I’m so sorry all. I thought I had posted this weeks ago, but apparently not. This is too good a story to go uncommented.
Here’s the story. I can’t do any better than I did here, except to say kudos to whoever raised the question about the glass changing originally on my blog a few months ago. (I think JJJ?)
FRANCES BULA
Published Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2013 08:00AM EST
Last updated Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2013 10:46AM EST
Developer Peter Wall is finally getting his way on his most controversial building.
His company and the building’s strata council have been given city approval to replace the clear glass on the top 17 floors of the Wall Centre, which was at the centre of a major uproar 13 years ago over its dark glass.
The city sued Mr. Wall as the building was going up in 2000 with dark, reflective glass that planners said they had not approved. The city argued Mr. Wall was allowed to build the 400-foot structure at the highest point of Burrard Street downtown on the condition that it look light and transparent.
Eventually, the two sides compromised when Mr. Wall agreed to put clear glass on the top 17 stories, which gave the elliptical-shaped building the odd look of a two-tone lipstick tube. Now, Wall Financial will put dark glass on those top floors starting this April after successfully making the case that the clear windows, which let in more sunlight, wreaked havoc with the tower’s heating and cooling systems.
“We’ll be quite excited to see the building as it was really meant to be,” said Mr. Wall, who had built two shorter towers with reflective glass on the same site previously. “Those aldermen knew they were wrong. That minority can have their way for a little while, but then the majority takes over and corrects their mistake.”
But the move has appalled one councillor of the day.
“Oh, for crying out loud,” said former NPA councillor George Puil, part of the team in power then. “That surprises me that they’re undoing what a previous council decided. It was such a controversial thing and now it seems you just wait a while to get a new council to get it changed.”
Several sources say the decision was made through a simple development permit from the planning department. The city did not respond to a request for an interview with planning.
Strata residents had started a lawsuit against Wall Financial in 2011 over the floor-to-ceiling windows, saying they were leaking air and moisture. The estimated cost of repairing the windows was $7-million, and the council had levied a special assessment to cover it. Strata president Bruce Gleig, quoted in a company statement not yet widely released, said that residents “are pleased to have the support of the city for a solution that meets all of our needs.”
Mr. Wall said it will cost his company millions of dollars to put the new reflective glass on the building, just as it cost extra millions to install the clear glass.
The fight over the glass ruptured relations between Mr. Wall and the NPA, to which he had been a generous donor. He never spoke to mayor Philip Owen again. Mr. Wall now gives even more generously to Vision Vancouver, which has controlled council since 2008, but he said that had nothing to do with the decision.
Mr. Wall is a strong-minded and flamboyant character who has not hesitated to take on the city to build the way he wants to build. He insisted on having a large plaza in front of the Wall Centre instead of building up to the sidewalk as planners had wanted. He called then-mayor Gordon Campbell to get his way.
He said mediocre city planners just did not appreciate the beauty of the glass he loves, which he calls reflective, not dark. “[Architect Arthur] Erickson was wrong when he said concrete is the building material of Vancouver. It’s glass. Glass takes on darkness as it takes on light. We have the most interesting light in Vancouver, so you get this glorious reflection of a hundred colours.”
The glazing company that sold him the original glass has gone out of business, so he will not be able to get the exact match, but he said it is close enough that the building will look unified, as it was intended to be.
23 responses so far ↓
1 Joe Just Joe // Feb 18, 2013 at 11:13 pm
I know I’m in the minority but I liked the two toned tower. It marked where the old height limit used to be at ~300ft, sort of a historical marker. Shangri-la does the same by marking the next broken height limit at ~150M with it’s jutted out box. The two tone also marked a rare moment in Vancouver’s history where the city stood it’s ground against a developer. Something I suspect some posters on here would like to see more of.
Personally while the glass needs to be replaced I would’ve liked to see it replaced with something a different shade then the bottom half to keep the history. Some new low-e glass should allow the hvac to work w/o the need for dark glass.
2 Process prawcess // Feb 18, 2013 at 11:19 pm
Did the City of Vancouver just undermine their entire system of having an Urban Design Panel? The issue of the day was that a model with clear glass was what was presented for review and approval….but then a dark tower started to be constructed. The compromise I agree is aesthetically schizophrenic, but this decision means that developers really need not gave accuracy in the models they cart to City Hall anymore!
3 rowbat // Feb 19, 2013 at 8:54 am
I didn’t like the two toned tower, but one sheathed entirely in the dark glass used on the bottom half merely makes it worse. This seems to be a situation where money talks, period.
4 Roger Kemble // Feb 19, 2013 at 8:59 am
““The higher the buildings, the lower the morals.” Noël Coward.
Mostly when we look at towers we only see the soaring pinnacles: Woolworth, Empire State, Petronas and, the tallest and latest so far, the Burj Khalifa.
Even thinquing locally we often forget the Marine Building and the Sun Tower probably because, in this age of reaching for the stars, they do not reach high enough. (They are, nevertheless, incredibly beautiful, of an age long lost).
In her G and M story the photo only shows the top half: because, I suppose, Frances is writing about the glass!
There is more to this tower than the glass! In-mate preference, height and colour of glass cladding, I am sure, is an element of inside/outside heat exchange but urban context, surely the most important element, is lost.
Planners are so consumed with public hearings, reports, FSR and heights street level context is lost. This is certainly the case of the Wall Centre.
I do enjoy the slender pillar of glass (dark/light is irrelevant at a distance) rising above a motley Vancouver skyline as I approach on the ferry.
But I am not at all impressed by the boiler-plate siting at street level. And that in the city is what counts!
Surrounded by Nelson, Burrard and Hornby site orientation seems unimportant although the 1088 Burrard street address is one clue.
The essential building footprint is a lozenge. But the immediate surrounding context is, to the north, the coffin shaped BC Hydro building and south an agglomeration of unreadable triangles. St. Paul’s sits much diminished in volume but much more a player in the community!
The lozenge, at entrance garden level, takes on the aspect of a big boobed female bouncer shoving you off the property. The hotel is relegated to the parking garage at the back: I’m surprised Sheraton (parking convenience?) puts up with that!
Whereas the lozenge defines the southeast the actual plaza layout is of a quite unrelated mish-mash of rectangular shapes, planting and paving. Did the landscape architect ever meet the architect?
Somewhere in the bowels of Thu Hall sits a UD department: wot happened?
Who cares what colour the glass, when we are looking at a thoughtless street presence. When urban design is the talk of the blogs, it sure as hell doesn’t show up at Nelson and Burrard!
How much did this lot cost? Trev can pontificate Vancouverism all he wants: another urban disaster.
PS I always enjoyed Noël Coward as a singer, writer actor but I never knew him as a moralist!
5 Raingurl // Feb 19, 2013 at 9:14 am
More dead birds to clean up every morning. Great. Excellent.
6 Guest // Feb 19, 2013 at 10:46 am
The tower will look far more sculptural with united glass.
The obsession of City Council to see into the suites of residential condos through clear glass is a bit of a fetish – especially when “lightness” can be accomplished by light toned mirrored glass (i.e. see Commerce Place on Burrard Street).
And on cloudy days, even darker reflective glass can take on the lightness of the skies, whereas clear glass often simply shows the clutter inside people’s homes.
It’s strange how the City will bend over backwards to protect views and residents from “overlook” by others, yet foster (and indeed mandate) the occurrence of such conflicts by insisting on clear glass in residential condos.
7 Bill Lee // Feb 19, 2013 at 11:17 am
I agree that the plaza (like the dreadful windy Central Library, or the Towers of Darkness plaza and the new VAG plaza ) are a mistake in Vancouver. Nice in pictures but terribly impractical in the windy city.
I remember the Zebra bookstore he opened for his daughter on the Helmcken and then Hornby side of the development. Odd store, more a museum (“That’s not for sale!”) than a bookstore.
The pale glass in “a settlement was reached where only the remaining portion of the building (one third of its height) was faced with the typical “Yaletown green” lighter-coloured glass now common in the city’s newer areas.”
“The attempt to maintain the dark blue appearance did not end there; the windows in the upper third were installed with dark blue blinds facing outwards. If all blinds were to be drawn at once, the building would achieve the intended dark blue appearance”
Yaletown Green? And what is the Pantone number?
Speaking of the never-to-be-built BiG Ingels building very deep base foundation, “The Sheraton Wall Centre required a 23 m (75 ft) deep excavation — the deepest excavation prior to Living Shangri-La for a building in the city”
Are the traction elevators in the Wall unique to the city? They have the usual roped hydraulic ones for lower floor freight to banquet and parking.
Don’t forget the biogrpahical profile in June 2012 in Vancouver Magazine by one Francis Bula, without mentioning his treatments for depression.
[ 4 “web-pages” but the ‘Print Icon’ version shows all 2500 words in a single frame vanmag.com/print/6617 ]
vanmag.com/News_and_Features/Business/The_Ascent_and_Legacy_of_Peter_Wall?page=0%2C3
8 Guest // Feb 19, 2013 at 11:31 am
Original One Wall Centre model pics:
http://www.modelshop.bc.ca/porty2/file/2000/2025/2025-1.htm
Compromise One Wall Centre model pics:
http://www.modelshop.bc.ca/porty2/file/4000/4020/4020-1.htm
The upper windows of One Wall Centre are in no way “sea foam green” – the prevalent glass colour of the 1990s. You just need to look across the street to Vancouver Tower (above the IGA Marketplace) to see the obvious difference).
While the intent was to have dark blinds, the reality is much different. Just look at Frances’ photo at her Globe and Mail story and you’ll see many white or beige blinds have been installed – undoubtedly to match the particular interior decor of the home.
http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/bf4/news/british-columbia/article7616537.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/bc-wall-tower22nw1.JPG
9 Andrew Browne // Feb 19, 2013 at 1:15 pm
I don’t read the present upper glass as Yaletown green at all. Semi-transparent blue to clear, fine, but not at all green.
10 Paul Tolnai // Feb 19, 2013 at 5:26 pm
What a waste of time/money/resources yada yada yada… This revelation has now cemented my view that campaign financing laws need to be enacted for municipal politics. Mr. Wall throws money at Vision Vancouver, allows them to have a swank victory party and then magically council reverses a decade old position on one of his buildings.
Don’t like your current municipal politicians? Buy new ones!
It’s time to limit contributions from Unions/Companies/Community Groups and only allow residents to donate. Municipal politics will QUICKLY get a lot less silly.
11 InsiderDoug // Feb 19, 2013 at 5:53 pm
I never had a strong opinion about the glass… architecture isn’t my thing. But integrity is.
This story is legendary at City Hall, and this latest decision stirred some gossip.
Originally, Wall lied and broke the rules/law, giving his finger to the city and the process (as Gordon Price wrote very well, here: http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/wall-centre-controversy-it-wasnt-about-the-glass/ ) and costing the public tons of money in process, and a lack of trust for him and other developers afterward.
He is a bad man, and a bad developer. His ego is legendary and so is his bad attitude.
Wall tried for years to change the glass to get his way. Not for the residents. For his big, childish ego. Larry Beasley, a Planning Director with integrity, didn’t let him. Brent Toderian, another Planning Director with integrity, didn’t either. Then when the glass failed, apparently i hear because they screwed up and designed the systems wrong, they held the residents for ransom. They tried again and I hear were told “use better glass, not darker glass” or something like that.
And now, with a new top planner, different story. Now its fine. Did the planner decide? Or did he just follow orders down from Penny, from Council, from Wall? Yes Dr/Council/Sir, how high?
I dont know why, but the gossip isn’t complimentary. Don’t know the new guy, haven’t even met him. But this isn’t like it used to be.
Money talks, yes. So does politics. Integrity? Pardon me, while I keep my head down…
12 Silly Season // Feb 19, 2013 at 6:40 pm
@InsiderDoug #11
Just saw @pricetags blog post myself
I believe that’s what we call a ri-poste. 😉
I will be standing by with my popcorn to see how the City and/or the developer respond to Gord’s piece.
13 Roger Kemble // Feb 20, 2013 at 6:44 am
The British came first: stole the land.
Triads and rickshaw coolies blew in from the Great Gobi and the China Coast.
Kulaks and displaced peasants blew in from the Eastern European Steppes.
Gullible locals can’t wait, making up stories, blowing-up mediocrities: Sir (money talks everywhere) Li ka shing, Larry Beasley, Arthur Erickson.
Grosvenor Laing’s Project 200 had ’em beat for hubris.
Be it downtown concrete or suburban sprawl, all have one thing in mind: make a fast and easy buck.
Sometimes I wish for Kings and Emperors.
Vancouver is a very ugly place!
14 Everyman // Feb 20, 2013 at 8:31 am
If I recall correctly, wasn’t Wall warned at the time that the glass on the first two Wall Centre towers was too dark and that One Wall Centre was not to repeat the same mistake? They are quite forbidding.
15 Kenji // Feb 20, 2013 at 11:22 am
@InsiderDoug
I appreciate the history, I remember this as well.
But, unless it is a safety issue, what business has the city got to regulate the colour of glass?
Seriously. If I went crazy and decided to paint my house entirely in Blaze Orange Camo, so what? I can see how there would be a legit public interest in not covering the house with portraits of Mohammed, because that would put people at risk.
But who or what is at risk if the tower is green, black, blue, or polka dot?
16 Bill Lee // Feb 20, 2013 at 1:14 pm
Roger Kemble said (above)
“Grosvenor Laing’s Project 200 had ‘em beat for hubris.”
For more on the history of this 1968 walling off the foreshore of the downtown, see the olden days (2009) comment by GMGW at:
http://www.francesbula.com/developer-world/vancouvers-famous-view-corridors-up-for-debate-this-year/#comment-9560
You might also want to read Martin Robin’s two books: “The Rush for the Spoils: The Company Province, 1871-1932” and “Pillars of Profits: The Company province, 1932-1971” McClelland & Stewart, Toronto, 1973.
About a dozen copies each on ABEbooks.com for less than $10,
4 copies at Central Branchi of VPL.
17 Joe Just Joe // Feb 20, 2013 at 1:24 pm
Kenji,
The city does have the right to regulate the colour of glass, owners don’t have the permission to do as they please hence the need to obtain a permit (permission for the city).
18 Joe Just Joe // Feb 20, 2013 at 1:26 pm
That should of read (permission from the city) not for.
19 Roger Kemble // Feb 22, 2013 at 9:19 am
http://members.shaw.ca/aguaflor/before.thu.wall/vancouver.skyline.1995.html
20 Adam Fitch // Feb 22, 2013 at 3:58 pm
Paul Tonai (comment #10) I feel that your belief that all decisions made by city council are based on campaign contributions to political parties is too cynical.
There are too many city-watchers these days for that to be the case. Of course, not all councillors think the same way, or hear the same things at public hearings and through those who contact them and lobby them, but I do believe that they try their best to make reasoned decisions, not influenced (primarily) by campaign funding. If they did, they would not last long.
21 Adam Fitch // Feb 22, 2013 at 4:08 pm
Kenji (#15) We live in a democracy, not a liberatarian utopia. There are many planning rules and planning powers.
This is an aside, not a justification, but it has been argued many times, by many people, that one of the reasons that Vancouver’s real estate prices are as high as they are, and its economy is as strong as it is, compared to other cities in Canada and the US, is because of the strong planning rules here.
22 A Dave // Feb 23, 2013 at 1:04 pm
“Vancouver is a very ugly place!”
Maybe, but nice paintings, Roger!
23 jonathan baker // Mar 9, 2013 at 7:36 pm
My recollection of the Wall controversy is a little different. There was no adequate specification for the glass colour. When Wall issued brochures to enlist support for the building, the tower appeared to be gold. The city was concerned that if they went to court over it the might loose because of the absence of specs so they compromised. Black low – clear high.
My law office was on the 17th floor of the building across the street. The dark glass was a mirror so it assumed the colour of the sky. It was quite good looking.