If I may, I’ll appropriate (and illustrate) a comment from Frances Bula’s current post on her blog (Does Vancouver have to be a high-rise condo city? Or are there other choices?) submitted by Ralph Segal:
.
Ralph Segal // Sep 18, 2014 at 11:32 am
Putting aside issues of undeserved developer profits, empty condos, etc. I would argue (agreeing with Roger K….yikes!) that there is a place for the hi-rise at specific locations outside the downtown where concentrations of neighbourhood shopping, institutions, transportation crossroads, etc. warrant that these focal points be “marked” with a notably more prominent building form.
This view is reinforced every time I drive into Vancouver over Arthur Laing Bridge (sorry, I still drive sometimes) and observe the 70th & Granville (Safeway) development by Westbank/Henriquez.
This view is reinforced every time I drive into Vancouver over Arthur Laing Bridge (sorry, I still drive sometimes) and observe the 70th & Granville (Safeway) development by Westbank/Henriquez.
.
.
Further, I am not troubled by the prospect of flurry of future towers at Oakridge Centre nor the grouping of towers rising at SW Marine & Cambie at another Canada Line station. I would be disturbed if a plethora of towers was indiscriminantely making inroads into the hearts of low rise neighbourhoods but as Gord Price points out, that is not what is now happening.
There probably are several projects we, in hindsight, might want to take back (Kingsway & Nanaimo -“El Dorado”? – left). But provided sensitive, properly assessed, long term decisions with meaningful neighbourhood input on whether specific sites, in the overall urban design context, warrant extra height/ prominence are made, the critical challenge is then to intricately and creatively design the transition from higher to surrounding lower scale context.
For an example, IMO, of how this has been well handled, you may want to visit Cornish Street. between 69th & 70th, (backside of 70th & Granville project) where the carefully articulated and terraced seven-storey mid-rise just now being finished steps down to the 2-1/2 storey context across the street. Perhaps if this quality of design interface is demanded by the City and delivered by the developer wherever substantial transitions in scale occur, the degree of acrimony between residents and decision-makers would be far less.
.
Further to the project at 70th and Granville (the Safeway site), here is the before Streetview:
.
.
And the drive-by view:
Is this the same Ralph Segal who personally intervened to block 3 high rise rental towers at Langara Gardens?
I wonder if the longtime residents of Cornish Street are as excited about looking out their front room window and right into a 7 story condo wall? I’m sure it only cuts off sunlight until midmorning…
No wonder streets are more and more congested in Vancouver if we allow towers, such as 70th @ Granville to go ahead without ANY transit improvements.
Buses ( wobbly, no A/C, crawling at the same speed or worse than cars, CO2 spewing, noisy, … ) are not the answers. We need more subways.
I guess it is a question of viewpoint:
Why, one would like “mark” Granville#70th with “a notably more prominent building form” ?
this building (Granville#70th) could be a nice architecture piece, but as seen of the Richmond dikes,it seems at lost, and distract the skyline (which otherwise look as a dense leafy green canopy,).
Drive buy could be OK… walk by pretty much less (the building has nothing else to offer than sterility all along Granville.
If you take Arthur Laing bridge in the other direction, you will eventually see much better in Richmond and especially along road number 3 where new building seems to contribute better at defining the urban room and blend better with their surroundings, that without the need to erect isolated and horny monoliths.
This Richmond building form (as typically seen in Europe or in DC) is eventually what people thing as the missing link: and what they call mid-rise building (*)
(*)3-4 storey walk-out are rather low rise building…so yes in Vancouver we don’t build mid rise building: it is not a myth!
I agree there is a place for high rise buildings. Main and Broadway is a perfect example of an excellent location. While the neighbours are not happy, from a sustainability perspective, it is ideal. There are currently four bus lines and three bicycle routes in close proximity and eventually, there will likely be a rapid transit stop nearby. These types of building should be located close to transit, cycle routes and shopping in order to benefit the city. Otherwise, mid-rise makes more sense.
The problem in Vancouver, is that the developers run the show, as they have the major funders of both major political parties for years, so no party wants to upset their major funders.
Well, if developers really ran the show you’d see more towers in the middle of single family areas.
The ones shown here are on historically consolidated sites – supermarkets, motels, light industrial
– i.e. easy pickings for developers because there’s no consolidation of single family homes to get the neighbours riled up about.
I happened to drive by Nanaimo at Broadway the other day and noticed this interestingly layered one https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2623523,-123.056496,3a,75y,146.68h,86.33t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1szHj11t1Q2aBBZNm4xQDQWQ!2e0 It’s maybe easier to do on a larger lot, but I thought it probably fitted in quite a lot of density without scaring the neighbors.
Ther’es nothing like the relief of finding what you’re looking for.