And I commend the further/related stuff in the sidebars of PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19923163?dopt=Abstract

Perhaps to start, a commenter asked why we were even considering heights for “towers” in the Historic Area. The short answer – the work was based on Council direction. Followers of the EcoDensity (ED) process will recall that when staff brought our first draft ED actions to Council for permission to take them out for further public consultation, Council added several new action items, including one to study the possibility of taller buildings in the DTES to achieve additional public benefits. When we brought back the final ED actions for Council decision, we proposed a re-written version of that action based on public input that emphasized the preservation of the area’s historic scale and character in such a review, and Council agreed and approved the revised action. This was the basis of the work we’re discussing.

A comprehensive review of heights in the area did have a strategic value – at the time we were being presented with several proposals for very tall towers (350-400 ft) in the DTES, with many other properties possibly changing hands with land values that assumed such tall buildings. Such assumptions are never a good thing for the city, as over-assumed land values always makes for much more challenging discussions around proper densities, and public benefit contribution negotiations. The Woodwards project had some assuming that a 400 ft height was the “new normal” for projects in the area, rather than seeing the Woodwards height as a unique case in the community. At the time there were also rumours of proposals inside City hall to allow “ten 400 ft towers along Hastings” – whenever I was asked about this rumour, I clarified that I had never heard such a proposal. Those with smaller project aspirations made passionate arguments for more density and height to facilitate population growth in the area, for economic revitalization reasons (especially in Chinatown) and to contribute to the “body heat” in the area. As all this was creating much uncertainty, debate and speculation in the area, it made sense to look at the height and heritage question at the wider community and sub-area scales, rather than trying to deal with many individual proposals and rumours.

As one might expect, the process was extremely complex, and the public engagement very challenging. At a mid-way point in the process, staff developed various options for the public and stakeholders to comment on, based on a “pattern and punctuation” concept for the height question. Staff didn’t support the idea of significant height increases across the board, but developed ideas for slight and strategic pattern height increases in various sub-areas for the public to comment on. As tall buildings were the key question in Council’s direction, we also floated the idea of various tall tower building sites (with heights in the range of 250-300 ft) based on various approaches to “punctuation” criteria. We included for discussion all building sites that were the subject of inquiries or discussions, official or unofficial, as we felt this was the time to put everything on the table for public comment. For the record, it was never a staff-supported proposal to put a tower on the Chinese Cultural Centre site. However, this was an idea being discussed and debated in various circles in the community, and was raised with us during the early consultation, so we made the decision to include it in the public discussion so that people could comment on it as part of the bigger context.

A significant majority of the public and stakeholder input we received, including from various advisory bodies to Council such as the Urban Design Panel and the Heritage Commission, did not support the punctuation tall tower concept. Such towers, we were told clearly, were too tall, and the wrong building form for the historic area. We also heard from a significant majority that the Woodwards height was indeed unique, not the “new normal”. Staff agreed with these messages.

It was Staff’s primary recommendation that the heritage scale and character in the area should be generally respected and preserved in the context of any changes. It was noted that Gastown had recently been recognized as a National Historic District and that we had recently requested such a designation for Chinatown as well (and hopefully eventually, a Unesco World heritage designation). The heritage character of the area continues to be one of its greatest strengths.

Staff ultimately developed a series of careful and strategic recommendations that proposed slight pattern height increases in some areas (i.e. from 65 ft to 75 ft in Chinatown along Pender, and in Chinatown south a continued base height in the zoning of 90 ft but a new ability to rezone up to 120 ft). In other areas, we proposed that the height potential be left as-is, especially where the majority of heritage buildings are located (i.e. Gastown would stay at 75 ft, and Victory Square at a 75 ft base with potential for up to 100 ft through rezoning as per current policy). The strategy erred on the side of preserving or staying close to heritage scales, while adding some strategic density potential. These strategies ultimately received support and compliments from the various heritage groups that provided us advice, including the Heritage Commission.

As for tall towers, staff agreed that tall “punctuation points” of 250 ft + were the wrong height and form for the historic area. Instead, staff suggested the idea of no more than three “high points within the pattern” at about 150 ft, for Council consideration (at Pender and Abbott aka the Budget site, Pender and Carrall aka the BC Electric site, and Keefer and Columbia aka the Keefer Triangle site). As with the view corridor work, we recommended a new higher standard for exceptional architecture for such taller buildings. I know the word “tower” is subjective and that many might see these still as towers, but they certainly differ significantly in height from what had been previously discussed, and differ in building form as these would be more of a perimeter-block building form rather than Downtown-south style slim towers. This form means more density, not just more height, and most agreed it was a form more appropriate for the heritage area.

Although there were several other significant items addressed at the special council meeting on Friday January 22nd (Phase 1 of the Cambie Corridor planning, UBC Line planning principles, and View Corridors), a significant majority of speakers spoke to the Historic Area Heights Review. Many from the Carnegie Community Action Project (CCAP) and the low-income community asked Council to delay any changes until after a socio-economic study of the Woodwards project, and a comprehensive area plan for the DTES are both completed. A few speakers, representing a group calling for Chinatown economic revitalization that includes the Chinatown BIA , made the argument that the pattern height increases and the few 150ft heights were insufficient to bring about the revitalization that they felt Chinatown needed. Some suggested that the building forms being proposed would not be economically viable without greater height.

On the other hand, there were many speakers from various heritage groups, and a Coalition concerned with the conservation of Historic Chinatown made up of numerous Chinatown stakeholder groups, that commended staff for the balanced and careful approach to heritage and revitalization issues. These speakers recommended that Council support the recommended height increases, but no more. Several speakers expressed specific concern about one of the three possible 150 ft sites, the Keefer Triangle site, primarily based on shadow and view impacts related to the Dr. Sun Yat-Sen Classical Chinese Gardens. Many other concerns and comments were raised, and Council asked many questions – all in all, it was a very sophisticated discussion, appropriate for a very complex community.

Ultimately, Council made a series of thoughtful and nuanced decisions that I thought illustrated careful listening to the many voices that spoke to them. They approved the various pattern height changes, with no amendments. For the 150 ft “high points within the pattern”, Council supported 2 but rejected a third, the Keefer Triangle site, based on the concerns raised by the public. Although some had asked for the “generally 150 ft” height to be increased, Council didn’t do so. Only in the case of the South Chinatown HA1A zone though, Council chose to keep the door open for additional 150 ft sites to assist with further Chinatown economic revitalization, asking staff to report back.

Thus for the majority of the historic area, after a time of considerable uncertainty and speculation, we now have a high level of certainty – confirmed slight pattern height increases, only 2 sites that can go to about 150 ft, and no further tall towers. For South Chinatown specifically, we have partial certainty in the form of a new pattern height of up to 120 ft through rezoning, and further study for possible additional 150 ft buildings.

In addition, Council passed several related motions based on the requests of speakers. They directed staff to report back regarding approaches and budgets for three pieces of work: a social-economic study on the impacts of new developments in the DTES on the existing low-income community; a priority approach for an Economic Revitalization Strategy for Chinatown (recognizing that such revitalization is affected by much more than height and density, and is positively influenced by heritage assets); and based on much discussion over the past few years within both the community and City Hall, a comprehensive DTES strategy.

Overall, I believe that Council’s decisions were consistent with the values heard from the public and stakeholders, but also reflect the complexity of perspectives and strong differing opinions. Making clear decisions with so many differing opinions is never easy.

My sincere compliments to our DTES senior planner Jessica Chen and her team, for their great work on this challenging exercise, and to the many community leaders and citizens who showed great passion while educating us and each other on the many issues involved.

Brent Toderian

In a city with so many detailed regulations ( I just had to hack the top off my garden gate because it exceeded the official height ) you’d think a requirement to clean awnings might be a good idea. In fact such rules exist in many European cities.

Another European city concept I would love to see would be laws against keeping residential properties unoccupied – to discourage speculation and increase available accomodation.

[Using Bill Lee's suggested footprints for South False Creek, North False Creek, and Strathcona]

Winer: Top Density per square km—Strathcona, 19.8 k [19,748]

Second Place: North False Creek, 15.8 k

Third Place: South False Creek, 10.9 k

[I will check the footprints carefully, and show them in outline on scaled base maps for the CIP and Land Summit presentations. However, for us here and now, these results are truly, truly remarkable.]

Before we proceed, a message from our sponsor—not Frances, but Bill. He is absolutely right. The only way to get a feel for the place is by walking around in it. That’s how to get the quality of the urbanism anywhere: Rome or Hastings.

Fear not, a walk in these neighborhoods—pick a sunny Sunday morning, bring the kids, then treat yourself to brunch afterwards—can be truly rewarding. When I take my students for urban walks, they always come back glowing from the experience. Art is not to be had simply at the VAG. That was savannah walling’s point, I think, and many others who have written here.

For resident, the experience can be had simply by opening the front door, and reaching down to pick up the packet of flyers.

O.K. Back to the numbers…

North Shore False Creek, the poster child for what every city in Canada (I am told) would like to achieve, delivers 20% less tax revenue to the host city than Strathcona.

South False Creek has 55%, or about half, the density—and Tax Increment—of Strathcona.

Let me first thank Bill Lee for this.

Then, let me exit on two points:

(1) If we can achieve equivalent densities with either tower-and-podium, or fee-simple, human-scale, high-density, low-rise buildings, then which building type delivers the best urban quality?

(2) What is better for the DTES? A community of strata owners riding in elevators, coming and going from buildings that turn their back on the street (reference comments we have already heard here about Woodward’s). Or a community of land and building owners, with mortgage-helper rental suites, who will sweep the sidewalk, pick up trash from the lane, garden in their front and rear yards, and give me dirty looks every time I drive by with the top down exceeding a tacit 20 km/h speed limit?

So, back to our Director of Planning: We don’t need tower-and-podium for density. We don’t need tower-and-podium to spark redevelopment. Thus, a question needs to be answered: why do we need towers in the historic heart and cradle of our city?

However, it’s a free market economy out there, and I bet it’s tough to make a go in a storefront in either Chinatown or Gastown right now. Never mind Commercial, Main Street, Fraser or Kingsway.

I agree with you Andrea, but I want to see a lot more common ground, and consensus.

Paul Goldberger, some time architecture critic for the New York Times, writing about the World Trade Center in his “The City Observed: New York”, (1979).

I too have observed what I tentatively term the “inverse square rule” of tower aesthetics: their appeal increases proportionately with the square of their distance from the observer. Thus, for an observer four times as far away, towers will look twice as good.

However, this building type in either its residential or commercial varieties represents the bankrupt vision of modernism.

I’ve never understood the “view corridor” concept.

The best I can say is simply report back what a woman told me after we presented the “Nanaimo Urban Design Plan” a few years ago, “Lewis, I like my views just fine where they are. Please don’t put them in a corridor.”

Urbanism resonates with plain common sense, and I have never understood why my friends who are planners don’t understand that even renown authors like Kevin Lynch are voicing a bankrupt ideology. His “Image of the City” for example, as far as I am concerned, should have been subtitled as, “Image of the City: As seen from behind the windshield when driving my automobile.”

Not only is it obvious that “Image of the City” about a disconnected set of observations in urban space, but at the time of the writing (1961) the best contracts were being awarded by the U.S. Highways Department. The problem was not how to build beautiful cities, an in-depth analysis of Beacon Hill, Boston, would have given him that (human-scale, low-rise, high-density all the way of the same period as New York’s Village), the issue at hand was how to relieve the boredom of driving on the new freeways.

Lynch was silent of the “Boston Dig” about to get going, or already underway, that would tear up entire working class and black neighborhoods to build the elevated freeway that we stopped, and Boston has since put underground. He was silent, and in my mind complicit, coloring an entire generation of professional planners here in North America. A generation we now have the opportunity to put at some distance from our work.

When I started architecture school in 1982 I bought and read his “Normative Theory of City Form” (it was in the bookstore, probably for a course at SCARP, no one at our end of the Lassare building was bothering with this). The book’s title is a bare faced lie: there is no theory of urbanism or city form to be found anywhere between its covers. Fortunately, I also bought Aldo Rossi’s “Architecture of the City” on my next trip to Seattle at Peter Miller’s shop.

“All buildings, large or small, public or private, have a public face, a façade; they therefore, without exception, have a positive or a negative effect on the quality of the public realm, enriching or impoverishing it in a lasting and radical manner. The architecture of the city and public space is a matter of common concern to the same degree as laws and language—they are the foundation of civility and civilization.”

Leon Krier’s opening lines in the conclusion to his “The Architecture of Community” (2009).

Coming from South America, as I did at twelve years of age, and growing up in the Lower Mainland, the trajectory of my education here led me to try to understand the persistence of two untenable realities:

(1) The complete abdication of the public realm, or the street (including its sidewalks and fronting uses) to the dominance of automobiles; and

(2) The toleration and containment of human misery and suffering in the so-called downtown eastside.

The continuation of either or both conditions in our city—”our little slum” has no equal in Canada—cannot but result in the debasement of our social and cultural fabric. As these values erode, what will be left standing? The single-minded ethos of corporate profits?

I have some comments on the fee-simple house row, but I cede space to Brent to tackle the historic area decisions first.

Quick set of numbers which really should be in finer granularity on the broad City website.

—— Will this line up?
factor A B C D E

Population 5990 5817 3005 5084 10571
Dwellings 3726 3389 1474 2510 6441
Area 1.53 km2 0.82 km2 0.24km2 1.63km2 0.56km2
Pop/km2 3864/km2 7060/km2 12688/km2 3125/km2 18555/km2

A (CT 9330049.01)is South False Creek, Fraserview, from Main to Granville, north of Broadway, south of Lamey’s Mill road
B (CT 9330049.02)is South False Creek, north of Lamey’s Mill from Cambie to Burrard Bridge

A and B might be combined to do south False Creek

C (CT 9330057.01) is Chinatown, Main, to Dunlevy (3 blocks), south of Hastings, north of Prior/Union

D (CT 9330057.02)is rest of Strathcona, from Dunlevy to Clark, south of Hastings and a dogleg to Main south of Prior, north of Terminal.

C and D might be combined to claim Strathcona.

E (CT 9330059.03)is north False Creek, Burrard west of Pacific sweeping down along Homer to Nelson to the Waterfront.

The other Census Tract (CT 9330059.05) part of North False Creek (east of Cambie to Main, south of Pender/Keefer/Dunsmuir) incorporates a lot of downtown to Burrard and I would say that it is
problematic usage. 10,726 in 6,674 dwellings, 1.65 km2 and density of 6,505.7/km2

You might visit http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/index-eng.cfm
and look at the Census Tract profiles yourself. Geosearch is a good way to narrow your search down before you click on Additional Data for the profile.

Also have a glance at Microsoft’s Bing.com/maps and their oblique Birds Eye View to see the locations. And google.ca/maps and their StreetView feature (also in Bing) to see street views.

The marvelous but not fully open or linked Vanmap (use the AutoDesk viewer for best results) might also be viewed.

But you really should be on your bicylce with your bike odometer, a map, a camera, and a notebook, viewing the street in person and chatting with people from their balconies and on the street.