19 responses so far ↓

• 1 Urbanismo // May 19, 2010 at 11:33 am

  Jeeeezus wot an ugly brutal pile of concrete . . . reflects the authors me thinqxz . . .

• 2 mezzanine // May 19, 2010 at 1:12 pm

  Remeber that pre-canada line, the site was an ICBC claims centre, not the most intense use of industrial land. Also long as there is a strict limit of no further residential to the south, I would be ok with this.

  Also interesting to see in the render new buildings envisioned for the northeast corner, where that 1960s low-rise building is.

• 3 Jonathan // May 19, 2010 at 3:09 pm

  There’s no doubt this development will have an effect on the surrounding area, but isn’t it a bit of an exaggeration to say that it’s going to shift the centre of gravity for the city? The downtown peninsula alone is home to 100,000 people and 25M square feet of office space. Marine Gateway will be home to, at most, about 1000 pe0ple, and includes 500K of commercial space.

• 4 Bill Lee // May 19, 2010 at 4:18 pm

  Consideration has been given to the earthquake liquifaction zone along that part of the Fraser. When the waterfront slumps what will the fill up the slight hill be supported by?

  And the shadow, or other sun break. Driving to the airport along Marine drive in the evening with the sun in our eyes, it is only broken by the Marpole Towers. I imagine the same with this sad design and the same problem of sudden sun glare driving east and around the lump in the road there.

  As for the [del mushroom farm / piggery /Del] bus loop around the base, I presume we will hear the same complaints from residents as the Richmond towers did because of a bunch of idling buses there around back of the Canada line on “our precious quiet residential streets” http://preview.tinyurl.com/2gytraj

  “Residential use comprises 392,200 sq. ft. or 570 dwelling units” = 690 sq feet per unit, though obviously it’s 270 for the rentals and larger for the buyers based on what the city is accepting downtown.
  And would the Walmart fit in to the podium?
  I wonder if Thomas Fung of Fairchild/Aberdeen centre will put his money bags into it as a new centre, as he already has the northwest corner of Cambie and Broadway and guaranteed city department office rentals.

• 5 Lewis N. Villegas // May 20, 2010 at 12:33 am

  Today, I was reading “the other Lewis” describing Amsterdam’s golden age—beginning in the 1550’s—and the balance struck between profit motive and civic purpose. A balance that according to Lewis Mumford was lost three hundred years later when development became solely concerned with profit:

  “…it was no part of a capitalist economy to provide urban quarters for the working classes except on the terms that would furnish handsome profit: that is to say, by overcrowding, skimping, niggardly provisions even for light and air, a general worsening of the whole urban environment. ”

  The clarity of the rear view mirror becomes even more striking as Mumford adds the necessity of destroying the heritage quartiers:

  “The worst manifestations of capitalism in urban development came about when it became dominant and exclusive, parading itself in its brute nakedness, without historic clothes of any kind, except patched and tattered castoffs. At that point, commercial success showed itself for what it was and still largely is: civic destitution. From the standpoint of an expanding capitalist economy, indeed, capitalism’s prospects of profits, which rested on continuous turnover, demanded the continued destruction of old urban structures, for the sake of their profitable replacement at ever higher rents… In the poorer quarters, following the example of his great Roman progenitor Crassus, the capitalist even hastened the pace of destruction by begrudging the necessary investment for repair and renewal.”

  [The City in History, p. 444]

  “Marine Gateway”, social housing & temporary shelters, Vancouver’s Historic Quartiers (including the so-called Downtown Eastside), “the Woodwards”, HAHR, the West End…

  It’s all been done before.

• 6 Urbanismo // May 20, 2010 at 8:08 am

  Thanqxz Lewis for that very poignant “other Lewis” quotation. Such sensitivity is lost today.

  Anyway, to caste judgment on a sketch would be quite premature where it not for so much of this stuff turning sour.

  There was a modern movement in the UK in the ’50’s dubbed “New Brutalism”. This PCI thing is of the genre.

  Long before Pruit-Igoe, sometime in the ’50’s, one of architects Alison and Peter Smithson’s thingies, in the Midlands, was justifiably dubbed new and brutal and was thus relegated to the blasters. So may this PCI brief sketch if it is follow thru, but it wont.

  We know, from experience, the Bula-blog hotshots will be ovulating over seismic, and other such very well taken care of minutiae, but I can assure them from experience geo-tech is a very lucrative business: PCI sub-mud will not suffer a dearth of attention.

  What is not taken care of is the corollary to the “other Lewis’s” side to “capitalism”: i.e. humane accommodation, and I’m talking inside and out.

  How does the strata/rental mix manifest. Are renters manifestly of a different social strata? According to CMHC Vancouver is replete in majority rentals even though just about all units are designated strata: the general rule is, speculator buys, awaits inflation, can’t sell so rent! I thinq that is an established routine!

  So given strata/rental what architectural/physical difference at PCI?

  On the other hand the sketch does not give a comprehensive, or indeed even a glimmer, at street level so maybe we should with hold opinions until more comprehensive presentations. Suffice it to say Busby’s Wall Centre, Nelson @ Burrard bodes ill for quartier street level integration.

  With the nick-name “Vancouverism” now floating around the blog-o-sphere I fear, with this kind of stuff, adding to the preponderance Vancouver’s hard faced concrete, such a title is about to take on a quite unintended pejorative!

  PS . . . PCI, I have a little secrete to share with you . . . a humane, quartier sensitive design is: 1 best received by approval authorities, 2 lower cost, 3 readily marketed, and 4 a building for a proud developer.

• 7 Urbanismo // May 20, 2010 at 8:20 am

  Ummmmmm, maybe the Delta is in jeopardy after all!

  What with all the glitter-glossy Richmond on-thu-dyke bullshit we were regaled with a couple of weeks ago, may be with much more of this stuff seismic is important.

• 8 Lewis N. Villegas // May 20, 2010 at 9:11 am

  Lewis Mumford’s point was that there was a golden age of urbanism in Amsterdam, from 1550 to about 1850, when the society as a whole held values that put in balance commercial success and civic purpose. Furthermore, it was left to the civic authorities to provide oversight, and they did so successfully.

  Urbanismo and I agree once again. Well done, good urbanism is good business too.

  We are missing that today in Vancouver, in our region, and in much of the rest of the country. There are positive signs in Quebec, and I have hopes for St. John’s Newfoundland, where I have yet to go. There are a handful of terrific projects in historic Charlottetown, but one looks for good urbanism in new areas as well.

  I can’t comment on the Smithson building “in the Midlands” because I haven’t seen it.

  I can comment on his Economist Building (1959-64), on St James’s Street, London, England—a brilliant piece of architecture. Three slender buildings, two of them tall enough to be called towers, yet not “towering” over this part of London, two blocks north of Pall Mall.

  A point to keep in mind is that when Smithson coined the term “Brutalism” it was new.

  Smithson was of the generation that followed Jeanneret and van der Rohe, yet he was a modernist architect that also understood the timelessness of urbanism and urban form. The spaces between the three buildings at The Economist, and the fact that the fourth element in the composition is a piece of historic fabric retained, show that Smithson got the urbanism, and could execute.

  A friend loaned me a copy of Smithson’s four walks of Bath, which I had time to complete. Once again, the very idea of experiencing urban space at a walking scale, and seeing the city in its natural setting—the fourth walk leads into the countryside and back—says something about Smithson’s sensibilities that set him apart from most of his contemporaries.

  For more information consult the second volume of the complete works of Alison and Peter Smithson, entitled “The Charged Void: Urbanism” (The Monacelli Press, New York, 2005).

• 9 landlord // May 20, 2010 at 9:17 am

  Poor old capitalism is really taking it in the shorts these days (shorts. Get it?).
  As to the Big One : (http://www.scq.ubc.ca/the-big-one-understanding-why-the-big-earthquake-is-predicted-for-vancouver/). Look for Richmond and Surrey on the map.
  Richter 9 means everything comes down. Average particle size after arrival of shockwave = about 2 m. Then a 30-metre tsunami comes ashore at high velocity.
  I live in Kits. Its not like I’ll be around either to help in the search for survivors or to collect on my earthquake insurance coverage.
  Keep 20-30 gallons of bottled water (or, if you prefer, bottled organic fruit juice) and an inflatable lifeboat in a safe place at all times.

• 10 Living in the West End // May 20, 2010 at 9:23 am

  Frances, 192 is more than 187.
  That’s the number Gillespie and Yeung want to cram onto a dinky but very green for now site in the heart of the family zone in the West End.
  You might want to ask why Marine Gateway was yanked from the agenda of the Urban Design Panel yesterday. Could it be that PCI wants nothing to do with STIR and that albatross 60 year rental covenant. Our political visionaries would never hold up a developer who does not want to stir the pot or would they.

• 11 Frances Bula // May 20, 2010 at 10:36 am

  Living — You’re right about the number of units and about the amount of density being put on a relatively small site, but why in the world would you think that PCI, at this late date, would suddenly decide it doesn’t like the STIR program. It’s been planning this project for more than a year with full awareness of what STIR entails in terms of 60-year covenants. Unless you’ve got some inside information from PCI, my guess would be that there is some other issue that has made them decide to put more work into this and go forward at a future date.

• 12 Living in the West End // May 20, 2010 at 11:02 am

  And while PCI has been busy planning, Yeung bought Langara Gardens just up the hill with all sorts of infill tower development potential and one stop closer to downtown.
  STIR is an albatross weight to a developer because you give up a strata conversion option. The FSR gain in uncertain economic times may not be worth the option loss.
  Mind you if your land cost per buildable sq. ft. is in the low $30’s as Gillespie and Yeung are hoping for on Comox it is a no brainer.

• 13 Urbanismo // May 20, 2010 at 11:17 am

  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19246

• 14 Lewis N. Villegas // May 20, 2010 at 2:43 pm

  Let’s put the boots to the idea that you get good urbanism when you build towers. As Mumford states:

  “… [you get the] handsome profit: that is to say, by overcrowding, skimping, niggardly provisions even for light and air, a general worsening of the whole urban environment.”
  So, where do we fit Living in the West End’s:
  “… if your land cost per buildable sq. ft. is in the low $30’s… [then] it is a no brainer.”
  The real failure of Vancouver planning for the Olympics was building a subway under single family lots, first, and building a subway where the stops are too far apart to support Transit Oriented Development (TOD) with human-scale build out. That would have delivered the double stimulus of neighbourhood intensification, and street revitalization, as well as dampen down the fires of runaway land prices.
  Obviously, if you can get land cheap, and if you can get it approved for a tower, then it seems like it would be a no-brainer. However, the real estate folks at City Hall pride themselves with the ability take get back a lion’s share of those profits as—call it what you may—a tax levee. So, nobody wins, because on the one hand the cost per buildable square foot for a tower is much, much higher than the cost per buildable for a fee-simple, human-scale, 3.5 storey building. On the other hand, the tower neighbourhood is more expensive to service.
  At the scale of the neighbourhood the tower and the ground oriented, fee-simple building net you about the same density. And we should hasten to add, the same increment in tax revenue. The only financial difference is the development tax levee. However, given that the tower neighbourhood will cost more to police, service and repair, the downstream considerations for the tower types are not good outside restricted land areas with lots of waterfront like the downtown peninsula.
  Everyone keeps forgetting to factor in the lots-put-in-shadows. That land has lost most of its development potential for being next door to a tower, or across the street from a tower.
  The advantage of the human-scale neighbourhood vs. the tower neighbourhood, is that the former achieves a comparable density while delivering a higher quality public realm. The result is a stronger community. Because it can engage every building lot, all streets are fronted and revitalized, lanes repaved, transportation implementation made possible, etc. Because the projects can build out incrementally, smaller builders can enter the market, and more diversity and better prices will result. The optics of “deals made behind closed doors, one site at a time” are also gone. The fee-simple, high-density, human-scale redevelopment model is one building type fits all. For example, it can be used lots fronting all our arterial streets.
  The Vancouver Tower and Podium already shows one famous sign of fatigue. Look for the gas fired barbecues on the front door yards chained down to protect them against vandalism. The hot spots and cold spots of the tower neighbourhood do not achieve the same distribution of housing. Somewhere along the way what we get is an inferior neighbourhood product.

  In our system, the only voice we get is at the ballot box. So, look for this issue to span several more election cycles before it is put to rest.

• 15 Urbanismo // May 20, 2010 at 3:31 pm

  Nicely put Lewis . . .

• 16 MB // May 20, 2010 at 6:04 pm

  @ Urbbie: “We know, from experience, the Bula-blog hotshots will be ovulating over seismic, and other such very well taken care of minutiae, but I can assure them from experience geo-tech is a very lucrative business: PCI sub-mud will not suffer a dearth of attention. ”
  ———-

  Well, Grandaddy Hotshot Of Them All, some of us are salivating cuz we’re incapable of ovulating. Not that one doesn’t get horny on occasion.

  You got yer Jello, and you got yer bowl. PCI’s project seems to be uniquely placed right where the Jello meets the bowl, which is to say between jiggly soil and a hard place. I ask you, is that the place one wants to be when tectonic rapture occurs? I read that shock waves ran the length of the runways at YVR like ripples in a pond (and broke them up) in the earthquake of ‘46.

  At least the pointy end of the building is oriented toward the Jello.

• 17 MB // May 20, 2010 at 6:16 pm

  @ Lewis. This may be a little off topic, but your commentary on urbanism leads me here.

  The thought occured to me that you and Urbbie could do good work on Van Isle using those thousands of hectares of logged over cutblocks being sold by Timberwest et al and show everyone what real, sustainable good urbanism could be like, using trams (and an expanded E&N Railway passenger service) to string together complete villages and towns built on the damaged, logged over blocks. It’s like a clean slate in some ways.

  This is a link to the CRD mapping site, and it’s painfully obvious how extensive the TW holdings area around Victoria. And what an opportunity this is. Unfortunately, the mapping does not extend farther than the Malahat.

  http://maps.crd.bc.ca/imf/imf.jsp?site=public_crdviewer

  Otherwise, as Urbbie has commented on before, these will become sprawling, low density rural subdivisions filled with plastic houses in a rain forest with triple garage door architecture and not a store for 20 k.

• 18 Urbanismo // May 20, 2010 at 8:10 pm

  MB . . . you are absolutely right about Marine Gateway sitting across a fault line: but that wouldn’t be a first.

  The 1985 Mexico City earthquake, suffering huge loss of life and damage, was also caused by the city traversing a fault line. But also by lack of geo-tech vigilance.

  The quake: epicenter 350 kms NW in the Pacific ocean, Richter 8.1.

  Essentially La Zona Rosa y Tlatelolco, areas of the greatest damage, are on the filled Largo Texcoco: the gumbo caused the damage, not the Richter or location.

  Centro, Tenochtitlan, the area of almost no damage, the original Aztec city, is built on rock.

  Apologies for being smart-ass but geo-technology has come along way in twenty-five years, and being, sort-of peripherally in the trade, I have no doubt even Peter Busby has the professional competence to get the best advice digging in the sub-strata.

  So, with your permission, may we at this early stage, concentrate on “commodity, firmness and delight”?

  STIR has a shelf life of some 60 years. Be absolutely sure of one thing, circumstance will prevail long before that expires, even if PCI chooses to sign in.

  Housing is out of reach to most of us and across the Anglo-American world.

  Our banking system is a ponzi. For every dollar loaned, immediately more dollars are owed the lender than exists: a perpetual treadmill of compounding interest that keeps every individual and organization in perpetual debt: every warm hearth out of reach.

  Housing, be it rental, condo, fee simple or whatever is trumped up next will always be out of reach.

  So at this stage, given current financial gyrations, there is little chance Marine Gateway will be built. Ditto all the other glittering pipe dreams in MSM’s stream.

  And, at this very, very early stage, if it proceeds thru Brent”s Danza Macabra then the quartier in which it is built must take precedence over the gumbo underneath.

  BTW talking of quartiers: Centro Hstorico, despite enduring floods, revolutions and, ummmm, Mexicanos is utterly gorgeous: I lived there two years!

• 19 Lewis N. Villegas // May 20, 2010 at 11:28 pm

  Natural disasters notwithstanding, we have a bevy of urban types to compare in this our small “Collage City” (dates are from memory):

  2010 • Cambie Intensification
  [hopefully not "Marine Gateway" cloned up]
  2008 • South Fraser Lands
  2005 • The Woodwards
  2004 • OV
  1992 • The Molson Site/Arbutus Village
  1990 • North Shore False Creek
  1985 • Seventh Avenue (Cambie to Granville)
  1980 • South False Creek
  1978 • Granville Island
  1978 • RT2 in Kitsilano
  1974 • Granville Mall
  1970 • Gastown/Chinatown revitalization
  1965 • Freeway proposal

Leave a Comment