4 level
stacked townhouses like this Vancouver development often have a higher density
than some highrises.
Last week
the Architectural Institute of British Columbia held its annual conference. The
theme was Shifting Perspectives but you did not have to be an architect to be
interested in many of the sessions being offered.
One
addressed post-disaster building safety evaluations. While we may not like to
think about an earthquake hitting our city, seismologists believe it is not a
question of if, but when. Many
Vancouver buildings will be affected, including older rental apartments, few of
which are being upgraded since landlords are reluctant to evict tenants.
Another
session explored building design and energy performance. It is a pity some COPE
and Green Party politicians who have been telling voters that highrises are the
least energy efficient building form had not been in attendance. They
would have learned that new highrises are more energy efficient than most
single-family dwellings. That is because apartment suites only have one or two
surfaces exposed to the outside, whereas a single family dwelling has six.
Another
session examined the future of market and non-market housing on city-owned land
along the south shore of False Creek. Developed
in the 1970s, these projects have less than 25 years remaining on their land
leases. As a result, it is difficult for condominium owners to sell and
non-profits to operate. The
situation is becoming critical for those non-profits who have been providing
housing for both low and moderate income households at rates significantly
below market, since they have not put money away for repairs.
One of
the panelists, the principal of a major Vancouver architectural firm, has been
living in his subsidized cooperative for more than 30 years. His
current monthly payment is about half of what the market rent would be. In
addition, three and four bedroom family homes in his development are occupied
by one or two person senior households who refuse to move out.
Many in
the audience were struck by the sense of entitlement expressed by the
panelists. Given the
urgent need for three and four bedroom family units, it would seem appropriate
for singles and couples to relocate to smaller homes, or possibly share homes.
Given the
need to fund repairs, higher income residents should be making larger monthly
payments.
As for
the future, there is an opportunity to significantly increase density through
infill housing and redevelopment. This was the topic of another popular
conference session.
Mixed use developments like this Kitsilano project have a floor space ratio of between 2.5 and 3.0 which is comparable to highrise projects found around Metro Vancouver |
Titled
“DenCity,” it explored different perspectives on density as viewed through the
eyes of urban planners, developers, community activists, architects and
ordinary citizens. The
objective was to offer a better understanding of how density is defined and how
it influences and shapes urban environments.
As one of
the panelists, I noted that in some jurisdictions, density is measured in terms
of people per acre. In others, the measure is housing units per acre. In
Vancouver, we tend to measure density in terms of Floor Space Index (FSR) or
Floor Area Index (FAR) which is the ratio of building area to land area. However,
these measures can be misleading since it is often not clear whether the FSR is
calculated over the entire land area including roads and parks (gross density)
or just on the development site area (net density).
The
session revealed that the public often confuses density and building height. In
fact, it is possible to achieve much higher densities in four storey buildings
than in the 12 storey buildings found in Kerrisdale.
A fellow
panelist, Green Party city council candidate Pete Fry, spoke eloquently about
how citizens are often given little opportunity to provide their input into
community plans, both in terms of density and height. He urged
the architects in the room to join the citizen activists as architect
activists, and help communities to understand density and how best to plan
their neighbourhoods.
I agree.
Architects
and planners need to become more actively involved in neighbourhood planning,
even if it means having to criticize the city administration. While this could
affect their ability to obtain approvals for future projects, their
contribution could be invaluable.
©
Vancouver Courier
The density of street oriented townhouses such as these Toronto units can be surprisingly high, while providing a much desired form of housing |
5 comments:
Note the "most" in Geller's assertion: >> new highrises are more energy efficient than most single-family dwellings. <<
Also note: >> it is possible to achieve much higher densities in four storey buildings than in the 12 storey buildings ...<<
Presumably life cycle energy costs are lower for a unit in an average wood framed four storey buildings than for a similar sized unit in a concrete high rise (12 plus storey). So shouldn't "Eco density" favor circa four storey wood buildings over high rises ?
I've received an email from a participant denouncing the claims made here... and I must say, I have to agree.
You know this as well as I, Michael, towers are without peer in just one area, and one area alone: profits for the developer. Everywhere else they are under-performers—socially, environmentally, and economically (in life-cycle maintenance and unintended costs to the community).
The problem with the performance of towers is that they are typically designed to look the same on all sides. Of course, each side faces a different situation, thus it is common to have one side of a tower calling for heat while the other is calling for cooling (those sealed windows are a problem, so is the inability to hang an awning in front of a window—never mind step on a ladder to clean it on the outside).
It is not possible to mix the air from one side with the air from the other to achieve a balancing effect due to fire codes. LEED platinum, etc., is turning out to be a real con. These things are massively expensive to build and they don't use renewable materials. The structures themselves are expensive to maintain, convert, rehabilitate.
Human-scale construction fares much better in the use of renewable materials, passive solar design, and the use of the human body to lift groceries and people to their suites. The mechanical systems—whether at the scale of the municipality or inside the single building—are also simpler, less expensive, and less costly to maintain over decades and centuries. Ground oriented housing is self-parking while towers are demanding ever more underground parking storage.
There is the issue of the tower putting its smallest side to the sky and in contact with the earth.
You're thinking as a developer, not an architect, and much less as an urbanist when you recommend the darling of the retiring baby boomers as the 'paradigm' for good neighbourhoods.
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة ر جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
شركة دلة جدة
Post a Comment