Rochon Unabridged: Time to build outside the box

When I first read Lisa Rochon’s article in print I was irritated by her simplistic assertion that if one just swept away the rules, exciting, bold design would flourish. The amended article on your site responds to some of the email feedback she has received. Now she talks about good bones having been put down but with the need to add some spice to the mix. Fair enough, a point I think hardly anyone would argue with but nonetheless a significant climbdown from her earlier blanket condemnation. I’m still irritated by the quotes attributed to James Cheng in the article however. Is there another architect in Vancouver who has thrived under the “Beasley regime” as much as James Cheng? He’s a master of the podium and tower and has managed, even within Beasley’s apparent “forumulaic” constraints, to design some graceful buildings. It’s hard for me to imagine James Cheng morphing into Frank Gehry, but if he wants to step out of his self-imposed creative box, more power to him. I doubt that the city is preventing him from doing this, and he would still have his genre work to pay the bills. Having spent a bit of time in England and France this past summer, I find the discussion about sameness and monotony in Vancouver’s built form interesting. No one ever complains about the sameness of Paris or, for the part of France I was in, Aix en Provence. All that wonderfully textured warm golden stone – how monotonous! Maybe the cooler materials are the difference, green glass and concrete lacking the same tactile appeal of old stone. But I must say it was a real pleasure to walk through urban streets (even the new ones) where the rule was harmony, rather than our typically forced attempts to achieve formal diversity (eg: multiple rooflines, materials and colours in the same building). You don’t always have to try that hard: a consistent regular rhythm creates some pretty attractive urban streets. I think Duany’s point in the Tyee piece, had she made it, on the distinction between the values necessary for good city design and the values necessary for the design ofexpressive and iconic buildings, is one that would have given more balance to Rochon’s article. Planners doing their job to ensure overall urban livability shouldn’t be blamed for architects and developers not rising to the challenge of designing iconic buildings in landmark locations, or even reinterpreting the rules in new and exciting ways. On balance, I think Vancouver is further ahead having spent the past 30 years laying down good bones, than in chasing the icon du jour. After all, the city ain’t finished yet.