Someone
once asked, “When you are sitting in the bathtub with the hot water running,
how do you know when to shout?”
Related
- Controversial 57-storey tower approved for Vancouver's West End
- West End residents to chime in on proposed 57-storey First Baptist Church redevelopment
- City council rejects 12-storey condo for Chinatown
- Rize approval still rankles some residents
This
quotation came to mind last week when Vancouver city council approved a
rezoning application at Nelson and Burrard.
The
development includes 331 market strata units in a 57-storey tower, 61 units of
social housing, seismic upgrades and restoration of a church, and expanded
facilities and program space for the church and surrounding community. It will
be the third tallest tower in the city, for the time being.
The
development is a partnership between the First Baptist Church of Vancouver and
Westbank Project Corp — a company I greatly admire for working with top notch
architects and a commitment to design excellence. This architecturally striking
tower, intended to resemble a pair of organ pipes, was designed by the late
Bing Thom.
When a
CBC reporter asked me what I thought of the design, I told her I thought it was
very innovative and would appeal to those wanting to see more variety in
Vancouver architecture. But I agreed with those who thought it was too
big for the site and neighbourhood context.
She said
she was surprised by my response. But she shouldn’t have been.
While I
have often sought approvals for taller and higher density developments, in
recent years I have become increasingly concerned with the size of some new Vancouver
developments. In my opinion, they are simply too big.
However,
city staff and politicians justify higher densities and heights noting the
developments offer promises of greater housing affordability, community
amenities and sustainability.
In supporting
this development, Mayor Gregor Robertson repeatedly told reporters it would
provide much needed social housing units at a time when federal and provincial
subsidies were not available. He is correct.
While
council rightly rejected Chinatown’s 105 Keefer St. development, other
developments have been approved at greater heights and densities than many
planners considered appropriate since they offered public amenities, housing
affordability and Community Amenity Contributions (CACs).
They
include the Independent at Kingsway and Broadway, and 508 Helmcken, which, at a
floor space ratio (FSR) of 17.4, is approximately 10 times the density of a
typical Kerrisdale highrise. These buildings are now under construction and
time will tell if my concerns were valid.
The
famous American architect Louis Sullivan once said that building form should
follow function. In the case of these projects, form follows finance.
I
acknowledge that there are architects, planners and developers who disagree
with my concerns. They question whether it really matters if a building is 30
storeys, 40 storeys or 50 storeys. What matters more to them is how the
building is designed at the street level. They believe FSR is a blunt
instrument that should not be used to assess the likely success of a design.
I
understand and appreciate this point of view. However, it was not that long ago
that six FSR was as high as the city would allow for residential development.
Today double-digit FSR residential projects, like the Burrard and Nelson development,
are becoming commonplace.
The
debate over when is big too big reminds me of a radio interview with the late
Arthur Erickson many years ago. In describing his design philosophy, he said it
was important for new developments to relate to their surroundings. When the
interviewer pointed out that over time surroundings will change, Erickson
agreed. But he added that future buildings should relate to his building
designs, and so on.
As I look
around Vancouver and other parts of Metro Vancouver, there is no doubt that
many new developments no longer relate to their surroundings. Their designs are
formed by the significant density bonuses offered in return for amenities,
affordable housing and cold hard cash.
Each year
Metro municipalities are now receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from
developers in return for extra height and density. Many will say this is a good
thing; it means property taxes will not have to go up so much.
However,
I worry that if we continue to allow housing affordability and CAC payments to
drive project densities, heights and massing, we may ultimately compromise the
quality of the built environment that has made Vancouver the envy of planners
from around the world.
geller@sfu.ca
@michaelgeller
© 2017 Vancouver Courier
