Point versus Wall
Point towers or mid-rise streetwalls?
It may sound like an arcane urban-design dispute, but it’s a fundamental disagreement on how density should be handled.
Vancouver’s point-and-podium towers – the essence of Vancouverism – allow for more light, view and elegance, argue the pointilists, while accommodating high density on small sites. Better to look to European examples, counter the wallmakers, using Paris as a perennial example, where eight storeys of continual massing make for great streets and a more human scale – and often at higher densities than what Vancouver accepts.
Well, maybe if we still used the materials of the 19th-century and had the craftsmen to ornament them, goes the response. But in our glass-and-concrete world, the narrow skyscraper is still the best architectural style the 20th-century has produced.
Nonsense, say the advocates for mid-rise, bored to tears with the march of green-glass towers along Vancouver’s waterfront. Good architecture can, and should, be done at any height.
The Olympic Village is where the debate has centred, and now we can see what mid-rise streetwall looks like here. But maybe a better example can be found across the water – in this case, in North Vancouver City, where at Lonsdale and Esplanade, you can see this:
The redevelopment of the Versatile shipyard has piled up the density on this city’s waterfront east of Lonsdale Quay. But to keep the views unobstructed on the slopes above, much of it is in the form of a mid-rise streetwall – probably the most dramatic in the Lower Mainland.
Unlike the Olympic Village, where the streets have been kept deliberately narrow, the Esplanade arterial adds to the drama and accommodates the sheer mass with more room to breathe.
The North Shore is not where you might expect urban experimentation. But this isn’t the only example, as we’ll see in a future post.
And here’s a detailed discussion of the same issue in the context of Portland and Vancouver (along with quotes from the City of Vancouver’s urban designer, Scot Hein.)
North Vancouver did very well at Esplanade east of Lonsdale Quay.
It is a brilliant example of urbanism, well adapted to its context as you mention.
-Notice how the bld, the width of Broadway is so much urban.
-Notice how the Height vs bld width well respect Haussmanian proportion (also found in Washington DC),
-and notice also the homogeneity of height in coherence with the Allan Jacobs ‘s recurrent observation in “great street”.
Certainly a good source of inspiration for the Broadway debate.
I think there ought to be some variety, to be honest. Sometimes towers work great (King Edward Village, maybe), but if you surrounded that neighbourhood with towers it loses its appeal. The same might go if you turn all of Vancouver into Esplanade east of Lonsdale. Variety in building materials would also be welcome – sometimes our buildings have too much glass.
But overall, I really quite like the example on Esplanade, as well as the Olympic Village example. It feels like you’re more connected to the buildings when you’re on the street as well as vice versa. But what I really love about Lonsdale is that it shows that variety in styles of buildings, materials and styles that comes with development happening over decades (in some cases a century) rather than a few years, as in the case of Yaletown. If you turn around you’ll see an early 1900′s brick building, a replica of another very old building on the corner of lonsdale and esplanade, 50′s/60′s concrete towers and post 80′s glass, as well as smaller retail storefronts. It’s a great mix.
Despite being a midrise, the Pinnacle hotel on Esplanade has great visibility from Downtown Vancouver across Burrrad Inlet and reduces the prominence of the ICBC Building.
In terms of light – I tend to prefer the point towers. And regarding light – that’s the reason that the City has restricted heights on Robson street to several storeys – to preserve light to the shopping street. The alternative is demonstrated on Alberni Street one block over (between Burrard and Thurlow) – which still succeeds as an urban shppoing street (previously catering to the Japanese tourist buses, now more mainstream) but with a much more different vibe – people don’t “stroll” Alberni street.
That said, some of the podiums built in the past really are too short for being downtown (any that are 2 storeys). I like the newer buildings on the east end of Robson St. between Seymour and Homer with the 4 and 5 storey podiums – L’Hermitage, L’Atelier, L’Aria on Robson, R&R, Raffles on Robson and TV Towers.
As mentioned, materials do play a role in the look and feel of a midrise district (as does north/south or east/west orientation). For example, compare Esplanade with one of the only other midrise blocks (not in the office core) – the block of Hornby St. between Pacific and Drake – with Anchor Point on the west side and other midrises on the east side. The dark brick does make the block feel a bit gloomy (on rainy days).
Also, regarding Southeast False Creek, for the “private lands” where mid-rise 15 storey-ish towers with taller podiums seem to be springing up – you might too to Richmond Centre to get an idea of what the district may end up looking like (with a combination of YVR flight path height limits and tall podiums for above-grade parking due to high water table).
There are a number of mid-rise towers west of No. 3 Rd. close to the Olympic Oval (as well as near the Richmond Public Market) that are similar in massing to those planned for SEFC.
I think the cross section/building height ratio works nicely; looks to be about 1:1. Doesn’t appear to be much modulation of the facade nor any particular special articulation to the ground floor (design detail, floor height) to give this building much visual interest close up. I think Londsdale runs about southeast/northwest so the building shouldn’t entirely shade the street in the morning in winter. Extensive glazing should give lots of bounce light to the west side of the street in the afternoon in winter (on the days it isn’t socked in); too much in summer? So not bad but all in it reads a bit flat to me and lacks the fractal like nesting of order at every scale of apprehension one finds in traditional buildings, that keeps it interersting from a distrance all the way down to the mullion and doorknob details. Still much better than a stumpy two storey podium that neither defines the street nor provides a suitable base for a 30 storey high rise.
“Better to look to European examples, counter the wallmakers, using Paris as a perennial example, where eight storeys of continual massing make for great streets and a more human scale – and often at higher densities than what Vancouver accepts.”
Something very important is missing in this argument. Paris offer a high density because most of the appartments build during Atget’s time are so tiny and not at all build to the mid/late XXth century standard. Who still wants to live in a 2 rooms 27m² appartement?
Also, the density is high because Paris is a mesch of small streets and not everybuilding is giving on the street, there is plenty of courtyard building. In this respect, we are here far away from any North-American grid.
The comparison for density should be between comparable things. Between, modern mid-rise Streetwalls and Point Towers in the same city.
Anyway, the response is for me a uniformized streetwall (in height) and then emerging from that towers… New York style then.
===>>> dist
Who still wants to live in a 2 rooms 27m² appartement?
==========================
Isn’t that what all the Vancouverists are now planning for?
There are a number of properties in Victoria that are studio loft type apartments in the 300 square foot range. All are selling quite well – here is a link to one example currently under construction: http://www.lefevregroup.com/oriental.html
If you’re gonna do point, Beirut might be somewhere to learn from: http://www.dezeen.com/2010/07/27/beirut-terraces-by-herzog-de-meuron/#