61 responses so far ↓

• 1 Roger Kemble // Jan 23, 2011 at 2:41 am

  Lewis @ 47 No to the podium. Podium is open to street noise, lacks privacy.

  The podium + tower lacks grace in the overall urban form: a tree without roots.

  Study the atrium concept. It provides a haven of repose and privacy: preserves heritage, commodity, firmness and delight. Adds density!

  Urbanism must be local, idiomatic, autochthonous (indigenous) beyond the limits of prejudice.

  Sean @ 48 No to a debate . . . just more chatter! We know what the academics, the Harcourt’s, the Beasley’s, the Spaxman’s have done and we are displeased! Hence the gossip!

  Read my book The Canadian City. Most libraries carry it or check Amazon on-line.

  Read carefully my stuff on-line as per my link @ 38: all about urbanism.

  Then commit.

  Create your ideas into an urban design for DTES, or indeed any one or another of Vancouver’s, in-distress, urban villages. Work with professionals who have spatial insight and presentation skills: I will help as necessary. Be kind to Lewis: he has a visceral need to control.

  Show on-line in graphic form: you’ll be surprised: set-up your stats to check the interest: hundreds, thousands, even city hall will log-on.

  Oh and above all, both of you, learn humility, the mark of a true urbanist: someone who listens and comes to the quartier with an open slate.

• 2 Lewis N. Villegas // Jan 23, 2011 at 5:08 am

  If we are going to have such an event, we should identify some consensus points out front.

  Let’s try for seven:

  1. The debate is about how to do “high density” urbanism in the Historic Area.

  Presentations may wish to focus on the Chinatown HAHR, but the intention is that a model is being created for the area as a whole. (Ghost 33, Gheller 50)

  2. The #1 concern is the resulting quality in the urban environment. However, proposals must also “pencil out” in the market place. We want real projects, and input from the development industry would be ideal.

  3. Proponents must identify total build out for the Historic Area (Lewis 47, for example, suggests 90,000).

  4. At this point, we are more interested in the shape and functioning of urban footprints, than we care about the buildings themselves.

  We’re about the urban design. For example:

  I feel Bickerton 43 glosses over the significance of a nine-square footprint for the residential intensification, and priming the pump of the local economy, in the core of one of the Historic Area neighbourhoods. You’ve amply demonstrated with your description of living in the Upper East Side, Manhattan—and we agree—that footprint matters a great deal in urbanism:

  “So, which are you trying to protect – the empty lot, the barbed wire enclosed electrical works, or the ugly as sin viaducts?” The power station and the viaducts are south of the tic-tac-toe plan of Downtown Chinatown. Like the HAHR towers proposed, they belong to the urbanism on the NE of False Creek (historically a swamp). “Missing teeth” in the streetwall, on the other hand, is just another sign that the plan now in place is not working.

  5. Private sector investment must be projected in tandem with “asks” for investment from senior levels of government. We want to see transit, at a very minimum.

  6. Proponents must engage both social housing with assists, and measures to keep out gentrification.

  7. The conditions for human scale in the urban environment must be shown, whether present or not (i.e. street aspect ratio; sequence of squares linked by easy walking distances; linked parks and green spaces; transit within easy walking distance, etc.).

  The concrete and verifiable measures of urbanism can provide us with the common ground to build consensus.

  Sean, what I have in mind is a “Big Tent Event”, a la Lyndon Johnson. We want everybody there. Check our ego at the door, and as importantly, arrived armed with all the urban facts.

• 3 Morven // Jan 23, 2011 at 8:35 am

  I am grateful for the thoughtful and (mostly) polite discussion of urban design issues. I learn a lot each time.

  My question is whether we have the right policy tools available as there are some strategic issues at play that have not had the same emphasis as urban design.

  If this and any future discussion has any merit, the city had to frame some policy analysis and potential policy tools for impact assessment. Without intending to be an apologist for the city, they do not have a good set of cards to play at this time.

  For one, gentrification is ubiquitous in urban economies with housing accessibility, affordability and social exclusion problems. Vancouver is no different. Gentrification is, alas, linked to housing affordability.

  What we are really discussing is not just urban design, but what are the policy tools available to minimise social dislocation.

  I think that it can be argued that in Vancouver there is a tacit acceptance of gentrification as an urban regeneration tool and it is no wonder affected communities are galvanized into action – as we have seen in the past few weeks.

  The whole point of a planning system is not to exclude market forces or provide untrammelled opportunities for the development industry, it is to address the unresolved issue of what is the appropriate balance between specific developments and linked social and collateral housing dislocation. There is not much point in elected representatives just taking bows for the escalation of development permit applications without considering the negative impact on affordability, the job market and social dislocation. Do we have or will we have any balance in Vancouver?
  -30-

• 4 Lewis N. Villegas // Jan 23, 2011 at 3:04 pm

  “What we are really discussing is not just urban design, but what are the policy tools available to minimise social dislocation.

  I think that it can be argued that in Vancouver there is a tacit acceptance of gentrification as an urban regeneration tool ”

  Morven 53

  Coal Harbour, North Shore False Creek, and (probably) the OV are “gentrification” in spite of the fact that there is some social housing mixed in, and planning policy of the day was to reserve additional units. The mix happens on the south shore of False Creek as we move into areas that have a mix of building and tenure types, including co-op.

  That puts one kind of block to gentrification. Yet, the buildings look all more or less the same.

  I’ve been looking over Colin Rowe’s “Collage City” (1984) where he argues that there are two urbanisms: the Modern tower with all the vast open spaces; and the figural urbanism of networks of streets and squares defined by human scale buildings and perimeter urban block massing.

  Our Historic Area belongs to the latter. The former, according to Rowe, has just about taken over (and he was writing 35 years ago). If we are going to intensify & regenerate urban land in historic neighbourhoods, many feel that the new form should be “in keeping” with the figural urbanism.

  Here’s the rub: do we know how to build that way anymore? The real issue is not shaping one building, but giving shape to entire walkable neighbourhoods. We can probably clone the architecture, the urbanism raises the bar—possibly beyond the reach of current policy tools as you suggest.

  Here’s the pay-off. If we are indeed going to reduce our carbon footprint, use the car less, and walk more, it will make a great deal of difference just which of the two urbanisms we build.

  Except for very special and rare sites, most people don’t walk in tower zones. They get in their cars and drive.

• 5 George // Jan 23, 2011 at 7:25 pm

  My hat is off to everyone on this thread. What an amazing conversation and education.

  Thank you all, for allowing us to eavesdrop.

  @LNV
  Except for very special and rare sites, most people don’t walk in tower zones. They get in their cars and drive.

  Amen…

• 6 Lewis N. Villegas // Jan 23, 2011 at 10:40 pm

  For the predicament of architecture—which, because it is always, in some way or other, concerned with amelioration, by some standard, however dimly perceived, of making things better, with how things ought to be, is always hopelessly involved with value judgments—can never be scientifically resolved, least of all in terms of any simple empirical theory of “facts.” And, if this is the case with reference to architecture, then, in relation to urbanism (which is not even concerned in making things stand up) the question of any scientific resolution of its problems can only become more acute. For, if the notion of a “final” solution through a definitive accumulation of all data is, evidently, an epistemological chimera, if certain aspects of information will invariably remain undiscriminated or undisclosed, and if the inventory of “facts” can never be complete simply because of the rates of change and obsolescence, then, here and now, it surely might be possible to assert that the prospects of scientific city planning should, in reality, be regarded as equivalent to the prospects of scientific politics. [p. 3]

  Colin Rowe and Fred Koetter in Architecture Theory since 1968, K. Michael Hays ed., The MIT Press. Cambridge
  Massachusetts, London, England, 2000.

  http://diggipdf.com/documents/collage_city_colin_rowe/

  The part that may be bothering many is the one about, ” the prospects of scientific city planning should, in reality, be regarded as equivalent to the prospects of scientific politics.”

  Of course this is a confusion of natures of the first rank. Politics and urbanism, though related, are different kinds of phenomenon evolving along different lines of development.

  The error comes with supposing that we cannot identify “urban facts” that we can all agree about (think of the 5 minute walk, for example). That’s too bad. Because if we did, then we would already have one foot in the tent to building a lasting consensus.

• 7 Roger Kemble // Jan 24, 2011 at 8:35 am

  IMO I see no reason why a 16 +/- storey (160′) composite atrium tower will be incompatible with the neighbourhood.

  A mixed typology seems quite appropriate.

  Town houses orient towards the atrium. Why should this not be quite pleasant and neighbourly?

  Thus a theoretical example of densification . . . has aesthetic and social appeal . . .

  http://members.shaw.ca/urbanismo/Atrium.pdf

  Such a tower is not appropriate for all of Vancouver’s urban villages.

  60, 70, 80 stories, even in the downtown makes a mockery of green, sustainable pretensions.

  Affordablity is well beyond the market’s ability to provide and evidently consumers to participate.

  Drastic measures begin to loom!

  Local remedy unless government is prepared to subsidies and so far that seems to have, limitations . . . thus

  If Shaw blue page comes up click refresh.

  Mucho suerte . . .

• 8 Roger Kemble // Jan 24, 2011 at 8:42 am

  PS . . . and yes towers, within limitations, are energy efficient . . .

  http://www.theyorkshirelad.ca/New.Nanaimo.Center/pudpn/Comparisons.pdf

• 9 Tiktaalik // Jan 24, 2011 at 11:31 am

  Here’s a question from a complete newbie who didn’t go to city planning school:

  We need money to renovate heritage Chinatown buildings yet clearly many to not want to go the density bonus route as that would bring in a new building form and maybe too much market housing.

  Assuming that we won’t just use density bonuses from other projects around town, what other tools does the city have at its disposal in order to raise the money needed?

  A further question is that I can’t help but notice that the building that now houses London Pub and Brixton Cafe was nicely renovated (at least at street level) for these spaces. What likely happened here? Did the building owner renovate in order to bring in retail or did the owner of the London Pub and Brixton Cafe pay for it? Some other combination?

• 10 Lewis N. Villegas // Jan 24, 2011 at 3:41 pm

  Love a good question. And I didn’t go to planning school … You’ll have to find the owner of the London Pub & Brixton Cafe, ask your questions, and report back. Owners are typically very proud of their projects and happy to discuss.

  I only know how the density bonus works in principle (Ghost 33 discusses it above).

  In principle, the density not used up by a historic building (because it retains its historicaly small size) can be put in a “bank” for use by developers in designated areas.

  I suppose that if I want to add density to my project, I pay the owner of the building and use the density.

  The key to understanding what to do in historic areas is whether or not there are pressures for growth being experienced locally.

  When the answer is ‘yes’ then it is possible to plan for an increment of growth that will bring new revenues to the area, some of which can be set aside to pay for the plan itself, and to pay for other investments in infrastructure. Typically, the city will issue a 10 or 20 year municipal bond, effectively borrowing against growth.

  Another point is that the revenues from growth will not all flow to the city. By planning for the intensification of our historic areas we put feet on the sidewalks, and money in the merchant’s tills.

  If we keep in mind that historic areas in our city predate the automobile by a few decades, then there is another point to underscore. Walking in the intensified historic area will seem second nature. That’s a plus for sustainable urbanism, alright. But it is a plus for the local economy as well, since the shops and services that are within walking distance of neighbourhood front doors will likely be grouped in one core area.

  The coming and going creates the bustle. The relationship that develops over the years between residents and these various establishments creates the social synergy that has been so long missing.

  To figure out how much money we need for Chinatown, or how much residential intensification can take place within easy walking distance of the Chinatown core, we need an area wide urban design plan.

  The theme at this point in the discussion is that “there is a lot of things that we can measure in the urbanism.”

• 11 Lewis N. Villegas // Jan 24, 2011 at 9:59 pm

  The Colin Rowe quote in #56 captures the essence of “Old Paradigm Planning”.

  Rowe begins with the predicament of artistic expression in architecture, and a Modern Architecture loaded with promises and good intentions. It all unravels as too many value judgements, nothing to hang a proof on. He continues expounding his version of planning complete with “the negation of the possibility of arriving at a simple empirical theory of ‘facts'”.

  Shown in microcosm is the change we have lived from the heady days of Post Modernism in the early 1980’s (Rowe is writing in 1984), to the growing acceptance of environmental responsibility in the first decades of the 21st century.

  We look at urbanism differently in the new paradigm. Unless the species is to evolve a longer pair of legs, or a different perceptual apparatus, our experience of place will remain rooted in plain and concrete facts that have been around for millennia.

  The reason why this is important now, as we turn to build “quartiers of urban density” in our city is that the resulting quality of the urban environment matters a great deal.

  How will we know? How are we going to make gains in urban sustainability unless we measure the effects of our ideas once they are in place, and practice what we measure?