Quote:
Panel Consensus:
Having reviewed the project it was moved by Ms. Spoelstra and seconded by Ms. Brudar and was the decision of the Urban Design Panel:
THAT the Panel recommends resubmission of the project with the following recommendations to be reviewed by City Staff:- Review the massing and density of the building and encourage more modulation to better express the base, middle, and top;
- The lower level massing along Broughton Street massing should be improved/revised to either set the tower back from the podium, or to extend the tower down to grade distinctly from the podium;
- Improve the podium’s west elevation and expression facing the park;
- Concentrate the amenities spaces and provide more indoor and outdoor and public realm space;
- Revise flow of daycare (drop off and pick up) flow of parking and bike access to be safe and effective;
- Make the podium more welcoming to the public realm on the street edge;
- Improve the livability of the units facing the lane;
- Integrate public art in the design process now;
- Ensure viability of street trees.
Related Commentary: The panel commended the applicant on the comprehensive, well put together submission package and expressed appreciation for the inclusion of historical analysis of the existing building on the site.
The panel was of mixed opinion regarding height, some stating that the height is acceptable while others felt it was not necessary to project into the Queen Elizabeth view cone, feeling that the same design intent could be achieved with less height.
The panel was of mixed opinion on density with some panel members comfortable with the proposed density, while others said that the towers could be more sculpted if density was reduced. One panel member said that the density and massing as proposed was what is anticipated by the West End Community Plan. Others felt that the overall design could be improved with more modulation and articulation in the massing and that a reduction in density would improve the expression. The site feels crowded, with one panel member remarking that it is because the site is shortened due to the additional setback for the Nicola mini-park.
The panel members who mentioned the averaging of the floorplate were supportive of this approach.
The panel observed that the podium appeared under-scaled and weak at just a few storeys in height and that it felt truncated at the top. Several panel members remarked that the massing of how the tower interacts with podium at the east elevation should be addressed to improve the presence to
Broughton Street. As it is, the massing of the tower is flush with the podium at the setback line. The podium expression generally feels relentless and could use greater variety.
There was a liking to the concept of the divisions of the towers (base, middle top, crown), however it was suggested that there needed to be greater modulation and articulation between each of the
divisions. The heights of the tower step backs should relate to context buildings.
Some panel members were challenged by the non-symmetricity of the two towers at the crown, asking why the west tower appears to lean towards the taller east tower. The panel agreed the advantages of the proposed punched window style are the energy performance, the high quality materials to be used and the unique expression, and acknowledged that there is a yearning to move away from glass towers that have predominated since the 90s. Some of the panel members noted that some of the decorative features needed to be reassessed (i.e. balconies).
It was also noted that there was additional room for improvement for the design of units that dip below grade along Alberni Street and the livability of units facing onto the lane as they appeared “rough.”
The panel felt that the main entries to the rental component at east and west appeared to be pushed aside, and should be made more prominent.
The panel commended the applicant for their commitment to the passive house standard. It was suggested to look at safe guards so the performance the applicant is expecting is achieved (i.e. a peer group), and to reduce the post occupancy costs for the tenants (strata fees) for programs such as the waste management concierge.
The public realm was not sufficient relative to the density of the building. The panel also felt that the amenity spaces felt too small and dispersed for the size of the project. The entry courtyard on Alberni will always be in shade. The amenity spaces should be concentrated rather than distributed to
encourage social interaction. It was suggested to integrate below grade services with the at grade levels, and to achieve better communication between indoor and outdoor amenity spaces.
The Panel felt that the parking spaces available for the pickup and drop offs of the child care were insufficient and should be designed to be safer. A bike amenity provided in the below grade that integrates with the grade level was needed.
The applicants were commended for the association with the mini park and providing the daycare facilities. A couple of panel members felt that the west elevation onto the park could have a main or multiple entries, and that generally this elevation should be made to feel more related to the park.
Consider a future use for the underground parking for a future time when the Vancouver is less carfocused.
The applicant should look at including some form of Public Art into the design process.
Applicant’s Response:
The applicant team thanked the panel.
The applicant noted the underground parking provide electrical charge units in anticipation of the future. Also, they had designed an option that was more open and orientated to the mini park but this was discouraged by Planning to prevent the perception that the building owned the park.
|
It seems like the UDP has no fear of striking down a starchitects proposal, with 400 W Georgia having come close to that edge, and now 1444 Alberni actually being pushed over.
I'm a little shocked by some panel members criticism of the density and height, considering the area plan allows for it. Though I do think they made some excellent observations about the podium, as well as the project's interaction with the public realm. I really like that they pointed out a need for a lower parking amount as well.
It will be interesting to see how this project reacts to the critiques, what changes we'll see in response, and if it still manages to stay a passive house. However, given the highlighting of that aspect, I would be stunned if they gave up on that goal now. When the Butterfly faced re-submission, I felt the applicant adapted the recommendations while managing to keep their vision intact; Granted, the criticism was mostly of the ground level in that case. Above all, I wonder if the new model will be flown in from New York too.
Prev
Linear Mode
