Brian Jackson’s Vancouver

[Klazu]

The city’s planning chief talks about the good and bad of downtown architecture and his sense of ‘Vancouverism’.

It may be one of Vancouver’s landmark buildings, a West Coast office tower play on Toronto’s CN Tower. But to Vancouver planning director Brian Jackson, Harbour Centre with its rotating tower is the worst piece of architecture he’s seen in a city full of dramatic designs.

“I can’t even call it architecture. Even though it has a rotating restaurant on top,” he deadpans.

On the other hand, give Jackson a twisting glass tower like the new 36-storey MNP tower that looms in the background over another Vancouver landmark, the Marine Building, and he’s almost giddy. He describes the MNP in almost reverent terms as a building that might “never have been built,” opposed by office designers who didn’t like its non-symmetrical design and small floors, but rescued by a company that could see a place in Vancouver’s booming office market.

A few weeks ago another potential building Jackson very much liked was derided and criticized, labelled “the blob” and “jiggy-jog architecture” and given the nickname “The Icepick”. Internationally recognized Chicago architects Gordon Gill and Adrian Smith had come up with the idea for a 26-storey non-symmetrical glassy tower on the shoehorn parking lot between the heritage Waterfront Station and the even older Landing Building. The city’s urban design panel sniffed and said no. So, too, did a few well-known Vancouver architects.

That raises the question of just what kind of an imprint a planning director can have on a city. Over the span of a career, such individuals can affect the form and design of a city as it grows. Larry Beasley and Ann McAfee, for example, helped define dense urban living in the 1990s by bringing townhouses down to street level in the tower-targeted Downtown South.

So what is it that Jackson, a planner for more than 35 years in places from Toronto to California to Nevada to British Columbia, thinks makes up good and bad architecture?

Jackson agreed to show The Vancouver Sun what he considers the city’s best and worst. Starting from the first bad building on his list, 200 Granville — ironically the home of The Sun — he strolled through the downtown, Coal Harbour, West End, Downtown South, Yaletown and elsewhere to point out some of the most recognizable buildings and public spaces, and a few duds along the way. He gave them either thumbs up or thumbs down.

At the core of Jackson's views is his belief that buildings either have to fit in or stand out. And not in a garish, jarring way. Vancouver, he believes, is a city with sometimes vanilla architecture that reflects a reserved, shy citizenry. Not like Toronto, where he once worked for seven years as the manager of waterfront planning.

Read rest in here: http://www.vancouversun.com/Brian+Ja...244/story.html

Watch also the videos by clicking on the map. Lots of interesting stuff in there.

[Klazu]

Having read the whole article and seen the videos, this guy actually makes lots of sense. I am happy that we have people like him in the City planning, but why do we still end up with so much mediocre crap?

Too bad he didn't comment on The Mark, One Wall Center or Shangri-La, but he has very good points on many buildings and parks.

[officedweller]

I think he's making the same mistake that others have made in the past -
he's evaluating existing building based on present trends, fashion, preferences and values.

In the 1950s, people stripped cornices from classical buildings and covered brick and stone facades to make buildings look modern - in fashion with the times.

He's doing the same with brutalist modern buildings - decrying them because they aren't "current".
What's would be worse is if someone took his comments to heart and decided to "renovate" the looks of those buildings.
... oh wait - too late for the Chateau Granville, the entrances of 200 Granville, 701 West Georgia or the Canaccord Tower (those last 3 all Cadillac Fairview).

On urban design preferences -
- if the present (3rd) Hotel Vancouver were proposed today - it would never have been built - it would have been too big for the site and towered over the single family wood frame houses across the street.
- same for the Marine Building - it would have "towered" over its neighbours - wouldn't "fit in".

[sacrifice333]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Having read the whole article and seen the videos, this guy actually makes lots of sense. I am happy that we have people like him in the City planning, but why do we still end up with so much mediocre crap?

Too bad he didn't comment on The Mark, One Wall Center or Shangri-La, but he has very good points on many buildings and parks.

Three letters... U D P

[Klazu]

Not at all related to Mr. Jackson, but I guess I can re-use this thread for a slightly related video. How does Vancouver fair against these ideals?

• Video Link

[connect2source]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think he's making the same mistake that others have made in the past -
he's evaluating existing building based on present trends, fashion, preferences and values.

In the 1950s, people stripped cornices from classical buildings and covered brick and stone facades to make buildings look modern - in fashion with the times.

He's doing the same with brutalist modern buildings - decrying them because they aren't "current".
What's would be worse is if someone took his comments to heart and decided to "renovate" the looks of those buildings.
... oh wait - too late for the Chateau Granville, the entrances of 200 Granville, 701 West Georgia or the Canaccord Tower (those last 3 all Cadillac Fairview).

Fully agree!! Actually I consider Brutalism Arthur Erikson's signature style, the MacBlo building is one of the finest examples of Brutalist style anywhere, as is SFU and the Anthropology Museum, Robson Square also contains many Brutalist elements. Hence it's a key and very important part of our heritage and defined the style of the 1970's, along with West Coast Contemporary ( for wood-frames and houses ) in Greater Vancouver. Most of the less-known concrete buildings followed this look, like the Daon buildings in the West End, the Coast Plaza Stanley Park, The Empire Landmark and more.

The only part of of Project 200 ever constructed, 200 Granville, is also a great example of Brutalist style IMO, it's simplicity and honey-coloured concrete is timeless, Harbour Centre attempted the same look but failed. It's rather a shame that most have been severely and irreparably altered.

Hence the 1970's was home to Brutalism in Canada and well represented and embraced in it's day with great examples nationwide

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by connect2source

Fully agree!! Actually I consider Brutalism Arthur Erikson's signature style, the MacBlo building is one of the finest examples of Brutalist style anywhere, as is SFU and the Anthropology Museum, Robson Square also contains many Brutalist elements. Hence it's a key and very important part of our heritage and defined the style of the 1970's, along with West Coast Contemporary ( for wood-frames and houses ) in Greater Vancouver. Most of the less-known concrete buildings followed this look, like the Daon buildings in the West End, the Coast Plaza Stanley Park, The Empire Landmark and more.

The only part of of Project 200 ever constructed, 200 Granville, is also a great example of Brutalist style IMO, it's simplicity and honey-coloured concrete is timeless, Harbour Centre attempted the same look but failed. It's rather a shame that most have been severely and irreparably altered.

Hence the 1970's was home to Brutalism in Canada and well represented and embraced in it's day with great examples nationwide

His criticism of the Mac-Blo plaza is akin to the criticism and reason why Toronto's Nathan Phillips Square is being "cluttered".

It's also the same type of "reasoning" underlying the redevelopment of the VAG North Plaza. I like it being the present formal space that it is.
It could use some maintenance (i.e. replant the grass or pave it), but otherwise keep it - love the fountain - when it's running at full blast.

If you've ever walked across the vast expanse of plaza at La Defense in Paris - it's a bit surreal - like being in a sci-fi movie.

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Not at all related to Mr. Jackson, but I guess I can re-use this thread for a slightly related video. How does Vancouver fair against these ideals?

• Video Link

I love this video. many excellent points.

[connect2source]

Originally Posted by officedweller

His criticism of the Mac-Blo plaza is akin to the criticism and reason why Toronto's Nathan Phillips Square is being "cluttered".

It's also the same type of "reasoning" underlying the redevelopment of the VAG North Plaza. I like it being the present formal space that it is.
It could use some maintenance (i.e. replant the grass or pave it), but otherwise keep it - love the fountain - when it's running at full blast.

If you've ever walked across the vast expanse of plaza at La Defense in Paris - it's a bit surreal - like being in a sci-fi movie.

Well said.

There seems to be trend in Vancouver whereby styles from certain eras are severely and poorly 'updated' altered just a short time before that particular style is finally appreciated and comes back in vogue. We should leave landmark buildings alone and simply maintain them, or in the case in most European cities, update signage and lighting.

Instead, we arrogantly pass judgement on great architecture, taking on the perspective of the current times or trends. It shows were not very grown-up as this rarely happens in leading world cities anymore.