The Vancouver Model of Density_Point Tower Typology

Broughton & West Hastings: While Coal Harbour represents a model for Vancouver’s high density living, the amount of surface parking surrounding these towers reveals further opportunities for interventions of architectural intensity.

In a bit of a synthesis of what this blog has covered over the past few months, I offer a view of what Vancouver model of density currently means for the Downtown peninsula. The replication of residential towers with similar floor-space ratios, design details, and colour palette in a planning-led initiative has led to the proliferation of a point tower podium typology which has furthered densification but has also produced a monotonous consistency in the built architectural form which now characterizes downtown Vancouver. So successfully so, that the Dubai Marina has now successfully created a new False Creek which has arguably superseded its originator in innovation, design, and usage: (Replicating Vancouver in Dubai) In Vancouver, the design of large scale mixed-use developments is being administered under the guidelines of City Hall in close partnership with the private sector of residential developers. The result is a homogenous typology that is being repeated throughout the city with little consideration given to site or cultural context. In essence, these projects are being plugged into the city rather than being connected to it. New master planned developments such as Concord Pacific Place, Coal Harbour, and smaller block developments such as Woodwards are developing entire city blocks, in a manner which consumes space rather than generates it.

The point tower typology’s massing, materials, choice of program and location of program are dictated by the urban planning zoning and development by-laws. The design of these new developments is also influenced by marketing and real estate specialists. These two forces have created a standardized and replicable building product that has become ubiquitous in new downtown Vancouver neighbourhoods.

Influences of Hong Kong and New Urbanism

01_The Tall and thin tower was imported from Hong Kong.

02_The four-storey eyes-on-the-street podium in the downtown core has been reinterpreted in response to New Urbanist tendencies to define street walls with front porches.

03_The nicely scaled podium, at street level, should make the tall, thin tower almost disappear from one’s perception.

View obsession

01_Downtown Vancouver is on a peninsula surrounded by ocean and mountains.

02_Slim towers are more expensive to build than bulky towers. However, purchasers bear for the extra costs in construction.

How did Vancouver get here?_The Breakdown or Top 5 Lists

In an attempt to make some sense of the qualitative/quantitative issues surrounding Vancouver's current urban form/makeup, a look at some previous observations made by Trevor Boddy in his September 2005 “Vancouverism vs. Lower Manhattanism: Shaping the High Density City” along with some of my own remarks outlines where I'm at thus far in questioning the current diversity/density situation of Downtown Vancouver:

Vancouver breaks iron rules of North American urbanism:
01_The continent’s youngest major city with its highest residential density;
02_Vancouver is the only major city in North America without a single freeway within its boundaries;
03_Current planning decisions are almost entirely insulated from interference by city councillors and mayor;
04_While having immigrant and non-white population ratios comparable to New York, Toronto, and Los Angeles, Vancouver has escaped many of the striations and frictions that come with neighbourhoods sorted by ethnicity. The ghetto of Vancouver is chemically derived instead;
05_For nearly 20 years, Vancouver has used a form of social bonus zoning, in which extra density in housing developments is granted in return for such public amenities as cultural facilities, parks, schools, and social housing.

Vancouverism’s current residential building typology has been generated by the following:
01_1960s: There has been a long-standing tradition of high density living: Since 1960s, the West End has had Canada’s densest residential neighbourhood; second in North America only to Manhattan;
02_1970s: False Creek South [Granville Island]: mix of income groups and modes of housing tenure in dense neighbourhoods with significant investment into parks, arts, rec. facilities, social housing;
03_late 1980s: North shore of False Creek: Hong Kong inspired small plate high-rise towers rather than the mid-rises constructed previously allowed for significantly higher densities. This was also due to Li Ka Shing’s acquisition of Expo lands and significant public investments in the area were extracted from his Concord Pacific Developments;
04_1991: ‘Living First’: codified social bonus zoning system and was partnered with a Vancouver market willing to live in smaller units in denser neighbourhoods;
[Taiwanese and Hong Kongers fleeing in the prospect of returning to China’s control in 1997]
05_Townhouses Typology: The same plan established the small plate high rise tower on townhouse base typology that is the architectural face of Vancouverism, along with the notion that developers, not taxpayers, would help pay for public amenities in new districts, raising the value of their constructions through a vibrant public realm. The same plan also re-zoned a huge portion of the downtown peninsula as “housing optional,” but which has since developed almost only as housing.

The current monotony in building typology can largely be attributed to:
01_Planners have too much control to intervene on visual and design issues and have a detrimental effect on the aesthetic and the social atmosphere of Downtown Vancouver; which has led to …
02_Vancouver’s urban successes come at the price of architectural quality, innovation, even standards of building finishes, which has led to…
03_Very few of Vancouver’s best architects winning commissions Downtown. Instead, low fee production houses [see tract house suburbia] with close linkages to developers [Bob Rennie, Ian Gillespie and others] which has led to…
04_A burgeoning market which buys nearly half the condo market as speculative investment and has little concern with issues of ownership, identity, and liveability and rather with resale value
05_As the final 10% of Downtown sites are developed, only now has architecture and the quality of housing layout started to become a real factor in the real estate market place.

A Brief History of Density_In Vancouver

April 1973_The Agriculural Land Reserve is created to limit urban sprawl. Prior to the 1970s, some 6,000 hectares of farmland were lost annually to urbanization.

May 1988_Shaugnessy residents fight a proposal to convert 3.2 hectares of neighbourhood parkland into multi-family housing.

December 1991_City Council approves the rezoning of eight million square feet of downtown commercial space to residential; the buildout of fomer Expo lands, now known as Yaletown, soon follows.

January 1992 _Arbutus residents protest the development of the Molson Brewery site. The condominiums and apartment towers go ahead, but with fewer units than planned.

June 1995_City Council adopts CityPlan to help define future growth, create or expand neighbourhood centres, and add density and variety in “neighbouhoods that have little variety right now”

September 1996_SFU formally approces UniverCity, a new residential community that’s to add 10,000 residents to Burnaby Mountain; 10 months later, UBC approves University Town, which will double UBC’s population to 20,900 by 2021.

May2002 Over 500 residents from Dundarave amd Ambleside pack a public meeting to protest a proposed density increase. Many wear funeral black.

July 2004_Mackenzie Heights goes to war with former MLA Art Cowie over his application to build a three-unit rowhouse. City planners receive over 100 messages protesting the project; council rejects the application.

January 2006 A Vancouver city staff report reveals the growing scarcity of affordable housing in Downtown Eastside, with rooms for rent declining from 900 in 1992 to under 600 in 2005.

July 2006_ALR commissioners reject a proposal to turn Barnston Island into an industrial park.

August2006_Concord Pacific purchases CBC’s staff parking lot for $34 million and begins construction on two highrises; studio suites start at a compact 566 sq. ft.

October 2006_NPA Councillor Kim Capri suggests shrinking the size of new SRO units to 100 sq.ft. “cruise ship cabins”

January 2007_CMHC figures for Greater Vancouver indicate multi-family units made up 70% of total housing starts in 2005-06, up from 40% in the 1980s.

February 2007_“The Aerie” becomes the British Properties’ first townhouse development, with units starting at $2 million.

February 2007_The GVRD tables a report calling for residential “intensification” in the region; only 11% of Vancouver land has multi-family units.

February 2007_Suspicious fires damage newly built Dunbar townhouses. The two units had been opposed by neighbours because they were built on two 25-foot-wide subdivided parcels.

February 2007_Vancouver begins a series of public workshops on Mayor Sam Sullivan’s EcoDensity initiative. The plan, approved by council in July 2006, adds a green dimension to the decades-old density debate; Brent Toderian, the city’s new director of planning, tells the media, “We are not a sustainable city and we can no longer pretend we are one.”

This synopsis was compiled by Rosemary Poole in the April 2007 edition of “Vancouver.”

The Overspecified Generic

“When you break west coast life down...to its fundamental elements...what you are left with is...PURE...the essence of west coast living.” www.livingpure.ca

In her critique of urban renewal policies in the US of the 1960s, Jane Jacobs praised the use of these generic outdoor spaces (balconies, steps, patio gardens) as spatial tools in support of vibrant, dense, mixed-use neighbourhoods. In response to her claims, it should be noted that in the context of contemporary Vancouver, Jacobs’ claims are impractical and do not reflect the reality of urban politics. Another criticism is that Jacobs’ approach leads to gentrification: an observed urban social process whereby urban economic development leads to old neighbourhoods becoming too expensive for the original population once “renewed.” The previous inhabitants are replaced by yuppies who enjoy the semi-bohemian life that results. In many cases, the reality of this pseudo-bohemian lifestyle reveals itself in the need to sacrifice other aspects of life in order to cover the mortgage/rent: decent food, adequate furnishings, enjoying pastimes, travel, etc. The new social realities are inconsistent with the market imagined not only by Jacobs, but by developers and the City of Vancouver itself.

An argument can be made that these generic spaces are not doing enough to bring vibrancy to the urban realm. Although residents who buy into new condos are occasionally given the power to choose: granite vs. butcher block countertops, the cappuccino machine nook, stainless steel appliances, the faux fireplace, these options do very little in bringing identity to the lives of the residents and absolutely nothing to the character of the building they actually dwell within. These cues prevent people from appropriating spaces in a meaningful way. Real-estate developers have become increasingly adept at marketing these pseudo-spatial implications that are convincing buyers that they actually have an identity in the cityscape of Vancouver. When in reality, there are no spatial implications being addressed in the consumer being given the choice of an electric fireplace or nook for the coffee maker they might not even have. This phenomenon has also fuelled the high degree of speculative investment in Vancouver. Resale to the unknown buyer is of the utmost importance and prevents any real appropriation of spaces or buildings to take place. It has come to the point where ultimately, if a prospective buyer can’t see the fireplace, they won’t know where to put the couch.

A certain image is maintained on the exterior of these new condos and townhouses that tells very little about the activities of the interior. This discrete image is only one layer in a series of layers that buyers in the urban Vancouver real estate market and speculative investors have become extremely receptive to. Notions of privacy are now being developed through the increasing ubiquity found in the realm of downtown. The degree to which City Hall and the Planning department have honed their craft at dictating a ‘desirable’ character for downtown Vancouver has generated an overly specific framework that leaves precious little to be interpreted or subverted. Successful developers in the Vancouver context have become exceedingly efficient at presenting proposals that fit exactly into the overly-prescriptive “guidelines” set up by City Hall which has resulted in an exceedingly replicable building typology found throughout downtown Vancouver.