Quote:
Originally Posted by osirisboy
Yes their official comments relate to use form density. But as you pointed out they would have undoubtably commented on the esthetics of the building which would be passed on to city and applicant. It's those comments that hopefully they have expressed how the seafoam cheap spandrel has become bland and tiresome.
So it's just city council that ultimately approves of colour palette etc? My questions then becomes how do certain projects look completely different than what got approved? Why does wall centre get forced to replace its glass but Telus and mark seem to be allowed to put up something different?
I'm genuinely curious that's all. Insights on how the city works is always welcomed
|
Let me take a shot at explaining the steps:
An Applicant (local architect working on behalf of the property owner/developer) wishes to pursue a rezoning, so they first send an inquiry letter to the planning department saying in as many words: "hey, we're thinking of pursuing a rezoning on this site our client owns and this is generally sort of what we have in mind... May we pursue it?"
The Rezoning Inquiry letter is sent to a Development Planner in the Planning Department and this person remains attached to the project throughout. Development Planners are registered architects and fluent in the City's planning policy and knowledgeable about Council aspirations (green performance, affordable housing, good urban design & managed redevelopment, etc.). The Development Planner uses the inquiry letter to look up the current zoning on the site; refreshes their memory about the the existing building, if one is present (heritage listed, etc.); and they look up what the desired use is for the site in the Neighbourhood Vision plan, a Council-approved Community Plan, or (even better) the Official Development Plan, which reflect an escalating level of detail, public scrutiny, and Council approval.
The Development Planner meets with their colleagues and each rezoning inquiry is discussed as a group. If the proposed use, say an eight storey mid-rise building with retail at grade and condos on top, is proposed for the middle of a single family home neighbourhood, or right smack in the middle of an industrial area, the rezoning planner will reply to the inquiry letter with a flat 'no'. The proposed rezoning won't be considered because it is not supportable due to X, Y, and Z. However, if the site is on the Cambie Corridor, for example, in a section where 6-8 storey buildings are called for in the Community Plan (Cambie Corridor Plan, in this hypothetical case) the Development Planner would reply to the letter with 'yes', the proposed project would be considered by Council for rezoning.
The Applicant (the architect on behalf of their developer client) would then put together their Rezoning Application Submission to Council. The submission for a rezoning is focused on rationalizing a change in zoning and providing information about the proposed use (building program), form (massing, height, setbacks), and density (FSR/FAR) the zoning would allow. The submission would include project rationale, site context analysis, policy context analysis, and the project proposal itself. This section includes: building massing, representative architectural elevations, notional floor plans, notional architectural expression, notional materials pallet, notional landscaping, notional building technologies of note, etc.
The Applicant's Rezoning Submission goes to the Urban Design Panel prior to going to Council. Staff ask the Panel to consider specific questions that Staff would appreciate input on, such as relationship to neighbouring properties, shadow management, etc. The Panel may respond to Staff questions, but their primary role is to give their professional opinion on the rezoning proposal's use, form, and density. The Panel gives constructive criticism to the applicant on the submission from the respective Panellists' areas of professional practice (engineering, architecture, landscape architecture, etc.) and this is not typically noted in minutes. The Panel votes its Support or Non-Support for the project as-presented. Should the project receive Support, Planning Staff will recommend to the City Clerk's Office that the rezoning proposal is ready to proceed to Council and have the rezoning application put to a vote. Should the project receive Non-Support from the Panel, Staff will not recommend to the City Clerk's Office that the project to proceed to Council.
An applicant that receives Non-Support can return to the Panel for a second review following further design development to address the sticking points raised by the Panel. Should it receive Support on its second pass, it is free to continue on to Council. Should it not receive support on the second pass, the developer usually replaces the architect and reworks the proposal before returning to the UDP. However, an applicant may still request that the unsupported project proceed to Council. 501 Richards Street, for example, proceed without the support of the Panel.
When considering a rezoning proposal, Council will primarily consider Use, Form, and Density, along with the public benefits package that comes from the Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) that is part of a rezoning. By allowing a rezoning, Council is making a decision that creates new land value. The prevailing policy in the City of Vancouver is that the public should receive most of the value that is created through this public decision. In practice, about three-quarters of the 'land lift' (change in value of land because of the rezoning) is conveyed to the City via a CAC. CACs can be either in-kind, or cash-in-lieu, or a mixture of the two. In-kind means that the value of the CAC is spent on the site to produce a public amenity, such as affordable housing or a daycare. Cash-in-lieu is a cheque to the City's local geographic CAC fund, which has specific terms and conditions for how it is used. There's lots of information about CACs on the City's website for those who want to learn more.
Once a project has the correct zoning, they must obtain a Development Permit (DP) from the Development Permit Board. DP Applicants (still the architect on behalf of their developer client) works with the Development Planner to ensure that the proposal is in compliance with all City by-laws (so it doesn't get caught up on knuckle-headed things like being 6cm over the zoning height limit, a metre too close to a transformer, too few bike parking spaces, etc). The Applicant brings the project before the UDP. Staff questions are given to the Panel and the Panel gives wide-ranging input on architectural character, circulation, neighbourliness, building systems, landscaping, etc.
In theory, years may have passed since a project got its rezoning, or it may never have rezoned at all, so the rezoning pass through the UDP and the DP pass through the UDP are considered to be wholly separate. The exception is for the rare occasion when a project is given permission to do a combined rezoning-development permit, usually because the site is within a meticulously master-planned area like the SEFC Olympic Village, or there may be a time constraint, like for the Canada Line Stations. The design of a project that went before the UDP for its rezoning may bear no resemblance at all, save for use, form, and density, to the project that goes before the UDP for DP.
This makes sense when years pass between the rezoning and DP, or when the developer isn't happy with their architects and switch to a better one, or (here's a common one) a developer has hired an
affordable architect to slap something together to take a site through rezoning, after which the owner sells the site to someone who will actually develop it. Sometimes the buyer throws out the old design, hires a new architect with whom they like to work, they re-do the plan and maybe even get a zoning amendment (no need for UDP) to modestly alter the zoning to allow a revised design. The new architect puts together a proposal and takes it through the UDP for DP and the Panel effectively sees a project for the first time.
I would say that projects which go through rezoning and DP back to back within the two or three year term for a cohort of Panellists tend to benefit greatly from the same people seeing a project multiple times. These are generally extremely busy type-A people on the Panel and they're spending, tops, an hour looking at the model and display boards in the UDP meeting before they give comments and vote, and perhaps they glanced through the hundreds of large-format pages in the three, four, or five project proposal materials packages that are delivered a few days ahead of time. Small details are
easily missed. Hell, even large details can be easily missed. Critical details to the overall appearance of the building like spandrel material and colour can get lost in the clutter of circuitous discussions and voluminous lists of questions posed to the Panel by Staff. The applicant may be asked "what colour are the solid panels?" and answer "Swiss Pearl's Elvin Silver!", when they're actually end up being matte grey Alucobond slabs upon construction due to value engineering to the lowest bidder, or "what colour is the spandrel that makes up this prominent elevation?" and answer "why the finest and must luxuriously creamy Ivory White" when they actually are just plain white and they're behind cheap high-iron content green glass, hence Seafoam Green(TM).
A common thing these days is for the applicant to do a DP level of detail for the rezoning so that they don't have to do as much work later. The Panel loves it because there is more to look at and critique, Staff loves it because it gives them a much more clear idea of how it ends up, and Council loves it because they get to see and learn about a project that appears to be good to go. The problem with this is that the Applicants sometimes get caught up in the project being 'almost done' at the rezoning stage when really the thing could have been little more than a sketch-up digital model and blank wood blocks and it would have checked the box for the rezoning. When problems arise with use, form, and density, the amount of work that they have to do to change something significant is huge and their client will be pissed. Unfortunately, sometimes the push for value engineering can be stronger for projects that jump the gun, get caught up on something, make the minimal amount of changes to get their rezoning, and then get caught up again in the DP stage on issues that haven't really been resolved. That's when the Panel starts to get worried about execution and depending on the site, project significance, and track record, projects may get a particularly rigorous going-over. Other times, there can be some 'group think' among the Panel and trust that the architect will fix issues and the developer will follow through, so less rigour is applied when more perhaps is warranted. Lastly, and this is going to be unpopular in some quarters, the phrase 'background building' can arise and largely excuse less prominent buildings from the scrutiny they possibly deserve. Other times a project can be tagged as 'significant' or 'important' and the Applicant can get an unexpected earful and find themselves on the unpleasant end of the vote despite having a competent project that would sail through were it in another location. A perfect example of this is the MNP Tower beside the Guinness Building and Marine Building. The original design was essentially hexagonal in floor plate, nicely executed relationship to the ground and its neighbours, exceptionally high quality glazing and building systems,
but it wasn't quite working when looking down Hastings at the Marine Building. 1-9 Non-Support. They relegated the local architect to project manager, hired KFP out of New York, and we got an truly exceptional addition to the city. That original office building would have had people here jumping up and down with pleasure if it had been proposed in half a dozen other places downtown, but the UDP put its heels in and said that this isn't a 'background building'. It's mercurial and I feel bad sometimes for the applicants who unexpected find themselves as a deer in the headlights.
The consensus issues raised by the Panel are noted and a vote of Support or Non-Support is taken. If Non-Support, the Applicant proceeds with design development to address some or all of the issues and then returns for a second round through the UDP. If Support is received, the project is free to continue to the DPB. The consensus issues are received by the DPB and they pay close attention in their review to see whether the Panel's issues were addressed in the intervening design development period before going to the DPB. The DPB may approve a project and include 'Prior-To' conditions that must be addressed before the Development Permit may be converted into a building permit.
Here's the killer: cost engineering can still occur between a project going before the UDP and DPB and between the DPB and construction. Lower quality paint may be substituted, lower quality aluminum panels can be substituted, and (here's our favourite) lower quality window wall systems can be spec'ed on price. So long as the changes do not alter the building envelope, program, and
general architectural expression, the Applicant is free to save their client money when they actually put the project to tender.
The issue with Wall Centre was that instead of semi-transparent glass that the City believed it had approved, dark glass that matched the rest of the complex was used. That's not a small change, like a cheaper supplier of semi-transparent glass would have represented. Now, Wall pointed out that on their materials board there
was dark coloured glass, and the City approved the materials board as part of the application, so they felt that they were good to go and that the change was within safe wiggle-room, but their elevations and renderings indicated light, semi-transparent glass, and written descriptions spoke about the tower's lightness and semi-transparency, even their render of the tower from Queen Elizabeth Park showed a gauzy semi-transparent tower that blended into the sky. Others have exhaustively covered the great glass debate. Consider reading up about it in John Punter's The Vancouver Achievement, or Lance Berelowitz' Dream City.
Hope that helps.
Prev
Linear Mode
