It was about trust – and the integrity of a development-approval system that relies on it.
Frances Bula covers the story on the approval the City has given Peter Wall to reclad the top of the two-tone Wall Centre:
Developer Peter Wall is finally getting his way on his most controversial building.
His company and the building’s strata council have been given city approval to replace the clear glass on the top 17 floors of the Wall Centre, which was at the centre of a major uproar 13 years ago over its dark glass.
The city sued Mr. Wall as the building was going up in 2000 with dark, reflective glass that planners said they had not approved. The city argued Mr. Wall was allowed to build the 400-foot structure at the highest point of Burrard Street downtown on the condition that it look light and transparent. …
Now, Wall Financial will put dark glass on those top floors starting this April after successfully making the case that the clear windows, which let in more sunlight, wreaked havoc with the tower’s heating and cooling systems.
I was present at the public hearing when approval was given to allow the Wall Centre to break the height limit and become the tallest tower in Vancouver at that time. I saw the model. I heard the architect give the guarantee that the glass cladding would be almost translucent – certainly not dark and opaque like the adjacent towers. That point was discussed explicitly and extensively, given he controversy over black towers in the history of this city. The public heard that too.
And so when dark glass started to be mounted on the building, the calls came into City Hall. Stop-work orders were issued. They were ignored. More glass went up. And finally the lawyers were called in.
By then it became clear that the glass which had been submitted for approval to the development-permit architect was no longer available; it wasn’t possible to determine what exactly had been accepted – and of course there were disputes on both sides. Eventually a compromise was reached that resulted in the two-toned building.
I did not support the compromise. I knew what I had seen at the public hearing; I heard the guarantee. It didn’t matter, as far as I was concerned, whether this or that glass had been approved. Wall was violating a promise; he was giving the finger to the City. But more than that, he was undermining the system that allowed approvals to be made on the word of the applicant. The City didn’t require samples of every building material to be submitted and stored, for every commitment, major and minor, to be legally documented and reviewed, for bureaucracy to stifle creativity and add costs.
And fortunately, it still doesn’t. The Wall incident proved to be the exception.
But now the headstrong developer is getting his way. What conclusion should we – and the development community – draw from this, I wonder?
I was on the Urban Design Panel or Development Permit Board Advisory Panel when this project was first presented by architect Peter Busby. I don’t recall being offered a ‘transparent’ building. After all, how can a building with blinds and walls be transparent? But what I do recall being promised and seeing in the model was a shimmering silver building that would contrast beautifully with the dark glass towers.
Hmmm!
I think it was unrealistic to think glass
cladding on the central building of this complex
would ever have been “transparent” My deck looks
toward these buildings (from the west) and the
reflections on the earlier two — and the lower
half on the central structure– are visually pleasing in fair &
foul weather. I am SO delighted that the tacky
clear glass on top is going to be changed, There
is nothing uplifting about the “back end” of
appliances.
(Even architect Philip Johnson had
difficulty in making his home habitable. His famous
“Glass House” has about
five pieces of furniture inside– all distant from
the glass walls.)
I know what I think it says…. If anything should be done, the entire building should be re-clad in something clear on principle.
The lesson is to deploy the lawyers quickly and without mercy. No good deed goes unpunished. Give an inch, they take a mile. Etc, etc.
Here are the models – as Michael says – even the original is not transparent – it does, however, look to be a slightly lighter shade of still mirrored glass. I remember the marketing materials and the upshot shown is the same as that used in the condo marleting.
Original One Wall Centre model pics:
http://www.modelshop.bc.ca/porty2/file/2000/2025/2025-1.htm
Compromise One Wall Centre model pics:
http://www.modelshop.bc.ca/porty2/file/4000/4020/4020-1.htm
I should add, that the bottom half of the tower (the dark glass) does indeed look light in colour just like that upshot on cloudy days (there are clouds in the upshot).
I never had a strong opinion about the glass… architecture isn’t my thing. But integrity is.
This story is legendary at City Hall, and this latest decision stirred some gossip.
Originally, Wall lied and broke the rules/law, giving his finger to the city and the process (as Gordon wrote very well) and costing the public tons of money in process, and a lack of trust for him and other developers afterward.
He is a bad man, and a bad developer. His ego is legendary and so is his bad attitude.
Wall tried for years to change the glass to get his way. Not for the residents. For his big, childish ego. Larry Beasley, a Planning Director with integrity, didn’t let him. Brent Toderian, another Planning Director with integrity, didn’t either. Then when the glass failed, apparently i hear because they screwed up and designed the systems wrong, they held the residents for ransom. They tried again and I hear were told “use better glass, not darker glass” or something like that.
And now, with a new top planner, different story. Now its fine. Did the planner decide? Or did he just follow orders down from Penny, from Council, from Wall? Yes Dr/Council/Sir, how high?
I dont know why, but the gossip isn’t complimentary. Don’t know the new guy, haven’t even met him. But this isn’t like it used to be.
Money talks, yes. So does politics. Integrity? Pardon me, while I keep my head down…
Michael makes a good point indirectly as well that what people hear and take away from public meeting is and ever will be, subjective.
In trying to see this issue from a distance, and in removing personalities, IMO the dark glass actually works.
There is more to architecture than cladding. The fact remains that Busby’s Wall Centre tower is far superior architecturally to Pelli’s TD tower, though they both possess near identicle dark glass.
To suggest dark glass on its own strikes such deep fear into the hearts of Vancouver planners is a comment on the lack of architectural sophistication in the Planning Department. I don’t believe dark glass should have ever been made into the controversy it became.
Process and integrity are separate issues, and Mr. Wall has no doubt discovered how deeply violated planners felt every time he or his consultants walked into the Planning Dept. to made a new DP application since Wall Centre. This is about double glazing, not about illegally filling in the ocean or creating slums.
Finally, there is no such thing as a transparent tower, as Michael Geller iterated above, but there is such a thing as design integrity. This tower sings with a monochromatic exterior treatment, others don’t. So the answer regarding tower cladding is, really, “It depends.”
There are more important issues out there to deal with sometime this century.
MB, towers may be identical, but not identicle. that sounds vulgar.
Your comments about planners egos are off on this case. the planners were carrying out directions that were clearly (no pun intended) being presented, discussed, and commited to during public meetings. This was allexplained by both Gordon Price and Michael Geller, above. There may be times where planners go off in directions of their own choosing, but this was not one of those times.
Legalities and past promises made aside, I’m glad to see that the dark glass will finally go to the top. In a city full of so many transparent blue/green glass towers it is nice to see something a little different. It seems to me that a city so concerned about being the “Green Capital” should be a little more understanding when a building wants to use dark glass that reduces solar gain and makes it easier on building HVAC systems.