While for many decades I was often the proponent for higher density residential rezonings, in recent years I have become increasingly concerned about some very tall, and very high density buildings being approved in Vancouver. I label this DENSITY IN THE NAME OF AFFORDABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY.
On a few occasions I have written about this phenomenon https://www.vancourier.com/opinion/when-is-big-too-big-when-it-comes-to-towers-1.21528494 and here https://www.vancourier.com/opinion/bigger-isn-t-always-better-when-it-comes-to-rental-housing-in-vancouver-1.23542546.
Having said that, it's a shame more people didn't oppose the massive Ocean Towers highrise next door.
Last week, Vancouver approved another 24 FSR building in the West End next to the building referenced in the first article. I predict that when both are completed, there will be far more concern than that expressed at the Public Hearing.
Many people chide me for my concerns and wonder out loud if I would have opposed the Sylvia Hotel when it was first approved, since it was out of context. They add "look at it now".
It's a fair comment, but I would add that I did support the fabulous tower designed by Richard Henriquez next door which was very controversial at the time.
Having said that, it's a shame more people didn't oppose the massive Ocean Towers highrise next door.
There is no doubt that we need to allow higher densities to achieve greater affordability. But when is big too big? Some will argue that FSR is just a number. It's meaningless. I disagree. It is a measure of a building relative to its surroundings and while some argue one building may not destroy the neighbourhood, a row of similar scale buildings might. That's why I would like to see an overall study completed for the Broadway corridor before allowing such dramatic FSR and height increases.
As a former president of the Urban Development Institute and developer myself, I am often uncomfortable criticizing the proposals from other developers and architects. But in this particular case, I feel I must speak out. The last proposal that was rezoned for this site at 7+ FSR was more than two times the current 3.0 FSR allowed for this site. At 16 storeys I don't have a problem with its height. But what is now being requested is wrong from an urban design and planning perspective. It is out of scale, it will block sunlight and views, and does not plan for increased amenities. For what? Some 'moderate-income rental units' It's not worth the damage it will do. I therefore hope this time Vancouver City Council rejects the application.
While we don't hear much public criticism from other architects and planners, some have spoken out including former City of Vancouver planners Frank Ducote and Scot Hein and former Director of Planning Ray Spaxman. Others have responded to Spaxman's call for comments as follows:
Hello.
Here is a different-from-normal urbanarm missive. Now that I am “sort of retired” I am quite busy culling and filing "stuff from my past”.
Today, I came across a letter I had written in October 2007 to an architectural critic who had completely mislead his readers about the urban design principles that were guiding the redevelopment of our Downtown South area. I am sharing it with you now for it has a distinct relevance to the development that we see emerging today.
"While I enjoy your energy and enthusiasm for your subject and always look forward to your articles, I get worried when I see you going off into places which are misleading to peoples’ understanding of why the city might be the shape it is. If people are misled about the principles guiding building and city design they will lose the ability to judge and improve the products. Improvement is always needed for we do learn as we go along both from what we achieve and the changing needs of society.
I am enclosing for your information an excerpt from the Planning Department’s October 1982 Quarterly Review which describes the work occurring in the Downtown South area, and especially the investigative urban design exploration into the best shape for development in what was known as the “hole in the doughnut”. The tower and podium emerge in response to the design performance guidelines that the department was pioneering at the time. Those guidelines included such principles as good sunlight and daylight penetration, privacy for residents, access to water and mountain views, “eyes on the street”, continuous street activity for security, human street scale, enhancing the sense of community and achieving a comfortable interface between the private and public realms - and all focused on achieving a new level of livability, with affordability, at higher densities. The guidelines of course owe much to the wisdom of people like Jane Jacobs, Gordon Cullen, Christopher Alexander and Kevin Lynch.
We have much to learn from what has happened in the Downtown South and wherever new high-density development occurs in the future, (which will present different challenges than the Downtown South). I hope its design will always concentrate on providing for those human needs that contribute to livability.”
I worry these days that our approving authorities seem most interested in maximizing the number of units and making as much money as possible for the City and the developer.
What do you think?
Keep safe and well.
Ray
All are increasingly upset with decisions being made by city planners and politicians. Below are just some of the things being said:
From Frank Ducote, FCIP/RPP "None of us raised much of an eyebrow for the earlier Broadway/Birch application (at 7.7 FSR and 16 storeys.) In fact, it seemed to me like a fairly natural incremental change for a site on Broadway in a transit station’s pedestrian shed, which has a 12 storey/3FSR discretionary zoned height and density. It did no domino-like harm and actually could have been replicated slowly elsewhere near stations where opportunities permitted.
I know of that 8th and Birch tower proposal having seen it come in as an inquiry a couple of years ago. Wrong scale, wrong place, and for the life of me I can’t see what’s in it for the City, in return for what? Corporate bragging rights? That sure is a lot of bonusing. IMO. Btw, that site could easily have fit two conventional towers of lower height (12-16 storeys), situated diagonally, plus some lowrise elements to provide streetscape animation and continuity.
As for the big picture of how this all matters, why is urban scale and form and all its nuances a lost art now in this city of all places, which has such a proud history of leading edge urbanistic thinking? Hopefully, Scot Hein's paradigm, once refined, can serve as a clear and useful tool for helping us move forward through the fog."
From Scot Hein: "Just a quick note to offer commentary re: the Birch Street/Denny's tower height, and the Pine and West 8th mass timber tower project.
Our entire discretionary regulatory framework (zoning and re-zonings) have historically rewarded density for best urban design practices as the primary driver of value creation. It is an elegant, and legally defensible, system if properly managed. It is underpinned by the simple idea that all sites have potential to stretch their carrying capacity, but, all sites also have limits given their urban design (contextual) role towards a visually cogent and legible city. For example, tower sites in the downtown must contribute to a "domical" overall skyline image. And sites outside of the downtown also have rules which are different than those for the downtown. So please consider that we actually have three cities as per the image below.
1) The Downtown's Loop City (fill your boots with towers in the proper locations)
2) Broadway's Line City (as a unique cross-town corridor with its own form and character "signature")
3) And the balance as Grid City underpinned by the former streetcar grid as a more ambient contextual idea in support of our neighbourhoods.
All three are distinguished with each as a unique idea/morphology deserving of its own approach to density and form.
We all, and certainly previous councils, have gotten into trouble mixing these three ideas by "grafting" Loop City form onto Line or Grid city sites for the laudable purposes of generating economic value towards affordable housing. I'm spiritually on the same page that seeks market value for important amenities, however, it is important to know when you are overreaching. Both proposals, in my opinion are overreaching.
I would suggest that Rize's Independent Tower in Mt. Pleasant be viewed as maximum precedent height, at approximately 20 storeys, for future station site locations west to Burrard. The quality of urban fabric and land use changes west of Burrard. In order to achieve visual emphasis to mark the station locations between Main and Burrard, towers could be considered at each location at approximately 20 storeys which would also introduce a visual rhythm to the image of Broadway. Everything in between should therefore defer in form and scale to these TOD intersections. The Denny's site in this future context, at 16 storeys, is defensible.
With all due respect to the architects who I greatly admire, another 34 story tower off and north of Broadway (in an ambient low-midrise context with quite modest residential towers) is not defensible, even if as the tallest mass timber proposal (for awhile at least) in the world. This 8th and Pine tower would have been rejected at the enquiry stage in previous years as an urban design non-starter while also keeping elected officials out of harms way. No reason to justify such height with a questionable public benefit, especially off Broadway. Perhaps staff could help the proponents find a more appropriate site. We did this all the time in past years.
Hope this gives you a framework for thinking about tower form in the Broadway corridor. Not so affordable rental continues to be a dubious public benefit when there are other typo-logical built form choices that generate even more affordable rental, without expansive/expensive parkades, and also invigorate/strengthen neighbourhoods. Kudos for piloting Missing Middle ideas.
I wanted to offer the above as most hard fought urban design experience, and more artful engagement that thoughtfully generates market value, has left the building.
btw – Here is a technical term - “Pig in Space” which describes a singular tower out of context.
Our entire discretionary regulatory framework (zoning and re-zonings) have historically rewarded density for best urban design practices as the primary driver of value creation. It is an elegant, and legally defensible, system if properly managed. It is underpinned by the simple idea that all sites have potential to stretch their carrying capacity, but, all sites also have limits given their urban design (contextual) role towards a visually cogent and legible city. For example, tower sites in the downtown must contribute to a "domical" overall skyline image. And sites outside of the downtown also have rules which are different than those for the downtown. So please consider that we actually have three cities as per the image below.
1) The Downtown's Loop City (fill your boots with towers in the proper locations)
2) Broadway's Line City (as a unique cross-town corridor with its own form and character "signature")
3) And the balance as Grid City underpinned by the former streetcar grid as a more ambient contextual idea in support of our neighbourhoods.
All three are distinguished with each as a unique idea/morphology deserving of its own approach to density and form.
We all, and certainly previous councils, have gotten into trouble mixing these three ideas by "grafting" Loop City form onto Line or Grid city sites for the laudable purposes of generating economic value towards affordable housing. I'm spiritually on the same page that seeks market value for important amenities, however, it is important to know when you are overreaching. Both proposals, in my opinion are overreaching.
I would suggest that Rize's Independent Tower in Mt. Pleasant be viewed as maximum precedent height, at approximately 20 storeys, for future station site locations west to Burrard. The quality of urban fabric and land use changes west of Burrard. In order to achieve visual emphasis to mark the station locations between Main and Burrard, towers could be considered at each location at approximately 20 storeys which would also introduce a visual rhythm to the image of Broadway. Everything in between should therefore defer in form and scale to these TOD intersections. The Denny's site in this future context, at 16 storeys, is defensible.
With all due respect to the architects who I greatly admire, another 34 story tower off and north of Broadway (in an ambient low-midrise context with quite modest residential towers) is not defensible, even if as the tallest mass timber proposal (for awhile at least) in the world. This 8th and Pine tower would have been rejected at the enquiry stage in previous years as an urban design non-starter while also keeping elected officials out of harms way. No reason to justify such height with a questionable public benefit, especially off Broadway. Perhaps staff could help the proponents find a more appropriate site. We did this all the time in past years.
Hope this gives you a framework for thinking about tower form in the Broadway corridor. Not so affordable rental continues to be a dubious public benefit when there are other typo-logical built form choices that generate even more affordable rental, without expansive/expensive parkades, and also invigorate/strengthen neighbourhoods. Kudos for piloting Missing Middle ideas.
I wanted to offer the above as most hard fought urban design experience, and more artful engagement that thoughtfully generates market value, has left the building.
btw – Here is a technical term - “Pig in Space” which describes a singular tower out of context.
Some anonymous comments to Ray Spaxman on; "Who Needs Urban Design."
1. You are right to remind us. Involvement in the Downtown South planning was most satisfying because the factors which you list came out of the process, and have been justified in the results. As Jon Markoulis of Concord Pacific said to me: if Downtown South does not work this means problems for Concord on False Creek. Anything goes (profit maximization would have been disastrous; a lot of people living, working and playing there now in a dense but healthy urban environment overall.
(Geller note: The FSR throughout Downtown South is less than half of what is being proposed for Broadway and Birch)
2. Ray - Even more relevant today, sadly. Not only are the development community and approving authorities totally tilting the playing field, but now the YIMBYs and similar groups are completely disregarding urban design principles in favour of more rental units, especially for moderate and lower income levels. Their voices completely drown out any call for better city building. Is there an angel on either side of this rancorous debate? If so, it doesn't seem to be the side we’re on anymore.
3. I can only echo your statement: "I worry these days that our approving authorities seem most interested in maximizing the number of units and making as much money as possible for the City and the developer."
You are much more restrained and polite in your response than I would be. But I will take your lead and just say, yes, I too am worried. Very worried. And have been for well over a decade. Nothing seems to have changed, no one at City Hall seems to be listening, and there seems to be no change in approach with this Council, which is more than disappointing. I think one of the most depressing aspects of this is that citizens are being (deliberately?) beaten down. We protest, we write letters, we appear at meetings - and nothing changes. So eventually, even the most active and passionate of us get tired and - dare I say it? - give up. It's hard not to feel discouraged, sad, angry….
4. I remember our preparation of public amenity strategies ranging from Coal Harbour to Triangle West to Downtown South and even out to Oakridge Langara and others. How can this even be possible when random rezonings are coming in at 24 FSR?
How can we even plan for the right width of sidewalks let alone schools and parks never mind emergency and social services? The fallacy of providing more units to somehow mythically provide more services and amenities is laughable, given the net loss that each and every unit results in. We proved this conclusively in the Financing Growth Strategy. Since our goal was to achieve some balance and provide as much livability as possible, when did the City throw in the towel? Should we change the name to the City Development Department from the City Planning Department?
On; "The Way it will look to the way it will be."
1. I think it is time to bring the Architectural Foundation, Lambda Alpha and perhaps Urbanarium & others into the discussion before more damage is done.
(Ray wonders ; and architectural and planning professions, the UDI, maybe the engineering and legal professions?)
2. Exactly. It seems that when the West End plan was approved a few years ago it was the signal for huge amounts of density all around the West End perimeter with no thought to amenities. I love the West End, but it is already crowded enough. Why does everyone else get to throw a hissy fit at a six-storey building in their neighbourhood, but we are expected to suck it up and be happy with multiple 20, 30, and now 60-storey buildings. When any objections are raised the response is a shrug, and an “oh well, it’s in the West End plan”.
3. Cities enact zoning bylaws to enable neighbourhoods to develop their own character. Clear and definite bylaws give owners, residents and investors greater certainty that these neighbourhood characteristics will remain relatively consistent over time.
Vancouver claims to have zoning bylaws, yet the City treats these bylaws merely as starting points for negotiation. Any individual property, in any neighbourhood, can be renegotiated to become a separate zone unto itself. Bonus density is sold to the highest bidder.
A BC judge described this approach a few years ago as a “Swiss cheese” approach to zoning. With increased density and other zoning relaxations for sale to the highest bidder, our zoning bylaws, policies, and neighbourhood plans and guidelines have become completely meaningless.
- Developers fume at the red tape, delays, and lack of clarity in costs and what they can actually get approved.
- Citizens bemoan the constant fight required to retain the distinct character of their own neighbourhood, and the inevitable false accusations of NIMBYism that follow.
- City hall complains about the huge administrative burden of reviewing so many rezoning applications.
- Council grows weary of the drudgery and conflict that arise from the endless flow of rezoning hearings.
It seems that with our current approach, everyone is frustrated and unhappy.
Our current City Council was elected with a clear mandate to reject the existing Vision-led approach and reset the city’s zoning with a new Citywide Plan. Yet there’s every indication that neither City staff nor City Council possess the will or desire to take action in this direction.
Will it take another election to clean house and return to a state where a zoning bylaw actually means something?
4. I guess the City staff through their actions is telling us we have to accept ugly, un-neighbourly and overbuilt to get rental. Surely there are other solutions. Here is another one in my neighbourhood at Alma and Broadway and this is the second iteration… As the last writer said, all you have to do is propose rental and all other planning principles are thrown out the window.
No comments:
Post a Comment