the cult of the view Vancouver has a very particular natural setting which is juxtaposed by a dense 'downtown' interspersed with high-rise towers. This is not simply how the city organically developed over time - it is an image of the city purposefully engineered by the city council and planners. The 1997 Downtown Vancouver Skyline Study is a key piece of local planning legislation that attempted to maintain a particular profile for the area, as viewed from the surrounding elevated viewpoints, and to ensure that the views towards the mountains surrounding Vancouver were preserved from these positions. Building heights and future development locations were recommended accordingly. This is planning policy driven by a pictorial few of the city as a series of picturesque moments. This ocular preservation of the city is gaining increasing support in the UK, with Oxford, London and Edinburgh recently completing studies of protected views in the city.
Edinburgh's 2006 Skyline Study study identified some key views as sacrosanct in maintaining the current "sense of the city." The resultant document, which outlines nine protected views from various positions in the city, forms the basis for the non-statutory guidance to Edinburgh's planning body with regards to protected views. The issued map of central Edinburgh is however criss-crossed with so many view cones that it suggests development of the city is impossible without damaging the cityscape. As the place of invention of the panorama, and with its multiple elevated viewpoints, it is evident that Edinburgh has a particular relationship to the view in the city. Vancouver is, in terms of legislation, nine years ahead regarding the preservation of city scenes. Therefore it is here applied as an effective medium through which to address the question: How are protected views shaping our cities?
.a The Downtown Vancouver Skyline Study 1997 considered a series of alternative approaches for the prototype of Vancouver's skyline profile: 1. Build Out - if all of the previous height regulations were adhered (from previous 1975 legislation), it
would create a rather level profile, with a slightly taller centre. 2. Gap Toothed - encouraging a limited number of particularly high structures with smaller height infill. 3. Dome Shaped - a curved profile with the CBD at its apex. 4. Landmark - a homogeneous skyline with one or two buildings
that are iconically taller. Ultimately the council recommended a dome shaped skyline, that did not detract from the natural, mountainous landscape behind. As a result the Central Business District was the only acceptable location for particularly tall structures. The
council reduced the maximum permitted height near the waters edge and created a series of zones with incremental height variations to achieve the effect (as seen below). This creates a curved profile, but only if viewed from particular vantage points surrounding the city, a form of 'postcard-urbanism'.
.b The view cone is the principal accepted method of identifying and therefore preserving views in a city. This involves identifying a key viewpoint and then tracing a line between this locus and the extremities of the 'object' one wishes to frame (shown to left). This presents a 'point-centric'
understanding of views, and in some cases a view can only be glimpsed from a very narrow vantage point. This drawing highlights one view in particular - view cone D (Heather Bay) which was particularly influential in the planning and design of the Living Shangri-La tower, designed by James K.M. Cheng
Architects and completed in 2007. This view was considered by planning to be so important that the architects were forced to align the building exactly along the view cones edge. As a result the structure is expressively compliant to the planning policy, as if it has been sliced in two by this imaginary line.
.C The One Wall Centre (above), constructed slightly earlier than the Living Shangri-La tower became a similar example of the relationship between view protection policies and architecture. The high-rise was initially approved planning based on the grounds that it was constructed from blue, clear glass to 'disappear
into the Vancouver sky' and not detract from the mountain view. However, miscommunication lead to the tower being partly constructed in dark reflective glass before the council finally relented and permitted it to be retrofitted with dark glass in its entirety. The building ultimately flouts the initial planning agreement.
.D .F2
Visual Essay 01: Planning A. Kelly + A. McFall, How are protected views shaping our cities? AMPL (2016)
cone D was considered sacred, the tower in fact lies within two other view cones. The tower 'shadows' these views , but in a way that was considered acceptable by the planning authorities.
.E
.F This drawing highlights, from an aerial position, view cone D passing the Shangri-La Tower to the mountains behind. The adjacent eye-level perspective (.F2) shows this view 'in action', revealing that in reality the view preserves a very narrow view corridor through the city, to some very distant mountains behind. The view cone demarcates the protection of a view in very absolute terms which doesn't seem to correlate to our perception of cities at eye level. The modern city has
When considering protected views it is important to note that planning is not an exact science, its rules are often in fact 'guides' and the discretion of planning panels is paramount. This is evident when considering the Shangri-La tower. Whilst view
numerously been described as a city in transience and it is therefore surely perplexing to preserve images of it in a very static way, treating the city as a museum. Protected views are visibly morphing our cities, with the Living Shangri-La a particularly palpable example. However by looking upon cities from this distant, pictorial stand point, is planning policy not forgetting to consider the people and societies that exist within them?
The viewcone that slices the site is traced from Leg-in-Boot Square, in False Creek to the Lions on the North Shore mountains. The architects attempted to work with this 'long edge' and turn it into an asset of the project by creating a public space in front of the building that then connects under
it onto the road opposite. The structure also opens out into this space through shopfronts and cafes which take advantage of the increased footfall. The sliced facade is west facing, so evening sun floods into the balconies and terraces positioned on this elevation.
CIRCUMVENTING CIRCULATION How does the design and classification of the Robson Square access solution skirt around access regulations? Robson Square (1973-83) is the physical embodiment of the theme of integration. Designed by Arthur Erickson, the civic complex covers three city blocks and, despite its scale, was conceived as a singular entity. The complex comprises a courthouse (later converted into the Vancouver Art Gallery in 1983) and a number of office buildings. Carefully
considered public space is woven through the complex. Erickson's vision was to offer disabled people a 'front door' to the complex: this was achieved through iconic 'stramps' - a combination of stairs and an accessible ramp. It is a bold move, both architecturally and civically, to integrate access in this way. The building has been lauded by architects and critics as an exemplary piece of landscape design, and has become a key public space within downtown Vancouver.
.A As the ramp provides an intermediate landing for the stair flights, these landings are not flat, and the effective height of some risers falls below the allowed limit, causing a tripping hazard (4.3.6). The pitch of the slope in this axis is typically 1:50. In some cases, the number of risers in a flight
drops below three, near the beginning/end of a ramp. (4.3.4) Details 01 and 02 show how shifting riser height may cause a tripping hazard.
.B
.C
The stone is all the same colour. Contrasting stair nosings are required, with a sufficient level of contrast so that risers can be identified (4.3.5). This could be achieved through inlaid stone to maintain the elegant material language.
Provision of handrails is insufficient, and existing handrails end abruptly. As the flights are wider than 2.3m, there should be a handrail every 1.1-1.8m (4.3.14). A plan below shows a compliant arrangement of handrails, however it would seriously impact the architectural expression. The handrail requires an extension of at least 300mm beyond the top and bottom of the flight (4.3.14)
EXISTING HANDRAIL PROVISION
.01 .02
landing slope pitch - 1/50
DETAIL .02
DETAIL .01
.D While Erickson's vision to integrate access for disabled and able-bodied people was utilitarian, and manifests itself as an elegant architectural solution, the practicalities of the design are troubling. On closer inspection, and with regards to the current Scottish building standards, many aspects of the design do not comply with access regulations. The core of the issue is that the design 'appears' to serve its purpose: it is a clear material expression of an integrated stair/ramp. Its intent is unambiguous, and its influence on contemporary architects is far-reaching. The design exists in its current form due to a quirk in the Canadian planning system: the stramp is designated as a 'landscape feature'
rather than a mode of access, therefore the access standards do not apply.
Erickson was not the first to utilise the 'stramp' in landscape design: the Sunderland Civic Centre by Basil Spence (1970), pictured above, employs a similar solution. Robson Square, however, has achieved a high level of influence globally because of the quality of its design - in no small part due to the integration of the 'stramp'.
landmark precedent of the typology, Robson Square is a problematic ambassador: those wishing to copy its clean and minimal form would be doing so in opposition to local building regulation, specifically in the UK. While some architects may bemoan prescriptive building regulations surrounding access, their existence ought to provide a foundation for innovative design: Robson Square is effectively a folly of inclusive design, and there exist opportunities to improve or expand on his vision.
Stramps, in various forms, are currently in use across the world. The details of the layout and arrangement shift from scheme to scheme, but the guiding principal is the same. As a
While this may be 'technically' compliant, it is misleading for disabled users wishing to use the stramp for its tacitly understood purpose. This visual essay details the various ways in which the design contravenes Scottish access regulations, specifically Section 4.3: Stairs and Ramps. This close inspection seeks to lay bare the flaws of this design, and acts as a word of caution: a design which appears 'visually' compliant may not serve its purpose adequately.
Visual Essay 02: Regulation A. Kelly + A. McFall, How does the design and classification of the Robson Square access solution skirt around regulations? AMPL (2016)
Ramp is too steep, and continues for too long without a landing. The existing pitch is around 1:10, which contravenes the maximum permitted gradient - compounding this, it climbs 1,437mm - several times the maximum rise of 500mm (4.3.11). To cover that height within the regula-
1:10
tions, it would need to be split into three separate ramps with two intermediate landings, with a maximum pitch of 1:20. It would also require a handrail on both sides of the ramp flight, however doing so would render the stairs unusable. (4.3.14)
REQUIRED HANDRAIL EXTENSION
1:20