Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Mixing condos and offices in the central business district leads to surprises for both sides

June 25th, 2012 · 26 Comments

I first realized things were going to get awkward for the new Swiss Real tower back on Nov. 30, when I went to an urban design panel hearing for the tower.

Although comments were generally favourable, something that several panel members worried about was the impact of the 420-foot tower on the Jameson House condo tower across the alley. They asked what could be done to protect the privacy of those condo owners, who faced the prospect of staring across the way at office workers at the same level.

As most of us know who have worked downtown at one point or another, staring at other office smurfs is a fine way to pass the time of day. Most people having office sex know to use the stairwells, or a room without windows, so the views are mostly of photocopiers and people hunched over desks.

When people’s living rooms have the same view, it’s a whole nother story, as I wrote in the Globe on Saturday.

Predictably, many Jameson House residents are unhappy about the situation. They say the Swiss Real tower is getting an unwarranted increased in density, from 9 to 22 FSR with no compensating community amenities.

City planners say that the city’s increased focus on finding places for job space led to the Swiss Real tower site becoming one of 25 identified for higher density and no community amenities are required, because providing square footage for the city’s economy IS the amenity.

This is a warning sign about one of the downsides of mixing residential into a central business district.

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Shane

    Hmm, aren’t most of the folks in the Jameson House gainfully employed, and thus at work during the day like those office workers will be?

  • Morry

    @shane and what if you want an afternoon delight with plenty of sunshine blazing in and don’t want a crowd to form at the office water cooler across the way?

  • ThinkOutsideABox

    @shane don’t assume everyone works 9 to 5 at a workplace. There are all sorts of work settings at all hours of the day, at any location which can include the home office for telecommuters like myself.

    —
    providing square footage for the city’s economy IS the amenity.

    And where has that one been STIRRED up before.

    It’s so Zen, so wise like the gem that I read once on a Vancouver based real estate chat forum that declared, ‘the cure for high prices is higher prices.’

    Perhaps an innovative hand picked mayor’s downtown advisory committee (rounded out with a code of conduct compromised co-chair) could be formed to create a survey and scorecard that will manufacture consent and rubberstamp this development – thereby shutting down that resident UDP member/effin’ Jameson House hacks.

  • Andrea Cordonier

    I don’t think it’s any different than staying in a hotel that faces an office tower. That’s what shears are for.

    These people live in a CITY. Many people live in cities and they are not private. That’s what houses in the woods are for. Our North American sense of entitlement around space/privacy is unique in the world, except in the most remote regions.

    Or try a positive spin. A whole world of stories and people will manifest itself before their very eyes. The habits and comings and goings of the people in the offices will become familiar and anticipated. Writers will have a field day, as characters unfold in front of them. Home-based workers will have ‘company.’ A bit odd? Maybe. But we human beings love to look, don’t we? It’s no weirder than lurking around the internet.

  • Tessa

    @Frances: Link goes to the wrong story, though also an interesting story.

  • Bill Lee

    Link on 26 June goes to the Housing Panel story (next Fabulous posting) and this should go to the Jameson looking in windows story

    Here’s the ‘cleaner’ mainly-text mobile version of the Jameson/Swiss Real story.

    http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/too-close-for-comfort-in-vancouver-condo-market/article4365960/?service=mobile

    ——-
    And I see google pulls up an earlier story from the Dark Ages of 2008.
    m.century21.ca/adam.knight/Blog/Economic_turmoil_halts_glitzy_condo_project_-_Jameson_House
    written by one Frances Bula

    And lots of ‘stopped construction’ and tales of woe on the Jameson project.

    skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=514723&page=2

  • Morven

    All I would ask is there there be a clear, public, concise document on how compensatory community amenities are assessed.

    It strikes me as absurd that the planners can decide that no compensatory assessment is required – presumably on instructions of the political decision makers.

    By all means exercise discretion but we, the poor taxpayers are at least entitled to know what are the guidelines for the bureaucrats. Is the city so affluent that sources of revenue can be dispensed with?

    Can anyone point me to a public city document that sets out the parameters for exercise of discretion.
    -30-

  • Guest

    Jameson House was designed with small windows on its south side in anticipation of a tower being built across the alley.
    There’s also not much overlap between the two towers.
    Wait til towers are built on the corner of Howe & Hastings or the corner of Pender & Hornby, then they’ll be hemmed in – Jameson House is, after all, a mid-block site.

    Model pics here:
    http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=194094&page=3

  • Guest

    Also, there was a time when buildings did not have any windows on their sides where they would face other buildings mid-block – look at many 1960s West End apartment towers that have blank sides. There was a front and a back – with the front having a better overlook with trees and a marginally wider street than out the back onto the alley and another building.

    How expectations have changed…

  • rf

    Sounds like more people moving next to the airport and then complaining about noise.

    Can’t they just put those mirror-like films over the windows?

  • Frank Ducote

    As far as I can see, regardless of its architectural merits, this proposal violates a number of long-held policies and practices in Vancouver.

    First, the spacing criterion of 80 feet between towers is proposed to be reduced to 29 feet. Second, no CACs are required, because now the flavour of the month for “amenities” is office space. Third, the total floor space ratio is 22, whereas maximum zoned office density in the CBD is 9FSR. (I believe Cathedral Place, arguably the most beautiful office building in the city, if not the province, has a density of 12, and that included protecting the Cathedral itself plus delivering a most attractive and loved urban park.)

    Altogether, I fail to see how the current proposal deserves almost twice the density of this landmark precedent.

    Of even greater concern, this seems to continue a pattern of playing fast and loose with planning policies, as well as traditions of neighbourly urban design practice and reasonable consultation process that is clearly becoming the norm rather than the exception in the current regime, IMO.

  • Robert Lemon MAIBC

    Missing from Frances Bula’s story on the impact The Exchange tower would have on Jameson House is the important fact that it a rezoning for a substantial increase in density from 9FSR up to 21.3 FSR. It is the increased bulk and large floor plates that create the problem being so close to our building. The building also extends into two view corridors.
    Purchasers of Jameson House in 2006 were well aware that the surrounding area could and would redevelop, under the current DD zoning. City planners at the time insisted on an extensive analysis of the impact Jameson House would have prior to the building being approved by City Council. The same thorough analysis has not been done for The Exchange, hence the serious concerns about livability and privacy.
    The site could be developed under current zoning and add to downtown office capacity, much as Oxford is doing down the street at 1021 West Hastings. The Old Stock Exchange Building is Heritage A and at about 9,5 FSR is already larger that current zoning permits so it really is not a risk of demolition. The adjacent site has less than 2FSR at present, so for it to develop under current zoning would yield another 7FSR of office space, a 3 1/2 times increase. Give it a 10% heritage bonus, as Oxford got, and you have an average of over 10 FSR on the combined sites. And no need to rezone. Jameson House owners would welcome a DP application under such conditions.
    For city council to rezone a property the public benefit must be demonstrated. In this case it is a private benefit for a substantial increase in floor area to the detriment of homes 28.5 feet away.
    Robert Lemon, architect.

  • Morven

    Rezoning a property with no public benefit (apparently) seems a bit arbitrary and capricious on the part of city hall.

    Is there any other explanation?
    -30-

  • Guest

    The 80 ft separation only applies to Downtown South – Jameson House is NOT in Downtown South.

  • Rick

    the 80ft separation applies outside of Downtown South. It was aslo applied on Cambie and Broadway, though strangely enough, NOT at the RIZE development. Its application has gotten very hit and miss over the last 5 years.

  • Guest

    Urban Design Panel Minutes for Jameson House:

    The Panel agreed that the amount of density being sought is extremely high and is reaching new heights for Vancouver. Nevertheless, most Panel members agreed it appears to fit into the context and feels appropriate. The Panel considered the project meets the criteria for good urban design and the majority of members endorsed the requested 21.2 FSR. There were, however, some concerns raised about precedence and the pressures on the City that this may stimulate.

    http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/udp/2004/minutes/nov24.htm#4

  • Frank Ducote

    Robert@12 – you said it much better than I did, so thanks for lending your extensive expertise to this thread.

    To those concerned about tower separation, if the Jameson was an office use I would probably have less concern about a given separation (unless view cone blockage or major overshadowing of public space occurred).

    However, it is not an office building, and I think the residents of that building have a very big stake in the final decision on this matter.

    Also, as Guest@16 noted, there is a serious concern about precedence. This issue should not be ignored. As with STIR and before that Woodwards, as densities ratchet upwards they tend to be used as precedents or models for subsequent propositions, with a resultant inflationary impact on land values. As many people on the Fabula blog have been noting, this upward spiral has an adverse impact on affordability, not to mention the look and feel of the city, due to ever-larger projects being required to offset higher land costs.

    Just imagine if the heritage districts of Chinatown, Gastown and Hastings Street were granted 400 ft. towers? It coulda happened, folks. I think we dodged a bullet on that one.

  • Robert Lemon MAIBC

    Further to Frank’s comment I would add that current COV staff are processing this rezoning under the guidance of the Rezoning Policy for the CBD. Reading it carefully, the key point which has garnered support for this massive increase in density for an already commercially zoned site is Section 3 “Rezoning for Non-Residential Development: Rezonings for non-residential development may be considered throughout the CBD..” It says “may be considered”, not “will be encouraged” This is hardly are clear and enthusiastic invitation for rezonings for office use with no other public benefit other than providing more office space than zoning currenty permits.
    At the beginning of that policy, Section 1 says in Application and Intent: ….Proposals under this policy will adhere to policies and guidelines related to the Downtown Official Development Plan and other relevant Council-approved policies….” There are a multitude of items in the Downtown Design Guidelines which speak to building design, tower form and the compatible relationship to existing buildings, none of which appear to have been met (or have been overlooked) in the zeal to see this enormous office building proceed to City Council for approval at Public Hearing. Stay tuned.

  • Bill Lee

    @Frank Ducote // Jun 27, 2012 at 3:33 pm #17

    400 foot (122 metres) towers in Chinatown.
    I can still see it happening with the changes to road use in the area.
    Bob Rennie is still in the gentrification stage with the Royal BC Museum recently giving their imprimatur with a collection to his massive black box on Pender Street to the man who opposed the VAG move. He will get profits from the gentrification.
    I agree with Lee Bacchus’ comments on downtown gentrification: http://splinterinyoureye.blogspot.ca/2012/02/gentrification-and-new-urban-cowboys.html

    Meanwhile in the Republic of Burnaby, towers are growing like summer mushrooms in the rain.

    37-storey Central Park tower gets green light
    Neighbourhood residents upset by decision – exploring legal options and looking at possibility of buying a portion of the Barker Avenue cul de sac
    By Janaya Fuller-Evans, Burnaby Now June 20, 2012
    Read more: burnabynow.com/storey+Central+Park+tower+gets+green+light/6810604/story.html

    A proposed 37-storey apartment tower, with three-storey townhouses, across from Central Park passed second reading at Monday night’s council meeting.
    …Julien was particularly concerned about a portion of the Barker Avenue cul de sac bulb, which he said residents would like to purchase if it is up for sale by the city. The section is included in Polygon Developments’ proposal for the site.
    “Logically, if the city wants to dispose of some property, it should, according to the Municipal Act, (be available for) the adjoining property owners for consolidation,” he said.
    The proposed development site is comprised of eight lots along Patterson and Barker avenues.
    The Barker Avenue properties currently have singlefamily homes on them, and the Patterson Avenue lots are occupied by two twostorey apartment buildings with 16 rental units in total.
    The development proposal includes 242 apartments; a communal lounge, meeting room and gym for residents, located on the ground floor of the tower; landscaped boulevards and trees along Patterson Avenue; and a central garden with a public art installation and a play area.
    The proposal includes 80,944 square feet of additional floor space in exchange for an estimated $7.5 million cash-in-lieu contribution to the city’s community amenity bonus fund. The report addressed some of the concerns brought forward by residents, including consistency with the neighbourhood plan; the building’s height and density; impact on traffic; privacy; view and property value issues; the possibility of increased crime; and pedestrian and child safety. The report found that the proposal falls within the Metrotown Town Centre Development Plan, and staff supported the application.

    ======

    Burnaby NewsLeader – News 8 comments
    Metrotown towers too high: resident
    By Wanda Chow – Burnaby NewsLeader. Published: June 19, 2012 11:00 AM
    burnabynewsleader.com/news/159599615.html

    ….Franklin, 38, lives in a low-rise building in the neighbourhood and says she’s been increasingly concerned about the heights of new highrises under construction there.
    “I’ve been choked ever since Metroplace (46 storeys) and then the one at Willingdon and Kingsway (the Sovereign, 45 storeys). Station Square is the straw that broke the camel’s back.”
    The redevelopment of the almost-12-acre Station Square shopping centre site will include five towers, for both residential and office use, ranging in size from 35 to 57 storeys.
    “That’s at least 20 storeys taller than anything else in the area,” said Franklin. “It’s not like tacking on an extra, you know, three, four, five storeys.
    ….Highrises near SkyTrain also mean city hall can accommodate Burnaby’s share of the region’s population growth while protecting single-family neighbourhoods located farther away from transit.
    “We won’t achieve the levels of density of Downtown Vancouver, it’s more dense than Manhattan,” Corrigan noted.
    And while the loss of rental is a concern, the province has refused to give city hall the power to zone or otherwise order rental housing to be built, he said.
    All the city can do is encourage more rental while maintaining its policy of not subsidizing rental housing with taxpayer dollars.
    As for Station Square, the public hearing for the first phase of the project was held last September, and council has given it approval in principle. What will eventually be built will be an improvement over what’s currently there, he said.
    “I don’t think [the existing] Station Square has been our finest hour. [ more ]
    ========
    Station Square moving ahead
    By Janaya Fuller-Evans, Burnaby Now June 27, 2012
    Read more: burnabynow.com/business/Station+Square+moving+ahead/6846929/story.html
    The controversial Station Square development passed third reading at the Burnaby council meeting last night.
    Plans for the project include five residential towers ranging in height from 35 to 57 storeys.
    ….Burnaby’s advisory planning commission – which advises council on land use matters and reviews city zoning bylaw amendments – said it did not support the rezoning application. The commission said it supported the concept of densification but was concerned about the scale of the development and its affect on local infrastructure.
    The Burnaby Public Library board expressed concerns about the development’s potential effect on the Bob Prittie library’s parkade, as well as traffic in the area. [ more ]

    ========
    Sky is not the limit for city buildings
    Metrotown resident says 57 storey buildings are too high and will create problems
    By Janaya Fuller-Evans, Burnaby Now June 22, 2012

    ….Corrigan has also pointed out in previous interviews that adding highrises is part of the community plan for the Metrotown area.
    In Fall 2010, Burnaby introduced the community benefit bonus density policy, which gives developers the chance to increase density in buildings if they give a contribution towards the community.
    The zoning allows for increased density in Burnaby’s four town centres to a maximum floor area ratio, in this case 5: 0, as opposed to 2: 6 under the previous bylaws.
    Through the policy, developers are required to give a portion of space onsite or at other developments for non-profits, or to make a financial contribution for community amenities in lieu of space.
    Metroplace was the first development to go forward under the new zoning.
    The developer, Intracorp Lands Ltd., had previously proposed a 28-storey apartment building with a one-storey commercial base on the property.
    Under the new zoning, the development includes a 46-storey residential tower and a four-storey commercial podium.
    Read more: burnabynow.com/limit+city+buildings/6823160/story.html#ixzz1z2pPTsSk

  • Guest

    In terms of density, setbacks and tower separation, it should also be noted that the viewcones play a role in the massing of these towers. Jameson House is limited in height by a view cone, and had that view cone not existed, then the tower could probably have taken the former of a skinnier taller tower further set back from both the alley and its east lot line.

    The UDP minutes show that the panel had serious concerns about the proximity of the east wall of Jameson House to the site at Howe & Hastings, and the future development potential of that site.

    I think that in the Central Business District, residential towers are a bit of an aberration rather than the norm.
    If you look at Dunsmuir Street at Howe, you’ll see a typical commercial separation of midrise office towers – it’s really the only street in Vanmcouver that forms a “canyon”. Even the Metropolitan Hotel (former Mandarin Hotel) is tightly squeezed into a nearby midblock site.
    Otherwise, Vancouver’s larger office developments have been able to consolidate multiple parcels to provide breathing room for the towers (Pacific Centre, Bentall Centre, Royal Centre).
    With the current scarcity of land in the CBD, the question is whether the City can afford to allow residential towers if there is a separation buffer required around those towers.
    Arguably, a developer should be required to purchase any adjacent lands to provide a separation buffer, rather than sterilizing adjacent property owners lands.
    Future examples include the Moda Hotel (former Dufferin Hotal) adjacent to the Metropolitan Towers on Seymour @ Smithe, and the one storey retail stores adjacent to The Capiol at Robson & Seymour. In each of those cases, the already-built mid-block towers will have some views blocked when the adjacent corner sites are developed.

  • G. deAuxerre

    Missing completely from Lemon’s story is that he’s an owner in Jameson, and has a personal, fiduciary interest. Disclosure. Integrity. Look it up.

  • Victor

    Missing from the story is that this VV Council has become addicted to the increased property taxes from these rezoned (upzoned) high rise properties.

    What a huge mess they are making of our formerly well planned city. The result today – is if the developer wants it, the developer gets it. There is no regard taken about whether property owners will continue to buy in Vancouver if elected officials continue to willy nilly destroy the value of condo assets by sticking a highrise that blocks liht and ciews one has paid a good price for. If the uncertainty continues why invest?

    There is a great piece in this week’s Toronto Life about the nightmares of shortcuts in condo construction and the ensuing struggles of ownership. What would it do to CofV coffers if Vancouverites turned their backs on condos and all moved to up and coming Surrey? This lot will be long gone and will have bankrupted the city in the meantime.
    Please lets find a fair and respectful way to run this City.

  • Victor

    Oops should be ……”.blocks light and views……”

  • Elizabeth Murphy

    @Victor – This is not just Vision Vancouver. Most of the problematic policies that Vision is implementing were originally proposed by the Sam Sullivan / Suzan Anton NPA council before them. The problem is the fact that regulators should not be funded by those they regulate. Since city council is responsible for approving development applications and land use policies, the development industry should not be funding election campaigns like they do for both the NPA and Vision Vancouver.

  • Frank Ducote

    @Guy – I fail to see what difference that makes. Having an informed opinion and a stake in the outcome are not mutually exclusive, are they? I imagine that Robert did his homwork before choosing to live there in any event, so such fundamental changes in policy direction can easily be rightfully seen as a nasty curveball, IMO.

  • Robert Lemon MAIBC

    If Guy deAuxerre had read the original G+M story he would have known from my quotation that I was an owner in JH.