Mr. Helten, who became a vocal watchdog of development in response to proposals for new towers in the West End three years ago, acknowledged that many people in his neighbourhood aren’t paying much attention to the proposed tower because the site is on the fringe of the downtown’s residential area.
The city’s downtown business association, while generally favourable to new developments, also views it as outside its traditional boundary.
“It’s kind of a no man’s land there,” said Charles Gauthier, whose association represents many Granville Street businesses a couple of blocks away.
The project, which would bring 700,000 square feet of residential and commercial space to what has been the nondescript entry point to the downtown, would likely change all that.
47 responses so far ↓
1 Sharon Townsend // Feb 15, 2013 at 2:23 pm
I would be interested to understand how this project would dovetail with the city’s plan to create a pedestrian walkway down the center of the Granville Street Bridge.
2 Guest // Feb 15, 2013 at 2:27 pm
The information at the City’s website shows that the podium will have spaces proposed for a supermarket, liquor store and drugstore – to help with the deficiency of retail in the area. After those “big box” spaces are filled, there aren’t many retail units left (i.e. for restaurants) – so it’s questionable whether the space will develop an ambiance or just be an urban “power centre”. See “Podium Floor Plans” here:
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/1412-1460howe/index.htm
You can also see some of the awkward suite layouts created by the unusual design of the tower.
The most interesting thing is how the City seems to favour building in and around the Granville Bridge and its ramps (the City having spearheaded an “under the bridge market” well before Westbank became involved with its proposal), but of the other side of the city, it is unwilling to do the same with the Georgia and Dunsmuir Viaducts – abandoning the potential for lively fine grain commercial/ retail/ mixed use for a dead zone of parkland.
3 Guest // Feb 15, 2013 at 2:29 pm
Sharon – see “Public Realm Vision” at the link above. There is a diagram showing potential pedestrian bridges from the publicly accessible lowrise courtyards to the median ped pathway on the bridge. Quite interesting, though the passage up through the lowrise courtyards may be hard to fine.
4 Everyman // Feb 15, 2013 at 7:46 pm
I’d be surprised if this ever gets built. It is a “bubble time” project.
5 PW // Feb 16, 2013 at 6:35 am
I hope they at least get that huge hole dug before the financing is pulled. It would be a fitting monument to the vanity and hubris of Vision’s reign.
6 Mira // Feb 16, 2013 at 10:56 am
This project like many other idiocies were approved on behalf of a bunch of a local planners and international Testorchitects!
7 Sharon Townsend // Feb 16, 2013 at 12:31 pm
The Granville Street bridge is on its 3rd incarnation in just over 100 years. With structures so tightly entangled with infrastructure that ages and changes in use – I have to wonder how will future planners and engineers will effect needed changes to the bridge? I would hate to moderate that stakeholder meeting!
8 Threadkiller // Feb 16, 2013 at 2:53 pm
Not having seen any updates on this project for some time, I had begun to vainly hope that it had collapsed. Sigh. Such is not the case, it appears.
As a frequent pedestrian on the bridge, I find it wryly bemusing that the developer thinks that an “interesting set of roof gardens” will somehow enhance the view. I grant you that the view west from the bridge along Beach Avenue, with its peekaboo seascapes, is not the most inspiring in the city, but it does have a feeling of open-to-the-sky expansiveness that this massive tower, begardened or not, will obliterate. There is a view of a (quite dull) roof garden currently available from the eastern side of the bridge, roughly opposite to the proposed development site. It does not send me into aesthetic raptures when I walk along that side; nor will this, most likely, unless something on the scale of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon is planned. In any case, whatever the final view consists of, I would fervently hope that “cyclists and drivers” are not distracted by its attractions; the bridge is already dangerous enough for pedestrians thanks to speeding drivers and reckless cyclists on the narrow sidewalks, that any further distractions could prove lethal for the non-wheeled.
9 Richard // Feb 16, 2013 at 4:12 pm
@TK
Planned separated bike lanes on Granville should get cyclists off sidewalks. Other improvements needed to make Granville Bridge safer. Maybe ped signals @ ramps?
10 tf // Feb 16, 2013 at 4:53 pm
It’s not surprising where the token social housing is placed: the poor always find shelter under the bridge.
11 brilliant // Feb 16, 2013 at 5:36 pm
@Richard 9 – At the same time the city’s plan to remove the loops will make it less safe for bikes and peds as cars will have to make a series of at grade turns to access Pacific.
12 Richard // Feb 16, 2013 at 5:50 pm
@brilly brill brill
The loops are horrible for people walking and cycling. Try doing either along Pacific or Graville and you will see what I mean.
13 Joe Just Joe // Feb 16, 2013 at 11:01 pm
I find it strange that sentiment by many that feel this project is a pipe dream and not going to happen. Those that know the people behind the project know that it will happen.
I agree that this project shows what is possible to do around elevated roadways, a shame that we probably won’t get a chance to see what architects can do around the viaducts. Challenging sites seem to challenge them more then clean slates do.
14 Threadkiller // Feb 17, 2013 at 2:24 am
@ Richard #12:
Certainly the loops are bad for pedestrians. They have no sidewalks. As for cyclists, I have never seen one use them, probably because they’re too narrow for safe cycling use. However, their removal will have the blowback effect of dramatically worsening car traffic nearby. Davie and Granville, Drake and Granville, and Davie and Howe in particular will become traffic nightmares during peak times as frustrated bridge-bound car drivers try to find a way from Pacific and/or Richards onto the bridge and vice versa. No doubt assorted turn restrictions will be imposed in a attempt to prevent this, which will only make the situation worse. It will be a typically Vancouver way to resolve a problem: Identify said problem, deal with it in such a way as to simply move the problem to another location rather than eliminate it, then loudly and publicly congratulate oneself for having the vision and resolve to deal with the problem.
As I see it, our beloved city planners perceive several problems when regarding those loops: #1: They work well in carrying out their intended purpose of moving traffic onto and off of the bridge, and in this city such efficiency is something to be frowned upon, for reasons which lead me to: #2: The evil car drivers that use the loops and find it easy and convenient to do so are going unpunished for being evil car drivers, when an opportunity to do so exists, and that is an opportunity that, for a planner in the Brave New Green Vancouver, cannot be overlooked; #3: As long as the loops continue to exist, the land on which they are situated is denied to developers (the west side loop’s developable area will be expanded by the incorporation of the Yellow Cab site, while the east side’s demolition will also see the demolition of the “Rex Weyland” residence), and, as every City bureaucrat knows, all through both the NPA and Vision eras, the Number One Sin at City Hall has been to deny a developer an opportunity to develop. Ergo: The loops have got to go. There’s not only money to be made, there’s moral victories to be won. How sweet it all is, to be sure.
15 Roger Kemble // Feb 17, 2013 at 3:39 am
Actually, I thinq filling in that gaunt space under the bridge is a pretty good idea.
What with Urban Fare just down the street and coming on Nordstroms a few blocks away to say the area is retail shy is a stretch: especially, now, we’re all into walking!
Anything is better than that dank gloomy left-over under space.
As for the twist? Well everybody’s doing it so, well, why not our world class paradise . . . sort of world-trend catch up.
Maybe a bit late but then as the sage says, we live in . . . etc etc etc!
16 Richard // Feb 17, 2013 at 10:53 am
@tk
The plan is to replace the loops with “normal” streets that drivers can use to get to the bridge so there should not be any more traffic on other streets.
17 Threadkiller // Feb 17, 2013 at 11:30 am
@Richard #16:
Can you enlarge on that, or point me to a URL where I can get the information? I suppose I must be design-challenged, because I fail to see how that can be done.
18 Sharon Townsend // Feb 17, 2013 at 11:34 am
there is a report going to council at the end of February that might shed some light on plans for Burrard, Granville and Cambie bridges.
19 Richard // Feb 17, 2013 at 12:31 pm
@tk
In appendix a
http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20101007/documents/penv4.pdf
20 Chris Keam // Feb 17, 2013 at 12:53 pm
Is it not time to retire the ‘evil car driver’ trope? Immense amounts of usable land lay empty for long periods of time because they are reserved for motorized traffic. For avid car enthusiasts (see how stupid it sounds?) to feel victimized by baby steps towards more efficient people movement is like complaining about your busted knuckles after you sock somebody in the nose.
21 brilliant // Feb 17, 2013 at 1:52 pm
@Chris Keam 20-if you want to see vast quantities of underused land check out the dowtown bike lanes om a weekend afternoon or any evening after 7. There will be drivers and walkers but not a cyclist in sight.
Avid car enthusiast sounds a lot more plausible than someone getting enthused by strapping on spandex knickers and going out in the cold winter rain.
@Richard 16-of course it will create more congestion and conflict. If you get all worked up over separating bike lanes why would you support anything that create less separation between cars, bikes and walkers.
22 Ned // Feb 17, 2013 at 2:46 pm
FWIW
From the very start, this tower, location, size, form signified the man mantra, the tool, the narcissism of the boy architect, and when you mix that with our local (former) planners what do you get? Another phallic symbol with condos for sale… pedestrian experience my behind. Whatever Vision Vancouver gets in campaign contributions from these developers is given back tenfold. Bjarke Ingels comics book Frankentower. Thanks Brent Toderian…
23 Richard // Feb 17, 2013 at 3:23 pm
@brilly brill brill brill
Not sure how removing the loops and replacing them with normal streets creates less separation between cars, bikes and peds. Right now, bikes and peds have to battle high speed traffic merging and existing the loops. Once the streets are normalized, traffic will have to stop for bikes and peds making it much safer.
Separated bike lanes are being planned on Pacific by the development and also on Drake and the Granville Bridge. There is also space for them on the new streets. All and all, this will be much much better for people walking and cycling.
24 Chris Keam // Feb 17, 2013 at 3:34 pm
Brilliant;
Not interested in engaging with you. It’s a pointless exercise. I am interested in a reasonable dialogue about land use in the city. That starts by dealing in reality… and the reality is that avid motorists are not being treated as ‘evil.’ Grow up. I have more intelligent conversations with the five year olds I run into at out-of-school care. Good day to you.
25 Terry M // Feb 17, 2013 at 3:42 pm
@richard chard ard
Brilliant is correct. Anyway you want to spin your bicycle wheels, and hope for more handout grants for your useless BEST crapola… As per Ned above, phallic symbol it is. Down with the loops, down with the viaducts, right?
threadkiller @14 is bang on!
“As I see it, our beloved city planners perceive several problems when regarding those loops: #1: They work well in carrying out their intended purpose of moving traffic onto and off of the bridge, and in this city such efficiency is something to be frowned upon, for reasons which lead me to: #2: The evil car drivers that use the loops and find it easy and convenient to do so are going unpunished for being evil car drivers, when an opportunity to do so exists, and that is an opportunity that, for a planner in the Brave New Green Vancouver, cannot be overlooked; #3: As long as the loops continue to exist, the land on which they are situated is denied to developers (the west side loop’s developable area will be expanded by the incorporation of the Yellow Cab site, while the east side’s demolition will also see the demolition of the “Rex Weyland” residence), and, as every City bureaucrat knows, all through both the NPA and Vision eras, the Number One Sin at City Hall has been to deny a developer an opportunity to develop. Ergo: The loops have got to go. There’s not only money to be made, there’s moral victories to be won. How sweet it all is, to be sure.”
WELL SAID!
Oh, yes, thanks Toderian urban works … LOL!
26 Guest // Feb 17, 2013 at 3:58 pm
I think the various comments about the loops relate to the reduced throughput of cars onto and off of the bridge when each loop is removed and replaced by a requirement to execute 3 rights hand turns instead , so each movement from the bridge onto westbound Pacific will be subject to significant delay due to other cars, pedestrians and cyclists. The fact that the current “efficient” loops cause backed up traffic during rush hour suggests that the less efficient grid system will result in worse delays when implemented. That means stopped cars inching along and blocking narrow streets (the new “streets” are really alleys), making it difficult for everyone (pedestrians, cyclists and drivers).
For the bridge to westboujd Pacific movement, to address the difference in drivers’ rights-of-way between a merge and a stop/right turn (with the latter, there is no obligation to “let you in”), there will, however, be a traffic light at East Rolston & Pacific, so cars that formerly merged from the loop to westbound Pacific will (on the 3rd right turn) have a traffic light to create gaps in Pacific traffic when it is backed up during rush hour (given traffic patterns at rush hours only a couple of cars will likely be able to turn right on a green signal at the busiest times). At other times, it should be fine.
27 Chris Keam // Feb 17, 2013 at 6:04 pm
“check out the dowtown bike lanes om a weekend afternoon or any evening after 7″
Oh, I prefer to check out all six lanes of Broadway from Fraser to Commercial. You can look down the whole length (1.5 km) of that stretch at midday during the week and see acres and acres of blacktop going to waste. Either there aren’t enough cars yet, or we are wasting so much land on roads that it’s little wonder a one bedroom broom closet will set you back a couple hundred grand.
28 Richard // Feb 17, 2013 at 6:53 pm
@Terry erry erry eo
Meanwhile, while you are fighting to save substandard dangerous loops and freeway fragments, in the people’s republic of Burnaby, they have torn down and are proposing to tear down even more affordable rentals near SkyTrain.
http://m.burnabynow.com/svc/wlws.svc/getHtml#article/?articleId=7092315&isUniqueArticleId=true
In Delta, they are proposing new automobile oriented developments on farmland and near Burns Bog.
A good idea to look at big picture when choosing what to oppose.
29 Everyman // Feb 18, 2013 at 12:33 am
@Richard 19
Thanks for the link. It looks better than I expected, as traffic is routed onto the new Rolston streets to access Pacific, rather than Davie. However, so many right turns on red could still prove more hazardous to pedestrians and cyclists than the original loops.
30 Shane // Feb 18, 2013 at 10:12 am
Those floor plans are not at all appealing. the size of some of the suites doesn’t bother me – but the 1 and 2 bedrooms are a bit odd, and I’m sure will leave folks begging for closet space.
Mind you, they could simply be more European than I’m used to. And, the views some of the suites will have may offset the layouts.
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/1412-1460howe/documents/residplans_rev2.pdf
31 Guest // Feb 18, 2013 at 12:45 pm
Yes, you can tell that a number of the suites’ layouts are driven by the placement of the structural columns and the odd shape of the floorplate.
One aspect that may be lost on purchasers is that the “grid” of balconies on the tower will in many cases, act as “blinders” narrowing the views from the units.
32 Richard // Feb 18, 2013 at 12:55 pm
@Everyone
Welcome.
Vehicle speeds would be much lower for the right turns reducing the chance of and severity of crashes with people on foot and on bikes. I would expect overall, there would be an increase in the safety of bikes and peds.
As well, it looks like the plan is for a two-way separated bike lane on the south side of Pacific reducing cyclist exposer to turning movements in general.
33 Ned // Feb 18, 2013 at 1:14 pm
This project sucks. Another concrete monolith sold as ‘hip’ . So what? Condos for dummies aka as cycling enthusiasts. Plenty in here too!
34 Richard // Feb 18, 2013 at 1:21 pm
@Ned
Then don’t buy a home there.
As well, how about not insulting those who would want to live there.
35 Guest // Feb 18, 2013 at 2:55 pm
Note that the new configuration at East Rolston will have a traffic light – so that will allow both left turns and right turns into Pacific. So in part, instead of only merge movements (side swipes), there will now be the potential for intersecting movements (t-bone collisions). Safety will (as always) be best served where people obey traffic laws.
36 CityHallWatch Randy // Feb 18, 2013 at 3:21 pm
Here are a few additional points provided by CityHallWatch that didn’t make it into the article.
Much of the B.I.G. site appears to be on public land, which presumably would have to be sold before the project could move forward. What information does the public have about the nature of negotiations between the City and the proponent?
The the 497 foot height of such a building really only belongs in the central business district, under the city’s long-respected dome-shaped skyline. By introducing a high element at the proposed location, so close to False Creek, will compromise public views. Important public views include the view from Queen Elizabeth Park. Controls on views from QE Park were intended to provide view protection for a lot of the city south of False Creek. (Note the distinction between protected views, and public views. The QE views are important public views even if not protected by regulations.)
Also, the proposed height is significantly higher than the “higher building policy” adopted in 2011, which paved the way for new heights of 425 feet.
Also referenced were the Bridgehead Guidelines of CoV, which staff appear to have quietly deleted from institutional memory.
http://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/heads-up-westbank-open-house-tonite-5-8-pm-on-49-storey-600-unit-tower-at-howegranvillepacific/
37 Don Millar // Feb 18, 2013 at 5:31 pm
I think it looks quite cool, though maybe a bit tall. I think my mechanic (A-1 UNITY) would get uprooted, but otherwise I like it. Not unlike this project in Las Vegas, which is LEED Gold: http://www.citycenter.com/veer.
38 Chris Keam // Feb 18, 2013 at 8:46 pm
“Condos for dummies aka as cycling enthusiasts. Plenty in here too!”
Insulting the people you might conceivably bring around to your position may not be the mark of a towering intellect either FYI.
39 B // Feb 18, 2013 at 9:08 pm
Interestingly, every single comment I’ve seen about this elsewhere (Facebook) has been positive. What is with the commenters on this site?
40 Silly Season // Feb 18, 2013 at 9:56 pm
If you think that’s weird, B, have a gander at this:
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Downtown+Eastside+protesters+hassle+restaurant+patrons+fight/7982142/story.html
The city is considering, what, another 14 buildings to house low income/homeless people? Meanwhile, entrepreneurs open small businsses in the DTES, and employ locals to staff them, as well as do ‘outreach’ in order to appease the usual suspects.
Sorry, a wee bit off topic, but there isn’t another thread to post this stupidity.
41 gman // Feb 18, 2013 at 11:35 pm
SS#40
“A rising tide lifts all boats”
JFK
42 gman // Feb 18, 2013 at 11:42 pm
B#39,
I’m not a Facebook guy but I would think Facebook is a bit of an echo chamber.
43 Threadkiller // Feb 18, 2013 at 11:46 pm
@gman, #41:
“A rising tide may lift all boats, but if you haven’t got a boat, you’re f**ked.”
…Anonymous San Francisco housing activist, circa 2000
44 Joe Just Joe // Feb 19, 2013 at 12:14 am
Better off trying to befriend someone that does have a boat then, instead of drawing a line in the sand and telling the tide not to cross it.
45 gman // Feb 19, 2013 at 1:23 am
TK#43,
Good one,but the reality is this blighted neighborhood has to change somehow and I don’t see how boarded up stores that show no chance of any employment is helpful.The way it begins is by getting people to open new businesses and having employment in the area and putting options right in the face of those that may have gone astray,people need some kind of road back .Whats been happening for the last 20 years has only bred more despair.
46 gman // Feb 19, 2013 at 1:30 am
JJJ#44,
Well said.
47 Chris Keam // Feb 19, 2013 at 7:34 am
I would be fascinated to read what the ‘road back’ would constitute for a DTES senior living with a disability on a fixed income.
I am struck by the parallels between the DTES and gentrification and the howls of ‘do something’ from the better-off, to prevent offshore home buyers from transforming other Vancouver neighbourhoods.
Leave a Comment