Urban Planner Lance Berelowitz did an important column in the Sun’s homes section this weekend. Here it is, in cased you missed it.
.
More than that, it’s a column the City Council needs to read – and act on. You might want to send a link to mayorandcouncil@vancouver.ca with the suggestion that they consider, as Lance suggests, “a comprehensive planning process that addresses the wider public interest in downtown Vancouver reconnecting with its waterfront.” With so many related projects being considered, notably the proposed additional density to the Sinclair Centre, now’s the opportunity to move forward on implementing the HUB strategy.
Plenty at stake at Cordova Street site
Planning process should focus on reconnecting downtown Vancouver with its waterfront
Lance Berelowitz
.
I recently attended a City Conversation event hosted by Simon Fraser University. The topic was the future of the city’s downtown waterfront, with particular reference to a development application the city has received for an office tower at 555 Cordova Street.
Following a number of presentations, the conversation opened to the floor, where the discussion became passionate.
Why does this matter? Well, the development is the first piece of an intricate, interlocking puzzle that will either unlock the huge potential of a dynamic, publicly accessible, and re-engaged downtown waterfront focused on a new multimodal transportation hub, or seal the area’s fate forever. This is the waterfront gateway to our city, with a current hodgepodge nexus of poorly integrated transit facilities such as the SeaBus, WestCoast Express, SkyTrain and bus services. There are provincial interests (TransLink, for example), national (the railways) and even federal government (Vancouver Port) at play here. There is a lot at stake.
You’d think the city would have a plan for this key area, given its history and function as Vancouver’s gateway. And it does. However, the 2009 Central Waterfront Hub Framework, detailed and well thought out as it is, lacks one critical component, which renders it virtually ineffective: there is no implementation strategy. And since the City of Vancouver owns none of the lands covered by the plan, other than street rights of ways, it has limited leverage. The plan is now six years old, and circumstances have changed, so it needs updating.
More importantly, all the key interests need to be at the table, or development will not happen in a co-ordinated, integrated way. And implementation cannot be achieved solely on the backs of private landowners.
As the hub framework notes: “One of the keys to moving forward will be to identify a ‘champion’ for the project. This could either be a single party, or a consortium, with the capacity for multi-year involvement, lengthy negotiations and significant financial investment, as well as the ability to present a comprehensive approach to development which demonstrates how the complex, interlinked challenges could be resolved. Mayor and council could also play a significant role by advocating for the vision established in the framework and seeking the support of senior levels of government, area landowners and other stakeholders.”
But will they? So far, the city has shown noticeably little leadership, instead falling back on a business-as-usual approach to processing the development application for 555 Cordova Street, which does not require a public process since it is not a rezoning.
This is far too narrow and unambitious an approval process for such a charged, historically significant site, especially since it is the first piece of the Central Waterfront Hub Framework puzzle. The site is currently occupied by parked cars between the historical CP Railway Station to the west and the restored Landing warehouse building to the east, which also marks the start of the nationally listed Gastown Historical District. The site provides a panoramic view over Burrard Inlet to the North Shore mountains, one of a very few such spaces that remain in downtown Vancouver.
As I wrote in my book Dream City, this site has the potential to be “a true square in the sense of being a space carved out of the fabric of the city, as opposed to an open block surrounded by streets. And what a public space this could be, with a little imagination and some capital. However, the civic and economic mechanisms must still be found to bring this piece of the urban fabric to its full potential as a major public space.” That was 10 years ago. Plus ça change …
There are plenty of precedents for the City of Vancouver initiating and leading a comprehensive planning process for large strategic sites that involved both private landowners and senior government interests. Think of the former Expo 86 lands or Coal Harbour, for example. Or even this same area itself, for which the city previously developed a Central Waterfront Port Lands Policy Statement in close cooperation with the federally regulated Port of Vancouver. Such initiative is urgently needed here again, and not just for this particular project.
A workshop on 555 Cordova Street was set with the city’s advisory Urban Design Panel for Wednesday at city hall. However, the use and design of 555 Cordova Street should be decided, not in isolation, but as part of a comprehensive planning process that addresses the wider public interest in downtown Vancouver reconnecting with its waterfront. If this means some form of land exchange or off-site density transfer to compensate the landowner in order to preserve the site for public use, this too is not without precedent.
If we value our urban waterfront as more than just a development site for the highest bidder, as do many other great waterfront cities – think Sydney’s Circular Quay, Barcelona’s Vell Port, or San Francisco’s Embarcadero – then we should be demanding more of our civic leaders and their planning department. And they, in turn, should be demanding more of the private landowners, as well as of senior governments. It is not too late. We should pause, and take the time to shape and facilitate a downtown waterfront that is commensurate with our aspirations as a carefully designed, elegant, inspiring city that balances legitimate private interests with the greater public good.
Enough of the grandious scheme. Do something useful . . .
http://members.shaw.ca/theyorkshirelad72/water.front/DOWNTOWNWATERFRONT.html
I almost missed this article in the Saturday Sun because they buried it way back in the real estate advertorial section called West Coast Homes, a section I normally skip for its schlock. It should have been placed in the Op-ed pages.
Lance Berelowitz does a great service to Vancouver council and citizens by addressing the need for a comprehensive downtown waterfront plan. The bent and cinched tower proposed for the tiny open space at 555 Cordova was a massive mistake, and that is painfully obvious from the illustration juxtaposing it next to the Class A Gastown heritage buildings, the old CPR station (now Waterfront Station) and The Landing. The context, the scale, the locus in the city …. all are ignored by the proposal and I hope this monstrosity is never resurrected.
Berelowitz is absolutely correct that the site should be public open space, and that we need a waterfront plan. Where I may part with his view is in connecting that small space with the waterfront, over 130 metres away. To do that you must bridge 21 sets of tracks, a two-lane truck route, several parking lots and the SeaBus docking terminal. When I walked the site on Saturday I counted over 20 oil tanker cars likely filled with hazardous liquids on the CPR tracks and at least five separate container trains.
When TransLink conducted it Waterfront Hub a couple, of years ago it proposed massing up a few towers behind the historic station building in part for real estate revenue that capitalized on the large transit hub. Fair enough, but that was in the context of today’s anemic transit funding, which may not carry forward more than a decade once demand reaches a critical enough level to wake up senior governments. A waterfront plan must look forward at least a half century, especially regarding transportation and connectivity to the nation on this crucial site.
The Waterfront Hub site planning drawings indicated an eastward extension of Canada Place Way then a dogleg south to Granville Street, taking off the top level or two of the Granville Square parkade and its plaza. Perhaps the best place for a public square or plaza would best be on the north side of a Canada Place Way extension jutting 40m or so over the water, and accessed from the north foot of both Granville and Howe. This will still allow a continuous building massing over the tracks (a very substantial floor area could be achieved over three or four levels) between the station to the floating SeaBus docks that can offer a direct indoor connection from Cordova without resorting to towers, and affording separation to Canada Place with a significant public square that could be a lot better designed than the barren space currently offered by Granville Square.
The future uses of the waterfront could well encompass a direct, harbour-to-harbour BC Ferries passenger service to Vancouver Island cities, sort of replicating the CP ferry service of a century ago, but much faster and far cheaper than carrying cars. One cannot eliminate an eventual high speed passenger train service to the rest of the nation once oil surpasses $300 a barrel in the 2020s and flight becomes unaffordable. It may be easy to conclude the best site for a HSR terminal would be at Terminal Ave x Station St until you realize the historic imperative to keep Vancouver Island in confederation and thus bring the station to tidewater and connect it directly to Island ferries as did the original CPR, as well as to local urban transit. The best site for that in my opinion is east of the SeaBus docking terminal, perhaps as a long, low transparent structure elevated on caissons with a main floor elevation set to the Cordova Street elevation and well above high tide. Gastown residents and businesses will no doubt scream about the occlusion of their views, but that will have to be weighed with the overall benefits.
But one advantage of this idea is that the open space at 555 could indeed become another delightful urban plaza (I’d love to see a crashing fountain there) on the threshold of a new grand entrance to a 21st Century train station set back respectfully from – and no higher than — the adjacent heritage buildings.
People may be surprised (not) to learn that of the nine (!) massing options the applicant took to the Urban Design Panel last Thursday, all had the very same height, density and bulkiness as the earlier version shown here. False assumptions, IMO, as both height and density have to be EARNED in the COV’s discretionary zoning regime. Architectural smoke and mirrors is not enough.
At the same UDP workshop session staff made a presentation of the 2009 Transportation Hub Framework Plan, but there wasn’t a single question by panel members about why there was such a glaring discrepancy between the Plan’s proposals for 555 in terms height and those of the applicant (11 storeys C’s. 26) and floor space 65k vs 408k). It may have to be Council that has to ask such basic questions. I think the panel members were asleep at the wheel, unfortunately.
Those of us on the Downtown Waterfront Working Group are asking these and other questions, and we insist on a delay or even moratorium on approvals in the area until they are answered and, further, an Implementation Strategy is prepared. Such a strategy should detail public realm, amenities, transportation, form of development and most importantly financial aspects to see that the Hub is developed in a manner that us equal to this magnificent site.
At the very least, opening up Granville Street to the waterfront at grade should be made as a condition of approval of 555 W. Cordova Street. That parkade there is an eyesore.
Not to be patronizing, but thanks Frank for bringing this to the forefront and standing up for solid Urban design values that appearing to be rapidly melting away in this town.
The extending of the roads to the Waterfront is a pretty bad idea. Destroying Graville Square to do that makes no sense at all. Instead, connect Granville Square up to the east and west along the water. It should all be pedestrian space. The Waterfront HUB plan left a lot to be desired.
Richard – are you defending the parkade at Granville Square? If so, you’ve lost me there. The Granville option is an extension of a very important city street for all modes, and the elevated plaza at Granville Square is no great loss, especially if a replacement could be built at the street’s new northerly terminus. Meanwhile, a two-way bus route through the present parking lot at 555 is incredibly awkward, space-wasting and a blighting influence on what could and should be a wonderful public place.
Please review the plan. It is pretty bad. There is no reason to extend the street grid to the water for motor vehicle access. It should all be pedestrian space. A huge wasted opportunity. Cookie cutter grid “planning” may be OK elsewhere but no need to duplicate it on the waterfront.
A bit of creativity would be nice here. Read my post again. I suggested connecting Granville Square both to the east and west along the water. With that access, it would become a vibrant public space. I’d also suggest going there. A lot of people enjoy the waterfront from there. All it really needs is a resturant or two.
Richard, Granville “Square” utterly sucks as any kind meaningful public open space. It’s barren, contains cheap, throwaway materials that have terrible patchy repairs and has a completely transitory, arbitrary and mediocre design. Yes, it has a view, and if you believe preserving the view over all other considerations is justified (including replicating it nearby) then you have joined the Cult.
It’s just a bloody parkade that was plunked on top of the historic Granville Street that once did extend along the west side of the CPR station and, if memory of old photographs serve, accessed the old wharfs. As explained above, a better square in a better location (i.e. right over the water) can be built within a stone’s throw of the existing parkade. Call it Canada Place Square and put some serious money and enriched urban design talent into it. A bonus plaza could be built at 555, but in my view that site should also form a major pedestrian access point to future transportation amenities set back behind the existing station. I would favour low rise decked over the tracks, and take some clues and inspiration from the existing heritage.
There is no justification to preserving the parkade except perhaps in the minds of the limited number of people who park there and ignore the most significant hub transit station in Western Canada not 5m away.
Well said Lance. Thank you for taking the trouble to spell it out clearly. Is anyone listening? We hope so.
Oh dear, oh dear how so Vancouverism-predictable!
“Urban Planner” Lance Berelowitz “did an important column in the Sun’s homes section this weekend.”
Important! Ummmmmm does anyone read that stuff. Evidently MB doesn’t . . .
He poses the question, “Why does this matter?” And goes on to answer, “ Well, the development is the first piece of an intricate, interlocking puzzle that will either unlock the huge potential of a dynamic, publicly accessible, and re-engaged downtown waterfront focused on a new multimodal transportation hub, or seal the area’s fate forever.” Words, words words . . .
“ . . . think Sydney’s Circular Quay, Barcelona’s Vell Port, or San Francisco’s Embarcadero . . . ” of course, as ever.
Or better still the more appropriate . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Madero
. . . Puerto Madero!
WOW, and if we don’t, I suppose the waters will rise and inundate all that junk: the Origami, Bjork’s twist and the open draws on Nicola!
And of course the ever vigilant and ubiquitously prolix MB (oh he does read it!) chirps in . . .
“. . . one advantage of this idea is that the open space at 555 could indeed become another delightful urban plaza (I’d love to see a crashing fountain there) on the threshold of a new grand entrance to a 21st Century train station set back respectfully from – and no higher than — the adjacent heritage buildings.” Oh dear oh dear MB when do you ever come up for air?
Well Lance and MB I have news for you both. The great opportunity to put Vancouver waterfront on the map has already been lost.
That appalling, over-scaled, badly designed, cruise ship jetty sticking out into Burrard Inlet, the adjacent conference adjunct causing a thoughtless space to erupt between with the brutal Olympic flame have already scotched any hope of “a dynamic, publicly accessible, and re-engaged downtown waterfront“, and has sealed it’s fate forever.
What I see is a development hysteria that bodes ill for the City of Vancouver!
Less talk more DO would help!
“That appalling, over-scaled, badly designed, cruise ship jetty sticking out into Burrard Inlet, the adjacent conference adjunct causing a thoughtless space to erupt between with the brutal Olympic flame have already scotched any hope of “a dynamic, publicly accessible, and re-engaged downtown waterfront“, and has sealed it’s fate forever.
What a bunch of BS. Tourists LOVE IT. You can come off a cruise ship, in downtown and walk for miles. No city anywhere offers that. it is being cloned elsewhere as it such an awesome concept.
Huge tourism booster. Locals LOVE IT. Walk along a cruise ship and wave at passengers. Then have a beer or meal at the many nearby pubs or restaurants, walking below the convention center, or beside it. Huge plaza around the Olympic Torch. Awesome vistas.
The space between the train station, above the railway lines, could be a pedestrian zone indeed, but it gets fairly commercial going east. We need commerce too. Perhaps one day the container terminal moves to the Fraser River once Massey Bridge is in. Then the ten lanes will come in handy, btw ! Then we can build more housing and pedestrian plazas there. Perhaps 2050 or later.
Vancouver is defined by its waterfront. That is where the charm and value is. it is not the inner city. That is quite ugly, but perhaps with more pedestrian malls along Davie, Denman and Robson we can improve it .. in time !
“Tourists love it. Locals love it” Of course Thomas, you are always right. Nothing to learn there. God help us!
What makes you always right?
Good morning Ron S, how good of you to call again.
What makes me always right? Well, evidently I am on the side of the all-round cognosante urban planner Lance Berelowitz and man-about-the-web and bon vivant, MB. So surely, would you not be wise to pay attention?.
But then again if the ubiquitous, prolix, ever-present, opinionated, tirelessly correct Thomas B says I am wrong then I must be on to something.
So, without more ado, check out . . .
http://www.press.uottawa.ca/the-canadian-city
. . . lest I devour too much precious PT space, as to why I am right Ron S and enjoy the satisfaction that you are among la crème de la crème!
CAPICHE?
Yup, there’s that word, “Awesome” again!
It came very close to being a lot worse:
https://voony.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/vancouver_waterfront_swanwooster69-20.jpg
Or, playing devil’s advocate, having a massive waterfront promenade that I doubt we’d see built today:
https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6224/6852779716_a9149552e1_b.jpg
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmv/6852779716/in/album-72157629624481763/
PS – the building shown are a mix of office, residential (in the CBD!) and hotel.
Good morning Ron S, how good of you to call again.
What makes me always right? Well, evidently I am on the side of the all-round cognosante urban planner Lance Berelowitz and man-about-the-web bon vivant, MB. So surely, would you not be wise to pay attention?
But then again if the ubiquitous, prolix, ever-present, opinionated, tirelessly correct Thomas B says I am wrong then I must be on to something.
So, without more ado, check out . . .
http://www.press.uottawa.ca/the-canadian-city
. . . lest I devour too much precious PT space, as to why I am right Ron S and enjoy the satisfaction that you are among la crème de la crème!
CAPICHE?
Not to be-labour the point, Ron S and Thomas B, BUT, I’ll bet billions more passengers enjoy the waterfronts of Piraeus and Venice than enjoy Vancouver’s Tutti Frutti ever present eat, eat, eat, buy, buy, buy!
Yunno RS y TB loyalty to locale doesn’t mean being slaves to your credit card. It means taking responsibility!
Yes, Venice is nice too. So ?
Vancouver has over 30 km of waterfront paths, the envy of the world from downtown along Coal Harbor, Stanley Park, English Bay, False Creek, Kits, Spanish Banks to UBC.
If this is not awesome, then what is, Roger ?
No not awesome so far as the unkempt, chaotic downtown waterfront is concerned Thomas. I doubt three quarters of the world could point to Vancouver on a map let alone know of “ . . . over 30 km of waterfront paths“. If I may say so you are totally disingenuous parading that shop worn patter.
Vancouver’s downtown waterfront is banal chaos totally overshadowed by inchoate blobs of white the tourist bureau shoves in our naive faces to justify its facile existence: why try when dozens of Thomas B‘s are happy? Why should anyone bother to improve a half baked enterprise that gives bloated salaries to operatives who essentially have been promoting the same blurd for the last fifty years.
Since we have a thoroughly dumbed down bunch of never ending cruise ship off loads satified frozen chicken, farmed salmon and cup of coffee why make the effort?
So, what do you propose instead ? Flatten all highrises so it looks like Venice ? No more cruises docking at Canada Place but instead in English Bay with tenders ?
I think you underestimate the attractiveness of this waterfront exposure. It is THE main characteristic of Vancouver, plus its mild weather and closeness to Northshore Mountains and nearby islands, of course, too.
Even in Venice the cruiseships stop a few km away across from St. Marco Square, not nearly as convenient as the up to 4 cruiseships that can dock simultaneously in downtown Vancouver. If this is not awesome, then what is, Roger ? More Italian spoken in the streets ? Even in Venice the workers now are mainly E-Europeans, not even Italian anymore.
“So, what do you propose instead ? Flatten all highrises . . .” Now you are being ridiculous!
As they say, “if you can’t fight wear a big hat. or in your case Thomas if you cannot discuss a matter of importance maturely resort to the ridiculous . . .
So, give me some suggestions what YOU would do differently in Vancouver TODAY ? I have not heard ANYTHING constructive Roger. Then we can have a sound debate.
“. . . give me some suggestions”” Oh good grief Thomas, I posted this . . . http://members.shaw.ca/theyorkshirelad72/water.front/DOWNTOWNWATERFRONT.html
. . . a couple of weeks ago.
What’s the point of conotinuing this conversation if you only listen to yourself . . .
“What’s the point of conotinuing this conversation if you only listen to yourself . . .”
LOL
Don I proposed this . . .
http://members.shaw.ca/theyorkshirelad72/water.front/DOWNTOWNWATERFRONT.html
. . . two weeks ago! LOL
Yes. That’s my point. That you clearly missed. But anyway.
I see now. Thank you. Not everyone reads every post, so repeated links make sense in a new post.
This waterfront oriented platform proposal above the (ugly) railyard makes total sense to me.
Why 3 schools in the best, most pricey locations, with waterview ? Why not a mid rise, or even highrise building, perhaps with condos, some commercial and a school below ?
Thomas I shall be delighted to continue this conversation. My rate is . . .
Architect/Planner . . . . . C$250.00/hr.
2 Assistants each @ . . . . . . . . . . .C140.00/hr.
+plus expenses.
Is this a joke? Enough already…
Roger, definitely one of the more interesting consulting strategies I’ve seen of late:
1. Attack the ideas of, and belittle potential clients. Ensure your attack is personal, identifying people by name. The criticism should be in the form of poorly articulated views of how the world ought to be, rather than specific criticism that can be acted upon.
2. Present your own, imperfect plan for discussion.
3. Shy away from any criticism of your plan and demand payment to discuss any aspect of it further.
Does this actually work?
Enough indeed! If I recall Lance started this conversation with an article in the Homes section of the Sun. I followed with a proposal to locate schols on the waterfront to meet the growing young population in the CBD. It deteriorated from there.
Too bad. I’m out of it . . . .
If someone could harness all the blather and ego spewed by Roger Kemble they could do something really productive with it I bet. Too bad he can’t.
“I don’t like it,” is a complaint not a message and should be redirected to the complaint department where it can be handled in the usual manner.
“I have a better idea,” is likewise untenable since the market for better ideas is suffering from an oversupply of imaginary solutions.