Adele Weder addresses the question in The Tyee. Many voices weigh in.
Here’s mine:
Former city councillor and eco-density advocate Gordon Price … does acknowledge what he calls the “Vancouver Special Paradox.” By allowing the most basic, affordable but perhaps aesthetically challenged houses to crop up, we can also provide more basic shelter to a greater number of people — including a lot of the newcomers who have enriched our city culturally in recent decades.
Still, Price’s stance is that design guidelines and good planning will make eco-density work. “We’re good at this,” says Price. “Do it with confidence. No city thrives on suspicion and distrust.”
Of course it “can” be beautiful.
But of course, to be more affordable, it may be worthwhile to sacrifice some of that superficiality and stop imposing the complex and expensive design schemes on working class neighbourhoods.
Most condo towers in Vancouver are not architect designed, at least not by “name” architects. In fact some office towers like the Royal Centre were built on spec in the 1970s and no architect’s name has ever been attached to it, except perhaps in the archive files of the Permits office at City Hall.
The result is a bland skyline dictated by the fashion of the moment. In ten years time the Yaletown towers will look just as dated and uninteresting as the Royal Centre tower and the Scotia Bank tower.
On trips to both Seattle and Calgary I have been impressed by how much bolder and more distinctive their major high-rises are. Architects there go for enduiring quality, for real art, not instant marketability to an audience of “white bread” consumers.
The architects for the Royal Centre in 1969 were Dirraser James and Jorganson and the Associated Architects were Webb Ziraffa Menkes from Toronto. It’s not particularly inspired and was built on a tight budget, but it could have been worse if it were not for some interventions by the Planning Department. It, along with the Scotia Tower and Pacific Centre, are what I’ve called “branch plant architecture” for a branch plant town, particularly during that period of time.
I would be less concerned with beauty and more with affordability and functionality. Now, you mention trust, Gordon… who can trust a government that has a dubious track record of transparency and accountability?
“I would be less concerned with beauty and more with affordability and functionality. ”
I agree with you Raul that affordability is critical, and has been lost completely, and that function comes before appearances.
Still, I don’t see any reason for functional architecture to be perfunctory and boring. If there’s any public policy tool that pertains to affordability it has to be zoning, and some associated regulations such as the FSRs.