Vancouver planners say taller buildings just a start

Vancouver planners say taller buildings just a start:

lanners from one of the world’s most envied cities said Seattle needs to do more work — and evaluate whether it’s asking enough of developers — to create downtown neighborhoods that will attract new residents and families.
While endorsing the thrust of Mayor Greg Nickels’ plan to encourage growth by raising building heights downtown, they also cautioned that allowing such tall towers without careful planning could overshadow historic districts and create sun-starved streets.

Seattle is taking a close look at its northern neighbor, and trying to figure out how to take the things vancouver is doing right, and moving them into seattle.

Not surprisingly, one of the groups arguing about this are — developers. because Developers in Vancouver have to work harder to make a project work, have to invest more in the common infrastructure, and to some degree, have less flexibility in how to build their projects due to setback requirements and open space regulations.

On the other hand, just spend some time walking around Vancouver (or virtually wander through it using my flickr photos from Vancouver). It’s a city that’s bright, that’s open — where the buildings show a commonality but not a uniformity. Vancouver has specified certain types of glass and other building materials, which leads to a consistent look among most of the buildings. But as you walk around, you realize there are almost no other common aspects: nothing is square. There are architectural details — wings, shadow lines, insets, outsets — everywhere. Nothing is laid out square. Everything has odd angles or funky complexities. The city of vancouver requires significant setbacks, and also requires access to views. the end result is a city almost devoid of shadowy canyons and dark, narrow spaces. Light flows through the city almost everywhere, and you may not have an unimpeded view — but you almost always have some view. Walk the waterfront, whether it’s downtown or along false creek, and look into the city core. What do you see? spaces where the city has consciously left wide openings so that buildings deeper inside can see out.

This comes at a cost, of course — developers, given their preference, would love to put up buildings that cover every square inch, and go straight up to maximize their floor space they can sell. What Vancouver’s done is force setbacks and green space and open spaces, and the use of short buildings to open view and light to the inside of the city core. In return, they’ve given developers taller buildings.

And it works. Because a building five or six blocks in from the water STILL has views of something other than the building next to it and its tennants – those condos and apartments get better rates than they would if they were landlocked. Developers are committed to building for the community, not for their building.

Another subtle — but important — expression of what makes Vancouver work is Granville Island. when they made the decision to rehabilitate and gentrify Granville, Vancouver made a number of decisions that really strike to the heart of their development attitude. Most cities would have done one of two things to Granville: rebuilt it as a shopping area, made it a botique and gallery area; or, they would have built it up into a neighborhood of upscale bedroom neighborhood with condos and apartments. Vancouver did neither. Vancouver committed to Granville as a mixed use area, a true microcosm of the larger city: it still has a working cement factory and some other light industrial concerns. Sharing that space is a small botique hotel, the public market, a working marina (and boatyards, and boat sales and support companies), galleries, restaurants, apartments and condos, and a theater group (primarily improv — one of their shows is currently a parody of Trump’s the Apprentic, and another advertises itself as an hour of girl on girl improv…..). If that wasn’t enough, they also set up Granville island to have a number of civic spaces, including a community center, and it’s home of the Emily Carr Institute of Art and Design. it is very much a microcosm of the larger philosophy of Vancouver, that merging of public and private spaces, that committment to access to Vancouver’s resources, the mixed-use philosophy that causes the city and its citizens to come together and interact, rather than cocoon off into their own little mini-neighborhoods.

it’s a wonderful town, and Granville Island is a wonderful embodiment of what makes it work. Most people look at Granville and think of the public market — it really is a place you should stop and consider ALL of the things it represents. (me, I’m just jealous Vancouver has it (and Lonsdale Quay) and we’re stuck with nothing remotely like it.

Compare it to San Francisco. One has Stanley Park. the other has Golden Gate park. But in Vancouver, they made a commitment to make the waterfront public space: there’s a seawall and access to almost all of the waterfront, with parks spread around it and areas designed to encourage to you get out and enjoy. San Francisco? Much of the waterfront is hidden behind buildings. Walk through the core of Vancouver: it’s light, it’s open, there are public spaces. Walk down Market street in san francisco (if you dare), or through the financial district: it’s dark, windy, narrow spaces, urban canyons.

To me, there’s no comparison. Vancouver made tough choices, and stuck to them against developers who wanted easier projects — and came out of it with a city that you want to live in and be in. Compare that to San Francisco, or San Jose, especially the latter as a city that seems to bow to developer demands rather than long-term needs of the city. All three cities have really strong and positive neighborhoods. All have their challenges (although to be honest, we’ve walked some of the seedier areas of Vancouver — without feeling uncomfortable. Definitely NOT true in San Jose, San Francisco or Portland). But which is the city that has created an environment most positive and successful for its population?

It’s no contest.

(and Laurie posited a question the other day about the Bay Area: given that it *is* the Bay Area, and the San Francisco Bay is such a core aspect of being in that region: why is it so damn hard to get access to the water? South of San Mateo, it’s effectively impossible, and south of the Bay Bridge, good luck finding a marina for a boat. It’s almost as if the area is water phobic, while demanding to live on the water — but so much of it has been walled off, developers and private buildings taking ownership. Adn yes, some of that (especially on the san francisco city waterfront) is historical — but Vancouver is one of the largest and busiest active ports in the world, with over 25 different docking spots with every kind of material you can think of, from containers to bulk sulfur — and it’s figured out how to be a city with massive access to the waterfront AND a working port AND a major recreational water area AND a major city, all in the same space.

So it can be done. why do so few cities do it?

Seattle has a chance to remake itself, and San Jose is considering it (again….) with the second downtown concept. Both are getting pushback from developers who don’t want to invest in the city, just in the project. But Vancouver shows what’s possible when you do force developers to be part of the larger civic space and needs — everyone wins, including developers who can charge higher prices for better environments.

Maybe it’s time for cities to get serious about long term urban planning, and not just which building to let go up next.

And Vancouver’s one hell of a model to learn from.

You might also want to read:

1. A great way to start the new year… The best laid plans… I have a bunch of blogging stacked up, none of which you’ve seen yet. Just as the New Year kicked in,...
2. Sharks 2, Vancouver 1 in overtime And to think I could have stayed home and watched paint dry…. What can you say? Last game before the All-Star break, and a whole...
3. Vancouver Canucks Op Ed: Dave Nonis,Your Move Vancouver Canucks Op Ed: Maybe Nonis can get away with riding the kid non-stop, but he’s just as likely to destroy Auld’s confidence, as snap...
4. Off on the road to…. Vancouver. it’s summer vacation time — and not suprisingly, we’re headed North. if it’s Sunday, it must be Vancouver. We left San Jose about 10 Saturday,...
5. Vancouver offers tips on vibrant urban living Vancouver offers tips on vibrant urban living: it’s not just the shimmering, skinny buildings touted by Mayor Greg Nickels and others pushing to raise building...