Posted Dec 16, 2015, 6:13 AM
|
 |
Ferris Wheel Hater
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
|
|
Here we go....
Second UDP meeting in 2012 (updated/final design)
Quote:
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-0)
Introduction: Scot Hein, Development Planner, described the proposal noting that a significant redesign has occurred since the Panel’s last review. He confirmed that the social market housing obligation of 20% has been agreed upon with Housing staff. Something that is driving that is an interest to do a combustible building over a non-combustible plinth. This is the first time in twenty years that the 20% has been met in this part of the city. Mr. Hein noted that at the last review the Panel were looking for a kind of vitality and approach to the fenestration and composition and yet still be contextually relevant.
Advice from the Panel on this application is sought on the following:
Has sufficient design development occurred that would warrant support?
Is there significant differentiation on either side of the expressed passage through the building? Should they be different given the strategy for colour and fenestration?
Mr. Hein took questions from the Panel.
Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Tomas Wolf, Architect, further described the proposal. He said he agreed with some of the Panel’s comments from the previous review. They have moved the building towards the lane and shifted one floor over so that there is more space for the open courtyard. They opened the link between Hastings Street and Pender Street to the sky. They have also moved the stairs from inside the courtyard, and incorporated one in the north block, and one was also moved next to the south block so there is more open space in the courtyard.
Jim Wong, Principle at Studio One Architecture, noted that the building has a more contemporary design than the previous scheme. There is a link through the center of the building that is open to the sky. He described the material and colour palette. The courtyard colours have been lightened as well as the cladding materials. The walkways and stairways have been simplified. All the CRUs face either the street or the lane other than a small unit in the center which opens onto the courtyard, which will be a community space.
Jonathan Losee, Landscape Architect, described the landscape plans. He noted that moving the building helped bring more light into the courtyard which will help support the planting. He mentioned that the owner is partnering with an urban agriculture team that will convert the courtyard space to a fruit and vegetable garden. As well there is an urban agriculture deck that will get 6-7 hours of sunlight during the summer. At the lower level they have introduced an interesting paving pattern with lighting fixtures to make for a more urban experience. There is also a large courtyard that will be accessible for the art program and will be surfaced with polished concrete. A shade courtyard is planned that will be used for an outdoor living room/community space.
Mark Williams, owner, explained that they are the first non-government project and they have found a way to make the social housing work. Of the eighteen units 50% will let the tenants contribute no more than the welfare portion for the rent which is $375 per month. The other 50% will be at local CMHC market rent or BC Housing income rent. The units are being sold at a reduced cost to the F.J. L. Housing Society. The balance of the 79 units will be offered under an affordable home ownership program and they have been working with CMHC to assist buyers in their purchases. The community and courtyard is going to be programmed by the Canadian Foundation for Creative Development and Innovation. They will be housed in one of the commercial units and they will take care of all the programming for the community link and the courtyard. The project podium will be operated by the local Urban Growers Association in conjunction with the community and residents with collective gardening plots.
The applicant team took questions from the Panel.
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
Consider changing the materials on the base of the building;
Consider some articulation to the parapet;
Consider adding urban agriculture to the upper roof.
Related Commentary: The Panel supported the proposal and thought the project was much improved since the previous review.
The Panel agreed that one of the biggest changes was the amount of light getting into the courtyard and that there was more useable space there now. They liked the material palette and the subtle colour shift on the Hastings Street façade composition. A couple of Panel members thought the base materials should be more durable given that the painted concrete could be used for graffiti.
The Panel liked the rhythm of the store fronts along Hastings Street as it keeps with the character of the area. As well, they supported the punched windows which are similar to the existing window style but have a more modern approach. Some of the Panel members thought the parapet line needed a little more articulation to fit into the saw-tooth silhouette of the neighbourhood. Also, the lane elevation could be strengthened with a stronger colour. One Panel member thought skylights could be added on the top floor to allow for light into the kitchen and bathroom spaces.
The Panel agreed that having 20% of units for social housing and having it integrated into the project was commendable. The Panel liked the flexibility of the suite layout that allows for residents to decide how to furnish them. One Panel member suggested the applicant furnish a couple of units to give potential residents some ideas on how to arrange their furniture.
A couple of Panel members were concerned with the width of the walkways at the courtyard level, and thought they could be opened up to allow for more sun and a place to build community relationships. They also liked the way the garden had been organized. One Panel member would like to see the roofs used for urban agriculture which would mean extending the stair one level and maybe the elevator.
The Panel encouraged the applicant to go further with the sustainable strategy. One Panel member thought the south façade could use some passive sun shading.
Applicant’s Response: Mr. Wolf said he had no comments. Mr. Williams said they had met with one of the native artists and are thinking of doing some cast in concrete native art for the project along the streetscape.
|
Original proposal non-support back in 2011
Quote:
EVALUATION: NON-SUPPORT (0-7)
Introduction: Scot Hein, Development Planner, introduced the proposal for a 6-storey mixed-use project. He noted that it is an important site on the Hastings Street corridor and will be the first new development initiative near the important intersection of Main and Hastings Street. While regretting the loss of the Pantages Theatre, he noted that staff view the proposal as an opportunity for a well considered "background and complementary" streetwall building while delivering mixed tenure housing opportunity under the requirements of prevailing zoning. He emphasized that, as the first site to be developed, it should be carefully considered. Mr. Hein highlighted three substantive issues that staff appreciated advice from the panel on. The first issue related to the site's role, and success, towards extending and completing an opportunity for mid-block passages that will facilitate pedestrian movement and interest while connecting to the south/Chinatown which has been an aspiration of the city and community for many years under the Silk Road Initiative. The application proposes a mid-block passage from the lane to Hastings Street. Staff seek advice on the design of the passage, including CPTED considerations. Mr. Hein also sought advice on the related question of proposed ground level uses, including those fronting Hastings Street, the passage and the lane.
Secondly, Mr. Hein sought advice on the general form of development, proposed as a courtyard form, and the related architectural expression. He specifically sought advice on the panel's expectations for design quality of the street and lane fronting facades, including materiality and detailing. He asked the panel if the proposal met their standard for support recognizing its contextual importance near important heritage, and other, distinguished buildings.
Thirdly, Mr. Hein sought specific advice on the scheme's general livability, especially the courtyard oriented units and those fronting the lane.
Mr. Hein took questions from the Panel.
Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Thomas Wolf, Architect, further described the project and explained that the over all design was shaped by the program. The program calls for a mixed-use development that would introduce residential units and commercial units to the neighbourhood. The project needed to be economical and the residential units need to be affordable. Mr. Wolf noted that it is the oldest part of the city and is currently evolving. The commercial component comprises of twelve units. Mr. Wolf noted that the owner has contacted the local artist’s community to see if there is any interest in occupying some of the commercial units. There will be five storeys of residential in the front and four in the back with 97 units in total. Mr. Wolf described the architecture and noted that in order keep the costs reduced the building will be of wood frame construction. Seventy-nine units will be sold as affordable housing and eighteen will be social housing. Mr. Wolf stated that the design was drawn from the historic image of the area. He also described the material and colour palette and explained that they will be using swiss pearl with textured metal and that the top floor would introduce strong cornices. The lane is connecting East Hastings through the courtyard and will be used as a public open space that will help to add more light into the lane. The residential lobby is situated in the lane. Mr. Wolf indicated that they will be providing 43 parking stalls in the underground parking for the residents as well as biking stalls off the lane for the public.
Jonathan Losee, Landscape Architect, described the landscape plans for the project. He stated that there are three components to the landscaping: the streetscape, interior courtyard/mews and the outdoor courtyard for the residents on the second floor. The streetscape is a refreshment of what is already there with new sidewalks and some new street trees. The courtyard will have some paving patterns and will be animated with restaurant/coffee shop uses.
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
Design development for a more contemporary expression to the building;
Consider using other materials than hardi panel for the exterior;
Consider increasing the width of the courtyard;
Design development to improve the viability of the commercial units.
Related Commentary: The Panel did not support the proposal but recognized that it was a challenging project.
The Panel acknowledged that the applicant had done a good job of addressing the issues and that the mid block interconnection was a good objective. They realized that it could become an interesting mode of pedestrian movement through the area although it might be a little early in that process since there isn’t a connection at the moment. One Panel member noted that the success or failure of the pathway was going to depend on the amount of natural light into the area.
Several Panel members thought that the use of wood frame would work and that the applicant had done a good job in terms of modulation and breaking up of the massing. Most of the Panel thought that the building’s elements could be expressed as contemporary rather than making the building look like it had been there for 100 years. The Panel thought the materials wouldn’t stand up well and thought the hardi panel should be replaced with masonry, stone or metal to make it have more permanence. A couple of Panel members suggested using lesser materials in the lane to help the budget and hardi panel might be used there. The Panel thought the width of the courtyard could be improved with better visibility which would also improve the daylight into the area. A couple of Panel members suggested using lighter colours as a way to get more light into the space.
Several Panel members thought the stairs might be internalized into the end of the lane buildings which would make for less shadowing in the courtyard including improving the stair material.
Several Panel members were concerned with the viability of the commercial units not being exposed to the street considering there are a number of commercial units in the area that are empty. One Panel member suggested putting glazing into the floor to add light into the parkade.
Although the Panel realized that there wasn’t a lot of room for landscaping one Panel member thought more greenery could be added to the lane. Also, a couple of Panel members were worried about the viability of the plants in the courtyard considering the lack of light and thought the applicant should rethink the use of growing berries.
Applicant’s Response: The applicant had no further comments.
|
|
Prev
Linear Mode
