Since the 900 Block East Hastings proposal is going to Public Hearing tomorrow, and I've been asked to comment on a forthcoming article by Frances Bula on the development, I've decided to reprint a very lengthy, but hopefully relevant blog post from earlier this year.
DENSITY in the name of SUSTAINABILITY and AFFORDABILITY
"What the hell is going on in this city?"
This
is the question asked of me earlier this week by someone looking at the
developer's illustration in the Vancouver Courier of the proposed
Rize Development at Broadway and Kingsway "It just looks too big!" she said.
Two weeks earlier I had a call from someone concerned about a proposed new development in the
900 Block East Hastings Street
across from the Ray-Cam Community Centre. He had just seen a rezoning
sign proposing a 6 FSR development along a portion of a street presently
populated by one and two level industrial buildings. "I like the idea
of housing in this area", he said," but why would a developer or the
City even consider 6 FSR in an area like this?" (As an aside, I'm told
the density is necessary to support the city demands for additional
light industrial space and social housing to be donated by the
developer to the City.)
I
must say I understood my friends' concerns. Especially since I too
have recently been disturbed about the significant increases in height
and density for a number of approved and proposed developments scattered
around the city. It was not that long ago that 6 FSR was the highest
residential density permitted in the city, generally restricted to the
Georgia Street Corridor. Recently the City has approved projects at
almost three times this density. And now there is a proposal for 6 FSR
on East Hastings! If it's acceptable in the 900 Block, is it acceptable
for the adjacent ten blocks?
The recently sold-out
Marine Gateway
development will be more than twice as tall as the Langara Gardens
towers at 57th and Cambie, which have always been considered out of
scale with that part of the city. (In the interest of full disclosure, I
managed the successful rezoning for the fourth rental tower at Langara
Gardens in the 80's, arguing at the time that yes, the buildings were
out of scale, but does it really matter whether there are three or four
towers, noting the need for more rental housing in the area and a
resulting FSR of only 1.15.)
The STIR project at
1401 Comox
proposed a 7.5 FSR on a site zoned for 1.5. While I support the idea
of density bonuses to achieve new rental housing, even new market rental
housing, I could not endorse a project at 5 times the permitted FSR,
regardless of the merits of the design, talent of the architect, or
community spirit and capability of the developer.
On Main Street, the proposed redevelopment of the
Little Mountain property
is at an overall 'gross' density that in my opinion is too high for the
area. It's higher than what the City approved for the Bayshore
development in 1993. The late Jim Green, who worked as a community
advocate for the project felt the same way, but argued the higher
density was necessary to support the new social housing and other
community benefits being expected by the City and community. He also
pointed out that the Province was expecting a substantial payment for
the land although he always stressed that neither I nor the public knew
just how much the developer had offered to pay for the property. This
was correct.
In each of these cases, the justification for
heights and densities significantly higher than what would have been
considered acceptable by architects, planners, and the general public a
decade ago include:
- the City is demanding community amenities
(rental housing, social housing, commercial space, artists' live work
space, daycare, etc.) or financial contributions in cash, which is
pushing the higher densities;
- higher densities are more 'sustainable'...and sustainability is an important goal for the city;
- the higher densities are necessary to achieve more affordable housing;
- all but Little Mountain had the unanimous, or almost unanimous approval of the Urban Design Panel.
Now,
I happen to agree that increased amenities are essential if we are to
accommodate increased growth. I also agree that 'sustainable
development' especially close to transit is a good thing. And as a
longstanding advocate for achieving more affordable housing choices
through higher densities, I cannot disagree with the third bullet. So
what's my problem?
Ironically, what prompted me to write this post
was not just those people questioning the Rize, Hasting Street, Comox
Street or Little Mountain developments. It was a conversation I had this
past week at City Hall with City planners who asked what I thought of
allowing higher densities and larger highrise
floorplates than have historically been approved in Vancouver.
The
floorplate of a building is the area of each floor. For decades the
maximum for a highrise building has been around 570 square meters,
which has resulted in Vancouver's 'skinny point-block towers' so often
admired by visiting architects and planners. This was the size
established for Downtown South, most of Coal Harbour and the North Shore
of False Creek.
In a typical Vancouver building, approximately
70 square meters of the floorplate is taken up by elevators, stairs,
corridors and mechanical shafts. The remaining area can then be divided
up into suites. The ratio of the saleable or leasable area to the total
building area is referred to as the building
efficiency.
In Vancouver, the efficiency of most buildings when factoring in the
area of enclosed balconies and in-suite storage space is around 85%.
This is less than larger buildings found in most other locales. Also,
the point-block building form with extensive exterior wall relative to
the building area is more expensive to build.
In recent years
we have seen some notable exceptions to the smaller floorplate
guideline. For example, the Woodwards Tower is much larger.
(Fortunately the decorative metal designs that were to be a framework
for greenery climbing up the building offset some of the bulk of this
building.) The Shangri-la Tower is bigger, but its triangulated shape
and overall height help minimize its bulk. Other recently approved
buildings such as Telus Garden are also larger.
If you travel outside of Vancouver you can find many much larger, or may I say
fatter buildings.
eg: the towers in New Westminster above the SkyTrain station just north
of Westminster Quay. While providing more affordable housing next to
transit and an array of commercial facilities, these buildings are
big...very big.
What prompted the question from the City planners
is that they are now being asked to approve increasingly larger floor
plates in order to improve building efficiency and affordability. The
Planning Department is not just looking at fattening the towers; it is
also being asked to consider alternative building forms such as
larger double loaded slab buildings that are so common around Toronto and other cities. Unlike Vancouver's slender
pointblocks, these buildings can easily be twice or three times the floorplate size and much more efficient and cost effective.
In
principle, I support double loader corridor slab buildings up to say
ten storeys. However, I don't really want to see the huge slab
buildings that one sees driving into downtown Toronto from the airport.
One of the planners responded how ironic it was that I, once considered the
developer terrible
around City Hall for decades for proposing highrises and various
rezonings for higher density four storey apartments along Vancouver
arterials, now shared their concerns!
I think the time has come
for a full public discussion on just how far Vancouver should deviate
from its past practices when it comes to building form and density.
Should we forego the slender point blocks? Should we permit Toronto
sized slab buildings around the city in the name of affordability ? At
what point do we trade off the form, massing and appearance of buildings
in order to achieve greater 'sustainability? When is too much density
too much?
This is a discussion that needs to take place not
just on the pages of the Vancouver Sun and other community newspapers,
or at politically charged Public Hearings. These discussions need to
occur in the corridors of UDI, the Architectural and Planning
Institutes, and our universities.
I hope that people like
Gordon Price, Brent Toderian, Larry Beasley, Bob Ransford, Sam Sullivan
and others will join into conversations about how much our city should
change in the decades to come and what building forms and densities are
appropriate in the name of affordability and sustainability. I would
also like to see more on-line discussions at Fabula, City Caucus, the
Vancouver Observer, The Tyee, and other similar venues.
Looking
at plans for some of the new developments in the pipeline, I personally
think my friends are right in asking what is going on in our city. I
hope this post may help keep the conversation going.
(604) 761-8060 for information and registration.
But
not everyone is happy with its recommendation that the city immediately
begin pilot projects to create parcels of land for more ground-oriented
housing by thinning certain residential streets. Kitsilano homeowner
David Grigg said he and his wife bought a unit in a raised bungalow 20
years ago precisely because of its location.
