[Feathered Friend]

So, I went down to the UDP meeting again this week; I think the members are starting to wonder if I'm a sucker for punishment. The discussion on this proposal lasted almost an hour and half, and included a 10 minute-ish slide show from Westbank. The UDP's unexpected reaction to this project alone made it worth attending the meeting.

I learned that Westbank is apparently willing to start construction without having contracts for the lease space, that they want to build the project on spec, and will be taking responsibility for the upkeep of the green walls. The green walls will be vines growing out of planter boxes attached to the bottom of each green wall metal screen. There will also be punched windows behind the metal screens, rather than a whole glass panel.

When the panel took over, that's where the good day ended for the applicant team. Aside from the use, height, density, and form, I'm not sure if there was one prevailing aspect that the panel liked. The rooftop space was felt to be in a different language from the rest of the building (funny to note, one of panelists commented that the roof area looked like a Star Destroyer). Both the Georgia and Homer streetscape received criticism. The Georgia frontage, particularly with it's sharp corner, pushed pedestrians away from the building. However, it was the Homer face that received the brunt of the criticism, with the consensus being that the sunken patio related horribly to the public realm. Also critiqued was how the project related to Library Square. It was felt that continuing the terracotta bricks from the Square was more tokenism and was very unpopular.

The criticism did not stop there, but continued to the rest of the building. The panel felt the project was too busy and needed to be calmed down. This should be accomplished while paying more attention to solar gain and form (which was also lacking).
The glazing received criticism for not responding to an office environment; implementing fritting was recommended to hide the clutter (boxes, wires, desks, etc) associated with office space.

Lastly, it seemed to me that the panel had no faith in the green "living" wall. There were concerns about sustainability and maintenance; would the green space be taken care of for the next 20, 40 ,or 60 years? While there was a mention of the Evergreen Building, it was to contrast the difference between the successful greenery of that building vs the 50 ft vine walls proposed here. The panel highly suggested scrapping the feature, and implementing a metal paneling or some other high quality material instead.

Finally when the barrage was over and it was the applicant team's tun to respond, it was clear that they were slightly shell shocked. I don't believe anyone saw this building coming under this much fire. The applicant team must have been very aware they were on the verge of being instructed to resubmit, as there was an impassioned plea to save it from this fate. A commitment was made that, if the proposal was allowed to move forward, all of the issues that were raised would be addressed before it came back to the UDP for the Development Application.

Perhaps it's because of the huge demand for office space, but applicants were ultimately successful in convincing the majority of the members in attendance to Approve the project, albeit with a large list of recommendations. The city doesn't track the vote count anymore, and out of respect I won't either, but I will say that the project had a very close shave with resubmission. I was later given the impression that someone who voted in favor of the project would, after more thought, like to have recast their vote. It's important to note that I'm simply an amateur, and sitting a distance away from the speakers, so I might have unintentionally missed details or misheard at times. In short, don't take this as gospel, or that I'm implying direct quotes to any specific members of the UDP.