View Single Post
  #5  
Old Posted Feb 8, 2011, 5:36 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
It passed the UDP 8-0 the first time around, it came back for a second round and passed again unanimously.

Quote:
1304 Hornby Street DE: 414412

Use: To construct a new 31-storey mixed-use building on site with 193 residential units and retail on the ground floor.
Zoning: CD-1
Application Status: Complete
Review: Second
Architect: Bingham Hill Architects and Richard Henry Architect Inc.
Owner: Concert Properties
Delegation: John Bingham, Bingham Hill Architects
Richard Henry, Richard Henry Architects Inc.
Farouk Babul, Concert Properties Ltd.
Bjorn Richt, Recollective
Bruce Hemstock, PWL Partnership
Staff: Anita Molaro
EVALUATION: REZONING - SUPPORT (6-0)

Introduction: Anita Molaro, Development Planner, noted that the proposal is a development permit application following rezoning. The basic form of development was discussed and supported at that time. Ms. Molaro described the context for the area noting the future context may include the Burrard gateway application. The proposal is for a 31-storey tower with 193 residential units and three commercial retail units. There will be seven levels of underground parking and the over all height of the tower will be 309 feet. The applicant is targeting LEED™ Gold certification. Molaro noted the issues that were identified by the Panel at the rezoning stage.

Advice from the Panel on this application is sought on the following:
* applicants response to the previous comments raise by the panel (rezoning conditions)
* demonstration of high quality materials and detailed treatments
o concrete (elastomeric coating);brick; and
o aluminum and glass window systems with spandrel glazing and metal panel infill.
o detailed landscaping treatments
* sustainability attributes (LEED™ Gold targeted by applicant - Note: At the time of rezoning LEED™ Silver was the minimum requirement)

Ms. Molaro took questions from the Panel.

Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Richard Henry, Architect, further described the proposal noting that they determined the height of the building to be around 300 feet. The building is optimized for two high speed elevators and if they had added any more height they would have had to go to three elevators which would decrease the efficiency of the floor plate. They wanted to create a relatively affordable building, so the units are compact and simple in form. The also wanted to be respectful of the neighbours which they took into consideration when they designed the podium. They maintained 70 feet from the Viva tower and there is about 65 feet to Hornby Court. However there won’t be any windows on that façade so there are no privacy concerns. All the bays, balconies and windows were stacked to make a vertical expression except the south west bays which are horizontal to emphasis that the central form as being more vertical. He noted that they will be hiring an artist and are working to identify a location for the art piece. Mr. Henry stated that regarding the sustainability strategy they will be LEED™ Gold registered. They incorporated as much green roof as possible while still having some area for an outdoor amenity space. Rainwater will be captured and stored in a cistern for irrigation. The parking has been reduced and they have included two co-op cars and as well bike storage will be included.

Bruce Hemstock, Landscape Architect, noted that the City was looking for bike racks and seating along the bike lane and will be located on the Hornby Street frontage in the boulevard strip. The landscape is straight forward on the ground plane following the City standard. Mr. Hemstock described the proposed materials noting the residential entry will have planter pots that are lit from above and from below. The terrace has been broken up into three zones. The first zone is opposite the amenity area and is more of an open space with a bench, a barbeque and a fire pit. The mid zone is framed by the three benches and plantings for a social gathering spot. The third space is adjacent to the outside edge and is a more quiet space and will include urban agriculture.

The applicant team took questions from the Panel.

Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
* Design development to refine and simplify the tower’s base material, colour palette to enhance the visual autonomy and presence of the contrasting shadow boxes.
* Design development to simplify the tower top.
* Design development to enhance the responses of the tower facades to sustainable considerations.
* Design development to corner at grade. This should include consideration of weather protection and integration of art.
* Design development to further enhance the verticality of the tower expression.

Related Commentary: The Panel supported the proposed and thought it was a well considered building.

The Panel said they appreciated the simplicity of the building and supported the verticality in the form but encouraged the applicant to go further. They thought they could express something on the outside to express a shadow line. They liked the shadow boxes and suggested the applicant add a couple more to the tower. One Panel member noted that it would be interesting to see how the artist dealt with the relationship with the shadow boxes while a couple of other Panel members thought the shadow boxes could be playful elements and where colour could be used. It was noted that if this was not a landmark building but more of a background building that needs to fit into the fabric of the neighbourhood. A couple of Panel members noted that there was too much effort at the top of the building while several other Panel members thought there needed to be some work on the corner for some strength in the design. One Panel member suggested the corner was a good place for public art.

Several Panel members noted that the scheme had improved from moving the amenity up in the building and instead adding retail to the ground floor to animate the street. A couple of Panel members noted that the building needed rain protection and thought it could be part of the public art component.

The Panel thought the colour and materials were quite conventional and would like to see a bolder expression with a couple of Panel members stating that the colours could be more monochromatic.

A couple of Panel members wanted the applicant to be more inventive to the ground plane although most of the Panel thought the landscape treatment looked interesting. One Panel member was concerned that the private patio spaces could be over programmed.

Regarding sustainability, one Panel member would like to see the principles demonstrated in the building and that the facades were not helping with the sunlight angle. A couple of Panel members thought the south west façade might be a challenge for the energy target considering the amount of glazing.
Applicant’s Response: Mr. Henry said they appreciated the Panel’s comments and would take them back to the drawing board.
It might look like a nice building but I certainly wouldn't want to live there with only 2 elevators servicing 31 floors above ground plus 7 floors of u/g parking.
Reply With Quote