As time goes by and more and more “spectacular” high rise proposals appear in the newspapers, as do the anxious cries of affected neighbours, I become increasingly appalled at the lack of neighbourliness in our development processes.
.
Surely, no sensitive and respectful person would propose to shove a high rise slap in front of an existing high rise whose residents obviously enjoy some of our gorgeous views without trying as hard as possible to minimize the impact on those views. Surely, you would think, the City would require, at the outset of any proposal, that the proponent account for how they intend to address such issues?
.
Instead, residents wake up one morning to see in the local newspaper another iconic “world class” tower, and then suffer the dreadful shock of noting that it is proposed on the site right in front of them. It gets worse as they attend the public open houses to review the details of the proposal. There, at significant expense, the proponent has prepared a lovely, gallery-quality display to describe the proposal. (Visitors may be asked to take no photos to ensure that the proposal is not misrepresented by people who may be unable to recognize the real values of the design proposal!).
.
.
At the open house there may be no description, discussion or recognition of the impact these “internationally attractive” icons would have on their neighbours. Instead poetic descriptions of the wonder of the creativity of the architecture and carefully crafted statements that the building will meet all the city’s requirements are provided. It takes some knowledge of the city’s bylaws and development processes to find out that the real and vital issues of good neighbourliness have been hidden in the imperative of persuasion.
.
What has happened to clear and honest explanation? Why aren’t developers required to describe accurately all the implications of their design on the neighbourhood? You’d think they might want to meet their neighbours when they start thinking about what they intend to do on the site.
.
It is so disappointing to know that such practices and requirements used to be common practice in Vancouver. It was those principles that helped to create the neighbourly city. It seems that while consideration of growth, density, height, variety, iconicism, value uplift, international recognition and investment is relevant, they should not be pursued at the expense of good neighbourliness.
.
While this discussion focusses on the need to improve the processing of major high rise proposals, we need to get the processes of respecting neighbourliness in order if we are to be successful in densifying other areas of the city.
I’m of two minds on this.
On one hand what’s the point? Propose anything and you’re going to have people railing against everything from corrupt government to shady foreigners to climate change and more. No matter what you do to accommodate it won’t be enough because they are opposed to anything always anywhere and especially if it impacts their immediate interests.
On the other hand, why not? Why would you intentionally avoid the issue or try to manage it best you can?
What are you talking about? It’s pretty obvious what the visual impacts of a building are going to be on the views of the building ‘behind’ it. Do you want a placard next to the Open House model stating, “this building will block views from vantage points in other buildings”? It sounds like that’s exactly what you want, which fortunately for developers is an easy fix.
Sometimes developments can have truly harmful consequences on neighbours and it’s good to maintain vigilance. But thinking you are entitled to legal or moral standing over every painfully obvious consequence of development – such as having your millionaire’s view of the mountains obstructed – is just crying wolf.
Is there anything inherent about the ‘spectacular’ design which makes it more anti-neighbor than the banal normal?
Isn’t the issue less about the architecture than about the process surrounding most/all new architecture in the city? I can think of plenty of banal buildings which don’t respect their neighborhood, and plenty of spectacular ones which do, and vice-versa – tying the anti-neighbor to the spectacular doesn’t do either concept justice.
There is nothing inherent to the spectacular which precludes “consideration of growth, density, height, variety, iconicism, value uplift, etc” nor that these things should “be pursued at the expense of good neighbourliness.”
Your other points however are good, and you touch on one which is extremely important: an analysis of the externalities of the design in general. These are seldom well considered it seems.
Well said Ray!
In the not too distant past, Larry Beasley was able to truthfully say that 60% of an adjacent tower’s views would be protected, generally by the so-called “checkerboard” or offsetting approach quite evident in an aerial view of, say, Downtown South or Yaletown up to, say, 2006.
The world and urban design considerations here in Vancouver have changed dramatically since then, including less concern for this not inconsiderable response to neighbourliness about which Ray is the acknowledged champion.
I trust, or at least hope, that a view impact analysis is still required for highrise buildings. But perhaps the move to fill every possible small nook and cranny of the Downtown peninsula with buildings just under the official view cones at exceptionally high densities and corresponding heights precludes modifying either siting and/or massing aspects of a proposed development. (The same goes for shadowing, I would assume.)
God you’re a prude, Ray.
I laugh seeing this stuff come from the supposed urban left. Because it’s just unabashed, head-in-ground hypocrisy. If you care at all about the little guy, you care about housing affordability and middle class job creation. Not preservation of million dollar views. Guess what – we’ll build more towers and create new views. People gotta get this into their heads – when you buy a condo you don’t own the view. You don’t own the lot across the street.
Such nauseating preservationism. Lobby legislators to protect your views, but don’t pretend it’s motivated by ‘neighborliness’. Where’s your neighborliness for the young immigrant living in the viewless basement suite who cant afford a condo, or find a job due to policies enacted by your faction? You protect the unearned entitlements of wealthy urban aesthetes from the unsightly economic growth needed to help the masses. Make no mistake, you are a ‘neighborly’ conservative through and through.
“People gotta get this into their heads – when you buy a condo you don’t own the view. You don’t own the lot across the street.” No but ya own the city!
Why do people visit, in droves, Paris, London, Buenos Aires? Because there is a semblance of a collective vision: Haussman’s, Nash’s etc etc? They were artists and craftsmen way above the money grubbers (wealth today, bankrupt tomorrow) and their pitiful hangers-on . . .
http://www.theyorkshirelad.ca/towers/towers.html
. . . crying for a bit of glory ’til the bailiffs come a-knocking!
And ya godda get that into ya head Spank!
You’re delusional as usual Roger. What creates awesome cities is exactly a lack of collectivism. Cities are lush chaotic jungles of growth and competition, not manicured palatial lawns. See New York. It’s the “visionaries” and planners like Robert Moses that ruin cities. Beware the man with a plan (to be imposed on the rest of us).
For most of London’s past there was no plan. Look at the bloody streets jeez.
Those urbanists who would sacrifice dynamism for decency deserve neither. It’s a betrayal of the city. In an interesting city, your view is fleeting. Accept that.
Well I dunno Spank. I do not know of urban land title authority world wide but I do know UK title. London was essentially controlled and designed by the monarch (the equivalent of today’s planning dept.) Eighteenth century closure laws put an end to free-hold paticipation: reflected throughout the Empire, i.e. Canada! All that nice stuff you refer to looks pretty but you can bet it was all created by the lord of the manor!
Well said, Spank. There is so much more hand-wringing against the projects that are proposed, rather than the ones that aren’t, leading to an ossified situation where nothing gets done at all. And so housing prices just keep going up and up as the supply is totally inadequate to the demand.
Let us presume Spank would support this example of affordable housing
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/02/06/article-2097140-119BFC9A000005DC-999_964x642.jpg
otherwise known as the Soviet Tower Block.
You think less government finger-waggling in the housing market with respect to design and building height = Soviet Tower Blocks?
I’d say it would look more like this:
http://www.delanceyplace.com/cmsAdmin/uploads/newyorkcitylandscape252c1920s252812529.jpg
Manhattan, 1920s
Except, of course, with double the average income.
If you are equating Ray Spaxman to Robert Moses then you really don’t know what you’re talking about. Moses was eventally defeated through the democracy by people like Jane Jacobs after first wreaking a lot of damage. He did not realize his full freeway agenda. Today “powerful bureaucrats” like Janet Sadiq Kahn have left their humane mark on the urban design legacy of NYC.
And FYI, NYC was and is one of the most highly regulated cities on Earth yet it managed to remain culturally vibrant and economically powerful by design. Many of the most iconic historic buildings there (Empire State, Chrysler …)were completed in the midst of the Great Depression, not in the roaring 20s. Your desire for laissez faire may well lead to more Moses-like plutocrats and Houstonesque anti-urbanism. Moses was the darling of private subdivision developers.
@ MB ✔
“Powerful Bureaucrats” – who are you quoting?
Sometimes history rhymes in ironic ways. Moses was no plutocrat, he was a progressive planner with a grand vision for the city, to be imposed on city dwellers for their own good. Like Spaxman! He was a “powerful bureaucrat” if there ever was one.
It’s a bit funny seeing you combine your ideological enemies – plutocrats are bad, Moses was bad, therefore Moses was a plutocrat! He couldn’t have just been a planner doing what he thought was right for everyone.
After all, what astounding things can we accomplish with the coercive power of government at our backs! A lot of people on this blog have an unyielding faith in government ‘crats to regulate and plan the city to perfection. Ironically, the most devastating things ever done to cities have been at the hands of visionary planners like yourselves. And what made the city great in the first place was a conspicuous absence of government and presence of free enterprise. Don’t be so quick to dismiss Moses, he’s more like you than you think.
Chrysler and Empire State were without question products of the roaring ’20s, even if they were completed in 1931! They weren’t conceived in the depression. If Ray was around back then he’d surely do his very best to pass laws forbidding them. Because he knows best for everyone.
Here’s a plan for the city. Don’t question it – planners said it’s good: http://chum338.blogs.wesleyan.edu/files/2011/05/futurama1.jpg
@Spank – I find your rants about this quite laughable, in a Joe the Plumber kind of way. Like the lower middle classes who vote Republican, not realizing they’re unwitting stooges of the 1%. They aren’t building those buildings for you, and they’re laughing as people like you help them deliver product to offshore money, as you get all jonesed about “world class design”.
Such tedious condescension, but it’s hard to be bothered by talking points from 2007. Actually, it’s a bit nauseatingly nostalgic from when I held those views myself. Ya’ll never address any argument, just scoff when it runs contrary to the truth you already know. Then place things in snarky little quotation marks and let the internet-sarcasm do the heavy lifting.
It’s all symbolism over substance for you. Condos *look* like they are for the rich. So building them couldn’t possibly help the poor. But really, how could they not help the poor? They bring in enormous tax revenue which is given to the poor, they create many jobs which primarily benefit the working class, they increase housing supply which places downward pressure on housing prices.
I can’t tell if it’s just your intellectually shallow ideology or your callous self interest in preserving your house price which makes you condo-averse. Either way, it’s pretty unpalatable to me.
Holy first world problem.
We have a severe affordability problem in this city. How about focusing on solving that.
That’s only a problem when confronted by a reporter who’s catching a sound bite.
Sustainability, transit and green technologies are the important items.
By building starch tectonic designed towers for the rich. Bloomberg and now Robertson appear to believe it’s a winning formula, but it doesn’t seem to have delivered many truly affordable units.
There, at significant expense, the proponent has prepared a lovely, gallery-quality display to describe the proposal. (Visitors may be asked to take no photos to ensure that the proposal is not misrepresented by people who may be unable to recognize the real values of the design proposal!)
Notice that the post is illustrated by a very romantized view of the building basically noone will be able to experiment.
Why aren’t developers required to describe accurately all the implications of their design on the neighbourhood?
Alas, as inferred by Ray, all the technology tools enabling glossy “virtual reality” experience of the building are all controlled by the developper and this…. for the sole apparent puprose to deceive the public.
Sometimes, the public takes note of obvious discrepancies between the developer illustration and the reality. That is often Stephen Bohus in Vancouver – which will counter by its own exageration – but the matter of the fact is that the new technologies are used to deceive the public with a passive if not a complicit city hall (as seen for the Rize application). It doesn’t need to be the case:
Below, is the Marquee on the drive (2250 Commercial) as seen in a sunny end of october morning:
https://voony.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/2250commercial.jpg
(The above model is less than half day work from a 2D elevation view, done using only freeware, this for a post on bike/bus lane on Commercial, and is provided as an example of how easy it is to come with the basic building form and put it in context).…but all developers generate 3D model for a sizeable project
The city usually gets 3D models from developers: It has in fact a 3D model of all the downtown peninsula, including China town area…all that is exportable in format accessible to the genral public: that is SketchUp.(and the city did release such a model for the viaduct competition).
you can have the Sketchup browser for free.put whatever viewpoint you want at the time of the day of your choosing, to effectively appreciate accurately and honestly the impact of a new application from your chosen vantage point.
It is not to say, that anyone can use the 3d rendering technologies comfortably, but the city can make it free to access to anyone, and enough citizen can master the technology – People from Slowstreet or Stephen Bohus are among them…- to enable a more educated conversation on a development proposal, or area rezoning be the viaducts or Commercial.
The bottom line, is that the 3d rendering technologies are used at the exclusive advantage of the developer, to essentially deceive the public. CityHall could at least level the playing field (for example, by enforcing a public release of the 3D model of the application in a format useable by the general public such as the above mentioned Sketchup), but it doesn’t.
Should we be surprised?
What has happened to clear and honest explanation? ask Ray.
Clearly, not many are interesting by it at City Hall.
The angry birds are back having failed to secure the commission they are now demanding more mediocrity, hypocrites they are who would do something beautiful if only someone would give them a break, but who will after such a visual lament so utterly lacking in content?
And who’s view did the current crop of view-protectionists snatch away?
How about a thought experiment? Let’s say the regulatory body (City Hall) permits developers to build to maximum of their desire — “just under the official view cones, “at exceptionally high densities and corresponding heights” without consideration to the existing neighbourhood, siting and/or massing. Will they do it because the city lets them? Looks like the answer is yes. But taken to the extreme, what will the Downtown Peninsula look like? And is that what our society wants? Where and how can balance be achieved between the desires of developers, and the sentiments of the neighbourhood?
Your thought experiment is moot. We already have a codified balanced between the desires of developers and the sentiments of the neighbourhood – it’s called “zoning”. It’s imperfect, but the author is only interested in density or height as it pertains to the obstruction of views.
‘Why won’t those greedy, lying developers just tell us that their new tower will obstruct our views!?’ For the same reason the greedy, lying developers don’t also divulge that residents of the next-door tower will be breathing your air. It need not be said, and there is no ‘right’ to a million-dollar view. This is a silly non-issue. Mr. Spaxman’s diamond shoes are a little too tight.
Bottom Line: views are a luxury good consumed by the rich.
Cities should be changing melting pots of upward mobility, not beautiful enclaves locked in legislative amber.
At Harbour Green Park (a great little piece of PUBLIC land, but the way) the views are utterly beautiful and completely free of charge. Had the developer had his way the luxury condo towers behind the park would have occupied the edge of the waterfront and privatized not just the views, but access too.
If you want to have an intelligent discussion on privatized views, then you have to address air rights and building envelopes, not public access.
Because seeing is free, I am as concerned about the views OF buildings as the views they capture from the occupation of defined air space, meaning the design and street experience are as important as any view.
Neighbourliness is not a characteristic that can be ascribed to inanimate objects like buildings. It is something that occurs on the ground plane in the public realm between people or more privately between door knobs, or over the backyard fence where neighbours actually exist. To attribute this quality to buildings is to profoundly misunderstand the work of architecture itself.
In the example before us we are presented with a new high rise typology, one that takes the penthouse and its roof top terrace and distributes it throughout the height of the building, a refreshing approach that brings humans in direct contact with nature. Gone is the slip form methodology of concrete construction leading to the endless repetition of floors one after another that are eventually enclosed and sealed with-in a slick glass skin.
We must presume that the designers of this proposal are well aware of the various guidelines that determine the building envelope for this site and that they are encouraged to defend the design on its merits alone.
True, but there are ways to arrange buildings so that they are nicer to live in and near.
If you place a set of buildings in a row side by side you get a wall of concrete that allows little or no air and sunlight through to the street and means that side windows, if they’re even possible, look directly into someone else’s.
If you instead stagger the buildings like the pieces in a game of checkers, space opens up for air and light to penetrate and means that many side windows have a full building width of air between them and the neighbours in direct line of sight.
Even where land is at a premium some staggering of buildings is possible (flush against street vs. flush against back of lot) and flexibility in FSR, height, etc. can open air space by, for example, allowing a taller narrower building rather than a shorter one that covers the entire lot.
Whether having a little space between neighbours actually leads to “neighbourliness” is debatable, but I would argue that such an arrangement benefits everyone who lives in or just visits the area.